International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 35

ISSN 2229-5518

Hybrid leadership and Employees

Capacity building

Babar Nazir, Sohaib Ahmed Soomro, Dr.Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad,Dr.AjmalWaheed

Abstract—The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of hybrid leadership on employees’ capacity building. The concept of hybrid leadership includes the blend of instrumental and expressive traits, reactive and proactive traits of leaders (Bolden, 2011). Capacity building is operationalized as employee’s organizational citizenship behavior and commitment (Reevees, 2010). The present study, however, provided insight to various leaders considering the blend of masculine-feminine traits specifically instrumentality and expressiveness of leaders and their correlation with the organizational commitment and citizenship. A survey based questionnaire was used for primary data collection and 122 responses of leaders were gathered from various organizations within twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The results of the study indicated that hybrid leadership and employees’ capacity building and organizational citizenship behavior are significantly correlated, higher the leaders’ instrumental and expressive traits, the greater will be the employees organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Thus, all the hypotheses are proved and accepted. This study will help organizations to understand the role of leadership generally and hybrid leadership specifically to prepare employees for the forthcoming cut-throat challenges in global business competition. The importance of this study can be gauged from the fact as organizations are lurching towards decentralization and employees are expectingthat their leaders should exhibit cooperative role rather supervisory. Therefore, hybrid leadership would align the leadership behaviors in consonance with growing decentralization and awareness among the employees.

Key words—Hybrid leadership, employees’ capacity building, masculine and feminine leadership traits, instrumental traits, expressive traits, and organizational citizenship behavior.

1 INTRODUCTION

—————————— ——————————
the time for new breed of leaders and organizations and
N this competitive environment leadership plays pivotal role to make a business successful all over the world. To cope with changing and dynamic conditions the business world needs renaissance leaders. Webster describes “renaissance” as a “rebirth” and a “revival”. This is what the hybrid leadership is all about. The hybrid leadership role is different in so many ways than any leader in the past. In the
21st century a robust leader is required to make the
organization sailing smoothly. In other words hybrid
leadership has a blend of qualities and abilities to lead.
Leaders who will prove themselves successful in today’s
environment will blend the strengths of male leadership traits and values with the strengths of female leadership traits and values. The current environment is creating employer/employee relationship sour and disconnects .These changes are catalyst for leaders and managers to transition from purely supervisory functions to coaching and mentoring role.
The unethical behavior of a few prominent organizational
leaders— behavior which affected millions of lives—has
tainted the world’s perception of leaders and the concept of
leadership. Organizations need to rebuild employee trust.
They need to find new ways to reconnect the employee/employer relationship.. Hybrid leadership wants to see their followers to perform at optimal level (Sargent, 2007). Leaders who possess both the masculine and feminine traits (hybrid leaders) wish their followers to construct aptitude and improve the organizational performance (Bolden, 2011). It is
people both are ready to experiencing phenomenal career
success by adopting a new leadership style, i.e., hybrid
leadership.
Leadership remains one of the momentous and contextual
influencers of employee’s capacity building (Chen,Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, Rosen, 2007). The wealth of studies has been conducted on various leadership styles that influence employees’ capacity building (Martin, Huiliao and Elizabeth,
2013). A body of studies unfolded different leadership styles
in the past research specifically structural, human resource and political leadership styles (Mustafa & Lines, 2012). Mustafa & Lines (2012) proposed that followers’ masculinity– femininity values moderated the relationship between structural, human resource and political leadership on employees’ performance, such that structural leadership was positively related to job satisfaction to the extent that followers were high on masculine (low feminine) orientation.
Moreover, transformational leadership strives to create new opportunities for employees in an organization, whereas transactional style works off with existing structure (Tucker,
Georgia, Russell, College, and Emory, 2004). Past Research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Stewart, 2006) has shown that the transformational style of leadership has a positive correlation with team performance. In stark contrast Bass, et al., (2003) mentioned that transactional leaders are counter-productive in an evolving work environment. Likewise, Avolio, Bass
&Jung(1999) suggested that transactional leadership style was
negatively related to unit performance and capacity building.

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 36

ISSN 2229-5518

Another study on directive vs empowering leadership (Liao & Campbell, 2013) unfolded that directive leadership enhanced proactive behaviors for work units that were highly satisfied with their leaders, whereas empowering leadership had stronger effects on both core task proficiency and proactive behaviors which amplify the employees’ capacity building (Liao & Campbell, 2013).
Nonetheless, there are few studies (Bourgeois,2013;
Youngs,2013: Sargent, 2007; Bolden, 2011; Janet Spence and Bob Helmreich, 2008; Madsen, 2006) suggested a number of ways through which hybrid leadership might influence employees performance. In the light of past studies there is a dire need to present a holistic depiction of hybrid leadership which can influence the employees’ capacity building. The present study is unique in the sense that it offers a comprehensive explanation regarding the influence of hybrid leaders on employees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behavior by including the blend of instrumental and expressive traits. It has been suggested that individuals high in both instrumentality and expressiveness (referred to as hybrid) have greater sensitivity in social situations and thus are better able to determine the needs of their subordinates (Goolsby, Lagace, and Boorom 1992).

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The 21st Century requires leaders who are in tune and focused on the company’s greatest asset—its people. The leadership styles, traits, components and behaviors needed to optimize the 21st century workforce! They represent the essence of the leadership evolution called hybrid leader (Bourgeois, 2004). Hybrid leadership is the blending of gender leadership strengths in a much more impactful and effective manner (Bourgeois, 2004). Mitchell (2002) described that hybrid leadership played a vital role in capacity building of employees in terms of performance. Bourgeois (2013) described numerous elements shaped hybrid leadership which ultimately influenced the employees’ performance. Cardno&Youngs, (2013 explained hybrid leaders have different masculine and feminine characteristics which tended to influence the competence of employees.
Bourgeois (2013) stated that capacity building of employees was largely due to blend of various components of masculine and feminine traits and this affected employees’ attitudes and behaviors towards performance. Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, (2013) designated that hybrid leader had gained momentum for the purpose of building capacity among employees of every organization. The organization is a platform where the relationship between the hybrid leadership and capacity building of employees tilt the balance of power (Richard et al.,
2009). Therefore, the organizations of a country need to
prepare leaders with skills and abilities that are deemed necessary for increasing employees and organizational performance. Sargent (2007) described that hybrid leader’s expectations of employees had a strong impact on employee’s motivation towards their capacity building. A study
demonstrated that an injection of training programs in organizations for the purpose of developing hybrid competencies within men and women would help to become effective leaders by providing open-ended path to growth and development (Sargent, 2007). Park (1997) stated that hybrid leadership style could be the most appropriate for achieving high performance in many organizations. Park (1997) outlined three premises for hybrid leaders: 1) They will have wider range of possible reactions for any situation; 2) They would have the capacity to access a situation and to determine the most appropriate response and 3) They would have greater success in their encounters with the world than other leaders. Prior research revealed that African and American leaders had adopted a variety of hybrid traits; relationship-orientation, people-orientation, skill-based, decisiveness, willingness to take responsibility for action, quickness of decision-making, engendering trust, communication, and delegation of authority, responsibility, and reflective qualities (Waring,
2003).
Korabik (1990), Stogill (1974), Leonard (1981) and Waring (2003) have reported that successful women leaders in male dominated organizations tend to use a combination of female and male-dominated leadership traits. Spence and Helmreich (1978) found that hybrid respondents had higher self-esteem and social competence, greater empathy, high levels of achievement motivation, high educational aspirations, low aggression and dominance, more egalitarian and gender role attitudes. Westkott (1989) concluded that the most powerful and successful corporate leaders appeared to be hybrid who were highly valued in feminine and masculine quality.
Youngs (2013) proposed that hybrid leadership was a process that improved the organizational performance by building employees capacity. Bourgeois (2013) argued that hybrid leadership was the blend of male and female leadership behaviors. Hybrid leadership involves in constructing employees ability that enhances organizational performance (Eden & Shamir, 2002). Korabik (1990) claimed that hybrid leadership was composed of instrumental and proactive traits. These traits not only help leaders to develop relationship with employees but also enhance their capacity to deal with cumbersome tasks.
Reevees (2010) proposed employees capacity building as the
improvement in organizational citizenship behavior,
commitment teams, collaborations, facilitation, human
resources, and reporting system. A lot of studies have been
conducted on various aspects of employees’ capacity building. According to Ehrahim (2008) employees capacity building related to several areas of work including: improved human resources, collaboration, evaluation, advocacy, positioning, and planning. Tuggle& Peebles (2013) proposed that employees’ capacity building might relate to training/speaking abilities, technical skills, organizing skills, and other areas of personal and professional development. Hybrid leadership is primarily focused on follower’s development (Sargent, 2007).

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 37

ISSN 2229-5518

Instrumental and expressive traits represent masculine and feminine personality characteristics that are discovered at varying levels in both genders, with instrumentality representing masculine traits and expressiveness representing feminine traits (Jolson and Comer 1997). Sargent (2007) argued that both instrumental and expressive traits were critical for managerial effectiveness. Bourgeoeis (2013) stated that instrumentality tended to be associated with men as expressiveness with women. Thus, male leadership style was attributed as rational, analytical and problem-solving. Although these were exceedingly valuable traits yet male leaders needed to be expressive in understanding the feelings of their subordinates. On the other hand, female leaders need to inculcate the qualities of instrumentality in them and this blend of instrumental and expressive traits create synergic impact on followers’ performance (Youngs, 2013).
Figure 1 Conceptual model

Source:Literature based

Employees Capacity

Building

Hybrid

Instrumental (masculine trait) has a great influence on aptitude of employees (Richard & Blair, 2006). Prior research suggested that problem solving approach of leaders strengthened the competence of followers (Richard & Blair,
2006). An environment of respect for employees, a guiding
concern by leaders and support in crisis boost the morale of
employees lead to increasing their performance (Currie &
Lockett, 2011). The employees’ commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior increases under the supervision of those leaders who guide them in crises situations (Manor &Kark, 2012). These characteristics of hybrid leaders are highly valued and supported by followers in increasing their commitment and performance capacity. Considerable attention has been paid to identifying leader’s personality characteristics that predict higher levels of performance (Eagly, Johannesen& Engen,2003). Several psychological traits have already been proposed relative to their impact on employees commitment for the organization (Denissen et al., 2011; Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006).One such trait receiving attention was the examination of expressive characteristic (Jolson and Comer, 1997). Richard & Blair (2006) proposed that leaders high in expressiveness had greater sensitivity in social and organizational settings and thus were in a better position to guide their followers. Such hybrid leader’s trait is supported by followers and

Leadership

Organizational

Commitment

Organizational Citizenship

Behavior

materialized in the form of strong organizational commitment.
H2: There is a relationship between hybrid leadership style
and organizational commitment
Organisational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) can be
understood as individual behaviors that are voluntary, and
are not directly or explicitly defined by the formal reward system. Over time, they promote the efficacious and efficient functioning of organizations (Organ, 1988). In a recent meta analysis (Podsakoff, Whiting, &Blume, 2009), carried out with
168 independent samples, it was found that OCBs were
The relationship between hybrid leadership and employees’ capacity building is explained in different research streams. Mitchell (2002) argued that a company’s employees were potential stakeholders who took ownership of the company not only for their own benefits but also for the performance of the company. Richard et al (2009) proposed that follower’s capacity and knowledge could be acknowledged as possible antecedents of leader’s traits. It is not surprising that hybrid leaders adding value to the employee’s capacity building that promote organizational performance (Tian, 2013). Bourgeois (2013) argued that followers were more satisfied with leaders who exercised various leadership traits. Bourgeois (2013) findings revealed that there existed not only a direct link between hybrid leaders and employee’s capacity building but it also promoted organizational functioning. Brown (1979) discovered that there was a direct effect of hybrid leaders on follower’s capacity to perform their jobs effectively. Thus,
H1: There is relationship between hybrid leadership and employees’ capacity building
related to a series of organizational benefits such as productivity, efficiency, cost reduction, client satisfaction, and decrease in employee turnover. According to Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000), OCB affects the efficacy and efficiency of organizations. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is behavior,largely discretionary, and seldom included in formal job descriptions, that supports task performance by enhancing a social and psychological work environment. (Zhang ,2011).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is largely
discretionary, and seldom included in formal job descriptions, that supports task performance by enhancing a social and psychological work environment (Zhang,2011).Transformational leaders motivate followers by getting them to internalize and prioritize a larger collective cause over individual interests. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated to fulfill a collective vision without expecting immediate personal and tangible gains may be inclined to contribute toward achieving the shared workplace goal in ways that their roles do not prescribe. These

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 38

ISSN 2229-5518

individuals make these contributions because their senses of self-worth and/or self-concepts are enhanced in making these contributions. Individuals for whom this link between the interests of self and others has not been established are less likely to make largely discretionary, non-tangibly rewarded contributions. A positive association between transformational leadership and OCB is expected and has been supported empirically (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) has garnered much academic attention since its conception. It is perceived to be something intangible; OCB is not always formally recognized or rewarded, and concepts like ‘helpfulness’ or
‘friendliness’ are also difficult to quantify. Yet OCB has been shown to have a considerable positive impact at the
organizational level, enhancing organizational effectiveness from 18 to 38% across different dimensions of measurement (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine &Bachrach, 2000; Ehrhart,
2004).The Instrumental Leadership can encourage OCB in various ways if deployed effectively (Organ et al., 2006),
though the quality of leader-member exchange (LMX) is also important Good quality LMX (which is simply the exchange relationship and manner of interaction between a superior and subordinate) is characterized by mutual trust and liking, and both parties feel inclined to reciprocate courteous and altruistic acts, which facilitates OCB. The present investigation, therefore, proposes to advance our conceptual understanding as
H3: There is relationship between hybrid leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 SAMPLE

The data for the study is collected from public and private organizations from the twin cities of Islamabad/Rawalpindi. The sample size of the study was 122 male leaders working in strategic positions such as deans, departmental heads of various universities of Islamabad/Rawalpindi and top and middle level managers of manufacturing corporations of the twin cities.

3.2 PROCEDURE

For data collection, survey based questionnaires were distributed among one hundred and fifty respondents comprising of strategic leaders of different organizations located in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Before administering the questionnaire all the questions were explained to the respondents, so that respondents filled in the questionnaires easily and comfortably. One questionnaire was given to each respondent. Out of 150 questionnaires distributed 130 questionnaires were received. From those 130 questionnaires 8 were not properly filled and excluded from analysis. The survey have tried to gauge how hybrid leaders having traits of instrumentality and expressiveness deal with their subordinates and how it impacts on the capacity building of employees specifically in enhancing their organizational citizenship behavior. The survey was administered during office hours. The participants were selected randomly. This
means that the distribution was random and no individual will specifically be targeted while administering the surveys. Mid and lower level managers whenever deems necessary, was requested for facilitation in the distribution and collection of the questionnaires.

3.3 MEASUREMENT

Different scales were used to measure the variables. In section one; the nominal scale was used for first three questions. The scale used to measure section two of the questionnaire. The instrumentality and expressiveness was measured by using four items each including masculine and feminine traits (Spence, Helmreich&Stapp, 1973). The employees commitment was measured by using eight items from a scale developed (Meyer & Allen, 1991; 1997). The employees citizenship behaviour was measured by using eight items by a scale developed (Dalal, 2005; Spector, Bauer, & Fox, 2010). The variables were measured based on 5 point Likert scales ranging from 1-5 that shows that 1 means highly agreed and 5 highly disagreed. The data collection was found to be a tedious job generally and more difficult in developing economies like Pakistan.

4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

RELIABILITY SCALE

Table 1 Cronbach’s Alpha
According to Cohen (2006) for reliability analysis the cronbach’s alpha should be more than 0.59. The Table- 1 shows the values of Cronbach’s Alpha which demonstrates the reliability of data. As leaders’ instrumental expressiveness, employees capacity building, and organisationalcommitment andorganisational citizenship possess the values of Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.690, 0.71, 0.760 and 0.666 respectively. It shows that the research instrument and its results are reliable.

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 39

ISSN 2229-5518


Table 2 Descriptive Statistics
N Min Max Mean Sd
Hybrid
leadership 122 1.56 4.63 3.536 0.7238
Employees
Capacity 122 1.65 4.52 3.492 0.7134 building
Instrumntl 122 1.55 4.64 3.555 0.7318 expressive
Org com 122 1.75 4.65 3.581 0.7356
Org citizn 122 1.38 4.62 3.491 0.7119
Table 2 shows mean value of hybrid leadership and instrumental expressiveness are 3.536 and 3.555 which is closer to the 4 and it’s told us that most of the respondents are agreed about this but these responses can be deviated by
0.7238 and .7318 from the average responses of respondents at
5 point Likert scale. The mean values of Employee capacity
building , organisational commitment and organisational citizenship are 3.492, 3.581 and 3.491 respectively which also show an agreed response by the respondents but these responses is deviated by 0.7134,. 0.7356 and 0.7119 from the average value of respondents at 5 point Likert scale.
Table 3 correlation matrix
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table- 3 depicts that hybrid leadership is positively associated with employees’ capacity building with a value of .856 which is strongly significant at 1%. The table also shows that organizational commitment is positively associated with instrumental expressiveness with a value of .856. Similarly,organizational citizenship behavior is positively associated with instrumental expressiveness with a value of
.842
Table- 4 Regression Model summary
a. Predictors:(Constant),Hybrid leadership
b. DependentVariable: employee capacity building
In Table- 4 R square depicts that hybrid leadership has 71.7% impact on organizational citizenship behavior which is a significantly high figure but justifiable in management sciences. Durbin-Watson is calculated to check out the nature of correlation exist among the variables, either correlation is positive, negative or zero. 1.532 is the value of Durbin- Watson which is less than 2 depict that there is significant positive correlation among the study variables.
Table- 5 Regression Model summary

Model

R

R

square

AdjustedR

Square

Std.

Error of

the

Estimate

Durbin-

Watson

.840

0.727

.703

0.39226

1.522

a. Predictors:(Constant),Hybrid leadership
b. DependentVariable:organisational commitment
In table- 5 R square depicts that hybrid leadership has 72.7% impact on organizational citizenship behavior which is also a significantly high figure confirming our proposition. Durbin- Watson is calculated to check out the nature of correlation exist among the variables, either correlation is positive, negative or zero. 1.522 is the value of Durbin-Watson which is less than 2 depict that there is significant positive correlation among the study variables.
Table- 6 Regression Model summary

Model

R

R

square

AdjustedR

Square

Std.

Error of the Estimate

Durbin-

Watson

.830

0.724

.701

0.38126

1.612

a. Predictors:(Constant),Hybrid leadership
b. DependentVariable: Organisational citizenship

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 40

ISSN 2229-5518

1 Constant
Hybrid leadership
.568 .184
.796 .041 0.766
Table 7 Regression Model Summary
a.Predictors:(Constant),Instrumental expressiveness b.DependenVariable:Organisational commitment
Furthermore, to check the impact of instrumental expressiveness on organisational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment ,a multiple regression analysis was applied with Durbin-Watson for analyzing the nature of correlation among variables. Table 4-7 elaborates the results in this regard. R square depicts the total variation in the dependent variable organisational commitment due to the impact of independent variable (instrumental expressiveness). It shows that the independent variable has 75.7% impact on organisational commitment.
Table-8 Regression model summary
a.Predictors:(Constant),Instrumental expressiveness b.DependenVariable:organisational commitment
In table- 8 R square depicts that instrumental and expressiveness has 72.9% impact on organizational citizenship behavior which is again a significantly high figure but justifiable in management sciences.
Table -9 Beta value

Model

Unstandardzd coff

Stand coff

B S.E

Beta

1 Constant

Instrueexpress

.578 .184

.796 .051

0.876

Dependent Variable: Organizational commitment
Dependent Variable: Organizational citizenship
Dependent Variable: Organizational citize
Table-9 shows the beta values of under study variables which depict the individual influence of independent variable on the dependent variable. Table shows that the instrumental expressiveness has strong influence on organizational commitment as it carried the value .876. Instrumental expressiveness has also strong impact on organizational citizenship but it was less than the organizational commitment as it carried the value .842. The hybrid leadership has also strong influence on employees’ capacity building as it carried the value .776. Thus our hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 respectively supported our findings. Colinearity had also been checked as tolerance value is 1 (less than 5) and VIF value is 1(less than 10) which depicts that there is no collinearity exist in the data.

5 DISCUSSION

This study reveals that hybrid leadership is positively associated with employees capacity building which is strongly significant at 1%. Organizational commitment is positively associated with instrumental expressiveness
.Organizational citizenship is also positively associated with
instrumental expressiveness. This finding states that instrumental and expressiveness of leader plays a vital role in increasing employees capacity building. ((Eden & Shamir,
2002).The study confirms that capability is greater among those leaders who are both instrumental and expressive in
dealing with followers. The study further confirms that higher the leaders instrumental and expressive the greater the employees organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. The present finding states that organizations need to rebuild employee trust. They need to find new ways to reconnect the employee/leader relationship.
Hybrid leadership expects from their followers to perform at optimal level (Sargent, 2007). Leaders who possess both the masculine and feminine traits wish their followers to construct aptitude and improve the organizational performance (Bolden, 2011). Prior research suggested that problem solving approach of leaders strengthened the competence of followers (Richard & Blair, 2006). An environment of respect for employees, a guiding concern by leaders and support in crisis boost the morale of employees lead to increasing their performance (Park, 1997). Followers usually willing to work under the supervision of those leaders who guide them in baffling situations (Manor &Kark, 2012).This study concludes that male leadership style was attributed as rational, analytical and problem-solving. Although these were exceedingly valuable traits yet male leaders needed to be expressive in

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 41

ISSN 2229-5518

understanding the feelings of their subordinates. On the other hand, female leaders need to inculcate the qualities of instrumentality in them and this blend of instrumental and expressive traits create synergic impact on followers’ performance (Youngs, 2013). Bourgeoeis (2013) stated that instrumentality tended to be associated with men as expressiveness with women. Thus, blend of these two characteristics would increase the employee capacity building. To check out the impact of leaders’ instrumental and Expressiveness behavior on employees’ organizational citizenship and organisational commitment we used Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis. These tests had been applied to check out the extent of relation which existed between the under observation variables. Then the Descriptive statistics had also been applied in which we find the mean and standard deviation to check out that the inclination of study respondents and then finally Cronbach’s Alpha was known to check out that how much reliable was the survey questionnaire.

6 CONCLUSIONS

After analyzing the data the study reached to the conclusion of the first hypothesis that there is significant relationship between hybrid leadership and employee capacity building at the value of 0.846.Similarly,hybrid leadership style is significantly correlated with Organisational commitment and citizenship behavior with values 0.856 and 0.842 respectively. The findings and analysis presented above are important for two reasons. First, this study makes contribution to ongoing extensive research on a new leadership style i.e. hybrid leadership. Second, this research study measures the impact of blend of masculine-feminine (instrumental and expressive) traits on employees’ capacity building in public and private organizations in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Manor &Kark (2012) stated that followers usually willing to work under the supervision of those leaders who guide them in tackling baffling situations. Similarly, Bem (1974) quoted that an environment of respect for employees, a guiding concern by leaders and support in crisis boast the morale of employees. Based on these assumptions, Richard & Blair (2006) stated that instrumental (masculine trait) has a great influence on aptitude of employees. According to Richard & Blair (2006), problem solving (Instrumentality) approach of leaders enhances the competence of followers. These characteristics of hybrid leaders are highly valued and supported by followers in increasing their commitment and performance capacity. Besides instrumentality trait, there is another trait in our investigation which is receiving extensive attention now a days was the examination of expressive characteristic (Jolson and Comer, 1997). Richard & Blair (2006) proposed that leaders high in expressiveness had greater sensitivity in social and organizational settings and thus were in a better position to guide their followers.
Nonetheless, the results of this study propose that blend of
both masculine and feminine leader’s personality
characteristics predict higher levels of performance of
employees which in turns increase the employees’ capacity building. Such hybrid leader’s traits are supported by followers and are materialized in the form of strong organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Prior studies have focused separately on these traits but in this study we have made a blend of these characteristics in order to observe their impact on employees’ capacity building vis a vis organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Based on the results of this study, we observed a significant correlation between hybrid leadership and employees’ capacity building. Thus, hypotheses H1 H2 and H3 are accepted and upheld respectively..

7 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study can help the leaders to understand the employees thinking towards the leader . They will realize the importance of instrumental expressive behavior which can be very effective satisfying the employees commitment and developing sense of citizenship in them. In so far as perceptions of leadership performance are important, leaders at both senior and immediate levels are advised to tie employee success to organizational success. For senior leaders, implementing strategy successfully and making the organization successful are important drivers of employee engagement. For immediate managers, key engagement drivers include showing employees how their work contributes and giving them the support they need to do their job well. So, leaders instrumental expressiveness can play an astounding role in making employees company man.

8 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

The current investigation demonstrated that hybrid leadership is important in enhancing employees’ capacity building. However, the research is not without certain limitations. One of the limitations is that hybrid leaders on employees capacity building has been testified using a sample of respondents from two cities of Pakistan i.e. Rawalpindi and Islamabad, which does not allow variation across different cities in our sample and raises some problems concerning the generalizability of our findings. Secondly, our theory and hypothesis are not bounded by cultural characteristics; it would be informative to examine how our results generalize to other cultural contexts. Thus, the findings do not provide strong basis to assert that the pattern of employees’ capacity building may also hold across the world. Future research might examine the effectiveness of the blend of proactive and reactive traits of leaders and their impact on employees’ performance criteria. The future research might include in the sample both male and female respondents and examine how it affects gender leadership.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to his supervisor Associate. Prof. Dr. Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmed who gave his support, guidance, encouragements and insights

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 42

ISSN 2229-5518

throughout the preparation of this paper.The author would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Ajmal Waheed for their suggestions and comments and his support through out the study.The author is also grateful to his parents , for their support and encouragement.

References

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐exam ini ng the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4),
441-462.
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A
Review of Theory and Research.
Bourgeois, T. (2013). The hybrid leader: Blending the best of the male and female leadership styles. Winchester, VA: Oakhill Press.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Brown, S. M. (1979). Male versus female leaders: A
comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles, 5(5), 595-
611.
Cardno, C., &Youngs, H. (2013). Leadership Development for Experienced New Zealand Principals Perceptions of Effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 256-271.
Currie, G., & Lockett, A. (2011). Distributing Leadership in Health and Social Care: Concretive, Conjoint or Collective.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B.
(2007). A multilevel study of leadership,
empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Engen, M. L.
(2003). Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-
Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing
Women and Men. Psychological Bulletin.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly.
Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration
Harris, A. C. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration.
Hasenfeld, Y., &Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi- purpose hybrid voluntary organizations: The
contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society. The gender model revisited: Differences in the management styles of men and women. Sex Roles.
Korabik, K. (1990). Androgyny and leadership style. Journal of
Business Ethics.
Korabik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers'
conflict management style and leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29(5-6), 405-420.
Lengua, L. J., &Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, Gender Roles, and Personality: Gender Differences in the Prediction of Coping and Psychological Symptoms. Sex Roles.
Manar and Kark (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender role, transformational leadership and identification. The leadership quarterly, 23(3),620-640.
Mustafa, G., & Lines, R. (2012). The triple role of values in
culturally adapted leadership styles. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
1470595812452636.
Pan, D., & Howard, Z. (2010). Distributing leadership and cultivating dialogue with collaborative EBIP. Library Management.
Porter, N., Geis, F. L., Cooper, E., & Newman, E. (1985).
Androgyny and leadership in mixed-sex
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: Free Press.
Sargent, A. G. (2007). Training Men and Women for Androgynous Behaviors in Organizations. Group & Organization Management.
Sargent, A. G. (2007). The Androgynous Manager. Nursing
Management (springhouse).
Salminen, V., &Tammela, J. (2009). Building Leadership for
Life Cycle Business Transition by Hybrid Innovation.
Sparrowe, R. T., &Soetjipto, B. W. (0). Do Leaders' Influence
Tactics Relate to Members'.Helping Behavior? It Depends on the Quality of the Relationship. Eagly, A. H., &Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The Leadership Styles of Women and Men. Journal of Social Issues.
Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X.-a., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of business ethics, 116(3), 629-640.

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 12, December-2014 43

ISSN 2229-5518

Westkott, M. (1989). Female relationality and the idealized self. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49(3),
239 250.

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org