Leader perfectionism: Does a leader’s continuous high criteria

on employees affect their performance?

Introduction
Employee performance refers to what they are expected to do or not do (Asbari,
Hidayat and Purwanto, 2021). Employee performance is strongly related to the
outcomes of an individual's job in a firm or organization (Kuswati, 2020). Individual
job success has an impact on overall organizational performance. Thus, boosting
individual job performance is critical for strengthening the organization's core
competency. In the long run, the benefits of increased employee performance
provide a durable competitive advantage that has a significant impact on a
company's survival and growth (Kalogiannidis, 2020). As a result, leaders have a
perfectionistic propensity toward their employees (leader perfectionism) by setting
unusually continuous high criteria for them (Linna, Zhi, Ming, et al., 2021). Setting
lofty goals and executing flawlessly is widely valued and coveted, particularly in
Western societies; as a response, a certain level of perfectionism is virtually taken for
granted (Otto, Geibel and Kleszewsk, 2021). Many executives have demonstrated
perfectionism in recent years, that is, establishing and chasing overly high
performance criteria (shanghao, Xiaoxuan, et al., 2022). Therefore, some
organisational managers have concentrated on perfectionism in business leadership,
but research on this topic is scarce. Most are research studies exploring several
different aspects of perfectionism ------ self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-
oriented perfectionism (e.g., Otto, Geibel and Kleszewski, 2021; Kleszewski and Otto,
2018), however, there is a lack of research on the impact of perfectionist leaders
who consistently set high standards for their subordinates on employee
performance. It is not possible to determine whether a perfectionist leader is a
facilitator or a hindrance to employee performance. This research will adopt the
regulatory focus theory as moderator to investigate two questions. The first is the
mechanism of influence, and the second is the difference in the degree of influence
of followers facing different focuses.

Literature review
Perfectionism, a common personality trait, is defined by “demanding of oneself or
others a higher quality of performance than is required by the situation” (Hollender,
1965). It is usually divided into three dimensions, self-oriented, socially prescribed,
and other-oriented perfectionism (Otto, Geibel and Kleszewski, 2021). Perfectionism
is frequently regarded as a positive characteristic in the professional and business
worlds, allowing an employee to aim for a flawless performance/product
(Beheshtifar, Mazrae-Sefidi and Nekoie Moghadam, 2011). This study concentrated
on leaders' perfectionism toward their employees, which falls under the category of
other-oriented perfectionism. This dimension explains an important interpersonal
type of perfectionism that necessitates excessive requirements and expectations
towards everyone else rather than the individual (Otto, Geibel and Kleszewski, 2021).
Perfectionism is defined here as leaders who consistently set exceptionally high
standards for their employees and demand that they meet these standards, and
expecting them to give the finest possible outputs without faults or defects, desiring
perfect behaviour from their employees. Perfectionism is a related personal
distinction in leadership conduct (Otto, Geibel and Kleszewski, 2021). Leader
perfectionism may have a positive impact on employee performance or it may have a
negative effect. Indirect evidence suggests that the quest of perfection improves
involvement, active problem-focused response, and creative behavior (Linna, Zhi,
Ming, et al., 2021), all of which can boost employee performance. But at the same
time, perfectionism can result in stress, procrastination, avoidance, sluggish decision
making, inflexibility, social sensitivity issues, and other negative outcomes (
Beheshtifar, Mazrae-Sefidi and Nekoie Moghadam, 2011), which can impede
employee performance improvement. Leader perfectionism is different from
transformational leadership. Transformational leadership seeks to increase inner
drive by providing people with a greater sense of direction in their work; its leaders
adhere to moral norms and prioritise group interests over individual interests (Otto,
Geibel and Kleszewski, 2021). Leader perfectionism is also distinguished from abusive
supervision, which emphasizes the leader's control over their subordinates and can
stimulate abusive leadership behaviors (Guo, Chiang, Mao and Chien, 2020). But
perfectionist leaders do not become hostile or aggressive towards employees.

In the workplace, stress is triggered by a mix of high job requirements and a lack of
control over the circumstances (Soegoto and Narimawat, 2017). Perfectionism in
leaders can put pressure on employees, and enhances the need for self-regulation.
The regulatory focus theory is used to examine whether perfectionist leaders have a
promotional or impeding effect on employee performance. It describes how people
participate in self-regulation, or the procedure of aligning oneself with one's
standards and goals, and people perhaps participate in self-regulation with a
promotion or prevention focus at any given moment (Brockne, Higgins and Low,
2004). People are inspired if they are focused on promotion. They make an effort to
align their actual selves with their ideal selves. If prevention is the focus, people
respond to security requirements by attempting to fit their actual selves with their
ought selves. The nature and extent of people's emotional experiences are effected
by their regulatory focus (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). For employees who
promotion focus, it may be possible to regulate stress more effectively and turn it
into motivation. Perfectionistic leaders' high expectations and focus on perfection
highlight the disparity between existing and desired states and present an obstacle
for superior outcomes, which could increase employee engagement by investing
their personal resources exhaustively and vigorously into their job (Linna, Zhi, Ming,
et al., 2021). As a result, employee performance is improved. And for employees with
a prevention focus, they may not be able to self-regulate effectively, bringing about
physical and emotional exhaustion. Perfectionistic leaders' constant attention on
supremacy and abhorrence to flaws can create performance stresses and emotional
torment in their employees (Linna, Zhi, Ming, et al., 2021). Work performance suffers
as a consequence.

Method
This study will be targeting a number of high-technology companies and using a
questionnaire method to collect data. This background was chosen because the high-
tech industry is the primary engine of economic development in almost every
country on the planet. To increase competitiveness, companies in this sector must
have excellent employee performance (Mei-Ying and Yi-Ru, 2011). Moreover,
questionnaires are an objective way to gather information about participants’
knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors (Boynton and Greenhalgh, 2004).
Continuous leader-subordinate conversations expose employees to their leaders'
perfectionism while also permitting leaders to notice their subordinates' work
performance (Linna, Zhi, Ming, et al., 2021). 40 leaders will be randomly selected
with the support of the company, while 140 subordinates will be randomly selected
from under these leaders. This study is open to both leaders and employees. And it
will be conducted at two points in time using an online questionnaire tool that allows
for quick and efficient results. This method was also adopted in the study by Linna,
Zhi, Ming, et al., 2021------ “Leader Perfectionism—Friend or Foe of Employee
Creativity? Locus of Control as a Key Contingency”.

At time point 1, a questionnaire was administered to leaders including personal

information (e.g. gender, age, position, etc.), the Perfectionism Scale (APS-R) (judging
oneself). The questionnaire was also administered to employees and included
personal information (e.g. gender, age, education, length of service, etc.), the
Perfectionism Scale (APS-R) (judging the leader), and questions related to personal
self-regulation control. At time point 2, the questionnaire was administered to
leaders to include questions related to assessing employee performance, reporting
on their engagement, participation, physical decline, emotional anxiety, work
difficulty, etc.

Moreover, Prior to sending the questionnaire, it is planned to send an email to

participants explaining the research and providing assurance of credibility. The
questionnaire will combine opened questions and closed questions (with a larger
proportion of closed-ended questions). Closed question are easy to clarify meanings,
allow participants to answer more quickly and facilitate the analysis of results for
comparison, however, opened questions also have the advantages that allow
participants to answer questions without restriction and allow for unusual responses
(Winterton, 2008). For the sake of data availability, the questionnaire will be
distributed to participants from several companies at the same time, with the note
"Please fill in truthfully, information will be kept confidential". After the
questionnaire has been sent, a reminder to complete the questionnaire will be sent
by email so that participants do not forget.

Execution Plan and Gantt Plot

The execution plan for this study mainly includes the following important phases:
1. Preparation stage: identification of research topic, question and method
2. Proposal stage: reading relevant literature, organising ideas and completing the
proposal
3. Ongoing stage: continued reading of literature, design questionnaire,
communication with tutor, refinement of dissertation
4. Presentation stage: complete the PPT and other work required, and finish the
interim presentation
5. Final stage: refine FYP based on feedback, analyse data and evaluate, extend
discussion and complete final draft dissertation
9/13/2022 11/2/2022 12/22/2022 2/10/2023 4/1/2023

Preparation 13

Proposal 37

Ongoing 172

Interim Presentation 10

Final 43

(words: 1423)

Reference List

Asbari, M., Hidayat, D. D., & Purwanto, A. (2021). Managing employee performance:
From leadership to readiness for change. International Journal of Social and
Management Studies, 2(1), 74-85 (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Beheshtifar, M., Mazrae-Sefidi, F., & Nekoie Moghadam, M. (2011). Role of

perfectionism at workplace. European Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Sciences, 38, 167-173 (Accessed: 2 November 2022).
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004). Selecting, designing, and developing your
questionnaire. Bmj, 328(7451), 1312-1315. (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the
study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 86(1), 35-66 (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the
entrepreneurial process. Journal of business venturing, 19(2), 203-220 (Accessed: 2
November 2022).

Guo, L., Chiang, J. T. J., Mao, J. Y., & Chien, C. J. (2020). Abuse as a reaction of
perfectionistic leaders: A moderated mediation model of leader perfectionism,
perceived control, and subordinate feedback seeking on abusive supervision. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(3), 790-810 (Accessed: 2
November 2022).

Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive psychiatry, 6(2), 94-103

(Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Kalogiannidis, S. (2020). Impact of effective business communication on employee

performance. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(6)
(Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Kleszewski, E., & Otto, K. (2018). When Leaders Expect Perfection: Linking Other-
Oriented Perfectionism, the Dark Triad and Servant Leadership. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42(3), 477-490 (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Kuswati, Y. (2020). The effect of motivation on employee performance. Budapest

International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social
Sciences, 3(2), 995-1002 (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Mei-Ying, W., & Yi-Ru, L. (2011). The effects of internal marketing, job satisfaction and
service attitude on job performance among high-tech firm. African Journal of
Business Management, 5(32), 12551-12562. (Accessed: 2 November 2022).

Otto, K., Geibel, H. V., & Kleszewski, E. (2021). “Perfect Leader, Perfect Leadership?”
Linking Leaders’ Perfectionism to Monitoring, Transformational, and Servant
Leadership Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 657394 (Accessed: 2 November
2022).

Soegoto, E. S., & Narimawati, U. (2017). The contribution of stress management and
good employee performance towards the success of a company. The Open
Psychology Journal, 10(1) (Accessed: 2 November 2022).
Song, S., Chen, X., Wang, W., Bai, S., Xu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Does perfectionism in
leaders increase or impede team decision-making performance? Team level LMX as a
key factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 197, 111769 (Accessed: 2
November 2022).

Winterton, J. (2008). Business Research Methods ALAN BRYMAN and EMMA BELL.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. xxxii+ 786 pp.£ 34.99 (pbk). ISBN
9780199284986. Management Learning, 39(5), 628-632. (Accessed: 2 November
2022).

Xu L, Liu Z, Ji M, et al. Leader Perfectionism—Friend or Foe of Employee Creativity?

Locus of Control as a Key Contingency[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2021 (ja)
(Accessed: 2 November 2022).