CHAPTER- IV DATA ANALYIS INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

Data analysis interpretation and discussion.

To fulfill the objectives of the study laid down by researcher, correlation coefficient of leadership style with organizational commitment was adopted, so as to study the relationship of leadership style and organizational commitment of three levels (senior, middle, junior) managers of media industries comprising of print media and electronic media. The sample consisted of different media houses in Delhi and NCR. The relationship of four types of leadership styles (directive, supportive, consulting, delegating) is studied against three types of organizational commitment affective commitment ,normative commitment, continuance commitment) Style 1 (Directive style :high regulating ,low nurturing behavior) the leader defines the roles of group members ,tells them what task to do .problem solving and decision making is initiated solely by leader. Solutions and decisions are announced, communication is one way, the leader closely supervises implementation. Style2 (Supportive style: high nurturing ,high regulating behavior)-the leader provides great deal of direction and leads with his or her ideas but leader attempts to hear the group feeling about decision as well as their ideas and suggestions. Two way communication and support are increased, control over decision making remains with the leader. Style3 (consulting style: High nurturing ,low regulating behavior)-The focus of control for day to day decision making and problem solving shifts from leader to group members .Leaders role is to provide recognition and to

actively listen and facilitate problem solving and decision making on part of the group. Style 4 ( Delegating style ,low nurturing, low regulating behavior)-Leader discusses the problem with his people until joint agreement is achieved on problem definition, decision making process is delegated totally to group members .Group has significant control for deciding how tasks are to be accomplished. Organizational commitment comprises of three variables .They are described below. Affective Commitment is defined as employees emotional attachment to organization .As a result, he or she strongly identifies with goals of organization and desires to remain a part of organization. The employee commits to organization because he wants to. Continuance Commitment is individual commitment to organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership including economic losses such as pension accruals and social costs as friendship ties with co workers that would have to be given up. Employee remains a member because he /she has to. Normative Commitment is defined as employees commitment to organization due to the feeling of obligation. For instance, organization may Have invested resources in an employee who then feels an obligation to put forth effort on job and stay with organization to repay debt. A significant relationship was found between the two variables i.e organizational commitment and leadership styles.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.0565 NS -.1591** -.0692 NS -.1277** Supportive S2 -.1257** .1705** .0858 NS .0110 NS Consulting S3 .0861 NS -.0111 NS .0221 NS .0750 NS Delegating S4 .0853 NS .0424 NS .0131 NS .0553 NS

Total sample Table TS Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of respondents of print and electronic media. N=461 ** Significant at .01 level NS not significant

The table. Shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the total sample. In all 461 managers from print and electronic media were surveyed .The managers were of all the three levels i.e junior level, middle level and senior level. The managers enjoy the position of assistant manager. senior managers vice president etc etc. Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis Ho9 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The affective commitment shows a negative significant relationship with the supportive style of leadership. supportive style is characterized by high

regulating behavior so the emotional attachment of the employee (affective commitment) decreases with the regulating behavior of the leader.(P=.001) However no significant relationship was found with the other three styles i.e directive, consulting and delegating. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles A similar relationship was found with directive style of leadership. Delegating style being low nurturing and high regulating ,the employee feels less committed owing to the directive style of leadership .In contrast to this the employee feels more committed to organization due to the supportive style of leadership(High regulating, high nurturing). No significant relationship was found with the consulting and delegating style of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows no significant relationship with any of the leadership style. Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive, consulting and delegating styles of leadership, a significant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive style(P=.006) The reason that can be cited is that high regulating and low nurturing behavior affect the commitment of the employee.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.5147** -.6449** .7132** -.4753** Supportive S2 .1935 NS .4587** -.3040 NS .2673 NS Consulting S3 .019 NS -.0842 NS -.5969** -.1439 NS Delegating S4 .2921 NS .2382 NS .2339 NS .3405 NS

Senior managers(Electronic media)

Table SE Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of senior level of respondents of electronic media. N=30 ** Significant at .01 level NS not significant

The table indicate the relationship of leadership style with organizational commitment of electronic media. The sample consisted of 30 managers from electronic media industry. Of all the senior level managers of electronic media surveyed organizational commitment was found to be significantly related to leadership style. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership style The affective commitment shows a negative significant relationship with organizational commitment with directive style of leadership (r=-.5147,p=.004).Directive style is characterized by low nurturing and high regulating behavior so the affective commitment component is low with directive style of leadership. However insignificant relationship was found

between affective commitment and supportive style ( r=.1935 p=.306),consulting style (r= .019 p= .920),delegating style (r=.2921 p= .117)

Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership style Continuance commitment was found to be significantly related to directive style of leadership ( r=-.6449 p=.000).The relationship is negative i.e the more the directive (low nurturing and high regulating behavior) the lesser the continuance commitment. The relationship between continuance commitment and supportive style of leadership ( high nurturing ,high regulating) was found to be significant( r=.4587,p=.011) continuance commitment shows No significant relationship with consulting style (r=-.0842,p=.658 ) and delegating style (r=.2382.p=.205). Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership style Normative commitment is individual commitment to organization due to the feeling of obligation. It shows significant relationship with directive style of leadership (r=.7132,p=.000) .The lower the nurturing behavior the lower feeling of obligation. Regarding the relationship between normative commitment and consulting style of leadership a significant relationship was found between the two(r=-.5969,p=.000) Insignificant relationship was found between normative commitment and supportive style(-.3040,p=.102) .same relationship was indicated with delegating style(r=.2339,p=.214). Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership style

Total commitment shows a significant relationship with directive style of leadership(r=-.4753,p=.008).however supportive style, consulting style and delegating style showed insignificant relationship with overall commitment.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 .1423 NS -.0623 NS .7763** .2768 NS Supportive S2 .0974 NS .4478** -.1386 NS .1515 NS Consulting S3 -.6459** -.3987** -.7800** -.7082** Delegating S4 .2256 NS .1482 NS .3210 NS .2633 NS

Senior manager(print media)

Table SP

Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of senior level of respondents of print media.
N=34

** Significant at .01 level NS not significant The table. Is the representation of relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the senior managers of print media.. In all 34 managers from print were surveyed .. The senior managers enjoy the position of assistant manager. senior managers vice president etc etc. Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles

The affective commitment shows a negative significant relationship with the consulting style of leadership. consulting style is characterized by low regulating and high nurturing behavior so the emotional attachment of the employee (affective commitment) decreases with the regulating behavior of the leader.(r=-.6459,P=.000) However no significant relationship was found with the other three styles i.e directive,(r=.1423,p=.422) supporting(r=.0974 p=.6459)and delegating(r=.2256 p=.200). Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles Continuance commitment is commitment due to high cost of losing the organization. A significant relationship was found with supportive style of leadership(r=.4478,p=.008) and consulting style of leadership(r=-.3987,p=.02). supportive style being high nurturing and high regulating ,the employee feels more committed owing to the supportive style of leadership .In contrast to this the employee feels less committed to organization due to the consulting style of leadership(low regulating, high nurturing). No significant relationship was found with the directive(r=-.0623,p=.726) and delegating style(r=.1428,p=.403) of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows significant relationship with directive(r=.7763,p=.000) and consulting (r=-.7800,p=.000) leadership style. Supportive style (r=-.1386,p=.435) and delegating style(r=.3210,p=.064) were insignificantly related to normative commitment Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive(r=.1515,p=.392), directive(r=.2768,p=.113) and delegating styles(r=.2633,p=.133) of leadership, a significant relationship is found between overall commitment and consulting style(r=-.7082,p=.000)

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.2667* -.3568** -.2704* -.4434** Supportive S2 .0453 NS -.0157 NS .0192 NS .0167 NS Consulting S3 .2757* .3849** -.0885 NS .3492** Delegating S4 .0071 NS .0382 NS .3568** .1456 NS

Middle manager (electronic media) Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of middle level of respondents of electronic media. N=59 ** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant The table. Shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the middle level managers of electronic media. In all 59 managers electronic media were surveyed . The managers enjoy the position of senior account director senior managers, assistant vice president etc. Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis Ho4stands rejected.

Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The affective commitment shows a significant relationship with the directive style of leadership(r=-.2667,p=.04) it is characterized by high regulating behavior so the emotional attachment of the employee (affective commitment) decreases with the regulating behavior of the leader and consulting style(r=.2757,p=.035) is characterized by low regulating behavior so the emotional attachment of the employee (affective commitment) is high However no significant relationship was found with the other two styles i.e supportive (r=.0453,p=.734) and delegating(r=.0071,p=.957) Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles A significant relationship was found with directive style of leadership(r=-.3568,p=.006) and delegating style(r=.3849,p=.003). Consulting style being high nurturing and low regulating ,the employee feels more committed .In contrast to this the employee feels less committed to organization due to the directive style of leadership(High regulating, low nurturing). No significant relationship was found with the supporting and delegating style of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows significant relationship with directive style (r=-.2704,p=.03) and delegating(r=.3568,p=.006) leadership style. The employee is less committed due to directive style of leadership and is more committed due to delegating style of leadership Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive,(r=.0167,p=.900) and delegating styles of leadership(r=.1456,p=.271),.a significant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive style(r=-.4434,p=.000) and consulting style(r=.3492,p=.007) The reason that can be cited is that high regulating and low nurturing behavior affect the commitment of the employee.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.0792 NS -.1180 NS -.5055** -.3732** Supportive S2 .0027 NS .2519 NS .1768 NS .0927 NS Consulting S3 .0092 NS -.1202 NS .2584 NS .1470 NS Delegating S4 .0158 NS .0000 NS .3503* .2317 NS

Middle manager(print media) Table MP Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of middle level of respondents of print media.

N=40 ** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant This table shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the middle managers from print media. In all 40 managers from print media were surveyed . The managers enjoy the position of assistant manager. senior managers etc etc. Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis Ho2 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The affective commitment shows a no significant relationship with any of the style of leadership. Directive style(r=-.0792,p=.627),supporting

style(r=.0027,p=.987),consulting style(r=.0092,p=.955) and delegating style(r=.0158,p=.923) . Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles An insignificant relationship was found with directive style(r=-.1180,p=.468),supportive style(r=.2519,p=.117),consulting(r=-.1202,p=.460) and delegating style(r=.0000,p=1.00) of leadership.

Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows no significant relationship with supportive style(r=.1768,p=.278) and consulting style(r=.2584,p=.107) of leadership. Directive style(r=-.5055,p=.001) and delegating style(r=.3503,p=.02) are significantly related to normative commitment The high regulating and high nurturing make the employee feel less committed to the organization. The more delegating is the leader the commitment level is high. Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive,(r=.0927 ,p=.569) consulting(r=.1470.,p=.365) and delegating styles(r=.2317,p=.150) of leadership, a significant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive style(r=-.3732,p=.018) The reason that can be cited is that high regulating and low nurturing behavior affect the commitment of the employee.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.0719 NS -.0824 NS -.7737 NS -.1025 NS Supportive S2 -.11249 NS .1967** .1261 NS -.0430 NS Consulting S3 .0383 NS .0694 NS .0158 NS .0233 NS Delegating S4 .1851** -.0006 NS -.0583 NS .0572 NS

Junior managers (electronic media)

Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of junior level of respondents of electronic media.
N=198

** Significant at .01 level NS not significant This table shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the junior managers of electronic media. In all 198 managers from electronic media were surveyed . The managers enjoy the position of account executive, senior executive, account head and management trainee etc etc. Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis Ho3 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles

The analysis shows insignificant relationship between affective commitment and directive style (r=-.0719,p=.314),supportive style(r=-.11249,p=.080) and consulting style(r=.0383,p=..592) .But it shows a positive significant relationship with the delegating style of leadership(r=.1851,p=.009). delegating style is characterized by low regulating behavior and low nurturing so the emotional attachment of the employee (affective commitment) increases with the low regulating behavior of the leader. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles A significant relationship was found with supportive style of leadership(r=.1967,p=.005). supportive style being high nurturing and high regulating ,the employee feels more committed owing to the supportive style of leadership . No significant relationship was found with the directive(r=-.0824,p=.248) consulting (r=.0694,p=.332)and delegating style of leadership(r=-.006,p=.415). Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows no significant relationship with any of the leadership style.directive (r=-.0773,p=.279),supportive (r=.1262,p=.077),consulting(r=.0158,p=.825) and delegating (r=-.0583,p=.415) style of leadership. Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive(r=-.1025,p=.151), supportive(r=.0430,p=.548) consulting(r=.0233,p=745) and delegating styles (r=.0572,p=.424)of leadership

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.1023 NS -.1210 NS -.0808 NS -.1313 NS Supportive S2 .1389 NS .1407 NS .2067* .0514 NS Consulting S3 .0782 NS -.0034 NS -.0173 NS .0498 NS Delegating S4 .1744 NS .0213 NS -.0899 NS .458 NS

Junior managers(print media) Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of junior level of respondents of print media. N=100 *Significant at .05 level NS not significant The table. Shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the junior managwers of print media. In all 100 managers from print media were surveyed Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis Ho1 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The affective commitment shows a no significant relationship with the directive(r=-.1023,p=.311) supportive,

(r=-.1389,p=.108)consulting(r=.0782,p=.440) and delegating (r=.1744,p=.083)style of leadership. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles The continuance commitment shows a no significant relationship with the directive(r=-.1210,p=.230) supportive,(r=.1407,p=..163) consulting(r=-.0034,p=.973) and delegating (r=.0213,p=.083)style of leadership

Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows significant relationship with supportive style(r=.2067,p=.039) of leadership being high nurturing and high regulating the employee commitment is high Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles The overall commitment shows a no significant relationship with the directive(r=-.1313,p=.193) supportive, (r=..0514,p=.612)consulting(r=.0498,p=.623) and delegating (r=..458,p=.651)style of leadership

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.0951 NS -.1778** -.0585 NS -.1569** Supportive S2 -.1031 NS .1613* .0711 NS .0213 NS Consulting S3 .1051 NS .0166 NS .0211 NS .0987 NS Delegating S4 .0913 NS -.0445 NS -.0229 NS .0511 NS

Electronic media Table 1A Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of total respondents of electronic media.
N=287

** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant The table. Show the responses of managers of electronic media(junior level, middle level and senior level).This sample consist of 287 units .In all 287 electronic media managers were studied and it was found that organizational commitment shows a significant relationship with the leadership style Thus hypothesis 08 stands rejected Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles

The affective commitment shows a no significant relationship with the directive(r=-..0951,p=.108) supportive, (r=-.1031,p=.081)consulting(r=.1051,p=.076) and delegating (r=.0913,p=.123)style of leadership. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles Continuance commitment is significantly related to directive (r=-.1778,p=.002) and supportive style(r=-.1031,p=.006) of leadership. Directive style being low nurturing and high regulating ,the employee feels less committed owing to the directive style of leadership .In contrast to this the employee feels more committed to organization due to the supportive style of leadership(High regulating, high nurturing). No significant relationship was found with the consulting and delegating style of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows no significant relationship with any of the leadership style Directive(r=-.0585,p=.323),supportive(r=.0711,p=.230),consulting(r=.0211, p=.722),consulting(r=-.0229,p=.699). Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive(r=.0213,p=.720), consulting(r=.0987,p=.095) and delegating (r=.0511,p=.388)styles of leadership, a significant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive style(r=-.1569,p=.008) The reason that can be cited is that high regulating and low nurturing behavior affect the commitment of the employee.

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 .0008 NS -.1165 NS -.1081 NS -.0967 NS Supportive S2 -.1711* .1913** .1153 NS -.0074 NS Consulting S3 .0565 NS -.0730 NS .0335 NS .0427 NS Delegating S4 .0761 NS .0375 NS .0062 NS .0651 NS

Print media Table 1A Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of total respondents of print media.
N=174

** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant The table. Show the responses of managers of print media(junior level, middle level and senior level).This sample consist of 174

units.In all 174 print media managers were studied and it was found that organizational commitment shows a significant relationship with the leadership style. Thus hypothesis 07 stands rejected Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The information provided by the print media managers clearly show affective commitment is significantly related to the supportive(r=-..1711,p=..024) style of leadership.the negative relationship can be explained by the high regulatory behavior of the leader.The commitment level falls with the regulatory behavior. An insignificant relationship was found between affective commitment and directive,(r=-.0008,p=.992)consulting(r=.0565,p=.459) and delegating (r=.0761,p=.318)style of leadership. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles Continuance commitment is significantly related to supportive style(r=-..1913,p=.011) of leadership. . the employee feels more committed to organization due to the supportive style of leadership(High regulating, high nurturing). No significant relationship was found with the directive (r=-.1165,p=.126) consulting(r=-.0730,p=.338) and delegating style(r=.0375,p=.623) of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows no significant relationship with any of the leadership styleDirective(r=-.1081,p=.156),supportive(r=.1153,p=.130),consulting(r=.0 335,p=.661),delegating(r=-.0062,p=.935). Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles Overall commitment shows no significant relationship with any of the leadership styleDirective(r=-.0967,p=.204),supportive(r=-.0074,p=.923),consulting(r=.. 0427,p=.576),delegating(r=.0651,p=.393).

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.2284 NS -.4209** .7438** -.1319 NS Supportive S2 .1408 NS .4376** -.2143 NS .2069 NS Consulting S3 .2875* -.2035 NS -.6951** -.4196** Delegating S4 .2647* .1808 NS .2859* .3014**

Senior managers(print and electronic media) Table TS Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of senior level of respondents of electronic and print media. N=64
** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant

The table. Shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of the senior managers of the total sample. In all 64 managers from print and electronic media were surveyed .The managers were of senior level Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles The affective commitment shows significant relationship with the delegating(r=.2647,p=.035) and consulting (r=-.2875,p=.021) style of

leadership. However no significant relationship was found with the other two styles i.e directive(r=-.2284,p=.069), and supporting(r=.1408,p=267) leadership styles Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles An insignificant relationship is found between commitment and consulting(r=-.2035,p=.107) and delegating(r=.1808,p=.153) style of leadership A dissimilar i.e a significant relationship was found with directive style(r=-.4209,p=.001) and supportive style(r=.4376,p=.000)of leadership. Directive style being low nurturing and high regulating ,the employee feels less committed owing to the directive style of leadership .In contrast to this the employee feels more committed to organization due to the supportive style of leadership(High regulating, high nurturing). Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Employees obligatory commitment (normative commitment) shows significant relationship with directive style(r=.7438,p=.000),supportive style ,consulting style (r=-.6951,p=.000) and delegating (r=.2859,p=.022) leadership style. However it was insignificantly related to supportive style of leadership. Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and directive style(r=-.1319,p=.299) .Similarly supportive style (r=.2069,p=.101), show a insignificant relationship . In contrast consulting and delegating style show a significant relationship. (r=-.4196,p=.001,r=.3014,p=.016) respectively

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.1862** -.2830** -.3235** -.3925** Supportive S2 .0338 NS .0428 NS .0867 NS .0476 NS Consulting S3 .1655 NS .2645** -.0442 NS .2190* Delegating S4 .0173 NS .0247 NS .3582** .1940*

Middle managers(print and electronic media) Table MT Relationship (co rrelation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of middle level managers of electronic and print media. N=99 *Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level NS not significant

The table. Shows the relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organizational commitment of middle managers of the total sample. In all 99 managers from print and electronic media were surveyed . Of all the managers surveyed leadership style is significantly related to organizational commitment. Thus hypothesis H06 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles

The affective commitment shows a negative significant relationship with the directive (r=-.1862,p=.065).The high regulating behavior makes the employee less committed. However no significant relationship was found with the other three styles i.e supportive,(r=.0338,p=.740) consulting(r=.1655,p=.102) and delegating(r=.o173,p=.865) style of leadership. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles A significant relationship was found with directive style(r=-.2830,p=.005) of leadership and consulting style(r=.2045,p=.008). No significant relationship was found with the supporting (r=.0438,p=.667 and delegating style(r=.0247,p=.808) of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Normative commitment shows no significant relationship with supportive(r=.0867,p=.393) and consulting(r=-.0442,p=.664) leadership style. A significant relationship is found with directive (r=-.3235,p=.001) and delegating (r=.3582,p=.000) style of leadership. Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive (r=.0476,p=.640) style of leadership. Directive (r=-.3925,p=.000) consulting(r=.2190,p=.029) and delegating(r=.1940,p=.054) styles of leadership show a significant relationship

Organisational Commitment Affective Commitment Continuance Commitment Normative Commitment Total

Leadership Styles Directive S1 -.0820 NS -.0963 NS -.0774 NS -.1122* Supportive S2 -.1291* .1765** .1528** .0462 NS Consulting S3 .0516 NS -.0457 NS .0037 NS .0322 NS Delegating S4 .1814** .0080 NS -.0701 NS .0526 NS

Junior managers(print and electronic media) Table TJ Relationship (correlation coefficient) of leadership style with organisational commitment of junior level of respondents of electronic and print media. N=298 ** Significant at .01 level *Significant at .05 level NS not significant

The table----shows the relationship of leadership style with organizational commitment of junior managers of the total sample in all 298 junior managers were surveyed and it was found that both the variables show a significant relationship thus hypothesis H 05 stands rejected. Relationship of affective commitment with all the four leadership styles

The affective commitment shows a significant relationship with the supportive (r=-.1291,p=.026) and delegating (r=.1814, p= .002,). However no significant relationship was found with the other two styles i.e directive, (r=-.0820,p=.158,) and consulting(r=.0516,p=.375). style of leadership. Relationship of continuance commitment with all the four leadership styles A significant relationship was found with the supportive style(r=.1765,p=.002,) of leadership style. No significant relationship was found with the directive (r=-.0963,p=.097), consulting (r= - .0457,p=.432) and delegating style(r=.0080,p=.89) of leadership. Relationship of normative commitment with all the four leadership styles Normative commitment shows no significant relationship with directive (r= -.0774, p= .183) consulting(r=.0037,p=.950) and delegating (r= -.0701,p = . 228) leadership style. A significant relationship is found with supportive (r=.1528,p=.008). Relationship of overall commitment with all the four leadership styles As shown in the table an insignificant relationship is found between overall commitment and supportive (r =.0462,p=.427), consulting(r =.0322,p=.580) and delegating(r =.0526,p=..366) styles of leadership. Directive style (r= -.1122,p = .053,) shows significant relationship.

Comparison of leadership styles of two medias(print and electronic) The two medias studied by the researcher are print media and electronic media. The two medias have different culture, work environment and motivational levels. Since everything is different in these two organizations commitment level and leadership styles are also different. In table .. comparison of leadership style of two medias are done. As far as comparison of leadership style is concerned it was found that the print media managers show more of regulating behavior and less nurturing behavior .As suggested by mean of two media Directive Style is more prevalent in electronic media ( mean 3.88) as compared to print media ( mean 3.66).Although the difference remains insignificant. Same observation was found by the researcher for the supportive style of leadership( high nurturing, high regulating).The mean of electronic media (2.99) and print media(2.98) show a significant difference. When the researcher compared the consulting style of leadership (Low regulating, high nurturing) print media employees outstanded (mean 3.67) in comparison to electronic media (mean 3.67),the difference being insignificant. This would imply that print media organizations are more of consulting nature than electronic media

The results for delegating style was found similar to this. The mean of print media( ) was found to be more than electronic media. The result again being insignificant.

Table 2D Comparison of dimensions of leadership style between print and electronic media of total respondents
Leadership style dimension Directive S1 Supportive S2 Consulting S3 Delegating S4 Total Electronic media N=287 Mean SD 3.88 1.79 2.99 1.31 3.57 1.52 55.24 1.75 1.28 14.39 Print media N=174 Mean SD 3.66 2.98 3.67 1.54 54.43 t-value

1.70 1.13 1.58 1.17 4.68

1.31 NS .03* .61 NS .16 NS 1.89 NS

NS- not significant *- Significant at .05 level **- Significant at .01 level Comparison of leadership effectiveness of print and electronic media Leadership effectiveness or adaptability or flexibility as is called is the style range (flexibility) how easily a leader is capable of using various four styles. Adaptability or relevance (how appropriately a leader uses various styles). In the table below the leadership adaptability of both the medias is compared. A significant difference is seen while comparing the leadership

effectiveness of print and electronic media. The respondents of print media are more flexible than electronic media managers. Table 2A Comparison of leadership effectiveness between respondents of two groups( print and electronic media respondents)
Media N Electronic 287 Print 174 **- Significant at .01 level Mean 56.74 61.84 SD 13.04 14.79 t-value 3.87**

Comparison of leadership styles of two medias(print and electronic) The two medias studied by the researcher are print media and electronic media. The two medias have different culture, work environment and motivational levels. Since everything is different in these two organizations commitment level and leadership styles are also different. In table .. comparison of leadership style of two medias are done. As far as comparison of leadership style is concerned it was found that the print media managers show more of regulating behavior and less nurturing behavior .As suggested by mean of two media Directive Style is more prevalent in electronic media ( mean 3.88,SD) as compared to print media ( mean 3.66,SD).Although the difference remains insignificant. Same observation was found by the researcher for the supportive style of leadership( high nurturing, high regulating).The mean of electronic media (2.99) and print media(2.98) show a significant difference. When the researcher compared the consulting style of leadership (Low regulating, high nurturing) print media employees outstanded (mean 3.67) in comparison to electronic media (mean 3.67),the difference being insignificant. This would imply that print media organizations are more of consulting nature than electronic media

The results for delegating style was found similar to this. The mean of print media( ) was found to be more than electronic media. The result again being insignificant.

comparison of dimensions of leadership style between print and electronic media of total respondents
Leadership style dimension Electronic media N=287 Mean SD 3.88 1.79 2.99 1.31 1.75 1.28 14.39 Print media N=174 Mean SD 3.66 2.98 3.67 1.54 54.43 t-value

Directive S1 Supportive S2 Consulting 3.57 S3 Delegating 1.52 S4 Total 55.24 NS- not significant *- Significant at .05 level **- Significant at .01 level

1.70 1.13 1.58 1.17 4.68

1.31 NS .03* .61 NS .16 NS 1.89 NS

Comparison of leadership effectiveness of print and electronic media Leadership effectiveness or adaptability or flexibility as is called is the style range (flexibility) how easily a leader is capable of using various four styles. Adaptability or relevance (how appropriately a leader uses various styles). In the table below the leadership adaptability of both the medias is compared. A significant difference is seen while comparing the leadership

effectiveness of print and electronic media. The respondents of print media are more flexible than electronic media managers.
Table 2A

Comparison of leadership effectiveness between respondents of two groups( print and electronic media respondents)
Media N Electronic 287 Print 174 **- Significant at .01 level Mean 56.74 61.84 SD 13.04 14.79 t-value 3.87**

Comparison of organizational commitment between respondents of two groups (print and electronic media respondents) Table 2A6 Comparison of dimensions of organizational commitment between two groups (print and electronic) of total respondents
Organizational Electronic media commitment N=287 dimension Mean SD Affective 25.40 3.04 commitment Continuance 14.29 1.84 commitment Normative 15.64 2.08 commitment Total 55.24 4.39 Print media N=174 Mean SD 25.03 14.42 15.13 54.46 t-value

3.02 1.59 2.14 4.68

1.25 NS .76 NS 2.50** 1.89 NS

NS- not significant **Significant at .01 level As the table suggests affective commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and affective commitment (mean 25.40,SD 3.04 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean 25.03 SD 3.02).(t=1.25,p=.210)

Similarly continuance commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and continuance commitment (mean 14.29,SD 1.84 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean 14.42 SD 1.59).(t=-.76,p=.450) However normative continuance show significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and normative commitment (mean 15.64,SD 2.08 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean15.13 SD2.14).(t=2.50-.76,p=.013) Overall commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias .In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and continuance commitment (mean 14.29,SD 1.84 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean 14.42 SD 1.59).(t=-.76,p=.450) Comparison of areas of improvement between respondents of two groups (print and electronic media respondents) Table 2B Comparison of dimensions of areas of improvement between print and electronic media of total respondents
Areas of improvement Ci Mi Ti Electronic media N=287 Mean SD 3.50 1.18 2.24 1.36 1.90 1.23 Print media N=174 Mean SD 3.08 1.91 1.72 t-value

1.18 1.34 1.34

3.7** 2.45** 1.55 NS

NS- not significant **- Significant at .01 level Area of improvement is where leader overlook and does not recognize the strengths of the group. The strengths of the group are competence(Ci),commitment (Mi) and teamwork(Ti) Competence is the understanding based on knowledge and the skills required to perform a job.

Commitment or motivation is the willingness of individual members to set and accept challenging goals ,to take responsibility involvement in work and job satisfaction. Teamwork is the cohesiveness, collaboration and confrontation of the group. Cohesion means group functions as strong teams, each member feels that his views and concerns are considered by others. Collaboration indicates that some tasks are done by members as small teams and members feel free to volunteer, ask for and respond to request for help. confrontation is whenever there is a problem that concerns the group, the group deals with it(does not shy away),generates alternative solutions and takes decision on course of act As the table suggests competence show significant difference in two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and competence (mean3.501 ,SD1.18 ) was found to be significantly different to 174 print media managers(mean 3.08 SD 1.18).(t=3.71,p=.000) Similarly Motivation show significant difference in two medias .In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and motivation (mean2.24,SD1.36 ) was found to be significantly different to 174 print media managers(mean 1.91 SD1.34).(t=2.45p=.015) However teamwork show no significant difference in the two medias .In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and teamwork (mean1.90,SD1.23 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean1.72 SD1.34).(t=1.55,p=.122) Comparison of Areas of deficiencies between two groups(print and electronic media)
Table 2B Comparison of dimensions of areas of deficiency between print and electronic media of total respondent Areas of Electronic media Print media t-value deficiency N=287 N=174 Mean Mean

Cd Md Td

SD 1.58 1.02 2.14

.98 .88 1.30

SD 1.43 .88 1.98

.84 .89 1.27

1.75 NS 1.72 NS 1.35 NS

NS- not significant Area of deficiencies is of the team which leader neglects. As the table suggests competence show no significant difference in two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and competence (mean1.58 ,SD.98 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 174 print media managers(mean1.43 SD.84).(t=1.75,p=.080) Similarly Motivation show no significant difference in two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and motivation (mean1.02,SD.88 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 174 print media managers(mean .88 SD.89).(t=1.72p=.087) However teamwork also show no significant difference in the two medias. In all electronic 287 electronic media managers were surveyed and teamwork (mean2.14,SD1.30 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 174 print media managers(mean1.98 SD1.27).(t=1.35,p=.177) Comparison of dimensions of leadership styles of senior managers of the two groups (print and electronic media)
Table 2C Comparison of dimensions of leadership style between print and electronic media respondents of senior level Leadership Electronic media Print media t-value style N=30 N=34 dimension Mean Mean SD SD Directive S1 2.63 1.09 2.65 1.01 .05* Supportive 3.53 .78 3.61 .74 .44 NS S2 Consulting 3.57 .90 3.20 1.23 1.33 NS S3 Delegating 2.17 .70 1.94 .85 1.15 NS S4

NS- not significant *- Significant at .05 level

In table .. comparison of leadership style of senior managers of two medias are done. When comparing the directive style of the two medias it was found that the senior electronic media managers(mean 2.63,SD 1.09) show insignificant difference with print media managers ( mean 2.65,SD1.01) (t=-.05,p=.959) Same observation was found by the researcher for the supportive style of leadership( high nurturing, high regulating).The electronic media (mean3.53,SD.78) and print media( mean3.61,SD.74)t=.44,p=.658 show an insignificant difference. When the researcher compared the consulting style of leadership (Low regulating, high nurturing) electronic media employees outstand (mean 3.57,SD.90) in comparison to print media (mean 3.20,SD 1.23),t=1.33,p=.189 ,the difference being insignificant. This would imply that print media organizations are more of consulting nature than electronic media The results for delegating style was found similar to this. The mean of electronic media(2.17 ,SD.70 ) was found to be more than print media(mean1.94,SD.85).t=.66,p=.255 The difference again being insignificant.

Comparison of dimensions of organizational commitment of senior managers of the two groups (print and electronic media)
Table 2A5 Comparison of dimensions of organizational commitment between print and electronic media respondents of senior level managers Organizational Electronic media Print media t-value commitment N=30 N=34 dimension Mean Mean SD SD Affective 24.10 2.61 23.50 1.90 1.06 NS

commitment Continuance 14.47 commitment Normative 15.03 commitment Total 53.60 NS- not significant

1.80 .81 4.06

14.50 15.00 53.00

.96 .89 3.25

.09 NS .16 NS .66 NS

As the table suggests affective commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all 30 senior electronic media managers were surveyed and affective commitment (mean 24.10,SD 2.61 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 34 senior print media managers(mean 23.50 SD1.90.(t=1.06,p=.294) Similarly continuance commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all 30 senior electronic media managers were surveyed and continuance commitment (mean 14.47,SD 1.80 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 34 print media managers(mean 14.50 SD.96).(t=-.09,p=.925) normative continuance show no significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all electronic 30 senior electronic media managers were surveyed and normative commitment (mean15.03,SD.81 ) was found to be insignificantly related to34 print media managers(mean15.0 SD.89).(t=.16,p=.876) Overall commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias electronic media managers (mean 53.60,SD4.06 ) was found to be insignificantly different to print media managers(mean 53.00 SD3.25).(t=.66,p=.514) Comparison of leadership effectiveness of senior managers of two groups( print and electronic media) Table 2A Comparison of dimensions of leadership effectiveness between two groups( print and electronic media respondents) of senior level managers.
Media Electronic Print N 30 34 Mean 75.51 79.86 SD 4.91 4.80 t-value 3.58**

**- Significant at .01 level

Leadership effectiveness or adaptability or flexibility as is called is the style range (flexibility) how easily a leader is capable of using various four styles .Adaptability or relevance (how appropriately a leader uses various styles). In the table below the leadership adaptability of both the medias is compared. A significant difference is seen while comparing the leadership effectiveness of print(mean 79.86,SD4.80) and electronic media(75.51,SD4.91) t=3.58,p=.001.The respondents of print media are more flexible than electronic media managers. Comparison of Areas of improvement of senior managers two groups(print and electronic media)
Table 2B Comparison of dimensions of areas of improvement between print and electronic media of senior level managers Areas of Electronic media Print media t-value improvement N=30 N=34 Mean Mean SD SD Ci 2.23 1.04 1.97 .71 1.19 NS Mi 1.00 .53 .79 .59 1.46 NS Ti .83 1.02 .56 .74 1.24 NS

NS- not significant As the table suggests competence show no significant difference in two medias.In all electronic 30 senior electronic media managers were surveyed and competence (mean2.23 ,SD1.04 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 34 senior print media managers(mean 1.97 SD .71). (t=1.19,p=.239) Similarly Motivation show insignificant difference in two medias. In all 30 electronic media managers were surveyed and motivation (mean1.000,SD.53 ) was found to be significantly different to 34 print media managers(mean .79 SD.59).(t=1.46p=148)

Similarly teamwork show no significant difference in the two medias. of 30 electronic media managers surveyed and teamwork (mean.83,SD1.02 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 34 print media managers(mean1.56 SD.74).(t=1.24,p=.220)

Comparison of Areas of deficiencies of senior managers two groups(print and electronic media)
Table 2B Comparison of dimensions of areas of deficiency between print and electronic media of senior level manager Areas of Electronic media Print media t-value deficiency N=30 N=34 Mean Mean SD SD Cd 1.20 .66 1.15 .86 .27 NS Md .50 .50 .35 .49 1.18 NS Td 1.70 1.26 1.08 1.14 2.04**

NS- not significant **- Significant at .01 level Analysis indicate competence show no significant difference in two medias.In all electronic 30 senior electronic media managers were surveyed and competence (mean1.20 ,SD.66 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 34 senior print media managers(mean 1.15 SD .86). (t=.27,p=.785) Similarly Motivation show insignificant difference in two medias. In all 30 electronic media managers were surveyed and motivation (mean.50,SD.50 ) was found to be significantly different to 34 print media managers(mean .35 SD.49).(t=1.18p=.241) teamwork show significant difference in the two medias. of 30 electronic media managers surveyed and teamwork (mean1.70,SD1.26 ) was found to

be insignificantly related to 34 print media managers(mean1.08 SD1.14). (t=2.04,p=.046)

Comparison of dimensions of leadership styles of middle managers of the two groups (print and electronic media)
Table 2A7 Comparison of dimensions of leadership style between print and electronic media respondents of middle level managers Leadership Electronic media Print media t-value style N=59 N=40 dimension Mean Mean SD SD Directive S1 4.19 1.55 3.95 1.45 .77 NS Supportive 3.19 1.30 3.08 .82 .48 NS S2 Consulting 2.61 1.50 3.30 .99 2.56** S3 Delegating 1.95 1.44 1.60 1.15 1.28 NS S4 NS- not significant **- Significant at .01 level

In table .. comparison of leadership style of middle managers of two medias are done. When comparing the directive style of the two medias it was found that the senior electronic media managers(mean4.19,SD 1.54) show insignificant difference with print media managers ( mean 3.95,SD1.45) (t=.77,p=.446) Same observation was found by the researcher for the supportive style of leadership( high nurturing, high regulating).The electronic media (mean3.19,SD1.29) and print media( mean3.08,SD.83)t=.48,p=.631 show an insignificant difference.

When the researcher compared the consulting style of leadership (Low regulating, high nurturing) electronic media (mean 2.61,SD1.50) in comparison to print media (mean 3.30,SD .99),t=-2.56,p=.012 ,the difference was significant. It implies print media middle managers are more consulting as compared to their electronic counterparts. The results for delegating style was found dissimilar to this. The mean of electronic media(1.94 ,SD1.44 ) was found to be more than print media(mean1.60,SD1.15).t=1.80,p=.204 The difference again being insignificant. Comparison of dimensions of organizational commitment of middle managers of the two groups (print and electronic media)
Table 2A4 Comparison of dimensions of organizational commitment between print and electronic media respondents of middle level managers Organizational Electronic media Print media t-value commitment N=59 N=40 dimension Mean Mean SD SD Affective 24.91 2.93 24.58 3.09 .55 NS commitment Continuance 14.53 2.37 14.63 1.61 .23 NS commitment Normative 15.27 1.40 14.00 2.10 3.62** commitment Total 54.72 4.78 52.93 5.08 1.80 NS NS- not significant **Significant at .01 level

As the table suggests affective commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias. In all 59middle electronic media managers were surveyed and affective commitment (mean 24.91,SD 2.93 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 40 middle print media managers(mean 24.58 SD3.09(t=.55,p=.580) Similarly continuance commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias .of middle electronic media managers surveyed continuance commitment (mean 14.53,SD 2.37 ) was found to be insignificantly different to 40 print media managers(mean 14.63 SD1.61).(t=.23,p=.817)

normative continuance show significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias.59 middle electronic media managers were surveyed and normative commitment (mean15.27,SD1.40 ) was found to be significantly different to 40 print media managers(mean14.00 SD2.10). (t=3.62,p=.000).normative commitment is found more in electronic media. Overall commitment does not show any significant difference in organizational commitment of the two medias electronic media managers (mean 54.72,SD4.78 ) was found to be insignificantly different to print media managers(mean 52.93 SD5.08).(t=1.80,p=.o75) Comparison of leadership effectiveness of middle managers of two groups( print and electronic media) Table 2A Comparison of dimension of leadership effectiveness between two groups( print and electronic media respondents) of middle level managers. Media N Mean SD t-value Electronic 59 52.33 4.05** Print 40 62.37 **- Significant at .01 level Leadership effectiveness or adaptability or flexibility as is called is the style range (flexibility) how easily a leader is capable of using various four styles. Adaptability or relevance (how appropriately a leader uses various styles). In the table below the leadership adaptability of both the medias is compared. A significant difference is seen while comparing the leadership effectiveness of print(mean62.37,SD13.37) and electronic media(52.33,SD11.17) t=-4.05,p=.000.The respondents of print media are more flexible than electronic media managers. Comparison of Areas of improvement of middle managers two groups(print and electronic media)
Table 2B

Comparison of dimensions of areas of improvement between print and electronic media of middle level managers

Areas of improvement

Electronic media N=59 Mean SD Ci 4.20 .83 Mi 2.46 .90 Ti 1.93 .83 NS- not significant **- Significant at .01 level

Print media N=40 Mean SD 3.18 1.95 1.88

t-value

1.03 1.31 1.60

5.48** 2.48** .23 NS

As the table suggests competence show significant difference in two medias .In all electronic 59 middle electronic media managers were surveyed and competence (mean4.20 ,SD.83 ) was found to be significantly different to 40 middle print media managers(mean3.18 SD1.03). (t=5.48,p=.000) This further suggests that electronic media managers tend to overlook and do not recognize this strength of the team. Similarly Motivation show significant difference in two medias. Motivation of electronic middle media managers (mean2.46,SD.90 ) was found to be significantly different to 40 print media managers(mean 1.95 SD1.31). (t=2.48,p=.015).The same results were highlighted that electronic media managers tend to overlook and do not recognize this strength of the team. Similarly teamwork show no significant difference in the two medias. Of Middle electronic media managers surveyed teamwork (mean1.93,SD.83 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 40 print media managers(mean1.88 SD1.60).(t=.23,p=.817) Comparison of Areas of deficiencies of middle managers of two groups(print and electronic media)
Table 2B Comparison of dimensions of leadership style and areas of deficiency between print and electronic media of middle level manager Areas of Electronic media Print media t-value deficiency N=59 N=40 Mean Mean SD SD Cd 1.88 1.58 1.18 .91 2.56** Md 1.16 1.02 .75 .98 2.04** Td 2.17 1.60 2.12 1.30 .15 NS

NS- not significant *- Significant at .05 level **- Significant at .01 level Analysis indicate competence show significant difference in two medias. Of 59 middle electronic media managers surveyed competence (mean11.88 ,SD1.58 ) was found to be significantly different to 40 middle print media managers(mean 1.18 SD .91).(t=2.56,p=.012).Hence electronic media managers tend to neglect this weakness of their team more than print media middle managers. Similarly Motivation show significant difference in two medias. electronic media managers motivation (mean1.169,SD1.02 ) was found to be significantly different to40 print media managers(mean .75 SD.98). (t=2.04p=.044) Hence electronic media managers tend to neglect this weakness of their team more than print media middle managers. teamwork show insignificant difference in the two medias.of electronic media managers surveyed teamwork (mean2.17,SD160 ) was found to be insignificantly related to 40 print media managers(mean2.12 SD1.30). (t=.15,p=.884)