Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi
Journal Of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
2528-9705

https://doi.org/10.51847/3xix5orUCJ

THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A STUDY
OF THE AVIATION INDUSTRY
Cenk AKSOY1*, Ahmet AKAYDIN2
1School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
2Institute of Social Sciences, Dicle University, Turkiye.

*Corresponding Author
E-mail: drcenkaksoy@gmail.com

ABSTRACTThis research aimed to determine the effect of strategic leadership on employee performance among employees of aviationcompanies in Turkey. A questionnaire consisting of 47 questions, excluding demographic variables, was used to test themodel. Out of 350 questionnaires distributed, 316 valid responses were analyzed, representing a significant sample of theworkforce in the Turkish aviation industry. The data were analyzed using various statistical methods and test techniques,
including frequency distribution, reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), t-tests, ANOVA, linear regression,and correlation, with a significance level of 0.05. The research concluded that employees' perceptions of strategic leadershiphave a 43% effect on their performance, signifying a substantial influence. There is a positive moderate relationship between
these two concepts, reinforcing the importance of leadership in organizational outcomes. Furthermore, the study foundthat perceptions of strategic leadership vary according to some demographic variables, such as age and gender, highlighting
the diversity in how leadership is perceived across different segments of the workforce. This research contributes to thestrategic leadership literature by offering insights specific to the aviation sector, emphasizing the importance of specialized
leadership strategies to enhance employee performance in a dynamic and competitive industry.
Keywords: Strategic leadership, Employee performance, Organizational performance, Aviation industry.

INTRODUCTION
Performance evaluation has been a controversial and widely discussed topic in the field of
human resources management. It is an essential aspect of organizational success, as employee
performance is a fundamental measure of organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The
significance of individual employee performance cannot be overstated, as it plays a critical andvital role in determining the overall performance level of an organization. Therefore, employee
performance evaluation is a key objective measure for an organization's effectiveness andefficiency (Gülina & Yumuk Günay, 2020).
In this regard, the behavior of leaders is an essential determinant of enhancing employee
performance. Leaders play a critical role in directing human resources toward achievingorganizational goals, which is critical to overall organizational performance. Effective leadershipis, therefore, essential in improving employee performance, as it is the most significant andpivotal variable that affects employee performance in organizations (Cummings & Schwab,1973). The relationship between leadership characteristics, behaviors, and employeeGeliş tarihi/Recieved: 23.05.2024 – Kabul tarihi/Accepted: 16.08.2024 – Yayın tarihi/Published: 15.09.2024© 2024 Journal of Organizational Behavior Research. Open Access - This article is under the CC BY NC SA license(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

43

AKSOY & AKAYDIN

performance has been extensively studied, highlighting the importance of strategic leadershipin enhancing employee performance. Various studies have shown that leadership style has apositive and significant impact on employee performance, thereby enhancing organizational
performance (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Yılmaz & Karahan, 2010).
Despite the abundance of research on the relationship between leadership and employee
performance, there are few studies examining the role of strategic leadership on employee
performance, particularly in the aviation industry in Turkey. Strategic leadership is a complex
and multifaceted concept that is difficult to define and measure (Hancott, 2005). The strategic
leader is expected to envision, plan, and implement the organization's long-term goals andobjectives, in addition to directing and motivating employees to achieve these goals. Strategic
leadership involves the development and implementation of strategies that improveorganizational performance and enable the organization to adapt and thrive in a dynamic
business environment (Yukl, 2008).
Therefore, this study aims to fill this research gap by exploring the impact of strategic leadershipon employee performance among aviation company employees in Turkey. Specifically, the study
will investigate the perceptions of strategic leadership among aviation employees and the effectof these perceptions on employee performance. The study will contribute to the strategic
leadership literature, particularly in the aviation industry, which has received less attention in
the literature on organizational behavior. The findings of this research will be of greatsignificance to aviation organizations in Turkey, as it highlights the need for effective strategic
leadership practices to enhance employee performance and improve overall organizational
outcomes.

Theoretical Framework
Strategic Leadership
Strategic leadership is a critical component in the success of any organization (DuBrin, 2015).
It is a leadership approach that focuses on creating and implementing a long-term strategy thataligns with the organization's vision, mission, and values. Strategic leadership is not just about
creating a strategic plan but also about developing a strategic mindset that guides decisionmaking processes (Carpenter et al., 2001). Strategic leadership is crucial for the success of any
organization, as it helps the organization achieve its long-term goals and objectives (Tubbs &Schulz, 2006). Strategic leaders are responsible for creating and implementing a strategic planthat guides the organization's actions toward achieving its vision, mission, and values. Strategic
leadership is also important in providing direction and focus for the organization, enabling it toadapt to changes in the business environment, and ensuring that resources are allocatedeffectively. One of the key benefits of strategic leadership is its ability to enhance organizational
performance (Liu & Cao, 2020).
According to Liu and Cao (2020), strategic leadership is positively related to organizational
performance, as it helps to create a strategic vision, align organizational resources, and enhanceorganizational learning. Strategic leadership also helps to foster innovation and creativity within
the organization, as it encourages employees to think outside the box and develop new andinnovative solutions to problems. Strategic leaders possess several key characteristics that enable
them to effectively lead their organizations toward achieving their long-term goals and44 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi

Journal of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
objectives. One of the key characteristics of strategic leaders is their ability to think strategically(Carpenter et al., 2001). Strategic leaders have a long-term vision for their organizations andcan anticipate future trends and developments. They are also able to analyze complex
information and make decisions that align with the organization's strategic goals. Another key
characteristic of strategic leaders is their ability to communicate effectively. Strategic leaders areable to communicate their vision and strategic goals clearly and effectively to their employees,
stakeholders, and customers. They are also able to build strong relationships with theiremployees, stakeholders, and customers, which helps to create a positive organizational culture(Tubbs & Schulz, 2006).

Employee Performance
Employee performance is a critical aspect of organizational behavior, as it directly impacts the
success of an organization (Judge et al., 2001). Employee performance is defined as the extent
to which an employee performs their job duties effectively (Latham & Pinder, 2005). It is theprimary determinant of an employee's value to the organization and is a crucial factor in
determining employee satisfaction, retention, and promotion opportunities (Borman &Motowidlo, 1997).
There are several factors that influence employee performance. One of the most importantfactors is motivation (Judge et al., 2001). Motivated employees are more likely to perform wellon the job and strive for excellence in their work. Motivation can be achieved through various
means, such as providing recognition and rewards for good performance, setting clear andchallenging goals, and providing opportunities for growth and development (Latham & Pinder,2005). Another factor that influences employee performance is job satisfaction (Organ & Ryan,
1995). Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more likely to perform well and to becommitted to their organization. Job satisfaction can be enhanced by providing employees withchallenging and meaningful work, opportunities for professional growth, and a supportive work
environment (Judge et al., 2001). Organizational culture is also an important factor that
influences job performance (Schein, 2010). A positive organizational culture that values
employee contributions and encourages open communication can lead to higher levels of job
satisfaction and job performance. On the other hand, a negative organizational culture that
fosters mistrust, fear, and conflict can lead to lower levels of job satisfaction and job performance(Judge et al., 2001). In addition, the job itself can also influence employee performance. Job
design, including the allocation of tasks and responsibilities, can impact an employee's
motivation, job satisfaction, and overall job performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). A job thatis designed to be challenging, stimulating, and meaningful is more likely to result in higher levelsof job performance than a job that is mundane, repetitive, and unfulfilling. Finally, effective
leadership is essential for promoting employee performance in organizations (Judge et al.,2001). Leaders who are able to provide direction, support, and feedback to their employees canhelp to enhance motivation, job satisfaction, and employee performance. Effective leaders also
create a positive work environment that encourages collaboration, innovation, and continuous
learning (Lam & Gurland, 2018).

45

AKSOY & AKAYDIN

Relationship Between Strategic Leadership and Employee Performance
In the 1960s, it was widely believed that business managers had limited ability to make decisions
that would significantly impact business performance (Ireland & Hitt, 1999). However, as thevalue of leaders and leadership practices began to be understood in subsequent years, it became
increasingly recognized that leaders play a critical role in issues that directly affect employee
performance (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Indeed, leadership is a crucial determinant oforganizational effectiveness because leaders have the ability to shape the beliefs, behaviors,
attitudes, and performance of their team members, as well as influence the mission, strategy,
and goals of the organization itself (Suar et al., 2006).
In the 1980s, strategic leadership studies gained more prominence over managerial leadershipstudies, with researchers emphasizing the importance of leadership that focuses on the longterm direction and vision of the organization, rather than just day-to-day management (Boal &Hooijberg, 2001; Yukl, 2002). According to Ireland and Hitt (1999), effective strategic
leadership is essential for businesses to cope with the challenges of the global economy andachieve superior performance (Düzgün & Ataman, 2020). In fact, without strong strategic
leadership, the probability of a business achieving sustained success and growth is significantly
reduced.
In conclusion, the relationship between strategic leadership and employee performance is a
crucial factor that organizations need to consider attentively to succeed in the current
competitive and dynamic business environment. Effective strategic leadership can provide aclear direction and vision for the organization, inspire and motivate employees to perform attheir best, and ultimately drive superior performance and growth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Process and Sampling of the Research
To test the hypotheses and the model, a questionnaire with 47 questions was prepared, excluding
demographic variables. The population of the research consists of the employees of aviationcompanies holding the license of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (Turkey). The
questionnaire was created using Google Forms and sent to 350 employees via email. The
convenience sampling method was used in the research due to the resource and time constraints
caused by the difficulty of conducting research in the aviation industry. Of the 337 responses
received, 21 were excluded after coding and cleaning. A total of 316 scales were used foranalysis. By examining the studies of Bartlett et al. (2001) that determined the sample torepresent the universe, it was concluded that the number of participants in the study represented
the universe and was sufficient for generalizing about the universe.

Data Collection Tools
In addition to the demographic information form, two different scales were used to determine
the strategic leadership and performance perceptions of the employees.

Demographic Variables
The survey included demographic information about industry employees such as age, gender,
education level, marital status, and work experience.

46 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi

Journal of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
Strategic Leadership Scale
To measure the strategic leadership levels of managers in terms of employee perception, the“Strategic Leadership Questionnaire” (SLQ) was used. This scale was developed by Pisapia(2009) and translated into Turkish by Çoban (2016). The SLQ consists of five sub-dimensions(managerial leadership, ethical leadership, political leadership, transformational leadership,
relational leadership) and 35 items. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate the scale. The
answers given to the questions in this scale were evaluated with scores ranging from 1 to 5 andwere arranged as (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) partially agree, (4) agree, and (5)completely agree. The reliability of this scale was determined to be 0.95, indicating that the scaleis highly reliable.

Employee Performance Scale
To determine the level of employee performance of the participants, a scale consisting of 12
statements developed by Choo (1986) based on the participants' self-evaluation of theirperformance was used. A 5-point Likert-type rating was used, with ratings made as“unsatisfactory (1), need improvement (2), adequate (3), good (4), and excellent (5). Choo(1986), while developing this scale, determined that there was a strong positive correlation(r=0.86) between the scores obtained as a result of the self-evaluation of the employees and thescores obtained as a result of the evaluation of their supervisors. In addition, he concluded that
there was no significant difference between the mean scores of these two types. Due to thedifficulty of evaluating the performance of the employees who were surveyed by reaching theirsupervisors, the self-evaluation of the employees on this scale was preferred (Gürkanlar, 2010).
The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.85 in a study conductedby Ceylan and Ulutürk (2006). This scale was used in studies by Poznanski and Bline (1997),
Erkuş and Günlü (2009), Onay et al. (2011), and Hirlak et al. (2017).

Research Model and Hypotheses
After explaining the concepts of strategic leadership and employee performance, the following
hypotheses can be developed:
H1: There is a positive linear relationship between strategic leadership perceptions and employee
performance.
H2: Strategic leadership is an important factor in employee performance.
H3: Concepts differ in terms of demographic variables.
The following research model has been developed, which shows the relationship between theconcepts of strategic leadership and business performance from the hypotheses obtained fromthe literature (Figure 1).

47

AKSOY & AKAYDIN

Figure 1. Research Model

Data Analysis
The data was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 20.0, and various statistical methods
such as factor analysis (EFA), correlation, regression, t-test, and ANOVA were utilized. The
significance level of the study was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Information on demographic variables such as gender, age, marital status, educational status,
and work experience of the 316 participants was given in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic Variables
Variables

Frequency

Per. (%)

Variables

GenderFrequency

Per. (%)

Educational Status

Men

206

65,2

Primary and High School

101

31,9

Women

110

34,8

Associate Degree

132

41,8

Undergraduate- Postgraduate

83

26,3

Age
18-34

220

69,6

35-50

69

21,8

Less than 1 year

94

29,7

51 and over

27

8,5

1-5 years

151

47,8

6 years and over

71

22,5

Total

316

100

Marital Status
Married125

39,6Single191

60,4Work Experience

Reliability Analysis
According to Table 2, the observations in each scale are suitable for performing exploratory
factor analysis.
Table 2. Reliability Statistics
Groups

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

1. Strategic Leadership

0.947

35

2. Employee Performance

0.855

12

48 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi

Journal of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
Factor Analysis Exploratory EFA
According to the KMO and Bartlett test results, the Sig. value was found to be 0.000, which isless than 0.05, and the KMO coefficient was determined to be high (0.843 > 0.5). This suggeststhat the observed variables are correlated, and the EFA factor analysis is statistically appropriate.
Eigenvalues greater than 1 have 2 factors, and the resulting variance was found to be 68.957%,
which is statistically appropriate as it is greater than 50%.
Based on the exploratory factor analysis, the variables were combined into 2 factors, which isconsistent with the SLQ (35 items) and EP (12 items) groups when compared to the original
observed variables.

Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis results are given below to examine the relationship between strategic
leadership and employee performance.
Table 3. Correlation between Strategic Leadership and Employee Performance
1. Strategic Leadership
2. Employee Performance

Correlation Coefficient

1

2

1

0,654**
1

Table 3 shows that the relationship between strategic leadership and employee performance wasdetermined as 65%. Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1) of the research was accepted. As is seenin Table 3, there is a moderate positive linear relationship between strategic leadership andemployee performance.

Regression Analysis
According to the research model, the regression analysis was performed between the strategic
leadership and employee performance.
Table 4. Regression between Strategic Leadership and Employee Performance
Dependent Variable
Employee Performance

R2
0,428

Independent Variable
Strategic Leadership

B
0,228

Βeta
0,654

t
15,316p
0,000

According to the linear regression results in Table 4, the independent variables of strategic
leadership have a statistically significant (p<0.001) effect on the dependent variable of employee
performance. The level of the variables of strategic leadership explaining the variable ofemployee performance was determined as (R2 = 0.428).
It is understood from the values in column R2 in Table 4 that strategic leadership explained 43%of the variance of the dependent variable employee performance. In other words, employees'
performance perceptions were shaped depending on their strategic leadership perceptions by
43%. Therefore, the second hypothesis (H2) of the research was also accepted.
The analysis results of some demographic variables are presented below:
 When the differences in the perceptions of the employees on the variables according to theirage were examined, it was found that the Anova test values for the perception of strategic

49

AKSOY & AKAYDIN









leadership were F=5.021, p<0.05 and for the perception of employee performance was
F=2.281, p<0.05.
Accordingly, it was determined that there was a statistically significant (at the significancelevel of 0.05) difference between employees' strategic leadership perceptions and the age
variable. It is seen that the age range in which the average of employees' strategic leadership
perceptions is the highest in the age of 51 years and above. It is seen that the age range inwhich the average of employees' strategic leadership perceptions is the lowest is between theages of 35-50.
When the differences in the perceptions of the employees on the variables according to theirgender were examined, it was found that the t-test values for the perception of strategic
leadership were t=4.402, p>0.05, and for the perception of employee performance was
t=2.732, p>0.05.
Accordingly, a statistically significant (at the significance level of 0.05) difference wasobserved between employees' strategic leadership and employee performance perceptions
and the gender variable. It was seen that the average of male employees' strategic leadership
perceptions was higher than the average of female employees.
When the differences in the perceptions of the employees on the variables according to theirmarital status were examined, it was found that the t-test values for the perception ofstrategic leadership were t=2.598, p>0.05, and for the perception of employee performance
was t=1.596, p>0.05.
Accordingly, while a statistically significant difference was seen between employees' strategic
leadership perceptions and their marital status, no statistically significant (at the significancelevel of 0.05) difference was seen between their employee performance perceptions and theirmarital status. It is seen that the strategic leadership levels of single employees were higher
than the levels of married employees.
When the differences in the perceptions of the employees on the variables according to theireducational level were examined, it was found that the Anova test values for the perceptionof strategic leadership were F=3.483, p<0.05 and for the perception of employee
performance was F=1.710, p<0.05.
Accordingly, while a statistically significant difference was seen between employees' strategic
leadership perceptions and their educational status, no statistically significant (at thesignificance level of 0.05) difference was seen between their employee performance
perceptions and their educational status. It is seen that the average strategic leadership levelsof those with undergraduate and postgraduate were higher than the average of othergraduates and primary-high school graduate levels were lower average than othergraduates.
When the differences in the perceptions of the employees on the variables according to theirwork experience were examined, it was found that the Anova test values for the perceptionof strategic leadership were F=0.018, p<0.05 and for the perception of employee
performance, the Anova test values were F=0.383, p<0.05.
However, there was no statistically significant difference between employees' strategic
leadership and employee performance perceptions and their work experiences. These50 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi

Journal of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
findings suggest that work experience alone may not have a significant impact on how
employees perceive strategic leadership and their performance.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between strategic leadership and employee
performance among aviation company employees in Turkey. The results showed that there wasa statistically significant relationship between strategic leadership and employee performance.
The moderate degree of correlation indicated that strategic leadership had a significant effect on
employee performance. The first and second hypotheses of the study were accepted, while thethird hypothesis was partially accepted, as only strategic leadership perceptions were found todiffer based on demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, and educational levels.
The findings of this study are consistent with the results of previous studies, which have also
shown the positive impact of strategic leadership on employee performance. For example, Ziaud-Din et al. (2017) in their study on the impact of strategic leadership on employee
performance found that strategic leadership is important for creating a unique relationshipbetween management and employees to improve employee performance. The results of the study
by Setiawan and Yuniarsih (2018), which examined strategic leadership and employee
performance, show that strategic leaders influence by setting direction, motivation, andcommunication so that employee performance increases. In a similar study, Akça (2020)
examined the impact of strategic leadership on employee performance and found that theperception of strategic leadership is significant and important in enhancing employee
performance. Alvi et al. (2020) conducted their research to investigate the role of strategic
leadership on employee performance and indicated that strategic leadership has a positive
impact on employee productivity.
In conclusion, this study has contributed to the strategic leadership literature by examining theimpact of strategic leadership on employee performance in the aviation industry in Turkey. The
results suggest that organizations need to strengthen their strategic leadership practices toimprove employee performance. The findings of this research will be of great significance toaviation organizations in Turkey, as they highlight the importance of effective strategic
leadership practices in enhancing employee performance and improving overall organizational
outcomes.

Limitations of the ResearchThis study has some limitations, which are common in other studies. These include resource andtime limitations, the hesitant approach of employees in aviation companies, the limited sample
size, the non-random selection of the institution chosen as the sample for the research, and theinability to reach all employees. Furthermore, the subjectivity of individual performance
evaluation is also a limitation of this research. Finally, the lack of consensus in the literature on
strategic leadership concepts is another limitation.

Future Research Directions
Based on the results of the analysis, several suggestions can be made for further research. Futurestudies can examine the sub-dimensions of strategic leadership and their effects on employee

51

AKSOY & AKAYDIN

performance. Additionally, research can focus on senior employees to investigate the impact ofstrategic leadership on their performance. To improve the accuracy of the results, future studies
can also increase the sample size and conduct research within the same industry. Furthermore,similar research frameworks can be applied to different areas, such as banking, manufacturing,transportation, tourism, health, and education, among others.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I would like to extend my special thanks to Dr. Lukas Vartiak for his
invaluable support in the publication process.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None
FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None
ETHICS STATEMENT: None
References
Akça, M. (2020). Stratejik liderlik, performans ve örgütsel özdeşleşme: Havacılık işletmesi çalışanlarıüzerinde bir araştırma. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitü Dergisi, 13(34), 206-237.
Alvi, B., Haider, A., & Akram, M. (2020). The role of strategic leadership on employee performance withmediating effect of employee engagement: An empirical study of higher educational commission
employees. Global Educational Studies Review, 5(3), 253-262. doi:10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).26
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individualized consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A
multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining the appropriate
sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,
19(1), 43-50.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly,
11(4), 515-549.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaningfor personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B. (2001). Bundling human capital with organizational
context: The impact of international assignments on multinational firms. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(3), 493-511.
Ceylan, A., & Ulutürk, Y. H. (2006). Rol Belirsizliği, rol çatışması, iş tatmini ve performans arasındakiilişkiler. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 7(1), 48-58.
Choo, F. (1986). Job stress, job performance, and auditor personality characteristics. Auditing: A Journalof Practice and Theory, 5, 17-34.
Çoban, Ö. (2016). Millî eğitim bakanlığı merkez teşkilatı yöneticilerinin örgütsel değişimi yönetme
yeterlikleri ile stratejik liderlik davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış
Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.

52 Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları Dergisi

Journal of Organizational Behavior Research
Cilt / Vol.: 9, Sayı / Is.: 2, Yıl/Year: 2024, Sayfa/Pages: 42-53
Cummings, L. L., & Schwab, D. P. (1973). Performance in organizations: Determinants and appraisal.
Glenview: Scott, Foresman, and Company.
DuBrin, A. J. (2015). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Cengage Learning.
Düzgün, A., & Ataman, G. (2020). Stratejik liderlik, sosyal sermaye ve performans arasındaki ilişkiler.
İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 2161-2192.
Erkuş, A., & Günlü, E. (2009). İletişim tarzının ve sözsüz iletişim düzeyinin çalışanların iş performansına
etkisi: Beş yıldızlı otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20(1),7-24.
Gülina, Y., & Yumuk Günay, G. (2020). Presenteeism ve iş stresinin çalışan performansına etkisi: Tekstil
sektöründe bir uygulama. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 9(1), 91-106.
Gürkanlar, E. (2010). Esnek çalışma saatlerinin kadın çalışanların sosyal rolleri ve çalışma performansıüzerine etkileri-Akdeniz üniversitesinde bir araştırma. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Antalya.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hancott, D. E. (2005). The Relationship between transformational leadership and organizational
performance in the largest public companies in Canada. Doctoral Dissertation. Capella University,
Minneapolis.
Hırlak, B., Taşlıyan, M., Fidan, E., & Gül, H. (2017). Duygusal zekânın iş performansı ve bazı demografiközellikler ile ilişkisi: Kahramanmaraş’ta üretim sektöründe bir uygulama. Kesit Akademi Dergisi,(9), 108-130.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st
century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(1), 43-57.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.
Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. (2018). Leadership and employee performance: A review, proposed
framework, and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 271-286.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.001
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first
century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
Liu, B., & Cao, W. (2020). Strategic leadership and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Journalof Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 283-296.
Onay, M., Süslü, Z. H., & Kılcı, S. (2011). İletişim tarzının ve sözsüz iletişimin çalışanların iş
performansına etkisi: Posta dağıtıcıları ve hemşireler üzerine bir araştırma. SÜ İİBF Sosyal ve
Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(21), 139-175.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors oforganizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

53

AKSOY & AKAYDIN
Pisapia, J. (2009). The Strategic Leader New Tactics for a Globalizing World. Charlotte, North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing.
Poznanski, P. J., & Bline, D. M. (1997). Using structural equation modeling to investigate the causal
ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among staff accountants. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, Printed in USA, 9, 154-171.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Setiawan, Y., & Yuniarsih, T. (2018). Leadership strategic and employee performance. The International
Journal of Business Review (The Jobs Review), 1(1), 63-72. doi:10.17509/tjr.v1i1.12299
Suar, D., Tewari, H. R., & Chaturbedi, K. R. (2006). Subordinates perception of leadership styles and theirwork behavior. Psychology, and Developing Societies, 18(1), 95-114.
Tubbs, S. L., & Schulz, R. A. (2006). Strategic leadership: The essential skills. The Journal of Leadership
Studies, 10(3), 18-34.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & ve Christensen, A. L. (2011).
Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, selfefficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
Yılmaz, H., & Karahan, A. (2010). Liderlik davranışı, örgütsel yaratıcılık ve işgören performansı arasındakiilişkilerin incelenmesi: Uşak’ta bir araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 17(2), 145-158.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708722.
Zia-ud-Din, M., Shabbir, M. A., Asif, S. B., Bilal, M., & Raza, M. (2017). Impact of strategic leadershipon employee performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 7(6), 8-22. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i6/2938