14 chapter 5

C TER V

VERIFICATION OF LEADERSHIP S ES OF REDDIN'S 3-D MODEL

5.1 INTRODUCTION

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.

. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. 1964. The Managerial Grid, ons st on Texas Gulf publisher.

"Manager~al grid" developed by R.R.Blake and J.S. MoutonL and "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 t h r d 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 a t

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~ve in

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 Effectiveness. New York: MC Grow Hill Book Company, 1970.

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 ~ n t o 20 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

3. Subordinates

4. Staff Advisers

5. Unions

6. Customers

7. General Public

Managers of equivalent level o r

authority with whom you interact.

Those who report directly to you.

Knowledge workers usually with low

authority and power, whose job it is to

provide information and advice.

: 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

are realised.

11. Change Introduction : The actual initiation of a new plan.

12. Implementation The actions that are taken to realise

plans and decisions.

13. Controls

14. Evaluation

15. Productivity

16. Communication

17. Conflict

18. Error

Methods of monitoring actions so that

adjustments can be made if necessary.

Measurement of the effectiveness of

action.

The level of the managers output of

those things required by the managers

superior.

Receipt a n d t ransmiss ion of

information.

Disagreements.

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~menslons called 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 : "...... a

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).

An operational measurement of this definition would have to attempt to

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

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

L e w ~ n , Lipp~tt and 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~cal literature, 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 Laissez - White (1939) Faire

Brown (1954) Laissez -

Faire

l ~ e l l n i n ~ s (1962) I Abdicrat

[i3lake and Mouton (196411 1.1

Likert (1967) I

I Autocratic

Democrat Autocrat ----I-- / Autocrat

1 Qua;?ant Quardrant II

System 1 --I-- Human

Autocracy Relations

LEADER TWE I I I

-

Dedicated

Democratic A - i I Strict Autocrat I Bcnevolenl (k~nrl~rlc'

Autocrat Dt~n1ocr:tt

Theory I I I

Quardrant T

Systen; 2 Systc111 4

System :{

Burcaucracy Autonomy

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

of man, ~ncludes two of the eight leadership styles It 1s doubtful that

JlcCregar saltT his typology a s 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.

The Blake and Mouton (1964) typology, 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 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 t h e ~ r creation 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 o r i~na l ly by 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.

I t 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 r h ~ ~ prov~ded the 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. The Leader Behaviour can be measured with the help of the structured

questionnaire (MPAT) in Government Departmental organisation and

there by conducting the study of "Psychometric verification of Reddin's

3-11 Theory - leadership styles" in publ~c utility 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

Missionary Leadership Style

Autocrat Leadership Style

compromiser Leadership Style

Bureaucrat Leadership Style

Developer Leadership Style

Benevolent Autocrat

Leadership Style

Democrat Leadership Style

Deserter (DES) Leadership Styles

(DES)

(MIS)

(AUT)

(COM)

(BUR)

(DEV)

(BEN)

(DEW

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 o r 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 l lolesates denatlons In implementing plans ~f this will avert

unplcasantness

Co~nrnunlcates with 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~itches implementation 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~ng changeable, a

poor decision maker, as one who allows various pressures in the situation to

influence him too much, and as avoiding or minimis~ng immediate 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 ablt) to find ways to

apply it

Bureaucrat (BUR) Leadership Style

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 disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and

procedures.

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.

Charac ter i s t ics

Relationships with subordinates is excellent and is characterized by

mutual trust and respect.

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

possible.

When responsible for planning, involves many others

Prepares those affected by a change by talking with them well in

advance.

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

agreement.

Thinks that most errors arise for a good reason and i t 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~ns a 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.

I t 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~stered to 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~ring factors 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

Telecom Engineers (Officers of Telecom Executives and

Supervisors)

Behaviour orientations are many within an individual and hence the

leader behaviour of a n 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~ngs are 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

:+' 21: Significant a t 0.01 level.

VIII

Autocrat

Democrat 10.53 2.59 8.87 2.00 0.32 5.18**

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 ~eadersh i* 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 a t 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 a t 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 BEN DEM LEADERSHIP STYLES

Chart 5.3

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 a t 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 DEM LEADERSHIP STYLES

1 Direat Recruit E l Promotive

Chart 5.4

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~minant function 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 t he 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 tha t 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.

i t 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 Funct ion Analysis be tween directly recru i ted (N = 73) and

promoted officers (N=167) on t h e 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 %he analysis. 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 a t 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 shows that the higher the

effectiveness of the 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 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 a t 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 i n k a c t 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.