Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 37

C TER V

VERIFICATION OF LEADERSHIP S REDDIN'S 3-D MODEL

5.1 INTRODUCTION

ES OF

5.2 LEADER BEHAWOUR CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION

5.3 LEADER BEHAVIOUR EMPIRICAL DATA DISCUSSION

5.4 CONCLUSION

5.1

INTRODUCTION

The leadership studies initiated In 1945 by the bureau of business

research at Ohio State University attempted to identify the leader behaviou

r. The inter disciplinary team of researchers from psychology, sociology, and

economics developed and used in "Leader Behaviour Description

Questionnaire" to analyse the behaviour of leaders in numerous types of groups

and situations. The answers to the questionnaire were then subjected to factor

analysis. The two dimensions of the leader behaviour that has emerged in the

analysis were labelled as "consideration" and "initiating structure".

Consideration refers to the orientation and need for the leaders' of have

friendly, trusting, respectful and warm relationships with the other members

of the team. Initiating structure, the other dimension of behaviour, refers to

leaders', endeavour to establish well defined patterns of orgalrisation, channels

of communication, standardsed methods and ways of getting jobs done.

Blake and Mouton (1964)' have popularised these concepts in their

managerial grid and used it to typify the various behaviours of Leaders in the

organisational plane. Blake and Mouton instead of usiilg the words

"considerations" and "initiating structure"they used the different words known

as "concern for people" and "concern for production". 'Concern for' means the

managers pre-disposition about something or attitudinal model that measured

the values of feelings of a leader.

"Manager~algrid" developed by R.R.Blake and J.S. MoutonLand "3-D Theory of Managerial Effectiveness" developed by W.J.Redd1n.l have the

common ground. They both use a two dimensional grid "concern fer productiec"

and "concern for people" in the case of Blake Grid; and "Task orientation" and

"Relationships orientation" in the case of the 3-D theory. The typolosy posits

two underlying behaviour dimensions named task orientation and relationships

orientation. The two dimensions relating to task and relationships are well

accepted and could be a reasonable structural element on which to the base on

integrative typology.

A major difference between the two systems is that the 3-D theory

suggests that defining on individuals ignores the fact that he may be either

effective or ineffective and thus, a thrd dimension - "Effectiveness" is added

to the grid. Further, the 3-D theory draws upon the development of

appropriate style flexibility. Most readers are probably less familiar with 3-D

theory than with the Blake Grid.

In the first instance, Indian management is generally believed to be

autocratic with subordinates closely supervised by their superiors, and only a

limited degree of participation is allowed to the subordinates. In a study of

leadership styles along with delegation of authority of 123 executives at

various levels of management from two privates and two public sector

2. The Managerial Grid, R.R. Blake and J.S. Mounton, 1964 Gulf Publishing Co.

! 'Managerial Effectiveness" W.J.Reddin, MC Graw-Hill.

companies, Elhance and Agarwal1 conclude that 67 percent c~xecut~vein

prlvate sector and 57 percent of thein In public sector units have democratic

1eader.shlp style.

The study of 280 managers from 2 public sector units and 4 private

sector units by Singh and Das2 show that bureaucratic style is the most

predominant followed by the benevolent autocrat, developer and democratic in

that order. It is observed that the research study of P.Singh is based on the

3D-Theory of Prof.Reddin3.Reddin (1967), a pioneer of effectiveness dimension

which was further developed as Tri-Dimensional leader Effectiveness model,

believes that variety of leadership styles may be effective or ineffective

depending on the situations. Reddin was the first to add an effectiveness

dimension to the task concern and relationship concern dimensions of earlier

attitudinal models such as the managerial grid. Reddin felt that a useful

theoretical model must allow a variety of styles to be effective or ineffective

depending on the situation.

The orientations identified by the ohio state university studies and Black

and Mouton need not be same the orientations for leaders working in the

bureaucratic environment which is vastly different from that of an

environment prevailing is non-government organisations.

l. D.N.Elhance and R.D.Agarwa1: Delegation of Authority. 1975.

2 .

P.Singh and G.S.Das: "Management styles of Indian Managers - A profile" ASCI Journal of Management Sep.1977.

3. Reddin, W.J: Managerial Company, 1970.

Effectiveness.

New York: MC Grow Hill Book

Hence, an attempt 1s made in this study to ldentify the predominant behaviour leadership styles of the Telecommunlcation Engneers.

5.2 CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION ON LEADER BEHAVIOUR OF TELECOM ENGINEERS

At the heart of the 3-D Theory is a very simple idea. It was discovered in a long series of research studies conducted by psychologists in the united

states.

The description of leadership styles formulated on the basis of series of research studies are given chapter TV "Focus of Research study theoretical perspective towards Reddin's 3-D leadership theory".

The eight leadership style, arised from a combination of task orientation, relationship orientation and effectiveness orientation. The four less effective styles are referred to as the deserter, missionary, autocrat, and compromiser styles. The four-more effective styles are referred to as the bureaucrat, developer, benevolent autocrat and democratic styles.

Leadership styles can arise from situational differences or individual

differences. So, leaders need to think about their situation and what they are trying to achieve in it and consider which one or more of the four more effective styles they might use. It might be if the situation has sufficiently diverse elements that they use all four more effective styles with different elements of the situation.

All managerial situations can be easily broken down ~nto20 elements.

Some concern people, some concern the process to achieve productivity, and

some concern the interaction between peopie and product.ivity. (-;erta!_n_ly,not

all of them are important in all situations. Some are clearly more important

in some situation than others. In some situations only one is important.

Redain (1988) has formulated the 20 situational elements.

1.

Superior

The person to whom you report.

2.

Coworker

Managers of equivalent level or authority with whom you interact.

3.

Subordinates

Those who report directly to you.

4.

Staff Advisers

Knowledge workers usually with low authority and power, whose job it is to provide information and advice.

5. Unions

6. Customers

7. General Public

: Union representatives or members of

unions.

The purchasers of the company's products or services.

: Anyone who is not an employee or customer of the company.

8.

Creativity

The production of ideas.

9.

Objectives

What you plan to achieve.

10

Planning

The specific means whereby objectives

11. Change Introduction

:

12. Implementation

are realised.

The actual initiation of a new plan.

The actions that are taken to realise plans and decisions.

13.

Controls

Methods of monitoring actions so that adjustments can be made if necessary.

14.

Evaluation

Measurement of the action.

effectiveness of

15.

Productivity

The level of the managers output of those things required by the managers superior.

16. Communication

17. Conflict

18. Error

Receipt

information.

and

Disagreements.

transmission

of

Things that go wrong.

19

Meetings

20.

Teamwork

Two or more people comlng together to discuss something.

Interaction between two or more people with high emphasis of both task and relationships orientations.

Reddin (19'70) has propounded Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model and developed eight managerial styles. Reddln further, in this behaviour typology of eight managerial styles, has identified the above twenty situation elements.

The behaviour typology to be defended is built on three independent d~menslonscalled task orientation, relationships orientation and effectiveness. They are defined as follows.

TASK ORIENTATION (TO)

The extent to which a leader directs his efforts; characterlsed by initiating, organising and directing. That is the extent to which a leader is emotionally committed and willing to invest effort in achieving the targets that has been set-forth for them. This orientation is likely to make the leaders to give more importance to production and technical aspects of the jobs and would make him to treat the subordinates as tools to accomplish the goals of the organisation. Further, it is likely to make the leaders to place more importance to the aspect of "Getting the job of done" than any other aspect of the organisation processes.

RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION (RO)

The

extent

to

which

a

leader

has

personal

job

relatlonship?;

characterised by listening, trusting, and encouraging. That is the extent to which leader is emotionally committed and willing to invest effort In keeping congenial relationships with others in the organisational set up.

This orientation, if present, will make the individual to take more care

about the feelings of the people in the organisation. Leaders having this orientation are likely to give more importance to the subordinates personal needs.

LEADER EFFECTrVENESS (E)

The extent to which the leader behaviour is perceived as appropriate to the demands of the situations, described above.

All possible combinations of above or below average amounts of each dimension lead to eight types as shown in chart 5.1.

DERWATION OF EIGHT LEADERSHIP STYLES

Low on task and relationships is termed separated, low on task and high on relationships is termed related, high on task and low on relationships is termed dedicated, high on both task and relationships is termed integrated. Low on effectiveness is indicated by - and high on effectiveness is inhcated by +. For instance, the less-effective separated behaviour is labelled separated - and the more-effective version is labelled separated +.

The typology does not posit a single ideal type. Thus any of the four

behaviour types has an associated more-effective type and less-effective type.

It thus differentiates itself sharply from those well known typologies which

propose such single ideal types as theory Y (McGregor, 1960),9.9 (Blake and

Mouton, 19641, and System 4 (Likert, 1967).

A British publication devoted to measuring managerial effectiveness

(Bennett and Brodie, 1981) defines managerial effectiveness as : "

concept which helps us to examine the relationship between what a manager achieves (performance)and what he is expected to acheve (purpose and goals), within the constraints set by the manager's own capacities, his positions, the organisation and the environment" (P.8).

a

An operational measurement of this definition would have to attempt to

and I failed" or more

sharply, "I tried to fulfill my superior's expectations and I failed". How might

these expressions of positive and negative institutional value be measured?

relate expectation of achievement. In crude term, "I tried

Chapter one - methodology - "The measurement of behaviour" contains the rationale, design, and initial validation of the Management Position Analysis Test (MPAT). However, as the explicit incorporation of effectiveness in the model and the often presumed measurement of effectiveness in MPAT are the most distinctive feature of the model and test, the use of 'effectiveness' as a third dimension.

The eight leadership styles as an integration of other leader behaviour typologies is shown in chart 5.2. This chart positions the types of major

current typologies agalnst the eight leader types. The eight typolopes include

Lew~n,Lipp~ttand White

(1939)),Brown ( 1954), McGregor (1960 r, Jennings

1962). E!ake and J4outon (19641, Hclplc (19661,Llkert (1967:, and Hala:

i 1974). This table presents compelling evidence of the utility of the eight type typology. All the types of eight major typologies fit quite well, all of the eight

types are represented in at least one typology and all typlologies have significant gaps in the types they admit. The conclusion to be drawn is that the eight proposed leader types represent a powerful, comprhenesive and conceptually sound typology.

Observe that all eight typologies have an equivalent to the dedicated -

(autocrat) type. All of the seven other leader types each have two or more

equivalents. The separated + (bureaucrat) so consistently described in the

soclolo~calliterature, is represented in only three of the eight typologies. A

brief comment on each of these typologies will help to explain its particular

characteristics.

The early Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939)typology, based on dimension of initiation and guidance, is the first modern attempt at positing more then one type so that its simplicity is understandable.

The Brown (1954) typology, based largely on personal observation of British leaders, includes six of the eight leadership styies. The sole British typology, all the others originated in the U.S.A; does not include either the related + or the integrated -. It is difficult to suggest possible reasons for the omissions except to point out that both types have a relationships component which is seen by some to be lacking in British industry, and that both types are.difficult to observe.

CHART 5.2

THE EIGHT LEADER TYPES AS AN INTEGRATION OF OTHER LEADER BEHAVIOUR TYPOLOGIES

(Deserter)

Separated

Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939)

Brown (1954)

Laissez -

Faire

Laissez -

Faire

l~ellnin~s(1962)

I Abdicrat

[i3lake and Mouton (196411

1.1

----I-- Democrat

Quardrant II

I Autocratic

 

Autocrat

/

Autocrat

1Qua;?ant

Likert (1967)

--I--

I System 1

Human

Relations

Autocracy

LEADER TWE

 

I

I

I

Strict Autocrat

I

I

Burcaucracy

Democratic

Theory

Autonomy

I

-

Dedicated

A-i

I Bcnevolenl

Autocrat

(k~nrl~rlc'

Dt~n1ocr:tt

I

Systen; 2

System :{

Quardrant T

Systc111 4

'I'l~e hlcGregar 11960) typoiogy. based on assumpt~onsabout the nature

of man, ~ncludestwo of the eight leadership styles It 1s doubtful that JlcCregar saltT his typology as comprehensl~7tt s~ cmisslocs zre !~srd!y sign~ficant.What is significant is that his typology carries his humanistic bias

that relationships orientation is good and task orientation is bad, this view

producing hls Theory Y and Theory X, respectively.

The Jennlngs ( 1962) typology, derived from assumed psychological needs, includes slx of the eight leader types. Three are more effective and three are less effective. The typology includes both the more-and less-effective versions of separated and integrated, but like the McGregor typology, admits

only the more-effective related type and the less-effective dedicated type.

based on a synthesis of prior

research, includes five of the eight leader types. The reason for omitting three types is that the Blake and Mouton typology admits only one ideal type so that

The Blake and

Mouton (1964) typology,

the more-effective version of 1.1, 1.9 and 9.1 are not represented.

The Halpin (1966) typology, based on the structure and consideration

dimensions, includes four of the eight leader types. It is identical to the Blake and Mouton typology except for the omission of the 5.5 type; which Blake and Mouton suggest is more a statistical average than a type.

The Likert (1967) typology includes three of the eight leader types. Two of the Likert types, system 2 and 3, are virtually identical to dedicated +

i benevolent autocrat! and the~rcreation may reflect an over-compensation to the pure human relatlon school of which Likert was a part.

The Halal 11974) typology, based on a synthesis of prior typologies,

includes five of the eight leader types. Observe that for what is claimed to be an integrative typology, separated - is not represented, though it is in five of the other eight typolog.les reviewed. It might be expected that dedicated + and integrated - were omitted as only two of the other seven typologies included

them.

In India, the study was conducted by P.Singh and Asha Bhandarakar (1990) on the leadership. It is observed that P.Singh has used only Ten situation elements out of twenty propounded ori~nallyby Reddin. The ten situational elements are: 1. Planning 2. Data Collection 3. Implementation 4. Evaluation 5. Flexibility 6. Conflicts 7. Controls 8. Communications 9.

Superiors 10. subordinates.

P.Singh and Asha Bhandarkar have adopted for their project work, on eclectic methodology - questionnaire approach, and they were able to collect data from certain organisation such as MMTC, IFFO-Philpur (Allahabad),

TISCO, NFL, W.C.L. - Pench Area. The outcome of their project work was published as a book titled as "Corporate success and transformational leadership".

It is seen from that work that managers working during the period from 1982 to the late 1987 have supplied data for the only ten situational elements.

It 1s agreed that experiences of managers - the self perceived profile by the leaders cannot add up to capsular formu!ations. by uslng the ten situation.

element But we also have to agree that rh~~prov~dedthe raw matez-ia! f'cr ar,

understanding

of

the

leader

behaviour

orientations

and

resulting

the

leadership styles - behaviour of how persons

in the organisation responding

dally to the different situation (or variety of circumstances). A study of those data which was obtained based on ten situational elements, may not enable us

to arrlve at the final truth but definitely it is one of the means to understand

the truth.

The present research study is aimed at reducing the lacuna mentioned

above by,

1 Examining the leadership styles by using the structured instrument -

Management position Analysis Test (MPAT), the latest version of Reddin's 3-D Theory.

2. Studying the leadershp styles of Telecommunication Engineers, taking

into consideration of all the 20 situational elements which have been porpunded by Reddin originally (P.Singh and Bhandaraker have not

used all the 20 situational elements).

3-11 Theory - leadership styles" in publ~cutility service organisation -

Madras Telephone is needed.

Hence from the descriptions of the behavioural patterns of different leadership styles in the above said major empirical works, the following eight leadership styles as per Reddin's 3-D

are inferred

in this

research which aims to find out the predominant

leadership styles of Telecom Engineers of Madras Teiephones In the state of

Tamil Nadu in India.

Deserter Leadership Style

(DES)

Missionary Leadership Style

(MIS)

Autocrat Leadership Style

(AUT)

compromiser Leadership Style

(COM)

Bureaucrat Leadership Style

(BUR)

Developer Leadership Style

(DEV)

Benevolent Autocrat

(BEN)

Leadership Style Democrat Leadership Style

(DEW

Deserter (DES) Leadership Styles

A leader who is using a low Task orientation and a low Relationship

orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is therefore, less effective; perceived as uninvolved and passive or negative.

Characteristics

Does not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships.

Doesnot always show a lot of interest in subordinates or their work.

Believes the value of creativity, change, and innovation is often over emphasized.

Could supply more useful information to others than he does.

Shows little concern about errors and usually does little to correct or reduce them.

Missionary (MIS) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Relationships orientation and a low Task Orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is, therefore, less-effective; perceived as being primarily interested in harmony and in being liked.

Characteristics

Treats subordinates with great kindness and consideration.

Allows subordinates to set their own objectives according to their needs and accepts them even if some what unsatisfactory.

r

lolesates

l

unplcasantness

denatlons

In

implementing

plans

~f this

will

avert

Co~nrnunlcateswith others so as to maintain good relationships above

ail else.

At first slgn of conflict, attempts to smooth things over

Believes that if an error occurs it should be corrected in such a way that no one will be upset.

In order to be liked, will avoid all unpleasant effective decision making.

Autocrat (AUT) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a Low Relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is, therefore, less-effective; perceived as havlng no confidence in others, as unpleasant, and as interested only in the immediate task.

Characteristics

Directs the work at subordinates and discourages deviations from plans.

Sees planning as a one-man job.

Thinks a good way to introduce change is to make an announcement and then let people get on which it.

W~itchesimplementation of plans closely, polnts out errors and criticizes

where necessary

More interested in day-to-day productivity than in long-run productivity.

Performance maintained through subtle threatening situation.

Compromiser (COM) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a high Relationships orlentation in a situation that requires a high orientation to only one or

neither and who is, therefore, less-effective; perceived as be~ngchangeable, a poor decision maker, as one who allows various pressures in the situation to influence him too much, and as avoiding or minimis~ngimmediate pressures and problems rather than maximizing longterm production.,

Characteristics

When dealing with subordinates, attempts to combine both task and relationship considerations, but one or the other usually suffers.

Sometimes encourages new ideas but does not always follow up on too many of them.

While objectives are usually fairly clear, allows them to be quite loose so that they are not always a good guide.

Makes an effort at planning but the plans do not always work out.

Likes the idea of team work but often 1s not

apply it

Bureaucrat (BUR) Leadership Style

ablt) to find ways to

A leader who is using a low Task orlentation and a low relationships orlentation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,

therefore, more effective; perceived as being primarily interested in rules and procedures for their own sake, and as wanting to control the situation by their

use.

Characteristics

Believes that formal meetings are a perfectly sound way to produce new

ideas.

Plans with fine attention to detail. Introduces change formally and follows closely any established procedures.

Prefers to write out communications with others.

Responds

to

procedures.

disagreement

and

conflict by

referring

to

rules

and

Thinks that things go best when subordinates understand and follow the duties in their job descriptions.

Developer (DEW Leadership Styles

A leader who is using a high Kelatlonshlps orientation and a low Task

Orlentations in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who IS,

therefore, more effective; perceived as being people oriented, as having implicit

trust in people, and as being primarily concerned with developing them as

individuals.

Characteristics

Relationships with subordinates is excellent and is characterized

mutual trust and respect.

by

Seeks out new and good ideas and motivates others to be as creatlve as

possible.

When responsible for planning, involves many others

Prepares

advance.

those

affected

by a change by talking with

them

well in

When conflict arises, always helps those involved to find a basis for

agreement.

Thinks that most errors arise for a good reason and it is always better

to look for the reason than at the error itself.

Benevolent Autocrat (BEN) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a low Relat~onships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,

therefore. more-effective; perceived as being results oriented, as knowlng what he wants, and knowing how to get it without creating resentment.

Characteristics

Makes it qulte clear to subordinates what 1s expected of them.

Both develops and proposes many new ideas.

Shows that he values efficiency and productivity.

Watches the implementation of plans by individuals, and gves direct assistance and guidance where needed.

Believes a strong team needs a strong leader who knows what he is

doing.

Personally sets high output standards for himself and others and works

hard to see that they are met.

Democrat (DEM) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Task orlentation and a high Relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,

therefore,

more-effective;

perceived

as

a

team

manager

and

as

a

good

motivating force who sets high standards and treats every one some what

differently.

Characteristics

Relieves

higher

management

is

slmply

another

team

that

should

cooperate effectlve1~-with teams lower down.

Consistently obta~nsa high output from subordinates

Sets objectives with others whlch are clear and fully agreed to by all those directly involved.

Plans made represent the best thinking of all concerned.

Informs all concerned well in advance of any possible changes and gives

them on opportunity to influence the proposed change.

Actively supports and promotes the team approach to management.

It is around these factors, the leadership style Questionnaire (Appendix I) - a structured instrument - management position Analysis Test - (IMPAT)of

Reddin has been utilised.

5.3

LEADER BEHAWOUR OF TELECOM ENG

EMPIRICAL DATA DISCUSSION

It 1s from the study of Reddin, we have inferred the possible eight

ieadership styles To find out whether, these leadership styles are in tune with the actual leadership styles of Telecom Engneers In Madras Telephones, the

structured Questionnaire (Appendix I) of Reddin has been administrated.

Initially the questionnaire has been used to conduct the pilot study in madras

Telephones.

After testing the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the same

was admin~steredto the Telecom engineers. This group of Telecom engineers

Consists of three levels of the hierarchy. They are : Top level-consisting of the

grades GM, DGhl, DE.

Middle level-consisting of the grades SDE, ADET.

Lower level-consisting of the grades JTO.

In this study, the grades of top level and the middle level officers are considered as executives and the grade of the lower level officers are considered as supervisors.

The aim of this present study is to extract the relevant leadership style

of the Reddins 3-D from the total population and secondly, to find the predominant leadership. This leads the process of psychometric verification of

leadership styles. The analysis was based on the data of total population (N=

240) on all the 160 variables.

The instrument 'MPAT' is already framed. We can straight away get the

follo~ringfactors that have emerged as possible leader behaviour style of

Telecom Enpneers.

1

Deserter Leadership Style

2.

Missionary Leadership Style

3

Autocrat Leadership Style

4.

Compromiser Leadership Style

5.

Bureaucrat Leadership Style

6.

Developer Leadership Style

7.

Benevolent Autocrat Leadership Style

8.

Democrat Leadership Style.

These eight leadership styles are, inone form or other, in tune with the

other leader behaviour topologies.

5.3.1 Inter-correlation between factors related to leadership styles of

and

Telecom

Engineers

(Officers

of

Telecom

Executives

Supervisors)

Behaviour orientations are many within an individual and hence the

leader behaviour of an individual could never be predicted on the basis of any

particular behaviour orientation. In this study the possible leader behaviour

of the Telecom Engineers are found to be deserter, missionary, autocrat,

compromiser, bureaucrat, developer, benevolent autocrat, and democrat. To understand the nature of relationship between these emerged orientations inter-correlation test was carried out both the Executives and for the supervisors. Since the leader behaviour orientations are all orthogonal factors, their relationships with one another is possible and understandable The

find~ngsare given in the following paragraphs

From the table 5.1 it could be seen that all the eight leadership styles are generally found to have negatively correlated. This is because of the fact that each leadership style is discrete ie individually distinct in characters and In behaviour. Further, it is seen that Deserter leadership

Table 5.1

Inter-Correlation of Leader behaviour among the Telecom Engineers (Executives and Supervisors)

Style is positively related to the bureaucrat leadership style which shows

that the higher the eff(,ctiveness of deserter leadership in the appropriate

situation is perceived and known as bureaucrat. The empirical evidence is

sychronised with the basic concept of the formulation of light styles.

5.3.2 Inferential Statistics

In continuation of the intercorrelatlon analysls results, 't' tests the

significance of the differences between the groups of executives and supervisors

on all the emerged eight leadership related to the leader behaviour

orientations. The findings are given in table 5.2.

Table 5.2

Mean, SD, and CR value of Executives and supervisors of leadership styles of Telecom Service

 

Autocrat

VIII

Democrat

10.53

2.59

8.87

2.00

0.32

5.18**

:+'21:

Significant at 0.01 level.

It may be seen from table 5.2 that Executives cadre and supervisors cadre differed on factors "Deserter Leadership Stylr-","Bureaucrat Leadership Style" and "Democrat ~eadershi*Style". The mean score referred in Table 5.2

are pictorially given in chart 5.3.

In all the above said leadership styles, the officers belongng to supervisor cadre have scored higher average than that of the officers belong~ng to the Executives cadre. The officers belonging to supervisor cadre are the officers who have entered the service at lower rungs of the technical hierarety.

By sheer experience over a period of time, they have attained the supervisory positions in the department. Hence, their experience at the cutting edge level of the various sections, might have made them to pick these leadership

orientation with more intensity.

To know exactly the nature of differences between the directly recruited and promoted Telecom Engineers with respect to the eight leadership styles, again, CR values have been found and presented in table 5.3.

BAR CHART SHOWING MEAN DIFFERENCES OF LEADERSHIP STYLES OF TELECOM ENGINEERS (Executives & Supervisors)

DES

MIS

AUT

COM

BUR

DEV

LEADERSHIP STYLES

Chart 5.3

BEN

DEM

Mean, SD and CR Value of Direct Recruited and Promoted Telecom Engineers on factors related to Leadership Styles

*" Significant at 0.01 level.

It is evident from the table 5.3 that the two groups of Telecom Engineers differed only on the factors of deserter, developer, and democrat, at 0.01 level. The mean scores referred m table 5.3 are pictorially presedted in chart 5.4. Out of three sigmficant factors, it is seen that direct recruited oEcers have score lower averages than the officers belonging to rank conferred officers (promotive officers) of Telecom Service. It is seen that the promotive officers have more scores in deserter leadershi~style as well as democrat leadership style. The deserter leadership style is ineffective and the democrats leadership is effective. Even tho-ugh these two types of styles are contradictory by way of effectiveness, the promotive officers have entered the government service at the lower rank of the hierarchy and because of their early experience they might have felt the need of having these two leadership orientation in different situations.

BAR CHART SHOWING MEAN DIFFERENCES OF

LEADERSHIP STYLES OF TELECOM ENGINEERS [Direct Recruit & Promotive)

DES

MIS

COM

BUR

DEV

BEN

LEADERSHIP STYLES

1 Direat Recruit

El Promotive

Chart 5.4

DEM

5.3.3

DISCRIMI

FUNCTION ANALYSIS

To know more exactly the discriminating factors

as far

as leader

behaviours are concerned between the Executives and supervisors,

discr~minantfunction analysis was carried out and wilks Lambda and Rao's

V were used. The findings are given in table 5.4.

TABLE 5.4

Wilks Lambda, Rao's V and Significance level of the Discriminant Function Analysis between Executives and supervisors (N = 240) on the eight factors related to leader behaviour

factor entere

Eigen Value

--

0.216

Percentage of Variance

=,

100

Canonical Correlation Coefficient

--

0.422

Table 5.4 indicates that out of eight factors, 'only six factors were

included in the analysis and out of which only factor VIII was found to be

significantly discriminating between the two groups. Further factor V, VII i.e.

Bureaucrat, Benevolent autocrat, which did not seem to discriminate significantly, were not included in the Discriminant Function Analysis. It is evident from the result that only the factor i.e. Democrat leadership style (Factor VIII at 0.01 level alone discriminate significantly between the groups of officers of Executive cadre and the supervisor cadre, when all the factors were entered into step-wise method.

it is because the supervisors while they were working at the cutting edge level in the administrative structures they might have had close interactions with the people in discharging their duties. Hence during that period they might have experienced and seen the interest of the served in getting the results from the administrative bureaus. It is because of their field experience they might have included within themselves more democratic orientation.

The Eigen value is 0216 shows the discriminating power of function. The canonical correlation coefficient of 0.422 showed that there was high degree of association between the two sets ofscores, the dependent variable i.e. (Democrat leadership style of Telecom Engineers) and high correlation value shows that the discriminant fkction discriminated between the said groups quite effectively. Having known the discriminating factor for the leader behaviour between the Executives and supervisors, an attempt is also made. to know the principal discriminating factors for the same leader behaviour between the directly recruited and promoted Telecom Officers, using the same wilks Lambda and Rao's V. The findings are given in table 5.5.

Wilks Lambda, Rao's V and significance level of the Discriminant Function Analysis between directly recruited (N = 73) and promoted officers (N=167) on the eight factors related to leader behaviour

Eigen value

--

0.096

Percentage of Variance

--

100

Canonical correlation coefficient

--

0.295

Table 5.5 shows the results of discriminant hnction analysis of the

leader behaviour between the two groups ie directly recruited and promoted

officers of Telecom service. From among the total of eight factors taken for the

study only three factors are included in %heanalysis. They are factor I, VII and

VIII. These factors have contributed significantly for the discrimination

between the two groups. These two factors are democrat leadership style,

(Factor VIII at P < 0.01 level), deserter leadership style (Factor I at P < 0.01).

Eigen value of 0.096 shows the discriminating power of the function. The

canonical correlation coefficient 0.295 shows that there was high degree of

association between the two sets of scores ie discriminant functions and the

dependent variables

(leadership styles of Telecom officers). This correlations

shows that the discriminant function discriminated the two groups quite

effectively.

The promotive Telecom officers as mentioned carrier, because of their

field experiences at the cuttings edge level in the administrative hierarchies might have picked more result in the above said behaviour orientations. Hence these factors play predominant role in &scriminatir?g between promotive Telecom Engineers and directly recruited Telecom Engineers.

5.4

CONCLUSION

The behaviour topology to be defended is built on three independent dimension called task orientation, relationship orientation and effectiveness. Reddin's 3-D model has been formulated on these three dimensions. From the studies on the eight type topology of leaders behaviour, we have inferred all the eight leadership orientations among the Telecom Engineers of Madras, ,Teiephones organisation. These eight leadership styles are termedas Autocrat, compramiser, Missionary, Deserter, Benevolent autocrat, Developer, Bureaucrai, and Democrat.

The emerged leadership styles are also found to effectively correlate

among themselves. It is seen that deserter leadership style is positively related

to the bureaucrat leadership style which

effectiveness of the

shows

the

that

the

higher

situation

the

is

deserter

leadership

in

appropriate

perceived and known as bureaucrat. The empirical evidence is sychronised with the basic concept of the formulation of the eight leadership styles.

Among the Telecom Engineers, the promotive officers are gathering differentiated from the directly recruited officers on the basis of Democrat leadership styles.

It is seen from the study that the Executives and supertisors are getting differentiated among themselves as far as democrat leadership style IS concerned. Hence the null hypothesis EII stands rejected. Further, it IS seen that the promotive Telecom officers seems to have the democratic leadership style at a more higher level within themselves than that of directly recruited Telecom. Engineers. Eence, the null hypothesis TtT stands rejected. To be very specific, the supervisors seem to have the democrat leadership orientation at a higher level than that of Executives. Similarly the promotive Telecom officers seem to have the democrat leadership orientation at a higher level than that of directly recruited Telecom officers.

Since supervisors and the promotive officers of Telecom Engg. Service have started their official carrier at the lower rungs of the departmental hierarchy they might have got more opportunities to inkact with the public / customers / officials at the grass root level. Their understanding of the field realities would definitely be much less of distortions and might vibe more closely with realities. It is because of this, these types of supervisors 1 the promotive Telecom Officers might have democrat leadership style than the directly recruited officers.