ABSTRACT

The study titled "Effects of Team Leadership Clarity on Organizational Performance: A Study of Sunrise Flour Mill Limited, Enugu State" aims to analyze the impact of team leadership clarity on organizational performance, with a focus on manufacturing companies. It investigates the perception of team leadership on performance, the influence of leadership structure, and the relationship between team leadership clarity and organizational performance, while also identifying challenges affecting leadership performance.

Employing a descriptive research design, the study utilizes both primary and secondary data sources. Primary data is collected through surveys, questionnaires, and interviews, while secondary data is gathered from various published and unpublished sources. The population of the study consists of 230 individuals, with a sample size of 146 determined using the Taro Yamane formula and selected through simple random sampling.

A well-structured questionnaire serves as the research instrument, and data analysis employs descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency, and percentage, along with regression analysis to test hypotheses. The findings indicate that social-economic characteristics of staff have a significant effect on team innovation, team innovation positively influences performance, and leadership clarity positively impacts performance. Moreover, periodic appraisals on team innovation are conducted by the management of selected companies.

In conclusion, the study highlights the significance of innovation in organizational performance, emphasizing the role of leadership in fostering team innovation and achieving enhanced performance. Effective leadership is crucial for inspiring and developing the potential of subordinates towards organizational goals. Leadership training is identified as a factor influencing company performance.

Based on the findings, the study recommends that organizations promote common interests among members, foster teamwork for generating innovative ideas, ensure effective leadership through screening and training, appoint leaders based on merit, and cultivate a supportive environment for both leaders and subordinates to enhance organizational performance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1     Background of the Study

1.2     Statement of the Problem

1.3     Objectives of the Study

1.4     Research Questions

1.5     Research Hypotheses

1.6     Significance of the Study

1.7     Scope of the Study

1.7.1  Unit of Scope

1.7.2  Content Scope

1.7.3  Geographical Scope

1.8     Limitations of the Study

1.9     Operational Definition of Terms

1.10   Brief Profile of the Organization under Study

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1     Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 Leadership

2.1.2 Team Leadership

2.1.3 Leadership Clarity

2.1.3.1 Vision Clarity (VC)

2.1.3.2 Vision Support (VS)

2.1.3.3 Role Clarity (RC)

2.1.4 History of the Nigerian Manufacturing Sector

2.1.5 Overview of Leadership Qualities and Responsibilities

2.1.6 Role of Leadership Clarity on Company Innovativeness and Performance

2.1.7 Evaluation of Organizational Performance

2.2     Theoretical Framework

2.2:1 Democratic Theory 

 2.2.2 Great Man Theories (Thomas Carlyle, 1800)

2.2.3   Trait Theories (Thomas Carlyle, 1800)

2.2.4 Contingency Theories (Fred Fiedler 1960)

2.2.5 Situational Theories (Hersey and Blanchard)

2.2.6 Behavioral Theories

2.2.7 Participative Theories

2.2.8 Management Theories (Max Weber, 1947)

2.2.9 Relationship Theories (Burns, 1978 And Bass, 1985)

2.3     Empirical Review

2.4     Summary of the Reviewed Related Literature

2.5     Gap in Literature

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1     Research Design

3.2     Sources of Data Collections

3.3     Population of the Study

3.4     Sample Size Determination

3.5     Sample and Sampling Technique

3.6     Descriptive Of Research Instrument     `

3.7     Validity of the Research Instrument 

3.8     Reliability of the Research Instrument

3.9     Method of Data Analysis

3.10   Model Specification

CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

4.1     Data Presentation

4.2     Questionnaire Analysis

4.3.    Analysis of Data on Hypothesis One

4.4.    Analysis of Data on Hypothesis Two

4.4.1. Test of Hypothesis Two

4.5.    Analysis of Data on Hypothesis Three

4.4.1. Test of Hypothesis Three

4.6     Discussion on Findings

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1     Summary of Findings

5.2       Conclusion

5.3       Recommendations

References

Appendix: Research   Questionnaire

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Whether the context is producing TV programmes, training for war, developing new products in manufacturing organizations, or providing financial services, the use of work teams is both ubiquitous and increasing (Guzzo, 1996). Team working is associated with improved financial performance (Macy and Izumi, 1993) and with improvements in organizational efficiency and quality (Applebaum and Batt, 1994). One reason why organizations are creating team-based structures is that this form of working provides the flexibility needed to respond effectively, appropriately, and quickly to the constantly changing demands in the organization’s environment (Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks, 2001).

Researchers have focused on investigating the factors that influence the effectiveness of work groups or teams, from the shop floor through to top management teams. Much of the research on team effectiveness has focused on task outputs (products and services provided by the team), but much less has been devoted to investigating what factors influence whether teams generate and implement ideas for new and improved products, services, and ways of doing things at work (West, 2002).

The writings of researchers investigating creativity and innovation among work teams have focused on three main themes (West, 2002): (a) the group task and the demands and opportunities it creates for creativity and innovation, (b) diversity in knowledge and skills among team members, and (c) team integration—the extent to which team members work in integrated ways to capitalise on their diverse knowledge and skills. Whether and how leadership in teams influences team innovation has not been explored. Little is also known about how leaders create and manage effective teams and promote effective team processes (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Zaccaro, 2001) and how leaders create and maintain favourable performance conditions for the team (Hackman, 1990, 2002). Innovation is the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things at work. It is a process that is distinct from creativity, which encompasses the processes leading to the generation of new and valued ideas. A fuller, more explicit definition of innovation is “..the intentional introduction and application within a job, work team, or organization of ideas, processes, products, or procedures, which are new to that job, work team, or organization and which are designed to benefit the job, the work team, or the organization (West and Farr, 1990).

Various processes and products may be regarded as innovations. They include technological changes such as new products but may also include new production processes, the introduction of advanced manufacturing technology, or the introduction of new computer support services within an organization. Administrative changes are also regarded as innovations. New human resource management (HRM) strategies, organizational policies on health and safety, or the introduction of teamwork are all examples of administrative innovations within organizations. Innovation implies novelty, but not necessarily absolute novelty (West and Farr, 1990). Innovation implies that to certain extent, standardised methods and routines are not readily available within a team to address, for example, unforeseen changes, newly discovered implications, or problems unknown before. Addressing such issues requires conscious and immediate attention of all group members. Whether the issues that become apparent to particular group members are relevant for other group members’ tasks (and in what respect) needs to be decided quickly. Here, leadership comes into play (whether it is shared or not), e.g., in terms of proper alignment with the overall team goals and objectives and coordination of problem­solving activities. To the extent that it is unclear who takes the lead—and in the case of shared leadership, who takes the lead for what particular task— responsibility for the advancement of innovations is diffused and the likelihood that relevant issues are not addressed is high. More specifically, we argue that lack of leadership clarity is negatively associated with the team processes known to be relevant for innovation (Anderson and West, 1994).

Much of the research on team leadership has focused on the contribution made by a single leader. However, leadership can also be provided by one or more individuals who are either formally appointed to the role or emerge from within die team. Leadership is important even in self-managed teams, affecting both organizational factors, such as acquiring resources for the team, and team member behavior, such as encouraging the team to take control of its own activities (Nygren and Levine, 1996). Indeed, research on self managed cross-functional project teams shows that they are less likely to be successful if they do not have a leader (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). We propose that irrespective of the team type and team task, a factor that is critical to the role of leadership in fostering team innovation is that team members are clear about who is in this role (regardless of whether leadership is shared). In contrast to classic leadership research (Yukl, 2002), where usually attributes of an individual in a leading position are conceptualized as leadership (e.g., leadership style and leadership behavior), the concept used here is on the team level of analysis. Leadership clarity pertains to the shared perceptions of group members about the extent to which leadership roles are clear within the team. We argue that lack of clarity about or conflict over the leadership role will be negatively associated with team innovation.     

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Every organization, cities large or small, struggles to acquire productivity through improved performance so as to achieve success and maintain a valuable image in the present world of organizational competitiveness. And it’s the wish of organization to see the input they use and the resultant output they have at the end (Ruth, 2007).

The population of workers in an organization may be very large and yet that organization is achieving a very low productivity due to poor performance and with no improvement in their products, could this occur as a result of absence of team work of leadership clarity to such organizations?.

Lack of teamwork in the organization is the failure of such organization to coordinate works into work group in order to tap from the respective human resources the organization possesses similar, poor leadership clarity and style may be as a result of the leadership style of the organization possibly not favourable to team work and this has greatly influenced the level of performance of such organization.

However, it has been observed that most companies, in Enugu, fail to pay attention to managing these problems of poor team work and leadership clarity and these has largely contributed to inefficiency in production system, lack of growth and declining profits currently fused by most of the manufacturing forms.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study is to analyse the effects of team leadership clarity on organizational performance. The specific objectives will be to;

i.      investigate the perception of team leadership on performance of manufacturing companies,

ii.     investigate the effect of leadership structure on organizational performance

iii.   examine the relationship between team leadership clarity on the performance of selected manufacturing companies

iv.   ascertain the challenges affecting leadership performance.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the objective of the study, the following research question was analyses.

i.      What is the perception of team leadership on performance of manufacturing companies?

ii.     What is the effect of leadership structure on organizational performance?

iii.   What is the relationship between team leadership clarity on the performance of selected manufacturing companies?

iv.   What is the challenges affecting leadership performance?

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses were tested

H0₁      Team leadership has no significant effect on performance of manufacturing companies

H0₂      Leadership structure has no significant effect on organizational performance

H0₃      There is no positive significant relationship between team leadership clarity on the performance of selected manufacturing companies.

H0₄      There is no significant difference on the challenges affecting leadership performance.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study will be significant in many ways. In the first instance, a review of team innovation and leadership clarity will provide valuable information in the problem inherent in poor team innovativeness and leadership styles, and thus reveal the appropriate measures to promote team innovation and leadership clarity which will in turn result to increased organizational performance.

Furthermore, the production management personnel, organizational specialist and others in the manufacturing companies will be provided with additional knowledge on ways of camping with divergent team characters in production, which is aimed at enhancing production performance and thus the overall growth of the organization, this work will also create awareness for management scholars on the need to promote team innovation and leadership clarity since it will offer helpful recommendation the benefits likely to be achieved in organization , and execute production activities properly in the manufacturing companies. This work will some as a guide and references materials to students who intend to carry out a research, read or write more on this topic. Above all, those who will make or carry out a research in future will find it useful in meeting their goals.

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1.7.1    Unit of scope

The top management, senior management, middle management and intermediate level management of Emenite and Sunrise Flour mill is sampled to elicit their perspective on the effect of team innovation and leadership clarity on the performance of their organization.

1.7.2    Content scope

The study is designed to investigate the effect of team innovation and leadership clarity on organization performance of selected manufacturing companies in Enugu State.

1.7.3    Geographical scope

This study covered in details past and present team innovations and leadership styles practiced in the selected organizations.

The specific objectives to be considered includes the socioeconomic characteristics of the workers, the existing team innovations in the manufacturing companies, structure of leadership style prevailing to the selected companies, effect of team innovation on performance of companies, effect of leadership clarity on performance of companies, relationship between team innovation and leadership clarity on performance of companies and factors limiting team innovation and leadership performances.

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

A study of this magnitude cannot be completed successfully without the researcher’s encountering some constraints or limitations. Therefore, this work will not pretend to be containing all holistic information on manufacturing companies team innovation and leadership clarity on organizational performance, rather it endeavoured to highlight the dominant issues and their impact in the growth of the manufacturing sector.

Another obvious limitation is on how to trim the paper into a sizeable and acceptable volume for a post-graduate diploma in business administration. This obviously will not be easy considering the subject matter of this research which boarder on sensitive issues on the companies team innovativeness and leadership styles; though this did not affect the quality of this research work.

It is also pertinent to mention that inadequacy of research work bordering on the subject matter, which is been compounded by the inability of management bureaucracies to grant full access to the researcher limited the extent of the researcher on the other hand, some information are said to be classified and out-of-bound information to most staff. Considering this, the researcher will have to seek other means to supplement and consolidate the information through the use of internet materials, textbooks, journals, newspapers, magazine and past research projects by students and research institutes.

Also, to be considered as innovation in this study is on the inability to elicit theoretical information from online information bordering on companies historical background.

The source of financing this research is a broad limitation on this project as it is limited the researcher for harnessing information from critical corners of the selected manufacturing company.

However, the researcher ensureed that the limitations/constraints did not affect the outcome of the study by supplementing the available information through internet materials, text books, journals and oral interview.

1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

1.     Team: Team is a group of [people with a full set of complementary skills required to complete a task, job or project. Team members operate with a high degree of interdependence; share authority and responsibility for self-management are accountable for the collective performance and work towards a common goal and shared rewards (Business Dictionary, 2017). A team becomes more than just a collection of people when a strong sense of mutual commitment creates synergy, thus generating performance greater than the sum of performance of its individual members.

2.     Work team: Work team is the ability of group of persons to work together towards accomplishing a common task and vision.

It is a fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results.

3.     Leadership: Leadership is a process by which a person influences other to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent.

Northouse (2007) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.Leadership according to Zeitchik (2012) is defined as a process of inspiring others to pursue your vision within the parameters you set, to the extent that it becomes a shared efforts a shared vision and a shared success.

4.     Leadership style: Leadership style is a leader’s procedure of directing, implementing plans and motivating people. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans and motivating people. As seen by employees, it includes the total pattern of explicit and implicit actions performed by their leader (Newstrom Davis, 1993).

5.     Clarity: Clarity is defined as the quality of clear in particular possessing the quality of being coherent and intelligible.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, clarity is the quality of been easily understood. The quality of being expressed, remembered and understood in a very exact way.

6.     Leadership clarity: Leadership clarity is defined as a process of a person influences others to accomplish an objective in a clearly understood manner. The leaders states clearly the tasks to be achieved and how best (processes) to achieve these task in the best qualitative manner.

According to Harnish Knox (215), a leader most important task is to create clarity for themselves and the organization.

7.     Organization: An organization is an organized group of people with a particular purpose. Business dictionary defined organization as a social unit of people that is structural and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. Organizations are open system; they affect and are affected by the environment.

8.     Performance: Performance is a set of financial and non-financial indicators which affects information on the degree of achievement of objective and results (Lebars and Euske, 2006).

9.     Organizational performance: Organizational performance comprises the actual output or results of an organization as measured against its intended outputs (or goals and objectives). According to Richard et al. (2009), organizational performance encompasses three specific areas of firm outcomes; financial performance, product market performance and shareholder return.

Segments, an overall forecast is obtained (for example, total company sales). The classification approach is most useful when the groups differ substantially from one another.

1.10 BRIEF PROFILE OF THE ORGANIZATION UNDER STUDY

Profile of Sunrise Flour Mills Limited

Sunrise Flour Mills Limited was incorporated as a limited liability Company in 1981. While R.C.C Nigeria Limited handled all the civil construction work, Buhler - Miag of Switzerland/Italy did the installation of the Flour Milling Machinery. Sunrise Flour Mills Limited, was conceived by the defunct Anambra State civilian administration of 1978 - 1979. It was however commissioned by the military administration on 20th December 1984. It was then managed by Crown Flour Mills Limited of Tincan Island, Lagos. This company is 100% owned by the Enugu State Government. It is managed on behalf of the government by Flour Mills of Nigeria PLC. This management agent is popularly known as the Golden Penny Group of Companies World-wide. Flour Mills of Nigeria PLC are a group of experts whose years of experience in Flour Milling business are now put into use in the company. The result so far has proved Golden penny products as a leader in Nigerian market. Flour Mills of Nigeria PLC was recently co-opted into the company after over ten (10) years of closure and inactivity. 

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.