Leadership Style of Public and Private Sectors: A Case Study

of Education Sector at District Abbottabad, Pakistan

Samia Khalid
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad,Pakistan
Tobe Camp,University Road, Post code 22060, Abbottabad,Pakistan.
Email: samiakhalid_18@yahoo.com

Shehla Amjad
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad,Pakistan
Tobe Camp,University Road, Post code 22060, Abbottabad,Pakistan.

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to determine the leadership style of public and private
sectors leaders. The education sector of District Abbottabad was chosen as universe of
the study. The data was collected by administering Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) to 180 respondents in all, among them 60 were leaders (principals) and 120 were
subordinates (teachers). The data was analyzed by using the Statistical methods
including descriptive statistics and independent-sample t-test. Findings of this study
imply that leaders more frequently exhibit transformational style as compared to
transactional leadership style. Secondly, there is no significant difference between
leadership style of public and private sectors leaders. Finally, Public sectors leaders
rate themselves significantly higher in transformational leadership than their
subordinates rate them, but there is no difference if private sectors leaders rate
themselves or their subordinates rate them on transformational leadership style.

Keywords:

Leader, Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Educational

Leadership
 1. INTRODUCTION

Leadership is considered as an important ingredient for proper functioning of an

organization. It is one of the most critical issues in business world, because organizations
can succeed on the basis of good leadership. The leadership has been a issue of concerned
over long period of time, the main purpose remain same throughout the research history,
which was to determine what characteristics makes an individual effective in influencing
the behavior of others. Core theme of trait approach of leadership was that leadership
ability is innate, behavior approach focused on how they leader, situational approach
emphasized that effective leadership is affected by the situation. In 1978
transformational leadership style was introduced by Burns, later this concept was
redefined to build Full Range Leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 1998). The objective of
this study is to find out the leadership style of leaders of public and private sectors.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The term leadership is a word taken from the common vocabulary and
incorporated into the technical vocabulary of a scientific discipline with out being
precisely redefined (Yukl, 2002: 2). In a review of leadership research, Stogdill (1974:
259) stated that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are people to define
the concept. According to House et al., (1999: 184) leadership is the ability of an
individual to influence others to contribute in order to achieve the effectiveness and
success of an organization. Bennis and Nanus (2002) stated that an effective leaders
should posses 4 skills: being able to connect people to shared meaning; a common say;
have sense of honesty and integrity; ability to manage differences, all these abilities make
a leader stronger than before.
The researchers began to study the leadership at the turn of 20th century. The
focused of leadership research from (1920-1930) was to identify traits that differentiate a
leader from non-leader or to identify what an effective leader is. The trait approach
assumes that three kinds of traits: physical (height, appearance, age, etc.), personal (self-
esteem, dominance, emotional stability, conservatism, etc.) and aptitudes (general
intelligence, fluency of speech, creativity, etc.) are inherent in leaders. Some researchers
report that characteristics which differentiate leaders from nonleaders are inherited
(Cleveland, Stockdale & Murphy, 2000). Stogdill (1948: 64) stated, A person does not
become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern
of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the
characteristics, activities, and goals of followers.
From the late 1940s onwards, the focus of leadership research shifted from leader
traits to leader behavior. Researchers were particularly interested in order to identify the
behavior through which leaders can effectively lead their subordinates. With shifted focus
of research, the common opinion about what an effective leader is, changed into the
opinion that, with the knowledge of effective leadership behavior, people can be trained
to become an effective leader (Bryman, 1992). The university of Michigan and Ohio
State contributed in the behavior approach the Ohio and the Michigan studies identified
two dimensions of leadership generally referred to as consideration (i.e. employee-
oriented leadership) and initiating structure (task-oriented or production-oriented
leadership). However, the behavior approach didnt give consideration to situational
factors, which leader should consider in order to select appropriate leadership behavior,
so this omission leads leadership research to contingency approach of leadership.
According to situational/contingency approach there is no widely accepted
leadership style through which the leaders can lead their associates or there is no one-
best-way to lead, appropriateness of leadership style is depends upon situational factor.
Those aspects of the situation that enhance the effects of the leader are called situational
moderator variable (Yukl, 2002). Fiedler proposed the first contingent theory of
leadership in 1964. He determine situation using three aspects: the leader member
relations, the task structure and the position power of the leader would determine the
effectiveness of leadership style. House (1971) also contributed in contingency approach,
in his theory he focused on the leaders role in clarifying the paths that would lead to
followers goals. Fiedlers Contingency Model (Fiedler, 1967), houses path-goal theory
of leadership (House, 1971), and (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) normative model of leadership
behaviors, contributed a lot in clarifying the situational factors, which could influence the
selection of leadership style.
Traditional approaches of leadership, trait, behavior, situational, they help leaders
to lead the organization in the stable environment, but in order to lead the organization in
rapidly changing environment (advancement in technologies and involvement of women
in male dominating society etc.), it leads to development of new leadership theory. Since
early 1980, many researchers turned their attention on the development of new leadership
theory known as transformational leadership.
According to Bass and Avolio (1994: 2), Transformational leadership is seen
when leaders: encourage interest among peers and followers to view their work from new
perspectives; communicate mission or vision of the team and organization; develop the
ability and potential of colleagues and followers to high levels; and motivate colleagues
and followers to look beyond their own interests toward those that will benefit the group.
Transformational leadership refers to the leaders, who lead their associates
through idealize influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
or individualized consideration. Idealized influence refers to leaders who exert much
power and influence over their followers and act as their role model. Inspirational
motivation measure degree to which leader provides vision, motivate their followers by
providing challenging tasks, developing and communicating the inspirational future state
of organizational. Intellectual stimulation refers to the leaders who encourage innovation
and creativity in the organization; give empowerment to associates, let them to find
solutions of their problems. Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which
leaders contribute in the growth and development needs of associates through which they
can develop their full potential, and develop personal communication with subordinates
in order to give them feel that they all are important for organization. Transformational
leaders takes the time to get to know the people around them, what they should known in
order to perform well, how followers can be challenged and supported (Avolio, 1999).
The transformational leadership encourages the followers to participate in organizational
process, which help them to raise their confidence level and autonomy (Oelsnitz, 1999).
The true transformational leader encourage follower to find their own solutions for
problems they face, because leader has confidence on them. (Lowe, kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
 According to Bass (1985) transactional leader operates at the time of relative
stability. He clarifies each persons responsibilities, tells them what to do if they want to
be rewarded for their work, provide recognition/rewards to associates on satisfactory
work performance. Transactional leadership is the exchange relationship between leader
and follower to meet their goals (Bass, 1999b). Transactional leadership occurs when the
leader rewards the follower, depending on the their satisfactory work behavior or
performance (Avolio, 1999). According to Bass and Avolio there are three components of
transactional leadership contingent reward, management by exception and laissez-fair.
Contingent reward refers to leaders who clarify role and task requirements and promises
rewards or actually rewards in exchange for satisfactory work performance.
Management-by-exception describes a leader who waits for problems to be arise
without taking any action, his motto is if it isnt broken dont fix it (Bass, 1990a: 20).
Laissez-fair is the avoidance or absence of leadership. The leader delay decisions; dont
take any action to motivate employees; dont recognize the efforts of others.
Leadership play vital role in the success of every organization, including
education institutes. Education sector is facing a lot of challenges, thus requiring effective
leadership in order to meet them. According to Gunter (2001) responsibility of
educational leaders is to facilitate learning activities and provide an environment, which
is conducive for knowledge and related activities. No one can successfully run the
institute, without having certain leadership abilities.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Following hypotheses are constructed to campare the leadership style of principal

in public and private educational institutes.

Hypothesis 1: There is significant difference between leadership styles of public and

private sector leaders.

Hypothesis 2: There is significant difference in transformational leadership between

public leaders and their subordinates.

Hypothesis 3: There is significant difference in transactional leadership between public

leaders and their subordinates.

Hypothesis 4: There is significant difference in transformational leadership between

private leaders and their subordinates.

Hypothesis 5: There is significant difference in transactional leadership between private

leaders and their subordinates.

3.1 Population and Sample

The education sector of Abbottabad is chosen as the universe of the study as it is
the only sector having almost equal number of public and private leaders. Two-stage
random sampling technique was used to collect primary data. At first stage, schools were
selected randomly and than subordinates were randomly selected from each school. In
total 60 leaders participated in the study, including 30 public and 30 private whereas 120
subordinates participated in the study.

3.2 Data
A total of 192 questionnaires were delivered to principals (leaders) and teachers
(subordinates) out of these 188 were filled-in by respondents 8 questionnaires were
discarded due to incomplete information and finally 180 questionnaires used for analysis.

3.3 Survey Instrument

The MLQ is referred as a benchmark and is considered as a well-known instrument used
to measures a range of leadership behavior from transactional leadership to transformational
leadership. Original MLQ was modified for this study; the reason for modification was on
the one hand due to difficulty to find the whole copy of MLQ because it not free of cost.
On the other hand, the English language used in questionnaire was difficult to understand,
so questionnaire was translated into Urdu in order to make sure participants fully
understand the questions. A five point rating scale from 0-4 was used, in order to examine
and analyze different choices leading to different results.

3.4 Data Analysis

The Statistical method included descriptive statistics (Mean and Standard
Deviation), and Independent-Sample T-Test, were used to analyze the data. The
Independent-Sample T-Test was used to examine the relationship between reported means
of public and private leaders because these two samples (public and private) were
selected independently of each other. Number of leaders in both samples were same,
equal variance t-test was used.

4. Results and Discussion

The data was coded and entered into MS Excel 2006 for the purpose of analysis.
The transformational leadership style consists of four dimensions; include Idealized
Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized
Consideration. Each dimension is followed by three questions. The mean rating on the
three items comprising a factor was taken as score for that factor. The mean scores for
four factors were taken as the score for transformational leadership. Same criterion could
be used to measured transactional leadership style. The results are as follow
Hypothesis 1: There is significant difference between leadership styles of public and
private sector leaders.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Leadership Styles between Public Sectors and Private
Sectors Leaders

Public Sectors Private Sectors

Leaders (N=30) Leaders (30)
Leadership Styles Standard Standard Significance
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation (2-tailed)

Transformational
Idealized Influence (IF) 4.022 0.477 4 0.451 0.86
Inspirational Motivation (IM) 4.156 0.429 4.1 0.472 0.69
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) 4.044 0.411 3.889 0.488 0.36
Individualized Consideration (IC) 4.111 0.410 4.167 0.498 0.71
Overall 4.083 0.031 4.038 0.021 0.53*
Transactional
Contingent Reward (CR) 3.944 0.461 4.067 0.361 0.41
Management-by-Exception (MBE) 3.844 0.623 3.756 0.681 0.59
Laissez-Faire (LF) 3.022 0.658 2.689 0.637 0.12
Overall 3.603 0.105 3.503 0.173 0.85*
*Not Significant at 0.05 level, two-tailed
There are no significant differences in the transformational and transactional
leadership style of public and private sectors leaders. This is proved by the overall
significance value of transformational 0.53 and overall significance value of transactional
leadership 0.85. Both figures are above 5% or (0.05), which means that the difference
between public and private sectors samples is non-significant. The segment or sector
affect upon leadership style does not actually exist according to the results. The results
proved that both public and private sectors leaders behave in same manners and pursue
transformational leadership style in performing their responsibilities.
Comparison shows that public sectors leaders scoring slightly higher than private
sectors leaders in all leadership scale scores. It is proved by overall mean values. On the
one hand overall mean value of transformational leadership of public leaders is 4.083
which is higher than 3.603, the overall mean value of transactional leadership of public
leaders. On the other hand overall mean value of transformational leadership of private
leaders is 4.038 which is higher than 3.503, the overall mean value of transactional
leadership of private leaders.

Hypothesis 2: There is significant difference in transformational leadership between

public leaders and their subordinates.

Table 4.2: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Style - Public Leaders &

Subordinates
Groups N Mean Standard T-Value *
Deviation
Public Leaders 30 4.083 0.031
0.053*
Subordinates 120 3.936 0.053
Significant at 0.05 level, two-tailed

Findings suggest that according to subordinates public leaders exhibit

transformational style less frequently than their own perception. public leaders rate
themselves significantly higher than their subordinates rate them.The analysis of data
reflect that there is significant difference between self-reported public leaders
transformational leadership style and subordinates-reported leadership style of public
leaders, implying that finding is inline with formulated hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: There is significant difference in transactional leadership between public

leaders and their subordinates.

Table 4.3: Comparison of Transactional Leadership Style - Public Leaders &

Subordinates
Groups N Mean Standard T-Value
Deviation
Public Leaders 30 3.603 0.105
0.968*
Subordinates 120 3.615 0.076
*Not Significant at 0.05 level, two-tailed

The analysis of data reflects that there is no significant difference in transactional

leadership style between the leaders themselves and their subordinates. Public leaders
self-ratings of transactional leadership tend to be more similar to those of their
subordinates, implying that finding is not commensurate with hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4: There is significant difference in transformational leadership between

private leaders and their subordinates.
Table 4.4: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Style - Private Leaders &
Subordinates

Groups N Mean Standard T-Value

Deviation
Private Leaders 30 4.038 0.021
0.802*
Subordinates 120 4.016 0.048
*Not Significant at 0.05 level, two-tailed

The results show that self-rating of private leaders in transformational leadership

compatiable with rating of their subordinates.The analysis of data reflect that there is no
significant difference between self-reported private leaders transformational leadership
style and subordinates-reported leadership style of private leaders, implying that finding
is not inline with formulated hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 5: There is significant difference in transformational leadership between

private leaders and their subordinates.

Table 4.5: Comparison of Transactional Leadership Style - Private Leaders &

Subordinates

Groups N Mean Standard T-Value

Deviation
Private Leaders 30 3.503 0.173
0.915*
Subordinates 120 3.568 0.081
*Not Significant at 0.05 level, two-tailed

The analysis of responses reveal that there exist no significant difference in

transactional leadership style between the leaders themselves and their subordinates.
Private leaders self-ratings of transactional leadership tend to be inline with rating of
subordinates, implying that finding is not consistent with the formulated hypothesis 5.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the public and private sectors influence on leadership
styles. Based on data collected through MLQ, the study found that the sector does not
influence the leadership style. Both public and private leaders use transformational
leadership style more often than transactional style. However, public leaders use both
transformational and transactional leadership styles more often than private leaders. An
interesting finding of the study is that public leaders rate themselves significantly higher
than their subordinates rate them in transfromation leadership style. Whereas, private
leaders self-rating and theirs subordinates ratings tends to be similar for both
transfromational and transactional leadership styles .
 The significance of this study is the potential for helping both public and private
leaders to gain an understanding of the qualities, characteristics, and leadership traits that
might guide them into becoming an effective leader. The findings also lead to a better
understanding of the support that might assist in developing high quality leaders for the
future.

5.1. Limitations and Future Guidelines

One of the limitations of the study is that two different leadership styles are
ascribed only to thepublic and private sectors, yet it important to find out gender
differences. In this sense, other important reasons might have been ignored, for instance
leaders personal traits, organizational position, experience.
Secondly, only Abbottabad District is chosen as universe of the study, to get
generalize results concerning the leadership style from different cities, all over the
Pakistan, research should conduct on broad level. Thus researches with a larger sample
would give a more dependable and generalize result.
Since this study only focuses on school sector, in future it would be interesting
would be to replicate this study in various others sectors like banking, hospitals, imports
and exports companies, government sector. This will help to find out whether the findings
of this research are generalized for other sectors or not. A similar study may be carried
out to investigate the differences between the leadership style of education and industrial
administrators in term of effectiveness.

REFRENCES

Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousands oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: free
press.

Bass, B . M.(1990a). From transactional to transactional leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass B.M. (1999b). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, L. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for talking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organization. London: Sage

Pubilications.
Clevel, J.N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K.R. (2000). Women and men in organizations:
Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw. Hill.

Gunter, H. M. (2001). Leaders and Leadership in education. Paul Chamman Publlishing

A SAGE Publication Company, 6 Bonhill Street, London.

House, R. J (1971). A pathgoal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16-321-339.

House, R.J, Hanges, P.J, Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A, Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.,
and Associates. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations. Advances in
Global Leadership, 1, 171-233.

Lowe, K.B., Koreck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
Lecture. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Oelsnitz, D. (1999). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and

dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: free press.

Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.N. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA
University of Pittsburgh press.

Yukl, G.A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.