AN ASSESSMENT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLE

COOPERATIVES IN GAMO GOFFA ZONE, SNNPR, ETHIOPIA

1M.KARTHIKEYAN1 Assoc. Prof., Department of Cooperatives, Institute of Cooperatives & Development

Studies, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia

E-mail: mkeya2003@gmail.com

Abstract

Cooperatives being voluntary and democratic grass-root organizations of people, leadership servesas an instrument of group action and a catalyst agent. Cooperative Leadership enables the Leaderto empower people and maximize their own potential as well as their staff’s while creating alearning culture within the workplace of people acting together whose efforts move them towardsa shared vision for mutual benefit by using the appropriate leadership style. Whether thecooperative staff is few or in hundreds, utilizing an appropriate leadership principles/style providebusinesses and individuals with a unique competitive advantage that will keep them positioned ontop and enable you to become a successful coach and leader. Leadership Style becomes the key tothe formulation and implementation of strategy and plays an important role in work-groupmembers’ activity and in team citizenship. The present study intended to assess leadership styles ofcooperative leaders in selected fruits and vegetable cooperatives in Gamo Goffa Zone in SNNPregional state. The objectives are: to describe the leadership styles practiced by leaders of selectedCooperatives; to assess the effect of leadership style on the functioning of selected cooperatives;and to examine the influence of factors on the leadership style of cooperative leaders. Multi-stagesampling was adopted to select the cooperatives and respondents. Five fruits and vegetablecooperatives were selected at the first stage; 33 cooperative leaders, 75 members, 11 employeesand 15 experts were selected at the second stage. Totally 134 respondents were selected for thestudy. The study was more of qualitative in nature supplemented with quantitative data also.Descriptive statistics was used for the first two objectives, and multiple linear regression analysiswas employed to find the influence of factors on leadership style. The leaders of fruits andvegetable cooperatives in Gama Gofa Zone preferred situational, democratic, autocratic, and free-rein style of leadership. There is relationship between age, experience, education, and leadershipstyle of cooperative leaders and considerable change in the style based on the situations. There isboth positive and negative effect of leadership style on the functioning of cooperatives; but there ismore positive effect. The negative effect is due to the autocratic and free-rein style of leadershipused by the leaders in cooperatives as perceived by the members, employees, and experts. Theregression result reveals that there is positive influence of factors under leader related, followerrelated, and organization related variables category, whereas negative effect of governmentinterference and cooperative proclamation is found under external environment related variables.It is recommended that the leaders must prefer and practice more of democratic style as they arecooperative leaders; proper training programme and leadership development programme shouldbe offered to make them aware of leadership styles and skills, encouraging young members as

1

leaders, and strong relationship between government and cooperatives for mutual benefit; andthereby combined effect of leadership style on the functioning of cooperatives can be improved.

Key words: Cooperative leadership, leadership style, democracy.

IntroductionLeadership is one of the earliest social institutions which had profoundappeal and powerful influence in shaping the destiny of mankind anddirecting the course of history. Leadership as a phenomenon is relevantLeadership to political parties as well as to non- political autonomoussocial groups formed on the basis of cultural, social or economicinterest. In any human organization or situation, the leadership plays anindispensable role and makes stronger and deeper influence. In the neweconomic policy regime, when the cooperatives have to rely more oncompetitive ability rather than state support, the leadership becomesstrategic for the cooperatives in order to establish an identity, whichis akin to what a member-based, member-driven and member-owned, genuinecooperatives should be (Taimni.K, 1998). Cooperatives being voluntary anddemocratic grass-root organizations of people, leadership serves as aninstrument of group action and a catalyst agent. Leadership incooperatives has multifarious functions: mobilizing people for jointaction, moulding the attitudes of members, integrating the group,imparting values, making decisions involving action commitment andevolving strategies for implementing the decisions.

The role of Cooperative Leader is to see that the cooperative not onlysucceeds in its economic activity as a business enterprise but alsofunctions in accordance with Principles of Cooperation. If people joinhands to reach a common goal someone must take the initiative, assumeresponsibility, give advice and direction and above all inspire otherswith the will to achieve the result. In a cooperative enterprise there isno sleeping member concept. Cooperative Leadership enables the Leader toempower people and maximize their own potential as well as their staff’swhile creating a learning culture within the workplace of people actingtogether whose efforts move them towards a shared vision for mutualbenefit by using the appropriate leadership style. This study utilizedmore of qualitative approach to assess the leadership style of the

2

cooperative leaders and its effect on the functioning of selectedcooperatives. Further, the influence of factors on the leadership stylewas also assessed.

Leadership StylesThe concept of leadership styles is somewhat vague in that eachindividual’s style is as personal as the individuals themselves.Leadership style refers to the characteristics manner in which anindividual leads others. Early conceptualizations categorized leadershipstyles as either autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire (White &Lippitt, 1960). According to White and Lippitt, autocratic leadershipstyles are exhibited by leaders who maintain a high degree of controlover the group, without allowing much freedom for participation by groupmembers in decision-making. The autocratic leader sets group goals anddetermines how the group will accomplish those roles. In other words, theautocratic leader possesses high goal and means control, and utilizes lowstimulation of group procedures. The democratic leader, on the otherhand, attempts to get the group to develop the methods or procedures usedto set goals. Therefore, the democratic leader possesses low goals andmeans control, and utilizes high stimulation of group procedures. TheLaissez-faire leadership style is characterized by a “hands-off” approachto leadership. Laissez-faire leaders both possess low goal and meanscontrol, and utilize low stimulation of group procedures.

Through their work with the situational approach to leadership, Herseyand Blanchard created their own leadership styles. They based theirleadership styles on the amount a task-behavior and relationship-behaviorthe leader provided followers. In their initial classification system,leaders could be classified as having one of the four following styles:telling (high task, low relationship), selling (high task, highrelationship), participating (low task, high relationship), or delegating(low task, low relationship). A newer version of Hersey and Blanchard’ssituational leadership model has been created (Blanchard, Zigarmi, &Zigarmi, 1985). In this version, Situational Leadership II, there areastill four classifications of leadership styles based on task andrelationship behavior, but leaders are said to have either directing,coaching, supporting, or delegating leadership styles.

As with trait theory, researchers became critical of the styles approach,arguing that it paid little attention to situational factors or to thecomplex and often changing relationship between leaders and followers. Ina bid to overcome the limits of the styles approach, many researchersbegan to explore the situational factors that influence leader-followerrelations and group performance. Such approaches, called collectively

3

situational or contingent leadership approaches, began from the positionthat the effectiveness of any leadership style is situational contingent,and hence that a range of styles will need to be employed in order to beeffective across a range of situations. It was then the aim of leadershipresearch to identify several different leadership styles and the types ofsituations in which they could be effectively adopted. This ‘tool box’type approach to leadership took a number of forms. For example, Fiedler(1964) developed a ‘least preferred coworker’ contingency model, intendedto indicate the leader’s motive hierarchy and hence whether they willfocus on, for example, achievement of task objectives in preference tosupportive working relationships. This approach has been criticized bySchriesheim and Kerr (1977) as a ‘measure in search of a meaning’ and,indeed, Fiedler’s explanation of the significance of the LPC score doesseem to have shifted over time.

Perhaps as a result of this, interest in the theory has waned as moreconvincing contingency theories have emerged. House’s (1971) path-goaltheory of leadership sought to explain how leadership behavioursinfluence subordinate satisfaction and performance based on the‘expectancy theory’ of motivation (Vroom, 1964). This theory has alsoshown a propensity to evolve over time, with the addition of more leaderbehaviour categories (House and Mitchell, 1974) and differentmotivational concepts. The end result is less coherent than the original,and extremely complicated to apply. Hersey and Blanchard’s situationalleadership model (1984) and John Adair’s Action Centred Leadership (1973)offered alternative approaches to situational leadership. The formerrelies on an assessment of subordinates ability and readiness (termedSkill and Will) for determining the appropriate leadership style toadopt, with the effective style being both person and task specific. Thisframework was similar to an earlier model developed by Tannenbaum andSchmidt (1958), who presented a continuum of leadership styles fromautocratic to democratic, designed to be applied after consideration ofthe developmental level of subordinates. Adair’s framework called for aleader to focus on the completion of the task, the wellbeing of the teamand the development of the individual, with the degree of attention beinggiven to each varying with the situation.

The 1980’s saw the continuation of research into leadership styles andcontingency, but also a return to debates surrounding the innateabilities and qualities of individual leaders in the guise of charismatic(Conger and Kanungo, 1987) and transformational (Bass, 1985) leadershipmodels. The argument for reviving this approach, under the loose headingof ‘New Leadership’, was that whilst there are many behaviours, skillsand styles that can be learned and adopted by leaders, there remains

4

something unexplained about how certain kinds of people seem to naturallyemerge as effective leaders. The emphasis of both transformational andcharismatic leadership on the articulation of a vision and the valueswhich support it reflected a new conception of leaders as ‘managers ofmeaning’ (Smircich and Morgan, 1982), replacing the previous depiction ofleadership as an influence process.

James MacGregor Burns (1978) put forward the idea of ‘transformingleadership’ as a relationship which bound both leaders and followers ‘ina mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose’ (Burns, 1978) andconverted leaders into ‘moral agents’. At the same time, he highlightedthe contrast between the aspiration and empowering nature oftransformational leadership, compared with the ‘rewards for compliance’exchange which underpins transactional leadership. The link betweentransforming leadership and vision was made explicit by those who builton Burns’ theme (e.g. Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Tichy andDevanna, 1986), at the same time as they amended ‘transforming’ to‘transformational’.

Vision was also central to the notion of charismatic leadership, whichwas presented as an antidote to widespread organizational downsizing andthe climate of demoralization and demotivation to which it gave rise. In1968, Weber had described the charismatic leader as ‘one who enjoysloyalty and authority by virtue of a mission believed to be embodied inhim’ (Weber, 1968). In similar vein, Conger (1989) broke down charismaticleadership into a four-stage process aimed at instigating organizationalchange. Key to the process was a perceived need for change – and asolution to that need - articulated and role-modelled by the leader. Afocus on very senior leaders, little situational analysis and technicalissues relating to the direction of causality and of implicit leadershiptheories (together with a number of high-profile corporate scandalsinvolving supposedly charismatic leaders), has lead to a decline inconfidence in this approach For example, Bryman’s (1992) text Charismaand Leadership in Organizations, points out that most studies of charismatend to involve historical analyses of prominent political and militaryleaders already famous for their supposed charisma, leading to suchmethodological criticisms as how one is meant to recognise and so studycharisma as an object of enquiry without treating charisma as yet anothertrait. Others are critical of the assumption that charisma necessarilyresides within the leader figure, arguing that charisma may be attributedby followers, or produced through the relationship between social actors.This has led many to argue that studies of charismatic leadership shouldfocus on leadership as a collective process rather than somethingpossessed by the individual.

5

In response to the above criticisms, and arising from an increasingawareness of the importance of social relations in the leadershipcontract (Bolden, 2004), more recent studies have tended concernthemselves with the notion of leadership as a distributed process.Referred to also as informal, emergent or dispersed leadership, theseincreasingly sophisticated models emphasize the importance of followerparticipation, democratic leadership, and organizational citizenship andargue for a less formalized, hierarchical model of what leadership is andwhere it resides. As such, it represents a marked contrast to ‘NewLeadership’ and its focus on senor figures within the organization.Various strands exist within this approach. A number of them – Sims andLorenzi’s (1992) ‘SuperLeadership’, Katzenbach and Smith’s (1993) ‘realteams’, and Kouzes and Posner’s (1993) ‘credible leaders’ – focus on theability of leaders to develop leadership capacity in others, and sobecome less dependent on formal leadership. Sims and Lorenzi refer tothis as (1992) ‘leading others to lead themselves’, while Katzenbach andSmith suggest that this is done by building commitment and confidence,creating opportunities and removing obstacles and by operating as one ofthe team. For Kouzes and Posner, credible leaders are ones who are ableto (1993) ‘turn their constituents into leaders’, rather than handingdown leadership from above.

Another expression of the turn towards distributed leadership is anincreased focus on leadership skills and processes, and a recognitionthat these do not necessarily reside in those who hold formallydesignated leadership positions. This leads, for example, Knights andWillmott (1992) to suggest that more attention should be paid toleadership ‘practices’, by which they mean to the way in which leadershipis constituted in organizational life.

In addition to what may be described as ‘mainstream leadership theory’, arange of critical approaches in recent years have sought to characteriseleadership as an alienating social myth (Gemmill and Oakley, 1992). Thereis also a growing body of work that suggests the study of leadershipitself might be fundamentally problematic in that such studies merelyserve to bolster the dominant belief in patriarchal social structuresthat serve to oppress under the guise of empowerment (Sievers, 1993).Finally, there has been an observable drift, over the years, ofscientific thinking into management thinking, beginning with the adventof Taylor’s Scientific Management on the back of the scientificEnlightenment of the 17th Century. Most recently, the development ofQuantum Theory and Chaos Theory – dealing respectively with uncertaintyand complexity in the field of science – have lead to the promulgation of

6

systems thinking and organisational learning as successors to leadershipin the field of organisational management, with Senge’s The FifthDiscipline (1992) as a prime example.

The concept of leadership styles is somewhat vague in that eachindividual’s style is as personal as the individuals themselves.Leadership style refers to the characteristics manner in which anindividual leads others. Early conceptualizations categorized leadershipstyles as either autocratic, democratic, or laissez faire (White &Lippitt, 1960). According to White and Lippitt, autocratic leadershipstyles are exhibited by leaders who maintain a high degree of controlover the group, without allowing much freedom for participation by groupmembers in decision-making. The autocratic leader sets group goals anddetermines how the group will accomplish those roles. In other words, theautocratic leader possesses high goal and means control, and utilizes lowstimulation of group procedures. The democratic leader, on the otherhand, attempts to get the group to develop the methods or procedures usedto set goals. Therefore, the democratic leader possesses low goals andmeans control, and utilizes high stimulation of group procedures. TheLaissez-faire leadership style is characterized by a “hands-off” approachto leadership. Laissez-faire leaders both possess low goal and meanscontrol, and utilize low stimulation of group procedures. Through their work with the situational approach to leadership, Herseyand Blanchard created their own leadership styles. They based theirleadership styles on the amount a task-behavior and relationship-behaviorthe leader provided followers. In their initial classification system,leaders could be classified as having one of the four following styles:telling (high task, low relationship), selling (high task, highrelationship), participating (low task, high relationship), or delegating(low task, low relationship). A newer version of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership modelhas been created (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). In this version,Situational Leadership II, there area still four classifications ofleadership styles based on task and relationship behavior, but leadersare said to have either directing, coaching, supporting, or delegatingleadership styles.

In the last 20 years, a new paradigm of leadership has emerged thatshifted emphasis from the traditional, or transactional, models ofleadership toward of the study of transformational leadership styles. Theconcept of transformational leadership was introduced by Burns (1978) andrefined by Bass (1985a). According to Tichy and Devanna (1990),"transformational leaders are not dictators. They are powerful yetsensitive of other people, and ultimately they work toward the

7

empowerment of others" (p.273). The concept of transactional versustransformational leadership style becomes an important aspect in theoverall study of leadership in that, according to Bass (1985a), “theleadership of great men (and great women) of history has usually beentransformational, not transactional” (p. 26).

The AutocratAutocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their teams. This isconsidered appropriate when decisions genuinely need to be taken quickly,when there's no need for input, and when team agreement isn't necessaryfor a successful outcome. Kurt Lewin (1930s,)The autocratic leader dominates team-members, using unilateralism toachieve a singular objective. This approach to leadership generallyresults in passive resistance from team-members and requires continualpressure and direction from the leader in order to get things done.Generally, an authoritarian approach is not a good way to get the bestperformance from a team.There are, however, some instances where an autocratic style ofleadership may not be inappropriate. Some situations may call for urgentaction, and in these cases an autocratic style of leadership may be best.In addition, most people are familiar with autocratic leadership andtherefore have less trouble adopting that style. Furthermore, in somesituations, sub-ordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style. (TheDryden Press, 1988)

The Laissez-Faire or Free-rein leadershipLaissez-faire leaders don't interfere; they allow people within the teamto make many of the decisions. This works well when the team is highlycapable and motivated, and when it doesn't need close monitoring orsupervision. However, this style can arise because the leader is lazy ordistracted, and, here, this approach can fail. Kurt Lewin (1930s,)

The Laissez-Faire manager exercises little control over his group,leaving them to sort out their roles and tackle their work, withoutparticipating in this process himself. In general, this approach leavesthe team floundering with little direction or motivation. Again, thereare situations where the Laissez-Faire approach can be effective. TheLaissez-Faire technique is usually only appropriate when leading a teamof highly motivated and skilled people, who have produced excellent workin the past. Once a leader has established that his team is confident,capable and motivated, it is often best to step back and let them get onwith the task, since interfering can generate resentment and detract fromtheir effectiveness. By handing over ownership, a leader can empower hisgroup to achieve their goals (The Dryden Press, 1988).

8

The DemocratDemocratic leaders allow the team to provide input before making adecision, although the degree of input can vary from leader to leader.This type of style is important when team agreement matters, but it canbe quite difficult to manage when there are lots of differentperspectives and ideas. Kurt Lewin (1930s,). The democratic leader makesdecisions by consulting his team, whilst still maintaining control of thegroup. The democratic leader allows his team to decide how the task willbe tackled and who will perform which task. The democratic leader can beseen in two lights: A good democratic leader encourages participation anddelegates wisely, but never loses sight of the fact that he bears thecrucial responsibility of leadership. He values group discussion andinput from his team and can be seen as drawing from a pool of his teammembers' strong points in order to obtain the best performance from histeam. He motivates his team by empowering them to direct themselves, andguides them with a loose reign. The Dryden Press, (1988). However, thedemocrat can also be seen as being so unsure of himself and hisrelationship with his sub-ordinates that everything is a matter for groupdiscussion and decision. Clearly, this type of "leader" is not reallyleading at all.

Transformational leadership People with this leadership style are true leaders who inspire theirteams constantly with a shared vision of the future. While this leader'senthusiasm is often passed onto the team, he or she can need to besupported by "detail people." That's why, in many organizations, bothtransactional and transformational leadership are needed. Thetransactional leaders ensure that routine work is done reliably, whilethe transformational leaders look after initiatives that add value.Transformational leaders have the ability to inspire and motivatefollowers to achieve results that exceed expectations.

This ability is generally based on three personality characteristics—charisma; individual attention; and intellectual stimulation—which aredescribed as follows:

i. Charisma: The leader is able to instil a sense of value,respect, and pride, and to articulate a vision.

ii. Individual attention: The leader pays attention to followers’needs and assigns meaningful projects so followers growpersonally and professionally.

iii. Intellectual stimulation: The leader helps followers rethinkrational ways to examine a situation and encourages followers tobe creative.

9

What a Transformational Leader Does: 1. Search for opportunities. 2.Experiment and take risks. 3. Develop a vision. 4. Enlist others. 5.Foster collaboration. 6. Strengthen others. 7. Set an example. 8. Plansmall wins. 9. Link rewards to performance. 10. Celebrateaccomplishments. The development of transformational leadership evolvedfrom a study by Bernard M. Bass, entitled, Leadership Performance BeyondExpectations, in which Bass described three functions that characterizetransformational leaders:a. Transformational leaders increase subordinates’ awareness of theimportance of their tasks and the importance of performing well.b. Transformational leaders make subordinates aware of their needs forpersonal growth, development, and accomplishment.c. Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates to work for thegood of the organization rather than exclusively for their own personalgain or benefit.

Situational Leadership In 1958 Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt proposed a continuum ofleadership behaviour in the decision-making process. Their model is muchlike the original Michigan framework. However, besides purely job-cantered behaviour (or "boss-cantered" behaviour, as they termed it) andemployee-cantered (which they termed "subordinate cantered") behaviour,they identified several intermediate possibilities that a manager mightconsider. This continuum of behaviour moves from the one extreme ofhaving the manager make the decision alone to the other extreme of havingthe employees make the decision with minimal guidance. Each point on thecontinuum is influenced by factors relating manager, subordinates, andsituation. Managerial factors include the manager's value system, confidence insubordinates, personal inclinations, and feelings of security.Subordinate factors include: the subordinates' need for independence,readiness to assume responsibility, tolerance for ambiguity, interest inthe problem, and understanding of goals, knowledge, experience, andexpectations. Situational factors that affect the decision makinginclude: the type of organization, group effectiveness, the problemitself, and time pressures. Fiedler's situational theory identifieseffective leadership styles under changing situations (Fiedler, Chemersand Mahar, 1977). These can be either Relationship motivated or Taskmotivated.A relationship-motivated leadership style relies on good personalrelations and group participation to accomplish tasks. Leaders with thisstyle perform most effectively in modest control situations which presentmixed problems related to task, group members and authority. The

10

relationship-motivated leader gets cooperation from the group by beingsensitive, diplomatic and tactful. Task-motivated leaders prefer clearguidelines and standardized or patterned work methods to completesuccessfully the task they have accepted. have strong task orientationand perform best in high-control or low-control situations. The high-control situations are those where leaders get support from group membersand the tasks are clearly specified. In addition, leaders have highauthority, which enables them to use their powers of reward andpunishment appropriately. Low-control situations - the opposite of highcontrol situations - are relatively difficult,challenging and straining.Maier (1963) noted that leaders not only consider the likelihood of afollower accepting a suggestion, but also the overall importance ofgetting things done. Thus in critical situations, a leader is more likelyto be directive in style simply because of the implications of failure.

Bureaucratic leadershipBureaucratic leaders work "by the book." They follow rules rigorously,and ensure that their staff follows procedures precisely. This is a veryappropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such asworking with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights)or where large sums of money are involved (such as handling cash).

Transactional Leadership Burns (1978) viewed the two as a dimensional construct in whichtransactional leadership was at opposite ends of the same continuum. Hecharacterized transactional leadership as being based on interactionsbetween leaders and followers in which something of value was exchanged,such as rewards for performance. At the other end of the continuum, hecharacterized transformational leadership as occurring when leaders andfollowers interacted in such a way that the level of motivation andmorality in both the leader and the follower were raised.

In contrast, Bass (1985a) viewed the two as complementary constructs, andas such, saw it possible, in fact almost necessary, for the leader toengage in both transactional and transformational leadership behaviors.Transformational leadership is not a substitute for transactionalleadership, but rather tends to add to its effectiveness (Bass, 1997).Bass characterized the transactional leader as someone who worked withinthe existing organizational culture of the group to recognize and clarifythe roles and responsibilities of followers such that desired outcomeswere achieved. These desired outcomes were achieved when the leadernegotiated with followers an exchange relationship of reward forcompliance (Bass, 1985a). In other words, transactional leaders explainto followers what is required of them and then negotiate the compensation

11

followers will receive if they meet the requirements, either the promiseof reward for good performance or the threat of punishment for poorperformance (Bass, 1990b). Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified fourcharacteristics of transactional leaders: (1) contingent reward in whichthe leader provides rewards if followers meet agreed upon performance anddesignated goals; (2) active management-by-exception in which the leaderwatches and searches for follower mistakes such that corrective actioncan be taken; (3) passive management-by-exception in which the leaderonly intervenes in a followers work if performance goals are not beingmet; and (4) laissez-faire leadership in which the leader withdraws andavoids responsibility and decision-making when performance goals are notmet. Laissez-faire leadership can actually be considered a non-leadershipfactor as it represents the absence of leadership (Northouse, 2001).

Bass characterized transformational leaders as individuals who motivatefollowers to do more than they originally expected to do based on theiroriginal level of confidence towards accomplishing desired outcomes.Transformational leadership occurs when a leader: raises the level ofawareness about the importance and value of desired outcomes, alters orexpands the wants and needs of followers, and/or gets followers totranscend their own self-interest for the sake of the group (Bass,1985a). Bass (1985a; 1990b) identified four characteristics oftransformational leaders: (1) charisma in which the leader is able toprovide followers with a vision, transmit a sense mission, gain respectand trust, and instill faith in followers; (2) inspiration in which theleader provides examples and patterns for the follower through symbolsand images, emotional appeals, and communicating high expectations; (3)intellectual stimulation in which the leader stimulates followers tothink in new ways, promotes intelligence and rationality, and emphasizesproblem solving; and (4) individualized consideration in which the leaderprovides a supportive and coaching environment such that each follower istreated as a respected individual. Leader clarifies follower’s roleFollower confidence in meeting role requirements (subjective probabilityof success) Leader recognizes what follower must do to attain designatedoutcomes Leader recognizes what follower needs Leader clarifies howfollower’s need fulfilment will be exchanged for enacting role to attaindesignated outcome Follower value of designated outcomes (need fulfillingvalue for follower) Follower motivation to attain desired outcomes(expected effort).

A leader matching the appropriate leadership style is vital to manageperishable and seasonal products like Fruit and Vegetable and also toexercise the principles of cooperatives as well. One leader may feelcomfortable using a participative style, in which the group makes the

12

decisions. This leader would involve campers in decisions as full membersof a group. Another leader may not feel comfortable with extensive groupinvolvement and would prefer to exert a bit more control. Neither ofthese approaches is better than the other.

Most people who study leadership believe that choosing an appropriateleadership style depends on several factors, including the leader, thegroup, and the situation. Leaders' maturity, knowledge, previousexperiences, biases, and skills have a strong impact on the styles ofleadership they are comfortable using. The group's size, maturity, andpurposes, and the group members' experience levels and ages, combine withother factors to influence leadership style. The situation, whichincludes the task, time constraints, environment, politics, Technology,and other external forces, also influences leadership style. (Davis .P.2004).

It is important to understand the appropriate styles to situation incooperative. Often, activities are not successful if the style mismatchwith a leadership style and participant needs. How then, does a leaderknow which style is appropriate? While there certainly are individualcomfort levels in using particular leadership styles over others? Indeed, understanding and being able to use all types of leadership stylesis necessary. It is important to bear in mind that not all styles areequally effective with all people. As with leaders, participants are morecomfortable with, and have a better response to, certain types ofleadership.

Conceptual FrameworkThe independent variables like: Leader related variables, FollowerRelated Variables, Organization related variables and Externalenvironment variables like Legal, Social, cultural and Technologicalfactors has identified in the literature as factors that may influencethe leadership styles. A conceptual model, for this study depicting therelationship between selected variables/factors and influencingleadership styles of cooperative leaders is given hereunder.

13

Independent Variables

DependentVariables

Leader Related Variables Age Gender Education Experience as

leader

LeadershipStyles

Follower RelatedVariables Attitude Acceptance Follower Size Confidence Organization RelatedVariables Work environment Production control Distribution systemExternal EnvironmentVariables

Coop. Proclamation Government

interference Technology Social Cultural

Source: Researcher’s own sketch

Operational definitions of variablesI. Dependant Variable

Leadership Style (lest): For the purpose of the study,leadership style is defined as the characteristics mannerin which an individual leads others. It is expected that ifmay influenced by the independent variables.

II. Independent Variablesa. Education (edn): For the purpose of the study, education is

defined as the leaders/individuals school educational statues.

14

It is expected that if may influence the leaders’ leadershipstyle.

b. As leader (aslead): For the purpose of the study, It isdefined as the individual cooperative leaders experience asleader been serving. It is expected that it may influence theleaders’ leadership style.

c. Attitude (folatt): For the purpose of the study, attitude isdefined as the followers outlook about their leaders. It isexpected that it may influence the leaders’ leadership style.

d. Acceptance (accept): For the purpose of the study, Acceptanceis defined as the followers/ members’ acceptance level oftheir board of directors activates. It is expected that if mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

e. Follower Size (folsize): For the purpose of the study,follower size is defined as number of members of each sampledcooperatives. It is expected that it may influence theleaders’ leadership style.

f. Confidence (confden): For the purpose of the study, confidenceis defined as the individuals’ self-assurance to perform theirresponsibilities. It is expected that it may influence theleaders’ leadership style.

g. Work environment (workenv): For the purpose of the study, workenvironment is defined as the cooperative working conditionavailability of the followers. It is expected that it mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

h. Production control (prosys): For the purpose of the study,Production control is defined as the system that how thecooperative product is controlled. It is expected that it mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

i. Distribution system (distn): For the purpose of the study,distribution defined as means of transferring the product ofthe cooperative to the customer. It is expected that it mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

j. Cooperative proclamation (lowaffact): For the purpose of thestudy, cooperative proclamation is defined as declareddocuments that the cooperative has been governed. It isexpected that it may influence the leaders’ leadership style.

k. Government interference (govtint): For the purpose of thestudy, Government interference is defined as an act that thegovernment interference on the cooperative leadership. It isexpected that it may influence the leaders’ leadership style.

l. Technology (affecttech): For the purpose of the study,Technological factor defined as technology influence the

15

cooperative leading style. It is expected that it mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

m. Social (socaffect): For the purpose of the study, Socialvariable is defined as sum of social factors in theenvironment. It is expected that it may influence theleaders’ leadership style.

n. Cultural Variable (culaffect): For the purpose of the study,cultural variable is defined as sum of cultural factorspracticed in the community. It is expected that it mayinfluence the leaders’ leadership style.

Problem StatementIn the past regime, cooperatives continued to experience top dawnmanagement, government intervention in internal affairs of cooperativesin the form of giving directives etc especially at the grass root level,corruption by the leadership and weak and submissive management (GRSO,1999). FCA also attributes weak performance of cooperative to theineffectiveness of their leadership (FCA, 2008, FCA, 2006). The word ofCanadian co-operators stated as “In every flourishing cooperative, givinggood services over the longer period of years; there is always loyal bandof devoted men and women giving leadership,” reveal the contribution ofleaders to the success of cooperative organization (Puri, 1979).Nowadays in Gamo Goffa too, cooperative members don’t trust leaders. Thisis found to be the main cause for lack of cohesiveness among cooperativecommunities.

The role of Cooperative Leader is to see that the cooperative not onlysucceeds in its economic activity as a business enterprise but alsofunctions in accordance with Principles of Cooperation. But these leaderscould not manage the cooperatives properly if they have no enough knowhowon the area of the leadership style. Otherwise, they have been becomedamage cooperative values, team sprite and the overall objectives. Afterorganizing a cooperative, if there is no a good management andorganizational control the cooperation doesn’t bringing a good result.And this influences on the development of cooperatives in our country(Cooperative development, 2010). Another problem that we can see even nowis, the managers/leaders are illiterate and they work based on part time.Due to lack of skill and unclear leadership position, responsibility andauthority the leaders can not apply well the appropriate leadership stylein the cooperatives. In addition Cooperatives may not concerned to hire/assign a skilled leader to their cooperative by electing one of a memberas a chairman to be leader and Board member without enough leadershiptraining and skill instead of hiring. So it cannot rule the cooperativeswith in free market to be success an organizational goal of the

16

cooperatives. Although there are some cooperatives managed by hairedworkers, they do not follow clear job description, as result they are noteffective. That means lack of skills and experience is another

Cooperatives’ in many developing countries are considered as instrumentsto implement the policies of the State. For this purpose, the stateprovides aid and assistance to cooperatives. And, with this aid comes theGovernment nominee. These were happened in the cooperatives which wereestablished based on the proclamation of 138/1975, in which thecooperative management from the cooperatives was assigned by the party.In this case the managers/leaders were working from their party, not forcooperative movement. For obvious reasons, such official leadership couldnot lead the cooperative to any substantial progress or achievement. Thisofficial leadership suffers from a continuous diminution of authority andprestige, against the growing power and presage of politicians and othernon-official leaders.

Indeed, Members’ direct participation or exercising democracy is notflourished in many cooperatives yet. (SNNPR Coop workshop report, 2003).If the leaders do not understand the appropriate leadership styles tomanage their cooperative it may lead cooperatives into conflict ratherthan satisfying members to contribute their parts to their cooperatives.If it is true, leaders will get accesses to abuse their power and missuse the property of the cooperative. One factor in becoming a successfulleader is choosing the right leadership style for a given situation. Toall these or to becoming a good leader, it needs to know leadershipstyles and also know when to use a certain leadership style for a givensituation. A Problem may exist if an executive leaders is unfamiliar withthe leadership styles and fails to pick the appropriate leadership styleto favourably resolve the conflict (Vera & Crossan, 2004).

In this context, this study was undertaken to describe differentleadership styles preferred and used by cooperative leaders, the effectof leadership style on the functioning of cooperatives and the influenceof factors on leadership style of cooperative leaders.

Research FocusEmpirical studies on Leadership StylesNumerous studies have been conducted in the field of leadership that hasaddressed the influence of selected characteristics of individuals ontheir leadership style. Some studies have focused on the influence of thecharacteristics on the self-perceived leadership style of the individual,others have focused on the perceptions of followers related to anindividual’s leadership style and the influence of these characteristics,

17

and still others have involved the perceptions of both the leaders andtheir followers. Krishnan and Park (1998) noted that demographiccharacteristics do exert considerable influence on the leadership stylesof top managers. Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed that demographictraits such as age, tenure in an organization, functional areabackground, educational background, and degree of formal managementtraining are all important aspects of leadership that influenceorganizational success. The study compared the influence of thedemographic factors such as age, gender, marital, education, experience,occupation and skill (knowledge about product). On his findings revealedthat both men and women leaders achieved their position through election.The average age range was 40-49 years for both men and women leaders. Allbut one male leader was married while a small percentage of men leaderswere widowers. More men leaders were educated than uneducated whilewomen’s organizations faced as many educated women leaders as uneducatedleaders.

Lowery (1996) used the Human Patterns instrument to measure fiveleadership behaviors based on the work of Kouzes and Posner. The fiveleadership behaviors were: appreciating and recognizing others,challenging and pushing others, coaching and enabling others, inspiringothers, and serving as a role model. Results showed that the female CEDsin her study showed a strong preference for inspiring others andchallenging others while male CEDs preferred the leadership behaviors ofinspiring others, coaching others, and appreciating others.

Several studies examining the relationship between age and leadershipstyle have been conducted organizations other than Extension. Vroom andPahl (1971) suggested that older managers within an organization may havea greater commitment to maintaining the status quo than younger managersand less favorable attitudes towards taking risks. Hambrick and Mason(1984) proposed that younger managers were more inclined to take risksthan older managers. Taking risks rather than maintaining the status quois one of the characteristics of leaders who engage in the leadershippractice Challenging the Process identified by Kouzes and Posner (1987).

Spotanski and Carter (1993) conducted a study on the self-perceivedleadership practices and behaviors of agricultural education departmentexecutive officers in which demographic variables, including age, tenure,and formal leadership training and/or education, were analyzed inrelation to the leadership practices measured by the LPI. In their study,28 of 49 participants were below the age of 50 and 21 were above the ageof 50. When grouped according to age, below 50 and above 50, findings ofthe study indicated no significant differences in leadership style.

18

Within the Leadership system, Sykes (1995) found that the age of a CEDdid not significantly influence her behavior as a manager or a leader.She did find, however, that younger CEDs, 45 years old and younger,perceived themselves to demonstrate more leader behaviors. Holder (1990)reported that age was not significantly related to the preferredleadership style of Extension faculty and middle managers. Similarly,Haynes (1997) reported that age did not affect participants' demonstratedstrength in the 15 supervisory/management competencies included in hisstudy. The Spotanski and Carter (1993) study that included age as ademographic variable also included a comparison between leadership stylesand the number of years in which a participant had served as a departmentexecutive officer. The authors reported no significant difference betweenleadership styles of the study participants when compared to years ofexperience as a department executive officer. In his study of Directorsof Student Athletic Support Services at NCAA Division I Institutions,Rochelle (1999) reported that the number of years respondents reportedworking in the primary leadership role was significantly correlated withthe Encouraging the Heart leadership practice of the LPI. Shearon (1969)introduced the concept of Administrative Professional Leadership (APL) inExtension that he defined as a leader's efforts to coordinate andinfluence the performance of Extension agents. In his study involvingCounty Extension Chairmen (CEC) and cooperative agents in the NorthCarolina Agricultural Extension Service, he found that the more tenure aCEC had in Extension, the lower their APL scores indicating decreasedleadership effectiveness.

Educational background and promotion path are variables that havereceived considerably less attention than other demographic variableswithin the literature. Shearon (1969) found no relationship betweenundergraduate major, which he classified as either oriented more to thesocial sciences or to agricultural technology, and the APL of the CECs inhis study. Findings of the study conducted by Sykes (1995) suggested thatprogram discipline from which CEDs came from significantly influencedtheir self-perceptions related to transformational leadership styles.Sykes reported that CEDs from home economics and 4-H program backgroundsperceived themselves to demonstrate more leadership behaviors than CEDsfrom agricultural program backgrounds. Sykes also reported that the typeof degree, beyond a bachelor’s degree, had no significant influence onthe self-perceive leadership styles of the CEDs in her study. However, interms of leadership effectiveness, Cobb (1989) reported no significantdifference in the leadership effectiveness of CEDs as a function of theirprevious program discipline.

19

Haynes (1997) reported that participants in his study who demonstratedabove average strength in leadership tended not to be from the family andconsumer science, 4-H youth development, or community/economicdevelopment program areas. Similarly, those who demonstrated aboveaverage strength in development of coworkers tended not to come from theagriculture/natural resources, 4-H youth development, orcommunity/economic development programs and those who demonstrated aboveaverage strength in behavioral flexibility tended not to come from thecommunity/economic development program area. The remaining competencieswere not affected by previous program area. Although there has beenlittle study into the influence of educational background and promotionpath, it is an area of great importance as the leaders of Extension arealmost always promoted from within the organization based on theirperformance in their subject matter discipline or previous Extensionpositions (Patterson, 1997; Pittman & Bruny, 1986). In many cases,leaders tend to want to surround and replace themselves with people whoare like them in terms of their background and experiences (Sorcher &Brant, 2002). Thus, it is logical to believe that individuals trained ina bench science disciple would seek to promote individuals with trainingin a bench science. However, Bantel and Jackson (1989) proposed that itis to the benefit of top management teams within an organization to becomposed of diverse individuals with dissimilar types of curriculabackgrounds.

Studies on leadership and leadership style in cooperatives are very fewand assessment of leadership style in cooperatives of Ethiopia in generaland fruits and vegetable cooperatives in particular is absent. It is thehigh time to have research studies on cooperative leadership and stylesin Ethiopian context.

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this research was to assess the leadershipstyles of leaders of selected Fruit and vegetable cooperatives.

Specific objectivesThis research addressed the following specific objectives:

2. To describe the leadership styles practiced by leaders of selectedCooperatives;

3. To assess the effect of leadership style on the functioning ofselected cooperatives.

4. To examine the influence of factors on the leadership style ofcooperative leaders.

20

Methodology of Research

In Gamo Goffa Zone there are 36 fruit and vegetable cooperatives areregistered as legal entity. The most product in the area are Banana,Mango, and Apple and the like. Chencha Highland Fruits MarketingCooperative (CHFMC) (client), Kale Heywet Church, Target BusinessConsultants Plc., Tadex IT Solutions, Ethiopian Television Cooperation(ETC), Lante Fruits and Vegetables Marketing Cooperative (LFVMC)(client), Etfruit Sco, Elfora Sco, regional and Addis traders,AfricaJUICE plc, Gamo Gofa farmers union, Bafana Bafana Consultancy andTraining Organisation and Arbaminch Zuria Woreda Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Office (SNV Netherlands Development Organization 2 CaseStudies 2009).

Sampling Procedure In this study multi-stage sampling technique was employed. In the firststage, fruits and vegetable cooperative society were selected from GamoGoffa Zone by using purposive sampling technique. Because Gamo Goffa isvery rich in production of fruits like mango, Apple, Banana and the likeand well known nationally and internationally as well.

In the second stage, out of 36 fruits and vegetable cooperatives, theresearcher adopted purposive sampling technique and identified the fivefruit and vegetable cooperatives were selected for the study.Cooperatives which have employees were selected considering the reasonthat to incorporate the opinion of employees in addition to members andcooperative experts to make the study to be more realistic.

In the third stage, the researcher adopted census survey method andselected all Board of directors as leaders of five cooperatives (33),employees numbering 11 from selected cooperatives. Census survey wasemployed with the reason that it is manageable to the researcher and alsoto avoid the limitations of sampling and sampling techniques. As formembers the systematic sampling technique was employed based on thenumbers of members 13, 15, 10, 15 & 22 Shelle, Genta, Shara , Lante,and Chencha respectively. From these five cooperatives 75 memberrespondents were chosen. And also 15 cooperative experts who are workingclosely with cooperatives were also selected. Totally 134 respondentswere selected for the study. The sample size comprises of 33 leaders, 75members, 11 employees and 15 experts.

Types and Sources of the data

21

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The primary andsecondary data sources were utilized for the study. The primary data wasobtained from leaders, members, employees, and experts from cooperativebureau. Secondary data was collected from Zone and Woreda cooperativeoffices, and other relevant sources which are published and unpublishedas well.

Method of data collection

Semi structured interview schedule was administered among from theleaders, employees, members and cooperative promotion experts to elicitthe required information for the study. The interview questions werepretested to manage the clarity. The information related to leadershipstyles, effect of leadership on the functioning of cooperatives in termsof membership position, financial status, members’ participation andsatisfaction, conflict resolution and the like, and factors influencingleadership style. The researcher with the help of 2 enumerators collecteddata from the respondents of the study.

Method of data analysis

Analysis was made by compiling and summarizing the data collected fromthe field and cooperatives. The first and second objectives were realizedwith help of descriptive statistics. The profile of cooperative leaders,leadership style preferred and used by leaders, and the effect ofleadership style on the functioning of cooperatives was assessed throughthe opinion of members, employees, and experts. The effect was measuredwith scales like increase, constant and decrease for membership position,excellent, very good, good, poor and very poor for financial status,members’ participation, and conflict resolution, and five point ratingscale for perception on the leadership style. To analyze factorsinfluencing leadership style, multiple linear regression analysis wasused. The multiple linear regression model with non-random andunobservable (dummy) variable was used to know the influence of factorson the dependent variables. The Variables, derived as an output of themodel, are described as follow:

Y=α β1X2 +β2X2+ β3X3+β4X4 + β5X5+ β6X6+ β5X5+ β7X7+ β7X7 . . . + β19X19.

Where Y = Leadership style (Dependent variable)a is interceptThe main independent variables for role of leadership for cooperativedevelopment include: X1= age X2= Gender X3= Education

22

X4= Experience as leader X5= OccupationX6=Monthly income X7=AttitudeX8=Acceptance X9= Follower size X10= Confidence level X11 = Work environment X12= Production control X13= DistributionX14= Cooperative Proclamation X15= Government interference X16= TechnologyX17= SocialX18= Cultural

Multiple Linear Regression was employed to know the relationship betweendependent and independent variables. Nineteen independent variables werestatistically related to the leadership style as dependent variable.Regression analysis conveys how variables change and move together in thesame direction. Regression coefficients summarize the intensity anddirection of these movements.

The multiple regression equation takes the form:Y= α+β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3 + ···· βkXk..

The β are the regression coefficient, representing the amount thedependent variable Y changes when the corresponding independent changesby 1 unit. The α is the constant, where the regression line interceptsthe Y axis, representing the amount the dependent variable Y would beequal to when all the independent variables are 0.

Results of Research The findings are derived from the analysis made in terms of profile ofcooperative leaders, various leadership styles used by the leaders, theeffect of leadership style on the functioning of cooperatives byconsidering the perception of the members, employees and experts whoinvolved in those selected cooperatives; and from the regression analysismade to find out the significant effect of influencing factors onleadership styles used by the cooperative leaders.

Summary of findings Profile of Cooperative leaders

As for age, majority (66.7%) of the leaders are coming under themiddle age group followed by young age (21.2%) group.

23

As for sex and marital status of cooperative leaders, all theleaders are male and married.

11 (33%) leaders had educational status at the high school levelfollowed by 8 (24.2%) at the secondary level. There were 3 (9.1%)leaders who do not have any formal education as illiterates.

As for occupation, 32 (97%) leaders are engaged in agriculture astheir occupation, and only 1 (3 %) leader is engaged in bothagriculture and merchant as his occupation.

20 (60.6%) leaders are coming under the low income group categoryfollowed by 11 (33.3%) leaders under middle income group. Only twoleaders are in the high income group.

As for experience as leader in cooperatives, 15 (45.5%) leadershave 3 years experience, 6 leaders have 4 years and another 6leaders have 2 years experience as leaders in cooperatives.

Assessment of the Leadership Style of cooperative leaders Most preferred Leadership Style of leaders

On an average the most of the leaders (42.4%) preferred situationalleadership style. Seven (21.2%) of the leaders preferred to useautocratic and another 7 (21.2%) democratic style. Only 5 (15.2%)preferred to use free-rein as their style. No one preferredbureaucratic and transformational styles.

Perception of the leaders on different leadership styles The leaders are with high level of perception towards democratic

style of leadership followed by situational style. They respondedwith medium and low level of perception on the statements relatedto other styles of leadership.

Leadership style and Age Leaders with old age tend to autocratic or free rein/laisser-faire.

85.7% of young age leaders are situational. The middle age leadersthey tend to situational (36.4%), followed by autocratic (27.3%).Majority (50%) of old age leaders are free-rein, and fifty-fiftyfor autocratic and democratic. It can be inferred that an increasein the age may lead to a change in the leadership style.

Leadership Style and Education Majority (66.7%) illiterate leaders follow free-rein style followed

by 33.3% follow democratic leadership style. The majority ofleaders under primary (66.7%), secondary (50.0%) and high school(36.4%) category follow situational leadership style, whereasmajority (50.0%) of the leaders under preparatory followsituational followed by 33.3% follow autocratic style. The leaders

24

under the category of diploma & above follow fifty-fifty autocraticand situational style of leadership. It can be inferred that theincrease in the educational status may lead to situational andautocratic style of leadership among leaders.

Leadership Style and Experience Leaders with less experience tend to be democratic and situational.

This tendency remains until four years and slowly leaders becomeautocratic or free in after four years of experience as leaders. Itcan be stated that an increase in the experience may lead to changein the style of leadership.

Leadership style and Occupation Majority (40.6%) of leaders engaged in agriculture practice

situational style, autocratic (21.9%) and democratic (21.9%). Theleader engaged in business practice situational style. It can beinferred that most of the leaders irrespective of their occupationthey practice situational style.

Leadership style and income It can be seen that 50% of leaders from high income and low income

category practice situational style. Among high income groupanother 50% of leaders practice autocratic style of leadership.Majority (45.5%) of middle income group leaders practice free-reinstyle followed by 27.3% leaders practice situational style.

The Effect of Leadership style on the functioning of Cooperatives – Ananalysis of members, employees and experts opinionThe effect of leadership style was assessed through the opinion of thefollowers and experts in terms of perception on the leadership style oftheir leaders, leadership effect on the membership position, financialstatus, members’ participation, members’ satisfaction, and conflictresolution. Profile of the members, employees and experts

As for age, majority (70.7%) of members and 5 experts (53.3%) arecoming under middle age category, and 63.6% of employees are underyoung age category. Nearly 94.7% members are male, 73.3% expertsand 72.7% employees are males and female are insignificant in allcategory.

As for educational status, 44.0% of the members completed primaryeducation followed by 28.0% as illiterates, and the rest completedtheir high school and preparatory level. Nearly about 72.7% of theemployees completed diploma in various subjects, 18.2% completed

25

their high school. Regarding experts, 80.0% of them completeddiploma and the rest completed their first degree.

The members’ experience in their occupation ranges from 4 years to8 years; employees experience ranges from one year to 21 years; andexperts’ experience ranges from 4 years to 26 years. As for monthlyincome, 78.9% of the members come under upto Birr.500; 72.7% of theemployees come under Birr.500 – Birr.1000 category; and all expertsare coming under the income category of above Birr.1000.

Perception of member, employees and experts on Leadership Style of their leaders

26 (34.7%) members perceived their leaders style as democraticstyle followed by 16 (21.3%) as situational. Moreover, 3 (4.0%)members perceived their leaders style as bureaucratic style, and21.4% members perceived that their leaders have no clear style. Asfor employees, 27.2% employees perceived their leaders style assituational followed by 18.2% and another 18.2% as democratic andautocratic respectively. As for experts, 20.1% of experts perceivedtheir leaders style as free-rein followed by 13.3% each perceivedas autocratic, democratic, situational and transformational; and26.7% perceived that there is no clear style for their leaders.Members and employees perceived their leaders style as bureaucratic(4.0% and 9.1% respectively), employees and experts astransformational style (9.1% and 13.3% respectively).

The effect of Leadership style on Membership position The membership status of selected cooperatives is being constant as

opined by the members, employees, and experts. It is found that theleadership style does not have any effect on membership position.It is also evident from the records of the cooperatives.

The effect of Leadership style on Members’ Participation The result shows that majority of members, employees, and experts

opined above the scale of good (good, very good and excellent)regarding members’ participation in the affairs of theircooperatives.

The effect of Leadership style on Satisfaction The result shows that majority of members (78.7%) and employees

(72.7%), opined satisfied regarding satisfaction in theircooperatives, and majority of the experts (53.3%) were notsatisfied. The reason is that majority of members and employeesperceived their leaders’ style as democratic, situational and free-

26

rein. The experts might have observed that the leaders were notusing appropriate style in different situation.

The effect of Leadership style on Financial Status of their cooperatives Majority of members, employees and experts opined that the

financial status of their cooperatives is good and excellent. It isevident that the researcher’s investigation from the records of(audit reports and the other minutes) cooperatives except twocooperatives about which some respondents opined that the financialstatus of their cooperatives is poor and very poor.

The effect of Leadership style on Conflict resolution Majority of the members, employees, and experts opined that the

performance of leaders in conflict resolution is above the scale ofgood. A few of the respondents opined that the performance ofleaders in conflict resolution is poor and very poor.

The influence of factors on the Leadership style of Cooperative LeadersThe regression was employed among different category of respondents ofthe study namely leaders, members, employees and experts. For theanalysis, the respondents were categorized into three groups such as,leaders, members, and paid employees (employees and experts). The resultsof multiple linear regression analysis show that there are 19 independentvariables. Out of these 19 variables, seven variables were significantlyinfluencing the leadership style among leaders, three variables amongmembers, 9 variables among employees and experts.

Table: Multiple Linear Regression Model – Influence of factorson the leadership style

Independent variables Leaders Members Employees /experts

Leader related variables:

Age 1.061 - 1.097Gender - - -1.278

Education 1.969** - -0.135

Experience as leader 2.005** - 2.252**

Occupation 0.123 - 0.652Monthly income 1.355 - -1.082Followers related variables:Attitude 2.121* 1.997** 3.014*

27

Acceptance 2.345** 2.598* 2.977*

Followers size 0.058 0.815 1.992**Confidence level 1.210 3.001* 0.982Organization related variables:

Work environment 1.998** 0.897 3.821*

Production control 1.247 1.089 1.034Distribution -0.125 -0.972 2.937*External Environment related variables:

Coop. proclamation -

2.064**

1.865 -3.043*

Govt. Interference -3.787* -1.953 -2.264**

Technology 0.552 0.910 0.148Social 1.411 -0.286 2.429**Cultural -0.578 0.769 -0.789

Constant 26.904 21.087 18.352R² 0.458 0.586 0.493N 33 75 26

Source computed from field survey data, 2012.

As for influence of factors on leadership style perceived amongleaders, the variables education and experience as leader underleader related variables had positive effect as influence on theleadership style at 5 % significance level; attitude had a positiveeffect at 1% significance level and acceptance of the followers at5% significance level under follower related variables. Underorganization related variables, work environment had a positiveeffect at 5% significance level; and under external environmentrelated variables, cooperative proclamation and governmentinterference had negative effect at 5% and 1% significance level.The overall effect of independent variables over dependent variableamong leaders category is explained with R2 value of 0.458 (45.8%).

As for influence of factors on leadership style perceived amongmembers, the variables attitude had a positive effect at 5%significance level and acceptance of the followers at andconfidence at 5% significance level under follower relatedvariables. The overall effect of independent variables over

28

dependent variable among members category is explained with R2 valueof 0.586 (58.6%).

As for influence of factors on leadership style perceived amongemployees and experts, the variable experience as leader underleader related variables had positive effect as influence on theleadership style at 5 % significance level; attitude and acceptancehad a positive effect at 1% significance level and follower size at5% significance level under follower related variables. Underorganization related variables, work environment and distributionhad a positive effect at 1% significance level; and under externalenvironment related variables, cooperative proclamation andgovernment interference had a negative effect at 1% and 5%significance level respectively, and social factor had a positiveeffect at 5% significance level. The overall effect of independentvariables over dependent variable among employees and expertscategory is explained with R2 value of 0.493 (49.3%).

Conclusions

Cooperatives being voluntary and democratic grass-root organizations ofpeople, leadership serves as an instrument of group action and a catalystagent. Leadership in cooperatives has multifarious functions: mobilizingpeople for joint action, moulding the attitudes of members, integratingthe group, imparting values, making decisions involving action commitmentand evolving strategies for implementing the decisions. The main causefor the success of cooperatives is proper leadership and one of thereasons proper leadership is prevalence of genuine democracy. In a widersense cooperative leadership means all those who influence, instrumentand inspire cooperative ideals, ideology, policies and programmes,physical growth and expansion, structure and working of individual inorganisations at various levels. Cooperative Leadership enables theLeader to empower people and maximize their own potential as well astheir staff’s while creating a learning culture within the workplace ofpeople acting together whose efforts move them towards a shared visionfor mutual benefit by using the appropriate leadership style.

The Cooperative Leadership model delivers incredible results, such as anincrease in profitability, performance and productivity as well as adecrease in internal conflicts, problems and attrition (slowlydistraction). Whether the cooperative staff is few or one hundred,utilizing an appropriated leadership principles/style provide businessesand individuals with a unique competitive advantage that will keep them

29

positioned on top and enable you to become a successful coach and leader.Leadership Style becomes the key to the formulation and implementation ofstrategy and plays an important role in work-group members’ activity andin team citizenship. Little doubt exists that the way (style) in whichleaders influence work-group members can make a difference in their ownand their people’s performance (Jerald Greenberg (ed.), Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ, 1994). Matching the appropriate leadership style is vitalto the type of Fruit and Vegetable Cooperatives to manage theirperishable and seasonal products and also to exercise the principles ofcooperatives as well.

To conclude, the leaders of fruits and vegetable cooperatives in GamaGofa Zone preferred more of situational, democratic, and free-rein styleof leadership, and less of autocratic style of leadership. There is bothpositive and negative effect of leadership style on the functioning ofcooperatives; but there is more positive effect. The negative effect isdue to the autocratic and free-rein style of leadership used by theleaders in cooperatives as perceived by the members, employees, andexperts. Cooperative leaders are expected to practice appropriateleadership style in different situations by considering the influencingfactors to have a positive effect on the performance of followers andcooperatives as well.

RecommendationsResearch studies are undertaken to identify problems and offeringsolutions to solve such problems. Based on the analysis made andobservation done by the researcher, the following recommendations areforwarded to practice proper and appropriate leadership style for betterperformance and results in the selected cooperatives.

Only 21. 2% of leaders preferred democratic leadership style. Butthey have a high level of perception towards democratic style ofleadership followed by situational style. Being cooperativeleaders, the leaders should prefer and practice more of democraticleadership style than other styles.

Leaders with old age tend to autocratic or free rein/laisser-faire.Cooperative should develop second line leaders for the future.Young leaders should be encouraged to assume leadership position incooperatives.

Out of 75 members, 21.4% members perceived that their leaders haveno clear style. As for experts, 26.7% perceived that there is noclear style for their leaders. The leaders should practiceappropriate style in different situations and they should be clearabout leadership style. For this leadership development programs

30

must be organized to make the leaders clear about different stylesand appropriate styles to be used in different situations forbetter results.

The financial status of two cooperatives namely Shara and Chenchais poor. It is due to free-rein and autocratic style practiced bythe leaders. They should change their style into democratic andsituational thereby they can extract more work from employee andencourage members to improve the performance of their cooperativesand financial status.

Based on the observation made, training is totally absent for theleaders of selected cooperatives. The leaders should be givenproper training in the field of business skills, problem solvingskills and decision making skills. It was observed during the datacollection process though leadership skill is not included in thestudy. Based on the observation leaders lack skills required andthey should be given such skill training.

Though the influence of factors on leadership style perceived amongleaders evident of positive effect with some variables, theoverall effect of independent variables over dependent variableamong leaders category is explained with R2 value of 0.458 (45.8%).Still the leaders are required to practice situational anddemocratic style of leadership to improve the results.

The relationship between government and cooperatives must bestrengthened and government should encourage cooperative leaders topractice democracy by adhering to the cooperative proclamation andprinciples.

It is recommended that the leaders of cooperative should bedemocrats rather than autocrats and bureaucrats.

By observation it is noted that leaders are not aware ofcooperative ideology and philosophy. It is recommended thatleadership training programmes covering basics of cooperativeconcept, leadership skills and styles, leadership role andqualities must be offered to encourage and make the leaders ascooperative leaders.

ReferencesBass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:Free Press.

31

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadershipparadigm transcend the organization and national boundaries? AmericanPsychologist, 52(2), 130-139. Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Zigarmi, P. (1985). Leadership and the one minutemanager. New York: William Morrow and Co. Bolden, R. (2004). What is Leadership? Exeter, Leadership South West,University of Exeter. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: SagePublishers. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Cobb, D. W. (1989). Leadership effectiveness of county Extension directors: A comparison ofperceptions between county Extension agents and county Extension directors within the NorthCarolina agricultural Extension service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, NorthCarolina State University, Raleigh.Conger, J. (1989). The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique ofExceptional Leadership. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. and R. Kanungo (1987). "Towards a behavioral theory ofcharismatic leadership in organizational settings." Academy of ManagementReview 12: 637-647. Davis .P. (2004). Human Resource management in Cooperatives,International Labour office, Genaeva Fiedler, F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.Advances in experimental social psychology. L. Berkowitz. New York,Academic Press: 149-190. Gemmill, G. and J. Oakley (1992). "Leadership: An alienating socialmyth?" Human Relations 45(2): 113. Haynes, B. R. (1997). Factors affecting supervisory and management competencies ofparticipants in Extension assessment centers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TheOhio State University, Columbus. Hersey, P. and K. Blanchard (1984). The management of organizationalbehavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Holder, S. L. (1990). Leadership style and leadership behavior preferences of cooperativeExtension faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces. House, R. (1971). "A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness."Administrative Science Quarterly 16: 321-339. House, R. and T. Mitchell (1974). "Path-goal theory of leadership."Contemporary Business 3: 81-98.

32

Knights, D. and H. Wilmott (1992). "Conceptualizing Leadership Process: AStudy of Senior Managers in a Financial Services Company." Journal ofManagement Studies 29(6): 760-782. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). The leadership challenge: How to keep gettingextraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). Leadership Practices Inventory(LPI): Facilitator's Guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-BassPfeiffer. Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pittman, J. D., & Bruny, L. (1986). Promotion from within anyonequalified? Training program creates a pool of potential administrators.Journal of Extension, 24(2), Retrieved May 8, 2002 fromhttp://www.joe.org/joe/1986summer/a6.html Rochelle, S. (1999). Leadership practices of directors of student athletesupport services at NCAA Division I institutions according to ethnicity,gender, tenure, and educational level. Dissertation Abstracts International,61(03A), 841. Schriesheim, C. and S. Kerr (1977). R.I.P. LPC: A response to Fiedler.Leadership: The cutting edge. J. Hunt and L. Larson. Carbondale, SouthernIllinois University Press. Shearon, R. W. (1969). Staff leadership in the North Carolina agricultural Extension service.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,Raleigh. Sievers, B. (1994). Work, Death and Life Itself: Essays on Management andOrganization. New York, de Gruyter. Smirchich, L. and G. Morgan (1982). "Leadership: The Management ofMeaning." Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 18(2): 257-73. Sorcher, M., & Brant, J. (2002). Are you picking the right leaders?Harvard Business Review, 80(2), 78-85.Spotanski, D. R., & Carter, R. I. (1993). Self evaluation of leadershippractices and behaviors used by department executive officers inagricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(3), 17-25. Sykes, W. D. (1995). County Extension directors' perceived behavior as a manager or leaderas compared to county Extension agents' perceptions of CEDs' behavior. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Taimni.k. , (1998). Cooperative in new Environment

33

Tichy, N. and M. Devanna (1986). The Transformational Leader. New York,Wiley. Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to globalcompetitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vera& Crossen, (2004). New Perspective on Leadership Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, John Wiley. Vroom, V., & Pahl, B. (1971). Relationship between age and risk takingamong managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 399-405. White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy. New York: Harper& Brothers.

First A. AuthorM.A., M.B.A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Cooperatives, ICDS, Ambo University,Ethiopia. E-mail: mkeya2003@gmail.comWebsite: http://ambou.edu.et

Second B. Author -Third C. Author -

34