Journal of Management Development

Leadership styles and behaviour profiles of managers

Titus Oshagbemi Samuel A. Ocholi

Article information:

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Titus Oshagbemi Samuel A. Ocholi, (2006),"Leadership styles and behaviour profiles of managers", Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 25 Iss 8 pp. 748 - 762
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710610684231
Downloaded on: 24 March 2015, At: 17:39 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12289 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Robert J. Allio, (2012),"Leaders and leadership many theories, but what advice is reliable?", Strategy
& Leadership, Vol. 41 Iss 1 pp. 4-14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878571311290016
Victor Dulewicz, Malcolm Higgs, (2005),"Assessing leadership styles and organisational context", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Iss 2 pp. 105-123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579759
Titus Oshagbemi, Roger Gill, (2004),"Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across hierarchical
levels in UK organisations", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 93-106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410512796

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 223907 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD
25,8

Leadership styles and behaviour

profiles of managers

748

School of Management and Economics,

The Queens University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, and

Titus Oshagbemi

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

Received April 2005

Revised July 2005
Accepted September 2005

Samuel A. Ocholi
Department of Management Sciences, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria
Abstract
Purpose A variety of organisational leaders, workers, managers and academics had previously
been classified on the basis of characteristics of their jobs including how they spent their time. This
study investigated the extent to which managers from various UK industries could be meaningfully
grouped on the basis of the leadership styles and behaviour patterns which they exhibited in the
performance of their jobs.
Design/methodology/approach Names of the potential respondents were randomly obtained
from leaders and managers working in the UK key British enterprises. This comprised a variety of
organisations and industries, namely: manufacturing, financial services, utilities,
IT\telecommunications, public sector and others. A total number of 409 managers completed and
returned usable questionnaires giving a response rate of 28.4 per cent. A cluster analysis methodology
was used to group the respondents into three distinct units.
Findings The managers were grouped into three categories: practical leaders (group 1), unity
leaders (group 2) and uncaring leaders (group 3). Attention then focused on the distinctive styles and
behaviour of the practical, unity and uncaring leaders who formed 12, 69 and 19 per cent of the
managers, respectively.
Research limitations/implications The naming of the groups should not be allowed to give the
impression that there was complete uniformity within each category. Furthermore, absolute
statements about the effectiveness of the groups cannot be made with certainty; effectiveness of each
group is relative.
Originality/value Organisations can examine their managers and determine to which group they
belong. For example, it was found in this study that practical and unity leaders formed 81 per cent of
the managers in UK organisations. Since the major characteristics of the styles and behaviour
profiles of uncaring leaders (19 per cent) were also identified, attention by organisational leaders
should focus on suggestions aimed at making these managers more effective in the performance of
their jobs.
Keywords Leadership, Cluster analysis, Management styles, Behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Management Development

Vol. 25 No. 8, 2006
pp. 748-762
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621710610684231

Organisational leaders show wide variations in the styles and behaviours which they
exhibit at work. For example, in this study, variations in the extent to which managers
adopted the following styles and behaviours were recorded in their day-to-day
activities on a scale from 1 to 5 depicting never, occasionally, fairly often, very
often and always, respectively, (Bass, 1974; Bass et al., 1975; Bass and Avolio, 1990):
.
directive leadership;
.
consultative leadership;

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

participative leadership;
delegative leadership;
laissez-faire;
management-by-exception;
contingent reward;
individualised consideration;
intellectual stimulation;
inspirational motivation; and
idealised influence.

While some managers used a variety of leadership styles and behaviours in their
day-to-day activities, others utilised one or two of the leadership styles or behaviour
dimensions. It would be useful to enquire, therefore, the extent to which in view of
these variations managers can be meaningfully grouped on the basis of the leadership
styles and behaviour practices which they exhibit on their jobs. A related question is
the extent to which utilization of a particular leadership style and or behaviour
contributed to an individuals improved work performance and to the overall
satisfaction of the user, supervisors, colleagues and junior workers.
This study concentrates on the grouping of managers based on the extent of their
utilization of particular leadership styles and behaviour dimensions and explores the
implications for worker effectiveness and productivity. The grouping may also have
implications for management training and development aimed at espousing managers
to appropriate styles and behaviour dimensions in the management of organisations,
taking into consideration organisational aims and objectives. The grouping shows a
meaningful and an alternative classification of managers according to characteristics
of their jobs which is different from the traditional grouping based on the criterion of
rank. This study not only confirms that managers can be usefully grouped on the basis
of their leadership styles and behaviour practices, but also it describes the method for
the classification, the criteria used and the results.
Literature review
Leaders, managers, academics and workers in organisations are often placed into
groups for a variety of reasons. For example, most organisations group their workers
according to department and rank. Researchers have also grouped workers based on
several criteria or considerations mostly related to characteristics of their jobs. The
objective in cluster analysis is to identify who belongs to what group and to find out
what the results of the grouping tell us about the individual as well as the group. In
short, a major objective of cluster analysis is to maximize the differences among the
resulting groups.
There are few published research on the results of cluster analysis employed within
organisations. Stewart (1984, 1988) grouped a sample of 160 UK managers on the basis
of how the managers spent their time. The results of her analysis showed five clusters
that were labelled the Emissaries, the Writers, the Discussers, the Trouble Shooters
and the Committeemen. Oshagbemi (1988) classified a sample of 34 Nigerian and UK
academic managers using 24 variables measuring their job characteristics paying

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
749

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

750

particular attention to the way the managers allocated their time. His results reveal five
clusters, namely, Administrators Type 1, Administrators Type 2, Educational Leaders
Type 1, Educational Leaders Type 2, and Research Leaders. Essentially, his
classification could be reduced to three: administrators, educational leaders and
research leaders. However, the researcher felt that the distinctions between the two
types of administrators and educational leaders were important to merit different
classifications.
Using quick cluster analysis on data from a sample of 554 university teachers and
managers Oshagbemi (1997) classified the respondents into three groups based on their
satisfaction levels on various dimensions of their jobs. He used eight variables
measuring satisfaction levels with specific aspects of the teachers and managers jobs
and four additional variables measuring the level of general satisfaction of the
university teachers and managers in his analysis. The results of his work showed three
distinct clusters; happy workers, satisfied workers and unhappy workers.
Korac-Kakabadse et al. (1998) grouped senior public servants in the Australian
Commonwealth Public service into three in terms of their leadership philosophy. The
three groups were: radicals, bureaucrats and team players based on their
organisational and leadership characteristics.
Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2001) conducted a comparative study of the
leadership profiles of managers in post-communist countries. Their results suggested
that while the managers used transactional, transformational and laissez-faire
leadership, the laissez-faire behaviour, as expected, was not prevalent amongst them.
Overall, transactional contingent reward leadership was used more often than any
other approach. Charisma and individualised consideration received the lowest scores
among the transformational leadership behaviour dimensions.
Bogler (2002) presented two profiles of schoolteachers in a study using discriminant
analysis. One group described those with low level of job satisfaction and the other
described those with high level of job satisfaction. The work has little relevance for the
current research except that it involves grouping of subjects based on some
parameters.
Shim et al. (2002), using survey data obtained from retail managers and executives
of national retail chain store companies, identified three leadership styles through the
use of k-means clustering technique. These leadership styles were labelled loner
(internal-focused), team builder (goal-oriented), and conceptual producer
(external-focused). These three clusters were then compared on the basis of
personal, organisational and managerial characteristics, using multivariate and
univariate analysis of variance. The findings indicate that leadership styles are
influenced by various factors such as personal values, job satisfaction, career
progression, organisational commitment and personal demographic characteristics.
The current work examined a group of 409 managers, working in various industries
and organisations in the UK, and assessed the extent to which they could be
meaningfully grouped on the basis of their leadership styles and behaviour as
managers. The implications of the groupings were explored.
Research method
The following research method was employed in the study. A questionnaire survey
was conducted where the population for the study comprised leaders and managers

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

working in the UK. A total of 1,440 questionnaires were administered to potential

respondents from a variety of organisations and industries. The questionnaire covered
managers from all the regions of the country. A total of 409 completed and usable
questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 28.4 per cent. The names of the
potential respondents were randomly obtained from key British enterprises. The
percentage responses from the various industries surveyed were: manufacturing (28),
financial services (7), utilities (2), IT\ telecommunication (5), public sector (24),
others (34).
The questionnaire requested respondents to indicate how often they adopted each of
the four leadership styles directive, consultative, participative or delegative in
their day-to-day activities. The questionnaire also requested respondents to indicate
the extent to which they believed they themselves used each of the following leadership
behaviours laissez-faire, management-by-exception, contingent reward, individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation or idealised influence
in their activities. The interpretation of each of the leadership styles and behaviour
dimensions is provided in the Appendix.
The questionnaire thus incorporated a self-report version of a leadership styles
questionnaire measuring the four leadership styles derived from profile, an
organisational systems survey research programme (Bass, 1974; Bass et al., 1975),
and Basss Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form MLQ-5S Revised, 1989), which
measures laissez-faire, transactional and transformational leadership. While some
studies have challenged its reliability and validity (Carless, 1998), it is legitimate to use
it and it has indeed been described as the most popular leadership instrument.
Perhaps one should emphasise that there is nothing new in attempting to group
objects or to classify people. For example, the Hindus, the early Greeks, and the
Romans developed several typologies based on variations in human physical and
behavioural characteristics (Everitt et al., 2001). Linnaeus cited in Everitt (1993, p. 2)
was concerned with classification in the plant and animal kingdom, stating the general
justification of his attempts in the following words:
All the real knowledge which we possess, depends on methods by which we distinguish the
similar from the dissimilar. The greater the number of natural distinctions this method
comprehends, the clearer become our idea of things. The more numerous the objects which
employ our attention, the more difficult it becomes to form such a method and the more
necessary (Everitt, 1993, p. 2; Quoted from Genera Plantarum, first published in 1737).

Similarly, it was from Adansons eighteenth century ideas cited in Lorr (1983, pp. 7-8)
on classification that the methods of numerical taxonomy later developed. More
recently, more formal and precise statistical and mathematical models to cluster
analysis have been developed. As the number of variables (criteria) and the cases
involved in classification problems are often numerous, computer specialists now
design and refine computer programs to eliminate the drudgery and the error level in
the otherwise very cumbersome computations involved.
It is important to note that the goals of users are often dissimilar and Ball (1971) lists
seven possible uses of clustering techniques data exploration, data reduction,
hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, prediction based on groups, finding a true
typology, and model fitting. Notwithstanding the variety in the goals of users, the basic
problem and theory in cluster analysis remains the same: essentially, given a sample of
X objects, each of which is measured on each of Y variables, cluster analysis is

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
751

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

752

concerned with grouping the objects into N classes, where within group similarities
across the Y variables are maximised, while between group dissimilarities are also
maximised (SPSS, 12.0, 2003, pp. 437-63).
It should be mentioned that in our classification scheme, the 11 variables were not
weighted and this approach was consistent with the view of Sokal and Sneath (1973)
who questioned the validity of assigning weights to variables based on intuitive
judgments of what is important, contending that clustering attempts to reveal
natural groups and not artificial ones. We took the view of Burnaby (Everitt, 1993)
who argued that including a variable while excluding some others, in effect, means
assigning weights: equal weights to the variables chosen and zero weights to those not
selected. In our analysis therefore the eleven variables were equally weighted.
The nature of the groupings obtained will be a partial function of the criteria used
and the methodology employed. Different criteria from ours and/or different
methodology from quick cluster analysis may produce different results. We chose
the quick cluster methodology as it grouped large numbers of cases efficiently and
produced only one solution for the number of clusters requested (Anderberg, 1973;
Wischart, 1978, 1982, 1987). In our study we requested for 3, 4 and 5 cluster solutions
for examination. We decided on the three-cluster solution because other clusters
incorporated tiny and specialised groupings.
The groups of organisational leaders
From the results of the quick cluster analysis, three groups of organisational leaders
were identified. Group 1 is called practical leaders, group 2 is named unity leaders and
group 3 is referred to as uncaring leaders from characteristics of their leadership styles
and behaviours identified from aspects of their jobs. These groups of leaders are
described below.
Practical leaders (group 1)
This group, made up of 47 members, represented about 12 per cent of the relevant
sample (a total of 20 cases were excluded from the cluster analysis by the programme).
Over half of these members indicated that they practised the following leadership
behaviour characteristics: delegative leadership, individual consideration and
inspirational motivation. The groups name was derived from these characteristics
as it is felt that practical leaders would want to delegate a lot, inspire the workforce and
individualise solutions to the workers problems.
Table I presents data which describe the group of managers. About 66 per cent of
the practical leaders (group 1) are male, 34 per cent female. This suggests that about
twice the number of the practical leaders are men compared to women. Could this
result have any link with the suggestion that men tend to be up and doing favouring
more practical and perhaps energy sapping activities in comparison with the women
who are sometimes regarded as the weaker sex? Alternatively, practical leaders may
be seen as caring inspirational managers who treat workers on a one-to-one basis.
These types of managers have cordial relationships with their subordinate managers
whom they delegate work to in order to train and develop them.
The age distribution of the practical leaders showed that 47 per cent of them were
between the 40-49 age group as one would expect of able and younger leaders. Only 13
per cent are older than 50 years and none of this group is up to 60 years old. Practical

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

Characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Age
,30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60
Management level
Top
Senior
Middle
Supervisor
Occasional management roles
Size of organisation
1-49 employees
50-249
250-999
1,000
Number of working years
1-2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21

Practical leaders

Unity leaders

Uncaring leaders

66
34

62
38

51
49

4
36
47
13
0

5
37
37
18
3

9
36
33
22
0

28
32
19
13
8

22
36
32
7
3

11
23
25
15
26

17
39
31
13

20
37
30
13

20
46
29
5

2
7
12
42
37

1
3
16
33
47

0
7
16
37
40

leaders have the highest percentage of top personnel in the management hierarchy
(28 per cent) with 32 and 19 per cent in the senior and middle-levels, respectively. This
suggests that, increasingly, younger managers occupy top management positions
within organisations. Perhaps this development may be a consequence of the greater
familiarity of the younger workers to the application of more and more technology
within todays organisations.
Practical leaders exist in all sizes of organisations as revealed by the figures in
Table I. While about 17 per cent are in very small organisations employing less than 50
workers, about 13 per cent of them are in the largest organisations with over 1,000
employees. The majority of the practical workers (exactly 70 per cent), perhaps as
expected, are in medium sized organisations employing at least 50 but less than a
thousand workers. Almost 80 per cent of the practical leaders have spent upwards of
ten working years either with their present organisations or for all the organisations
they have worked for. Less than 10 per cent of the leaders have totalled less than five
working years. It is suspected that majority of these workers would tend to need
several years in order to advance to senior and top management positions.
Unity leaders (group 2)
The second group of organisational managers (unity leaders) are made up of 267
members and represent a significant majority of 69 per cent of the relevant total sample
surveyed. The distinguishing characteristic of the unity leaders is that they consult

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
753

Table I.
Background information
on the groups of
managers (percentages)

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

754

very often much more than either of the two other groups. Indeed, 92 per cent of the
members practise consultative leadership either, fairly often, very often or
always, a percentage much higher than the corresponding figures of the other two
groups (67 per cent for group 3 and 81 per cent for group 1).
Unity leaders take active steps to lead their organisations and do not practise the
laissez-faire leadership, letting things run without intervening (Table II). Unity leaders
also scored highly in the following leadership styles and behaviour characteristics,
second only in relation to practical leaders (group 1): individual consideration,
intellectual stimulation and participative leadership. Their name was derived from a
consideration of all these features, especially their distinguishing consultation.
From data presented in Table I, a description of unity leaders can be made.
Information from the Table shows that this group has the oldest workers with 3 per
cent of them older than 60 years and with no worker in the other two groups as old as
60 years. Furthermore, unity leaders have worked for the longest period recording the
highest number of working years above 21 (47 versus 37 and 40 per cent with the other
two groups). Although the percentage of male workers in this group is higher than that
of the female employees, the ratio is not as high as in the practical leaders (1.63 versus
1.94). However, the percentage of unity managers in middle, senior and top
management levels (together) is higher than in the other two groups (90 versus
79 versus 59 per cent). In other words, there are higher percentages of occasional
management role holders and supervisory staff in the other two groups (Table I).
Uncaring leaders (group 3)
The third group of workers is made up of 75 members and represents 19 per cent of the
total relevant sample. Compared with the practical (group 1) leaders, there are a larger
number of uncaring (group 3) leaders, but both groups put together are still smaller
than half the size of unity (group 2) leaders.
Uncaring leaders distinguish themselves by recording relatively high percentages
on the never, occasionally and fairly often categories of all the eleven leadership
styles and behaviour dimensions and this means recording low percentages on the
very often and always categories generally (Table II). Thus, uncaring leaders do
not practise any of the leadership style and behaviour dimensions much including, of
course, the laissez-faire behaviour and they appear to allow things to operate or drift
without much check on them and hence their name. Unfortunately, this group of
managers represented 19 per cent of the workforce and this should be a matter of
concern to those looking for ways to improve the performance of organisations.
A description of the uncaring leaders can be made from data in Table I. Information
from the Table shows that whereas the proportion of females to males is 52 per cent in
the first group (practical leaders) and 61 per cent in the second (unity leaders), it is 96
per cent in the third group (uncaring leaders). In essence, there were nearly as many
female leaders as there were males in this group a sharp contrast both in the
proportion of females to males in the other two groups and in the overall sample of
managers. This finding may suggest that female managers tend to adopt uncaring,
laissez-faire leadership perhaps more than their male counterparts. However, other
research results are needed to shed further light on this tentative finding.
Uncaring leaders have 9 per cent of their members who are less than 30 years of age
in comparison with 5 per cent for unity (group 2) leaders and 4 per cent for practical

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

Leadership styles and behaviour

Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent
Extent

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

Practical leaders
a b c d ea

Unity leaders
a b c d e

Uncaring leaders
a b c d e

directive leadership
2 60 19 19 0 5 60 25 9 1 8 60
consultative leadership
0 19 38 36 7 1 7 39 50 3 4 29
participative leadership
0 17 36 45 2 1 16 44 37 2 4 50
delegative leadership
4 13 30 51 2 1 27 36 35 1 21 40
laissez-faire
19 66 9 2 4 49 50 1 0 0 43 53
management-by-exception
4 15 32 45 4 8 38 37 15 2 7 36
contingent reward
6 41 38 11 4 2 19 42 34 3 25 47
individualised consideration 0 2 26 51 21 0 7 39 46 8 16 48
intellectual stimulation
0 2 17 43 38 1 19 36 38 6 13 56
inspirational motivation
0 2 21 56 21 3 27 40 27 3 24 45
idealised influence
2 17 28 36 17 3 26 39 28 4 28 53

25 7 0
55 9 3
36 7 3
28 11 0
3 1 0
38 16 3
27 1 0
33 3 0
21 10 0
25 6 0
19 0 0

Notes: a, a, b, c, d, e, represents, respectively, never, occasionally, fairly often, very often and
always; The figures in the Table are in percentages and they represent the responses under the
appropriate categories; The addition of the five responses (a b c d e) should, therefore,
total 100

(group 1) leaders. In order words, they appear to have younger workers relative to the
other two groups. Other age distributions are similar among the three groups of
managers (Table I). Another distinguishing feature of uncaring leaders is that they
have by far the highest percentage of those who described themselves as
non-managers in their group (26 per cent) compared with only 8 and 3 per cent in
the other two groups. Indeed, 41 per cent of the uncaring leaders are either supervisors
or in the occasional management role categories in comparison with similar figures of
21 and 10 per cent in the other two groups. This finding seems to tally with the earlier
ones to suggest that we have relatively younger female workers, who are in the lower
organisational and management hierarchy working in this category.
It should also be observed that uncaring leaders have the lowest percentages of top
and senior managers in comparison with the other two groups. From the data in
Table I, we also have an additional picture of uncaring workers: they tend to work in
small and medium sized organisations in comparison with practical and unity leaders
who worked in significantly larger organisations. In terms of the number of working
years, the data in Table1 suggest that uncaring leaders have no new employees unlike
the practical and unity leaders. About 40 per cent of its workers are long-term
employees. Similar percentages for practical and unity leaders are 37 and 47 per cent,
respectively.
Comparison of the groups of organisational leaders
This section compares the three groups of organisational leaders, based on the profiles
presented on Table II and using the tests of significant differences on Table III. The
comparison brings out similarities and differences in the groups leadership styles and
behaviours for each dimension examined.
Comparison of groups on leadership styles
Directive leadership is the extent to which a boss attains desired objectives by telling
subordinates or others what to do and how to do it. The results in Table III suggest that

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
755

Table II.
Some statistics of the
leadership styles and
behaviour of the groups
of managers

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

756

Table III.
A comparative analysis
of the leadership styles
and behaviour of the
groups of managers

Leadership styles and behaviour

Practical leaders
and unity leaders
T-value Result

Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of
Extent of

2 1.106
2 1.688
2 0.656
2 1.791
5.721
4.547
2 3.726
3.105
6.373
6.924
3.136

directive leadership
consultative leadership
participative leadership
delegative leadership
laissez-faire
management-by-exception
contingent reward
individualised consideration
intellectual stimulation
inspirational motivation
idealised influence

Practical leaders
and uncaring
leaders
T-value Result

Unity leaders and

uncaring leaders
T-value Result

NS
1.740 p , 0.10
1.091 NS
p , 0.10
3.476 p , 0.01
7.675 p , 0.001
NS
25.347 p , 0.001 27.024 p , 0.001
p , 0.10
6.254 p , 0.001
7.479 p , 0.001
p , 0.001
3.260 p , 0.01 21.377 NS
p , 0.001
3.387 p , 0.01 20.612 NS
p , 0.001
4.043 p , 0.001 10.383 p , 0.001
p , 0.01
12.162 p , 0.001 13.652 p , 0.001
p , 0.001 12.748 p , 0.001
9.168 p , 0.001
p , 0.001 12.424 p , 0.001
7.785 p , 0.001
p , 0.01
10.163 p , 0.001
9.982 p , 0.001

there are no statistical differences between practical (group 1) and unity (group 2)
leaders on this dimension and there are also no statistical differences between unity
and uncaring (group 3) leaders. There is, however, a statistical difference between
practical and uncaring leaders. An examination shows that the statistical difference is
weak (significant only at 90 per cent confidence level) and this suggests that all the
group of managers are alike in their practice of this style of management. A further
examination reveals that slightly over 65 per cent of all the managers either never uses
or only occasionally uses this style of management as it would be regarded a little out
of place in managing the enlightened workforce that we have today.
On consultative leadership, however, we find that there are significant differences
among the three groups of managers and the difference was most pronounced between
participative (group 2) and uncaring (group 3) leaders. From the questionnaire
responses, consultation appears to be widely practised in most UK organisations. This
finding is consistent with modern management philosophy of closely consulting with
and thereby involving workers in most areas of organisational decision making. An
examination of the data in Table II reveals, as expected, that consultation tend to be
practised more by unity leaders than by the practical (group 1) or uncaring leaders. On
participative leadership, however, there are no significant differences between
practical and unity leaders (group 1 and group 2) while there are significant
differences, at the 99.9 per cent confidence level, between both practical and uncaring
leaders and between unity and uncaring leaders. As an objective of consultation is to
involve others in joint decisions, one would have expected a greater level of similarity
between the results of the consultative and participative leadership.
Delegative leadership refers to the extent to which a manager attains desired
objectives by leaving subordinates or others free to make their own decisions. The
results from Table II suggest that delegation is widely practised by managers at
different levels and the information in Table III suggests that there are significant
differences among the three groups of managers in the extent to which they practise
this leadership style. Tests of differences are slightly significant between practical and

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

unity leaders but very significant, at the 99.9 per cent confidence level, between both
practical and uncaring leaders and between unity and uncaring leaders.
Of the overall leadership styles, therefore, we can see that three of the tests of
differences are not significant and three are only significant at the 90 per cent
confidence level. This means that only half of the various tests are statistically
significant among the three groups of managers at greater than 95 per cent confidence
level. This finding suggests that although there are important differences, there are
also significant similarities in the leadership styles and practices by UK managers and
classification into different groups did not becloud this fact.
Comparison of groups on leadership behaviours
There are seven dimensions of the leadership behaviour of the groups of managers and
each of these will now be examined briefly. They include the extent to which each
manager practised laissez-faire, management-by-exception, contingent reward,
individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and
idealised influence in the course of their everyday duties (Tables II and III). Unlike the
leadership styles that record as much as 25 per cent of all its tests as insignificant
( p , 0.10), less than 10 per cent of all the tests conducted in respect of the leadership
behaviour dimensions are similarly insignificant, i.e. most of the differences are not
statistically important. In effect, there are more and greater levels of differences found
in the resulting groupings of the managers based on their leadership behaviours than
was the case with their classification into leadership styles.
On laissez-faire behaviour the results show that it is not a widely popular
management practice (Table II). Some managers obviously do take a stand on
organisational issues, they do not ignore problems and hope that they will go away and
most managers follow up on their decisions and actively intervene in the
decision-making processes that take place in their organisations. As the profile of
practical (group 1) leaders differs from that of the two other groups of leaders (see the
distribution in Table II), we find that while there are no statistical differences between
unity and uncaring managers, practical and unity managers as well as practical and
uncaring managers have understandable significant differences. It will be observed
that as high as 15 per cent of the practical leaders practise laissez-faire form of
leadership either fairly often, very often or always. This compares with 1 per cent and 4
per cent who practise laissez-faire form of leadership at about the same extent in the
other two groups.
The result for management-by-exception is similar to the one on laissez-faire
leadership discussed above. An inspection of Table II will reveal similar distribution of
responses for unity and uncaring (group 2 and group 3) workers but different
distribution for practical workers. While 19 per cent of group three respondents and
17 per cent of group two respondents very often or always practice
management-by-exception, as high as 49 per cent of group 1 respondents practise
the leadership behaviour to the same extent. Also, while some managers would
practise management-by-exception, setting performance objectives and standards and
either wait for problems to arise or monitor progress and take corrective actions as and
when necessary, other managers would anticipate problems and deal with it as much
as possible even before such problems occur.

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
757

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

758

Contingent reward is a transactional leadership factor. A manager sets performance

objectives and standards and exchanges rewards and recognition for achievement.
Table II shows different distributions for the three groups of managers on this factor.
Whereas the practical leaders record about 15 per cent on this variable (the addition of
the very often and always categories of contingent reward), unity leaders have
37 per cent while uncaring leaders show only 1 per cent. Not surprisingly, these
distributions prove statistically significant at the 99.9 per cent confidence level
(Table III). Unity leaders in the sample, therefore, truly display contingent reward in
their organisations followed by practical leaders while uncaring leaders generally do
not exhibit that characteristic. The results of our analyses not only support these
findings, but also they seem to justify the labelling of the groups.
Individualised consideration is a transformational leadership factor that occurs
when a manager shows concern for a worker, identifying the workers unique abilities
and needs and providing matching challenges and opportunities to him or her. The
results of our analyses (the addition of the very often and always categories of
Individualised consideration) reveal that practical leaders display 72 per cent of this
leadership behaviour while unity and uncaring leaders exhibit 54 and 3 per cent of the
behaviour, respectively. These differences are statistically significant at the 99 per cent
confidence level (Table III). Again, these findings seem to justify the individual names
of the groups of organisational leaders.
Intellectual stimulation as a leadership behaviour questions the status quo and
encourages imagination and creativity and the use of intuition and logic. The outcome
of our analyses (the addition of the very often and always categories of intellectual
stimulation) suggests that, again, practical leaders exhibit 81 per cent of this behaviour
while unity and uncaring leaders display only 44 and 10 per cent of the behaviour,
respectively. The distributions are significant at a very high 99.9 per cent confidence
level (Table III). Our results suggest that the practical leaders seem to question the
status quo more than the unity and uncaring leaders. Similar to the results on
individualised consideration, uncaring managers, consistent with their name, do not
seem to be doing much to justify being managers within their organisations.
A manager with inspirational motivation will communicate a clear vision and
attempt to align the goals of the organisation with the individuals aspirations. Table II
shows different distributions for the three groups of managers on this factor. It is
notable that, again, practical leaders display 77 per cent of this variable (the addition of
the very often and always categories of inspirational motivation) while unity
leaders show 30 per cent and uncaring leaders display only 6 per cent. The relevant
distributions are statistically significant at the 99.9 per cent confidence level (Table III).
The results suggest that uncaring leaders have little or no motivation, unity leaders
have only moderate motivation but practical leaders have considerable inspirational
motivation. It is this characteristic that seem to propel managers who have
inspirational motivation to pursue (and sometimes win) many organisational goals.
A manager with idealised influence will display trust and confidence as a result of
demonstrating out-of-the-ordinary ability in the pursuit of her objectives. From the
figures on Table II and using the addition of the very often and always categories of
idealised influence, we observe that practical leaders scored 53 per cent, unity leaders
scored 32 per cent and uncaring leaders scored nothing on this variable. As indicated on
Table III the distributions are significant at the 99 per cent confidence level.

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

We observed the same pattern of distributions relating to the four transformational

leadership variables: practical leaders display most of the characteristics, uncaring
leaders show the least and unity leaders always seemed to stay in the middle. There is,
therefore, a high degree of consistency in these results and all seem to lend credence not
only to the appropriateness of the analytical methodology and the resulting names but
also to the implications of the results of the analyses.
While clustering techniques have been applied to a wide variety of research problems
in biology, medicine, psychiatry and archaeology, relatively little cluster analyses are
being used in management. Perhaps the time has come to emphasise the utility of this
important analytical device. In general, whenever one needs to classify a mountain of
information into manageable meaningful piles, cluster analysis is very useful.
Overall then more than 75 per cent of the results of the leadership styles and
behaviours of the groups of managers investigated are statistically significant at the 99
per cent confidence level or better (Table III). Indeed, the results between the practical
and uncaring managers are statistically significant for all the 11 leadership styles and
behaviour dimensions! If nothing else these results give credence and confidence to the
value of the cluster analysis methodology employed to examine the groups of
managers.
Implications of the groupings of the organisational leaders
The results of our analyses show that a meaningful classification of managers, based
on their leadership and behaviour profiles, is possible despite the fact that managers
vary widely in their leadership styles and behaviour characteristics on all aspects of
their jobs. The basis of the cluster analysis is the extent to which the managers used
particular leadership styles or adopt particular leadership behaviours in their
day-to-day activities.
The results of the cluster analysis also show that there is an alternative way
of classifying organisational managers into distinct groups apart from the
conventional classification based on position alone. Instead of using only one
criterion, rank, the classification in this paper is based on 11 criteria incorporating a
self-report version of a leadership styles questionnaire measuring the four leadership
styles derived from Profile and Basss Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass,
1974; Bass et al., 1975). Thus, a large set of appropriate job criteria was used for
clustering the managers into various groups and not just their position in the
organisational hierarchy.
Another implication of the grouping is that it shows clearly that a high percentage
of the managers (81 per cent) are either practical or unity managers, descriptions that
conjure organisational leaders involved with collective decisions and hands-on
activities in their establishments, a situation which is healthy for British organisations.
Additionally, this grouping highlights a certain percentage of the respondents (19 per
cent) whose leadership characteristics and practices can, perhaps, be improved by
appropriate training and education. Indeed the results of this study suggest that
positive actions need to be taken on the part of organisations in order to improve the
productivity and effectiveness of their uncaring managers and workers.
Perhaps there is a need to utilise cluster analysis in human activities more. This may
lead to a greater or better understanding and or appreciation of the activities of various
groups of managers. Indeed, Doty and Glick (1994) argue that organisational typologies

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
759

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

760

have proved to be a popular approach for thinking about organisational structures and
strategies. The authors suggest that typologies are essential to clear and parsimonious
understanding of organisational phenomena. Phillips and Lord (1986) and Hunt (1996)
suggest, however, that it is critical to our understanding of leadership that we clearly
delineate the behavioural level accuracy of the typologies we use. Along this line of
thinking, Pearce et al. (2003) extend the transactional-transformational model of
leadership by deductively developing four theoretical behavioural types of leadership
based on a historical analysis of leadership literature. The results of their extensive study
and analyses generally support the existence of four leadership types: directive leadership,
transactional leadership, transformational leadership and empowering leadership.
Summary and conclusions
Various types of workers and managers had previously been classified on the bases of
a variety of criteria such as nationality, rank, age, department, educational level, etc.
This study has investigated the leadership styles and behaviour profiles of UK
managers. Using a cluster analytical methodology, it classified the managers into
three: practical leaders (group 1), unity leaders (group 2), and uncaring leaders
(group 3). It was found that the practical and unity leaders form a high percentage of
the managers in UK organisations. Nevertheless, the major characteristics of the
leadership styles and behaviour profiles of uncaring leaders were identified and
attention by organisational managers should now focus on suggestions aimed at
making their managers more effective in the performance of their jobs.
Table III clearly shows that the three groups of managers are distinct based on their
leadership styles and behaviour characteristics. For example, the tests of differences
between unity and uncaring leaders were not only significant in all the tests examined,
but also they were significant in at least 99 per cent confidence level in 91 per cent of all
the cases!
It should be reiterated that this grouping was based on a sample of 409 managers
who responded to our survey on leadership styles and behaviour. The naming of the
groups should not be allowed to give the impression that there was complete
uniformity within each category. It should be emphasised that eleven aspects of the
managers job were used for the classification, each aspect of job was measured on a
five-point scale, and only average data for the various groups were compared. It is
possible, therefore, that a given manager in a group may not necessarily feature
prominently on the criteria from where his or her group name apparently emanated.
Finally, absolute statements about the effectiveness of the three groups of managers
cannot be made with certainty; effectiveness of each group is relative. Nevertheless, it
may be expected that practical and unity (group 1 and 2) managers would tend to be
more successful/effective than the uncaring (group 3) managers.
References
Anderberg, M.J. (1973), Cluster Analysis for Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Ardichvili, A. and Gasparishvili, A. (2001), Leadership profiles of managers in post-communist
countries: a comparative study, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 62-9.
Ball, G.H. (1971), Classification Analysis, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

Bass, B.M. (1974), Bass-Valenzi Management Styles Profile: A Computerised Systems Survey
Feedback Procedure, Management Research Centre, IRGOMTR Report 74-12, University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M., Farrow, D.L., Valenzi, E.R. and Solomon, R.J. (1975), Management styles associated
with organisational, task, personal and interpersonal contingencies, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 720-9.
Bogler, R. (2002), Two profiles of schoolteachers: a discriminant analysis of job satisfaction,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 665-73.
Carless, S.A. (1998), Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as
measured by the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 71,
pp. 353-8.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994), Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward
improved understanding and modelling, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 230-51.
Everitt, B. (1993), Cluster Analysis, 3rd ed., Edward Arnold, London.
Everitt, B., Landau, S. and Leese, M. (2001), Cluster Analysis, 4th ed., Edward Arnold, London.
Hunt, J.G. (1996), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Korac-Kakabadse, A., Korac-Kakabadse, N. and Myers, A. (1998), Demographics and leadership
philosophy: exploring gender differences, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 351-88.
Lorr, M. (1983), Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 7-8.
Oshagbemi, T. (1988), Leadership and Management in Universities, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,
pp. 107-22.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997), Job satisfaction profiles of university teachers, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Pearce, C.L., Sims, H.P., Fox, J.F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K.A. and Trevino, L. (2003),
Transactors, transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoretical
typology of leadership, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-307.
Phillips, J.S. and Lord, R.G. (1986), Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of
implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement, Journal of
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-41.
Shim, S., Lusch, R.F. and Goldsberry, E. (2002), Leadership style profiles of retail managers:
personal, organisational and managerial characteristics, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 186-201.
Stewart, R. (1984), The nature of management? A problem for management education, The
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 323-30.
Stewart, R. (1988), Managers and their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences in the
ways Managers Spend their Time, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London, pp. 100-33.
SPSS, 12.0 (2003), SPSS Inc, Users Guide, SPSS, Chicago, IL, pp. 437-63.
Sokal, R.R. and Sneath, P.H.A. (1973), Principles of Numerical Taxonomy, Freeman, London.
Wishart, D. (1978), Cluster User Manual, 3rd ed., Report No. 47, Inter University Research
Council Series, Edinburgh.

Leadership
styles and
behaviour
761

JMD
25,8

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

762

Wishart, D. (1982), Supplement to Cluster User Manual, 3rd edition, Report No.47, Inter
University Research Council Series, Edinburgh.
Wishart, D. (1987), Cluster Analysis Software, Computing Laboratory, University of St Andrews,
Fife, Scotland.
Further reading
Everitt, B. (1974), Cluster Analysis, Heinemann Educational Books, London, p. 2.
Appendix
The meanings of the leadership styles and behaviour dimensions used in the analysis:
.
Directive leadership. Extent of telling subordinates what to do.
.
Consultative leadership. Extent of discussing matters with subordinates and others before
the manager decides.
.
Participative leadership. Extent of sharing in a consensual decision-making process with
others, i.e. joint decisions.
.
Delegative leadership. Leaving subordinates and others free to make their own decisions.
.
Laissez-faire. The leader avoids taking a stand, ignores problems, does not follow up, and
refrains from intervening.
.
Management-by-exception. This can be active or passive. The leader monitors deviations
from performance standards, and takes corrective action as necessary or waits passively
for deviations, mistakes and errors to occur and then takes corrective action.
.
Contingent reward. The leader sets performance objectives and exchanges rewards and
recognition for achievement.
.
Individualised consideration. The leader shows concern for the individual by identifying
her unique abilities and needs and providing matching challenges and opportunities.
.
Intellectual stimulation. The leader questions the status quo and encourages imagination
and creativity and the use of intuition and logic.
.
Inspirational motivation. The leader communicates a clear vision and aligns the goals of
the organisation with that of the individual
.
Idealised influence. The leader displays charisma by expressing confidence in the vision
and gaining respect, trust and confidence by demonstrating extra ordinary ability.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Sheffield Hallam University At 17:39 24 March 2015 (PT)

1. Pervaiz Akhtar, Zaheer Khan. 2015. The linkages between leadership approaches and coordination
effectiveness. British Food Journal 117:1, 443-460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]