International Journal of Human Resource

Management and Research (IJHRMR)

ISSN(P): 2249-6874; ISSN(E): 2249-7986
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 11-18
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

A STUDY ON COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLES OF

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
UMA DEVI. Y & MURALI KRISHNA. V
1
2

Research Scholar in Management, Barathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Research Supervisor and Associate Professor, SITAMS, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the paper is to investigate the differences of leadership styles perceived by LIC and NBCL.
The differences examined in the three levels like top management, Middle management, Low level management in LIC
and NBCL.
KEYWORDS: Leadership Styles, LIC, NBCL.

Received: Sep 02, 2016; Accepted: Sep 26, 2016; Published: Oct 03, 2016; Paper Id.: IJHRMROCT20163

Leadership means many things to many people. This is due to the changing environment of leaders in
different roles in different functions in different settings starting from leadership of the family to the top positions
in multinational organizations. However, the essentials of leadership are the same to all leaders in all positions.
Nevertheless, due to the variation in the skills required, roles played, functions performed, issues tackled and the
relationships promoted, different leaders have different perceptions of leadership. As such, several attributes have

Original Article

INTRODUCTION

been made both for the success and failure of leadership in the form of properties and processes or traits and styles
of leaders. Further, even these attributes cannot provide a totally satisfactory guidance for the success of
leadership. Hence, theoreticians and practitioners of leadership have gone to the extent of developing the
contingency approach, which emphasizes that there is No single best way. The functions, roles, variables,
power, influence, success and effectiveness of leaders, leadership theories and leadership in general discussed by
different writers, researchers and practitioners.

DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP
There are as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars who have attempted to analyze and
understand the concept, but there is no universally accepted definition of it.
The word leader stems from the root leden meaning to travel or show the way. It has been derived
from the verb to lead. This also implies to advance, to expel, to stand out, to guide and govern the actions
of others. A leader is a person who leads a group of followers.
Hodge and Johnson are of the opinion that Leadership is fundamentally the ability to form and mould
the attitudes and behaviour of other individuals, whether informal or formal situation and that management relates
to the formal task of decision and command.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

12

Uma Devi. Y & Murali Krishna. V

Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace, define Leadership as the relationship between two or more people in which
one attempts to influence the other toward the accomplishment of some goal or goals.
In the words of Keith Davis, leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined objectives
enthusiastically. It is the human factor that binds a group together and motivates it towards goals. In the words of Koontz
O Donnell, Leadership is the ability to exert interpersonal influence by means of communication towards the
achievement of a goal. Leadership is defined by Paul Hersey and K.H. Blanchard as the process of influencing group
activities towards the accomplishment of goals in a given situation.
Robbins defines Leadership as the ability to influence a group towards the achievement of goals. Leadership is
the interpersonal influence exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, towards attainment
of a specific goal or goals say Tannenbaum and others. According to G.R. Terry, leadership is the leader influences
others to work together willingly on related tasks to attain that which the leader desires and winning leaders is creating
leaders I like the concept of the teaching organization rather than the learning organization. To be an effective teacher
one needs to be a world-class learner.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The concept and practice of leadership underwent many changes in recent times, especially in the 20th century,
during the two world wars. Till recently the leadership thinking was confined to the senior executives specifically in
business organizations. But the present view is quiet different, as it is realized that the organizations need leaders at all
levels. Noel M. Tichy writes: the ultimate test for a leader is not whether he or she makes smart decisions and takes
decisive action, but whether he or she teaches others to be leaders and builds an organization that can sustain its success
even when he or she is not around. The key ability of winning organizations and winning leaders is creating leader.
I like the concept of the teaching organization rather than the learning organization. To be an effective teacher one needs
to be a world-class learner.

NEED OF THE STUDY

The principal purpose of the current study is to find the compare the leadership styles followed by the three levels
of employees in LIC and NBCL.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The difference of leadership styles at inter-levels of officers of LIC and NBCL about their self perception; and
The difference of leadership styles at inter-levels of officers of LIC and NBCL as perceived by their subordinates.

HYPOTHESES
H1: There is no significant difference among different leadership styles in Higher level managers in LIC and
NBCL in self perception about their styles.
H2: There is no significant difference among different leadership in Middle level managers in LIC and NBCL in
self perception about their styles.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.4528

NAAS Rating: 3.25

A Study on Comparison of Leadership Styles of Private and Public Sector Organizations

13

H3: There is no significant difference among different leadership styles in Higher level managers in LIC and
NBCL as perceived by their subordinates.
H4: There is no significant difference among different leadership styles in the inter levels of officers in NBCL as
perceived by their subordinates.

METHODOLOGY

Sources of Data
The study is mainly based on primary data collected in three phases. In the first phase the purpose and objectives

of the schedule are explained to the respondents who are requested to go through the schedule thoroughly. In the second
phase doubts of the respondents about the contents of the schedule, if any, are clarified. In the third phase the schedules are
collected from the respondents and further discussions were held with them to elicit additional information from them.
The present study confines itself to Higher, Middle and lower hierarchical levels in LIC.

Sampling
The number of samples drawn from L.I.C in each cadre is given below L.I.C.
Table 1
Designation

Total Number of
Employees

Sample Drawn

15

15

79

55

64

50

328

212

486

332

Divisional manager, Marketing Manager, managers,

D.T.C., Principle. (Top Management)
Branch
managers,
Assistant
Branch
Managers,
Administrative Officers, (Middle Management)
Assist Administrative Officers, Super visers, Development
officers. (Jr. Management)
Higher grade Assistants, Lower grade Assistants, Record
clerks/Typists.
Total
The number of samples drawn from NBCL in each cadre is given below
Table 2
Designation
Higher Level Managers
Middle Level Managers
Lower Level Managers
Total

Number of Officers
NBCL
47
70
51
168

Samples Drawn
NBCL
47
70
51
168

Tools for Data Collection

The schedules supplied to each category of officers are as follows:
Different leadership styles were applied to study the differences as the leadership styles perceived by the Higher,

Middle and Low level Managers and Superior , Subordinates of LIC of India and NBCL.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

14

Uma Devi. Y & Murali Krishna. V

Field Study
Field investigation was conducted by adopting the personal interview method. During the investigation

considerable help was received from officers in different Grades of LIC of India and NBCL.
The Difference between Leadership Styles of Officers of LIC and NBCL in Self Perception about Their Styles

The Leaders Self Perception Reveals about the Leadership Styles of Higher Level Managers of LIC and
NBCL.
Scores on five leadership styles viz., authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturing were

computed from leaders evaluation of ones own style. With a view to find out difference between the higher level
Managers of LIC and NBCL in self-perception about their leadership styles, mean, standard deviation were computed.
Further, with an intent to find out significant difference between the five pairs t test was computed.
The Difference between Leadership Styles of Higher Level Managers of LIC and NBCL in Self Perception about
their Styles
For t value, the degree of freedom (df) is N1+N2-2. In LIC, Higher level Managers stood at 9 where N1=9, In
NBCL Higher level Managers stood at 47, where N2=47, the df=N1+N2-2=>9+47-2=54. For 54 df the entries at 0.01 and
0.05 by linear interpolation are 2.008 and 2.678. The t values with two stars are significant at 0.01 level and those with
one star at 0.05 level.
Table 3: Mean, Standard Deviation and t Values of Leadership Styles of Higher
Level Managers of LIC and NBCL in Self Perception about Their Styles
Higher Level Managers of LIC Higher Level Managers of NBCL
Standard
Standard T Value
Mean
N
Mean
N
Deviation
Deviation
1
Authoritarian (A)
22.444
9
4.773
32.74
47
4.3
**-6.023
2
Participative (P)
24.111
9
1.269
41.7
47
3.99
**-24.429
3
Bureaucratic (B)
26.667
9
2.784
31.98
47
4.13
**-4.804
4
Task-orientation (T)
25.778
9
3.420
41.4
47
2.68
**-12.964
5
Nurturant (N)
25.556
9
3.321
38.02
47
3.57
**-10.191
Source: Compiled from field survey
Sl. No.

Leadership Styles

Table 3 presents mean, standard deviation andt values of the leadership styles as perceived by leaders
themselves of Higher level Managers of LIC and NBCL.
Mean values of authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles as perceived by
leaders themselves are higher in Higher level Managers of NBCL than Higher level Managers of LIC. In authoritarian,
participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles, as perceived by leaders themselves in the Higher level
Managers of LIC and NBCL differ significantly as the t values are greater than the critical value
(A-6.023, P>0.01 P-24.429, P>0.01; B-4.804, P<0.01; T-12.964, P>0.01 and N-10.191, P>0.01).
Hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference among different leadership styles in Higher level
managers in LIC and NBCL in self perception about their styles is rejected in authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic,
task-orientation and nurturant and styles

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.4528

NAAS Rating: 3.25

A Study on Comparison of Leadership Styles of Private and Public Sector Organizations

15

The Leaders Self Perception Reveals About The Leadership Styles of Middle Level Managers of LIC and
NBCL
Scores on five leadership styles viz., authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant were

computed from leaders evaluation of ones own style. With a view to find out difference between the Middle level
Managers of LIC and NBCL in self-perception about their leadership styles, mean, standard deviation were computed.
Further, with an intent to find out significant difference between them t test was computed.
The Difference between Leadership Styles of Middle Level Managers of LIC and NBCL in Self Perception about
their Styles
For t value, the degree of freedom (df) is N1 +N2 -2. In LIC, Middle level Managers stood at 49 where N1=49, In
NBCL Middle level Managers stood at 70, where N2=70, the df=N1+N2 -2=>49+70-2=117. For 117df the entries at 0.01
and 0.05 by linear interpolation are 2.576 and 1.960. The t values with two stars are significant at 0.01 level and those
with one star at 0.05 level.
Table 4: Mean, Standard Deviation and 't' Values of Leadership Styles of Middle
Level Managers of LIC and NBCL in Self Perception about their Styles
Middle Level Managers of LIC
Sl. No.

Leadership Styles

1
Authoritarian (A)
2
Participative (P)
3
Bureaucratic (B)
4
Task-orientation (T)
5
Nurturant (N)
Source: Compiled from field survey

Mean

19.878
24.204
23.265
26.000
25.347

49
49
49
49
49

Standard
Deviation
3.522
3.391
5.179
2.492
3.212

Middle Level Managers

of NBCL
T Value
Standard
Mean
N
Deviation
31.83 70
4.45
**-16.328
40.96 70
4.14
**-23.561
32.11 70
3.55
**-10.369
41
70
3.43
**-27.624
38.92 70
3.26
**-22.546

Table 4 presents mean, standard deviation and t values of the leadership styles as perceived by leaders
themselves of Middle level Managers of NBCL and LIC.
Mean values of authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles as perceived by
leaders themselves are higher in Middle level Managers of NBCL than Middle level Managers of LIC. In authoritarian,
participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles as perceived by leaders themselves in the Middle level
Managers of LIC and NBCL differ significantly as the t values are greater than the critical value (A-16.328, P>0.01 P23.561, P>0.01; B-10.369, P<0.01; T-27.624, P>0.01 and N-22.546, P>0.01).
Hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference among different leadership in Middle level managers
in LIC and NBCL in self perception about their styles is rejected in authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic,
task-orientation and nurturant styles.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

16

Uma Devi. Y & Murali Krishna. V

The Difference between Leadership Styles of Officers of LIC and NBCL As Perceived by Their Subordinates

The Subordinates Perception on Superior Styles Reveals about the Leadership Styles of Higher Level
Managers of LIC and NBCL
Scores on five leadership styles viz., authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant were

computed from subordinates perception on superior styles. With a view to find out difference between Higher level
Managers of LIC and NBCL as perceived by subordinates about their leadership styles, mean, standard deviation were
computed. Further, with an intent to find out significant difference between the five pairs t test was computed.
The Difference between Leadership Styles of Higher Level Managers of LIC and NBCLAs Perceived by their
Subordinates
Fort value, the degree of freedom (df) is N1+N2-2. In LIC, Higher level Managers subordinates stood at 49
where N1=49, in NBCL, Higher level Managers subordinates stood at 70, where N2=70, the df=N1+N2-2=>49+70-2=117.
For 204 df the entries at 0.01 and 0.05 by linear interpolation are 2.576 and 1.960. The t values with two stars are
significant at 0.01 level and those with one star at 0.05 level.
Table 5: Mean, Standard Deviation and 't' values of Leadership Styles of Higher
Level Managers of LIC and NBCL as perceived by their subordinates
Higher Level Managers of LIC
Sl. No.

Leadership Styles
Mean

1
Authoritarian (A)
17.204
2
Participative (P)
22.204
3
Bureaucratic (B)
22.082
4
Task-orientation (T)
23.673
5
Nurturant (N)
23.673
Source: Compiled from field survey

49
49
49
49
49

Standard
Deviation
4.449
3.247
3.829
3.112
3.986

Higher Level
Managers of NBCL
T Value
Standard
Mean N
Deviation
31.85 70
4.14
**-18.171
38.22 70
2.94
**-27.519
34.74 70
1.78
**-21.564
38.35 70
2.57
**-27.129
35.99 70
2.31
**-19.458

Table 5 presents mean, standard deviation and t values of the leadership styles as perceived by their subordinates
of Higher level Managers of LIC and NBCL.
Mean values of authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles are higher in Higher
level Managers as perceived by their subordinates of NBCL than the Higher level Managers as perceived by their
subordinates of LIC. In authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles, the Higher level
Managers as perceived by their subordinates of LIC and NBCL differ significantly as the t values are greater than the
critical value (A-18.171, P>0.01 P-27.519, P>0.01; B-21.564, P<0.01; T-27.129, P>0.01 and N-19.548, P>0.01).
Hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference among different leadership styles in Higher level
managers in LIC and NBCL as perceived by their subordinates is rejected in authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic,
task-orientation and nurturant styles.

The Subordinates Perception on Superior Styles Reveals About The Leadership Styles of Middle Level
Managers of LIC And NBCL
Scores on five leadership styles viz., authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant were

computed from subordinates perception on superior styles. With a view to find out difference between Middle level
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.4528

NAAS Rating: 3.25

A Study on Comparison of Leadership Styles of Private and Public Sector Organizations

17

Managers of LIC and NBCL as perceived by subordinates about their leadership styles, mean, standard deviation were
computed. Further, with an intent to find out significant difference between them t test was computed.
The Difference between Leadership Styles of Middle Level Managers of LIC and NBCL as Perceived by their
Subordinates
For t value, the degree of freedom (df) is N1+N2-2. In LIC, Middle level Managers subordinates stood at 40
where N1=40, in NBCL, Middle level Managers subordinates stood at 118, where N2=118, the df=N1+N2-2=>40+1182=156. For 156df the entries at 0.01 and 0.05 by linear interpolation are 2.576 and 1.960. The t values with two stars are
significant at 0.01 level and those with one star at 0.05 level.
Table 6: Mean, Standard Deviation and 't' values of Leadership Styles of Middle
Level Managers of LIC and NBCL as Perceived by their Subordinates

Sl. No.

Leadership Styles

1
Authoritarian (A)
2
Participative (P)
3
Bureaucratic (B)
4
Task-orientation (T)
5
Nurturant (N)
Source: Compiled from field survey

Middle Level Managers of

LIC
Standard
Mean
N
Deviation
16.050 40
5.063
23.025 40
4.172
26.000 40
2.792
24.150 40
3.512
23.325 40
4.002

Middle Level
Managers of NBCL
Standard
Mean
N
Deviation
32.7
118
4.87
38.15 118
3.29
33.76 118
1.48
38.91 118
2.4
35.78 118
2.58

T Value
**-18.197
**-20.833
**-16.797
**-24.723
**-18.425

Table 6 presents mean, standard deviation and t values of the leadership styles as perceived by their subordinates
of Middle level Managers of LIC and NBCL.
Mean values of authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles are higher in Middle
level Managers as perceived by their subordinates of NBCL than the Middle level Managers as perceived by their
subordinates of LIC. In authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant styles, the Middle level
Managers as perceived by their subordinates of LIC and NBCL differ significantly as the t values are greater than the
critical value (A-18.197, P>0.01 P-20.833, P>0.01; B-16.797, P<0.01; T-24.723, P>0.01 and N-18.425, P>0.01)
Hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference among different leadership styles in the inter levels
of officers in NBCL as perceived by their subordinates is rejected in authoritarian, participative, bureaucratic, taskorientation and nurturant styles.

FINDINGS

No significant difference is found in authoritarian leadership styles at Higher Level Managers as judged by leader
himself and as judged by his immediate subordinates. A significant difference is found in participative,
bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant leadership styles at Higher Level Managers as judged by leader
himself and as judged by his immediate subordinates.

No significant difference is found in authoritarian leadership styles at Middle Level Managers as judged by leader
himself and as judged by his immediate subordinates. A significant difference is found in participative,
bureaucratic, task-orientation and nurturant leadership styles at Middle Level Managers as judged by leader
himself and as judged by his immediate subordinates.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

18

Uma Devi. Y & Murali Krishna. V

CONCLUSIONS
This study has investigated the comparison of leadership styles perceived by the private and public organizations
with respect to LIC of India and Nippo Batteries Company Limited.
REFERENCES
1.

Apple White, Phillip B., Organisational Behaviour, Engle Wood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1965 (Chapter 6).

2.

B.J. Hodge and Johnson H.J., Management of Organisational Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1970, p. 250.

3.

Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the study of Small Groups, Cambridge, 1950

4.

Douglas McGregor., The Human Side of Enterprise, McGrawHill International Book Company, New York, 1960, p.182.

5.

Harold Koontz and Cyril O Donnell, Essentials of Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi,
1978,PP.454-455.

6.

Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace, Organisation Behaviour and Performance, p.273 (Adopted from Dr. M.J. Mathew,
Organisation: Theory and Behaviour, RBSA Publishers, Jaipur, 1993, p.181)

7.
8.

Koontz O Donnell, Management, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, 1st Printing, New York, 1984, p.506.
Robbins, S.P., Organisational Behaviour: Concepts and Controversies, Engle wood cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1979,
p.240

9.

Stogdill, R.M and Coons, A.E. (eds) Leader Behaviour its Perception and Measurement, Columbus, Bureau of Business
Research, Ohio State University, 1957.

10. Vroom, V.H., The Search for a Theory of Leadership in Contemporary Management: Issues and View Points, Ed. Joseph W.
McGuire, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1974, p.396.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.4528

NAAS Rating: 3.25