Self-evaluation of leadership styles, communication styles, and organizational cultures among top managers

Abstract

Purpose. This descriptive study aimed to determine the leadership styles, communication styles, and organizational cultures and their relationship among the top managers. Methodology. A combination of the adopted and researcher-made questionnaires was utilized to gather the data among 115 department heads, deans, associate directors, directors, campus administrators, and vice presidents of one of the colleges in the Philippines. It was interpreted using frequency counts, percentage, mean, median, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation. Findings. Results revealed that most top managers “observed” authoritarian and laissez-faire leadership styles while “rarely observed” democratic. They “often observed” all communication styles, such as activist, pragmatist, theorist, and reflector. Also, they “mostly observed” accommodating organizational culture while often observed headstrong, precise, animated, introverted, convincing, and down-to-earth. There was a statistically significant relationship found between the following: laissez-faire leadership style and activist communication style; authoritarian leadership style and down-to-earth organizational culture; democratic leadership styleand down-to-earth organizational culture; laissez-faire leadership style and animated and convincing organizational cultures; activist communication style and headstrong, precise, animated, introverted, and convincing organizational cultures; reflector communication style and precise, animated, down-toearth, introverted, convincing, and accommodating organizational cultures; theorist communication styleand headstrong, precise, animated, introverted, and convincing organizational cultures; and, pragmatist communication style and all organizational cultures. Implications for practice. Top managers were embedded with various personalities and cultures. These differences did not constrain the connection towork harmoniously and effectively. Instead, it brought an opportunity to create a relationship that would link towards attaining the organizational goals. Value of the results. This paper used different leadership styles, communication styles, and organizational cultures that were excluded from the previous studies. The results will augment the existing literature on self-evaluation and leadership and management.