Background: Measurement of financial performance of enterprises is an important part of balanced scorecard system. Previous research has indicated a relationship between leadership and financial performance of enterprises.
Objectives: Purpose of the paper is to investigate the impact of leadership styles in Croatian enterprises to their financial performance.
Methods/Approach: Survey research has been conducted on the sample of Croatian companies, measuring their financial performance and presence of leadership styles.
Results: Overall, democratic style is the most often present in Croatian enterprises, followed by the authoritarian and laissez-faire styles.
Conclusions: Small enterprises are more successful financially in the presence of the democratic style. Enterprises in the stagnation phase are more successful if all leadership styles are mixed together in practice, indicating the need to push the employees with all possible styles. Enterprises oriented towards international markets are more successful financially in the presence of the democratic style and the laissez-faire style.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Eljelly A. M. (2004) “Liquidity-profitability tradeoff: An empirical investigation in an emerging market” International journal of commerce and management Vol. 14 No. 2 pp. 48-61.
2. Griffin D. (2002). The emergence of leadership: Linking self-organization and ethics Psychology Press London.
3. Kang W. Montoya M. (2014) “The impact of product portfolio strategy on financial performance: The roles of product development and market entry decisions” Journal of Product Innovation Management Vol. 31 No. 3 pp. 516-534.
4. Koontz H. Weihrich H. (1990). Essentials of Management McGraw-Hill New York.
5. Kovach J. J. Hora M. Manikas A. Patel P. C. (2015) “Firm performance in dynamic environments: The role of operational slack and operational scope” Journal of Operations Management Vol. 37 pp. 1-12.
6. Miloloža I. (2015a) “Relation of leadership and business performance: balanced scorecard perspective” Interdisciplinary Management Research IX Ekonomski fakultet u Osijeku Hochschule Pforzheim University Osijek Pforzheim pp. 159-171.
7. Miloloža I. (2015b) “Impact of Leadership Style to the BusinessPerformance: Balanced Scorecard Approach” in Baćović M. Milković M. Pejić Bach M. Peković S. (Eds) Proceedings of theENTERNOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conferece Udruga za promicanje inovacija i istraživanja u ekonomiji Zagreb pp. 222-227.
8. Miloloža I. (2015c) “Leadership Differences: Internationalization Size and Development” in Baćović M. Milković M. Pejić Bach M. Peković S. (Eds) Proceedings of theENTERNOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conferece Udruga za promicanje inovacija i istraživanja u ekonomiji Zagreb pp. 339-346.
9. Niven P. (2007). Balanced Scorecard: Korak po korak Masmedia Zagreb.
10. Northouse P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice Sage Thousand Oaks.
11. Parast M. M. Golmohammadi D. Mcfadden K. L. Miller J. W. (2015) “Linking business strategy to service failures and financial performance: Empirical evidence from the US domestic airline industry” Journal of Operations Management Vol. 38 pp. 14-24.
12. Parmenter D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): developing implementing and using winning KPIs John Wiley & Sons New York.
13. Pejic Bach M. Knežević B. Strugar I. (2006) “Strategic Decision Making in Human Resource Management Based on System Dynamics Model” WSEAS Transactions on Systems Vol. 5 No. 1 pp. 285-288.
14. Pejic Bach M. Simic N. Merkac M. (2013) “Forecasting Employees' Success at Work in Banking: Could Psychological Testing Be Used as the Crystal Ball?” Managing Global Transitions Vol. 11 No. 3 pp. 283-299.
15. Rožman M. Treven S. Čančer V. (2017) “Motivation and Satisfaction of Employees in the Workplace” Business systems research journal Vol. 8 No. 2 pp. 14-25.
16. Westerfield R. J. (2003). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance McGraw Hill Boston.