You are on page 1of 37

C

TER V

VERIFICATION OF LEADERSHIP S
REDDIN'S 3-D MODEL

ES OF

5.1

INTRODUCTION

5.2

LEADER BEHAWOUR CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION

5.3

LEADER BEHAVIOUR EMPIRICAL DATA DISCUSSION

5.4

CONCLUSION

5.1

INTRODUCTION
The leadership studies initiated In 1945 by the bureau of business

research at Ohio State University attempted to identify the leader behaviou


r. The inter disciplinary team of researchers from psychology, sociology, and
economics

developed

and

used

in

"Leader

Behaviour

Description

Questionnaire" to analyse the behaviour of leaders in numerous types of groups


and situations. The answers to the questionnaire were then subjected to factor
analysis. The two dimensions of the leader behaviour that has emerged in the
analysis were labelled as "consideration" and "initiating structure".
Consideration refers to the orientation and need for the leaders' of have
friendly, trusting, respectful and warm relationships with the other members
of the team. Initiating structure, the other dimension of behaviour, refers to
leaders', endeavour to establish well defined patterns of orgalrisation, channels
of communication, standardsed methods and ways of getting jobs done.
Blake and Mouton (1964)' have popularised these concepts in their
managerial grid and used it to typify the various behaviours of Leaders in the
organisational plane. Blake and Mouton instead of usiilg the words
"considerations" and "initiating structure" they used the different words known
as "concern for people" and "concern for production". 'Concern for' means the
managers pre-disposition about something or attitudinal model that measured
the values of feelings of a leader.

. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. 1964. The Managerial Grid,


publisher.

ons st on Texas Gulf

"Manager~algrid" developed by R.R.Blake and J.S. MoutonLand "3-D


Theory of Managerial Effectiveness" developed by W.J.Redd1n.l have the
common ground. They both use a two dimensional grid "concern fer productiec"
and "concern for people" in the case of Blake Grid; and "Task orientation" and
"Relationships orientation" in the case of the 3-D theory. The typolosy posits
two underlying behaviour dimensions named task orientation and relationships
orientation. The two dimensions relating to task and relationships are well
accepted and could be a reasonable structural element on which to the base on
integrative typology.

A major difference between the two systems is that the 3-D theory
suggests that defining on individuals ignores the fact that he may be either
effective or ineffective and thus, a t h r d dimension - "Effectiveness" is added
to the grid. Further, the 3-D theory draws upon the development of
appropriate style flexibility. Most readers are probably less familiar with 3-D
theory than with the Blake Grid.
In the first instance, Indian management is generally believed to be
autocratic with subordinates closely supervised by their superiors, and only a
limited degree of participation is allowed to the subordinates. In a study of
leadership styles along with delegation of authority of 123 executives a t
various levels of management from two privates and two public sector

2.

The Managerial Grid, R.R. Blake and J.S. Mounton, 1964 Gulf Publishing Co.

! 'Managerial Effectiveness" W.J.Reddin, MC Graw-Hill.

companies, Elhance and Agarwal1 conclude that 67 percent c~xecut~ve


in
prlvate sector and 57 percent of thein In public sector units have democratic
1eader.shlp style.

The study of 280 managers from 2 public sector units and 4 private
sector units by Singh and Das2 show that bureaucratic style is the most
predominant followed by the benevolent autocrat, developer and democratic in
that order. It is observed that the research study of P.Singh is based on the
3D-Theory of Prof.Reddin3.Reddin (1967), a pioneer of effectiveness dimension
which was further developed as Tri-Dimensional leader Effectiveness model,
believes that variety of leadership styles may be effective or ineffective
depending on the situations. Reddin was the first to add an effectiveness
dimension to the task concern and relationship concern dimensions of earlier
attitudinal models such as the managerial grid. Reddin felt that a useful
theoretical model must allow a variety of styles to be effective or ineffective
depending on the situation.

The orientations identified by the ohio state university studies and Black
and Mouton need not be same the orientations for leaders working in the
bureaucratic environment which is vastly different from that of an
environment prevailing is non-government organisations.

l.

D.N.Elhance and R.D.Agarwa1: Delegation of Authority. 1975.

. P.Singh and G.S.Das: "Management styles of Indian Managers - A profile"


ASCI Journal of Management Sep.1977.

3. Reddin, W.J: Managerial Effectiveness. New York: MC Grow Hill Book


Company, 1970.

Hence, an attempt 1s made in this study to ldentify the predominant


behaviour leadership styles of the Telecommunlcation Engneers.

5.2

CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION ON LEADER BEHAVIOUR OF


TELECOM ENGINEERS
At the heart of the 3-D Theory is a very simple idea. It was discovered

in a long series of research studies conducted by psychologists in the united

states.
The description of leadership styles formulated on the basis of series of
research studies are given chapter

TV "Focus of Research study theoretical

perspective towards Reddin's 3-D leadership theory".


The eight leadership style, arised from a combination of task orientation,
relationship orientation and effectiveness orientation. The four less effective
styles are referred to as the deserter, missionary, autocrat, and compromiser
styles. The four-more effective styles are referred to as the bureaucrat,
developer, benevolent autocrat and democratic styles.
Leadership styles can arise from situational differences or individual
differences. So, leaders need to think about their situation and what they are
trying to achieve in it and consider which one or more of the four more
effective styles they might use. It might be if the situation has sufficiently
diverse elements that they use all four more effective styles with different
elements of the situation.

All managerial situations can be easily broken down ~ n t o20 elements.


Some concern people, some concern the process to achieve productivity, and
some concern the interaction between peopie and product.ivity. (-;erta!_n_ly,not
all of them are important in all situations. Some are clearly more important
in some situation than others. In some situations only one is important.

Redain (1988) has formulated the 20 situational elements.

1.

Superior

The person to whom you report.

2.

Coworker

Managers

of

equivalent

level

or

authority with whom you interact.

3.

Subordinates

Those who report directly to you.

4.

Staff Advisers

Knowledge workers usually with low


authority and power, whose job it is to
provide information and advice.

5.

Unions

Union representatives or members of


unions.

6.

The purchasers of the company's

Customers

products or services.

7.

General Public

Anyone who is not an employee or


customer of the company.

8.

Creativity

The production of ideas.

9.

Objectives

What you plan to achieve.

10

Planning

The specific means whereby objectives


are realised.

11.

Change Introduction

12.

Implementation

The actual initiation of a new plan.


The actions that are taken to realise
plans and decisions.

13.

Controls

Methods of monitoring actions so that


adjustments can be made if necessary.

14.

Evaluation

Measurement of the effectiveness of


action.

15.

Productivity

The level of the managers output of


those things required by the managers
superior.

16.

Communication

Receipt

and

transmission

information.

17.

Conflict

Disagreements.

18.

Error

Things that go wrong.

of

19

Meetings

Two or more people comlng together to


discuss something.

20.

Teamwork

Interaction between two or more people


with high emphasis of both task and
relationships orientations.

Reddin (19'70) has propounded Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness


Model and developed eight managerial styles. Reddln further, in this behaviour
typology of eight managerial styles, has identified the above twenty situation
elements.
The behaviour typology to be defended is built on three independent
d~menslonscalled task orientation, relationships orientation and effectiveness.
They are defined as follows.

TASK ORIENTATION (TO)


The extent to which a leader directs his efforts; characterlsed by
initiating, organising and directing. That is the extent to which a leader is
emotionally committed and willing to invest effort in achieving the targets that
has been set-forth for them. This orientation is likely to make the leaders to
give more importance to production and technical aspects of the jobs and would
make him to treat the subordinates as tools to accomplish the goals of the
organisation. Further, it is likely to make the leaders to place more importance
to the aspect of "Getting the job of done" than any other aspect of the
organisation processes.

RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION (RO)


The extent to which a leader has personal job

relatlonship?;

characterised by listening, trusting, and encouraging. That is the extent to


which leader is emotionally committed and willing to invest effort In keeping
congenial relationships with others in the organisational set up.

This orientation, if present, will make the individual to take more care
about the feelings of the people in the organisation. Leaders having this
orientation are likely to give more importance to the subordinates personal
needs.

LEADER EFFECTrVENESS (E)


The extent to which the leader behaviour is perceived as appropriate to
the demands of the situations, described above.

All possible combinations of above or below average amounts of each


dimension lead to eight types as shown in chart 5.1.

DERWATION OF EIGHT LEADERSHIP STYLES

Low on task and relationships is termed separated, low on task and high
on relationships is termed related, high on task and low on relationships is
termed dedicated, high on both task and relationships is termed integrated.
Low on effectiveness is indicated by - and high on effectiveness is inhcated by

+. For instance, the less-effective separated behaviour is labelled separated and the more-effective version is labelled separated

+.

The typology does not posit a single ideal type. Thus any of the four
behaviour types has an associated more-effective type and less-effective type.
It thus differentiates itself sharply from those well known typologies which
propose such single ideal types as theory Y (McGregor, 1960), 9.9 (Blake and
Mouton, 19641, and System 4 (Likert, 1967).

A British publication devoted to measuring managerial effectiveness


(Bennett and Brodie, 1981) defines managerial effectiveness as : "...... a
concept which helps us to examine the relationship between what a manager
achieves (performance) and what he is expected to acheve (purpose and goals),
within the constraints set by the manager's own capacities, his positions, the
organisation and the environment" (P.8).
An operational measurement of this definition would have to attempt to

relate expectation of achievement. In crude term, "I tried and I failed" or more
sharply, "I tried to fulfill my superior's expectations and I failed". How might
these expressions of positive and negative institutional value be measured?
Chapter one - methodology - "The measurement of behaviour" contains
the rationale, design, and initial validation of the Management Position
Analysis Test (MPAT). However, as the explicit incorporation of effectiveness
in the model and the often presumed measurement of effectiveness in MPAT
are the most distinctive feature of the model and test, the use of 'effectiveness'
as a third dimension.
The eight leadership styles as an integration of other leader behaviour
typologies is shown in chart 5.2. This chart positions the types of major

current typologies agalnst the eight leader types. The eight typolopes include
L e w ~ n ,Lipp~ttand White (1939)),Brown ( 1954), McGregor (1960 r, Jennings
1962). E!ake and J4outon (19641, Hclplc (19661,Llkert (1967:, and Hala:
i 1974). This

table presents compelling evidence of the utility of the eight type

typology. All the types of eight major typologies fit quite well, all of the eight
types are represented in at least one typology and all typlologies have
significant gaps in the types they admit. The conclusion to be drawn is that
the eight proposed leader types represent a powerful, comprhenesive and
conceptually sound typology.
Observe that all eight typologies have an equivalent to the dedicated (autocrat) type. All of the seven other leader types each have two or more
equivalents. The separated

+ (bureaucrat) so

consistently described in the

soclolo~calliterature, is represented in only three of the eight typologies. A


brief comment on each of these typologies will help to explain its particular
characteristics.
The early Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939)typology, based on dimension
of initiation and guidance, is the first modern attempt at positing more then
one type so that its simplicity is understandable.
The Brown (1954) typology, based largely on personal observation of
British leaders, includes six of the eight leadership styies. The sole British
typology, all the others originated in the U.S.A; does not include either the
related

+ or the integrated -. It is difficult to suggest possible reasons for the

omissions except to point out that both types have a relationships component
which is seen by some to be lacking in British industry, and that both types
are. difficult to observe.

CHART 5.2
THE EIGHT LEADER TYPES AS AN INTEGRATION OF OTHER LEADER
BEHAVIOUR TYPOLOGIES
LEADER T W E
I

(Deserter)
Separated
Dedicated
Lewin, Lippitt and
White (1939)

Laissez Faire

Brown (1954)

Laissez
Faire

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

[i3lake and Mouton (196411

I Autocratic

--I-

Democrat

Autocrat

1.1
Quardrant II

Strict Autocrat

Qua;?ant

Quardrant T

-II
Human
Relations

(k~nrl~rlc'

Dt~n1ocr:tt

Autocrat

System 1

Likert (1967)

A-i

Bcnevolenl
Autocrat

Theory

Abdicrat

Democratic

Autocracy

Burcaucracy

Autonomy

Systen; 2
System :{

Systc111 4

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


of man, ~ncludestwo of the eight leadership styles

It 1s doubtful that

JlcCregar saltT his typology a s comprehensl~7tt s~ cmisslocs zre !~srd!y


sign~ficant.What is significant is that his typology carries his humanistic bias
that relationships orientation is good and task orientation is bad, this view
producing hls Theory Y and Theory X, respectively.

The Jennlngs ( 1962) typology, derived from assumed psychological


needs, includes slx of the eight leader types. Three are more effective and three
are less effective. The typology includes both the more-and less-effective
versions of separated and integrated, but like the McGregor typology, admits
only the more-effective related type and the less-effective dedicated type.

The Blake and Mouton (1964) typology, based on a synthesis of prior


research, includes five of the eight leader types. The reason for omitting three
types is that the Blake and Mouton typology admits only one ideal type so that
the more-effective version of 1.1, 1.9 and 9.1 are not represented.

The Halpin (1966) typology, based on the structure and consideration


dimensions, includes four of the eight leader types. It is identical to the Blake
and Mouton typology except for the omission of the 5.5 type; which Blake and
Mouton suggest is more a statistical average than a type.

The Likert (1967) typology includes three of the eight leader types. Two
of the Likert types, system 2 and 3, are virtually identical to dedicated

i benevolent

autocrat! and t h e ~ creation


r
may reflect an over-compensation to

the pure human relatlon school of which Likert was a part.


The Halal 11974) typology, based on a synthesis of prior typologies,
includes five of the eight leader types. Observe that for what is claimed to be
an integrative typology, separated - is not represented, though it is in five of
the other eight typolog.les reviewed. It might be expected that dedicated

+ and

integrated - were omitted as only two of the other seven typologies included

them.
In India, the study was conducted by P.Singh and Asha Bhandarakar
(1990) on the leadership. It is observed that P.Singh has used only Ten
situation elements out of twenty propounded o r i ~ n a l l yby Reddin. The ten
situational elements are: 1. Planning 2. Data Collection 3. Implementation
4. Evaluation 5 . Flexibility 6. Conflicts 7. Controls 8. Communications 9.
Superiors 10. subordinates.
P.Singh and Asha Bhandarkar have adopted for their project work, on
eclectic methodology - questionnaire approach, and they were able to collect
data from certain organisation such as MMTC, IFFO-Philpur (Allahabad),
TISCO, NFL, W.C.L.

Pench Area. The outcome of their project work was

published as a book titled as "Corporate success and transformational


leadership".
It is seen from that work that managers working during the period from
1982 to the late 1987 have supplied data for the only ten situational elements.

I t 1s agreed that experiences of managers - the self perceived profile by the

leaders cannot add up to capsular formu!ations. by uslng the ten situation.

element But we also have to agree that r

h prov~ded
~ ~ the raw matez-ia! f'cr ar,

understanding of the leader behaviour orientations and resulting the


leadership styles - behaviour of how persons in the organisation responding
dally to the different situation (or variety of circumstances). A study of those
data which was obtained based on ten situational elements, may not enable us
to arrlve at the final truth but definitely it is one of the means to understand
the truth.

The present research study is aimed at reducing the lacuna mentioned


above by,

Examining the leadership styles by using the structured instrument -

Management position Analysis Test (MPAT), the latest version of


Reddin's 3-D Theory.

2.

Studying the leadershp styles of Telecommunication Engineers, taking


into consideration of all the 20 situational elements which have been
porpunded by Reddin originally (P.Singh and Bhandaraker have not
used all the 20 situational elements).

3.

The Leader Behaviour can be measured with the help of the structured
questionnaire (MPAT) in Government Departmental organisation and
there by conducting the study of "Psychometric verification of Reddin's

3-11 Theory - leadership styles" in publ~cutility service organisation

Madras Telephone is needed.

Hence from the descriptions of the behavioural patterns of different


leadership styles in the above said major empirical works, the following eight
leadership styles as per Reddin's 3-D
are inferred in this research which aims to find out the predominant
leadership styles of Telecom Engineers of Madras Teiephones In the state of
Tamil Nadu in India.
Deserter Leadership Style

(DES)

Missionary Leadership Style

(MIS)

Autocrat Leadership Style

(AUT)

compromiser Leadership Style

(COM)

Bureaucrat Leadership Style

(BUR)

Developer Leadership Style

(DEV)

Benevolent Autocrat
Leadership Style

(BEN)

Democrat Leadership Style

(DEW

Deserter (DES) Leadership Styles


A leader who is using a low Task orientation and a low Relationship
orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is
therefore, less effective; perceived as uninvolved and passive o r negative.

Characteristics
Does not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships.
Doesnot always show a lot of interest in subordinates or their work.

Believes the value of creativity, change, and innovation is often over


emphasized.
Could supply more useful information to others than he does.
Shows little concern about errors and usually does little to correct or
reduce them.
Missionary (MIS) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a high Relationships orientation and a low Task


Orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is,
therefore, less-effective; perceived as being primarily interested in harmony
and in being liked.

Characteristics
Treats subordinates with great kindness and consideration.

Allows subordinates to set their own objectives according to their needs


and accepts them even if some what unsatisfactory.

lolesates denatlons In implementing plans


l

~f this will avert

unplcasantness
Co~nrnunlcateswith others so as to maintain good relationships above
ail else.
At first slgn of conflict, attempts to smooth things over
Believes that if an error occurs it should be corrected in such a way that
no one will be upset.
In order to be liked, will avoid all unpleasant effective decision making.

Autocrat (AUT) Leadership Style


A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a Low Relationships
orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is,
therefore, less-effective; perceived as havlng no confidence in others, as
unpleasant, and as interested only in the immediate task.

Characteristics
Directs the work at subordinates and discourages deviations from plans.
Sees planning as a one-man job.
Thinks a good way to introduce change is to make an announcement and
then let people get on which it.

W~itchesimplementation of plans closely, polnts out errors and criticizes


where necessary
More interested in day-to-day productivity than in long-run productivity.

Performance maintained through subtle threatening situation.

Compromiser (COM) Leadership Style


A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a high Relationships
orlentation in a situation that requires a high orientation to only one or
neither and who is, therefore, less-effective; perceived as b e ~ n gchangeable, a
poor decision maker, as one who allows various pressures in the situation to
influence him too much, and as avoiding or minimis~ngimmediate pressures
and problems rather than maximizing longterm production.,

Characteristics
When dealing with subordinates, attempts to combine both task and
relationship considerations, but one or the other usually suffers.

Sometimes encourages new ideas but does not always follow up on too
many of them.
While objectives are usually fairly clear, allows them to be quite loose
so that they are not always a good guide.
Makes an effort a t planning but the plans do not always work out.

Likes the idea of team work but often

1s

not ablt) to find ways to

apply it

Bureaucrat (BUR) Leadership Style

A leader who is using a low Task orlentation and a low relationships


orlentation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,
therefore, more effective; perceived as being primarily interested in rules and
procedures for their own sake, and as wanting to control the situation by their
use.

Characteristics
Believes that formal meetings are a perfectly sound way to produce new
ideas.
Plans with fine attention to detail. Introduces change formally and
follows closely any established procedures.
Prefers to write out communications with others.

Responds to disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and


procedures.
Thinks that things go best when subordinates understand and follow the
duties in their job descriptions.

D e v e l o p e r (DEW L e a d e r s h i p Styles
A leader w h o is using a high Kelatlonshlps orientation and a low Task
Orlentations in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate a n d who IS,
therefore, more effective; perceived as being people oriented, a s having implicit
trust in people, and as being primarily concerned with developing them a s
individuals.

Characteristics

Relationships with subordinates is excellent and is characterized by


mutual trust and respect.

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

When responsible for planning, involves many others

Prepares those affected by a change by talking with t h e m well in


advance.

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

Thinks t h a t most errors arise for a good reason a n d i t i s always better


to look for the reason than a t the error itself.

Benevolent Autocrat (BEN) Leadership Style


A leader who is using a high Task orientation and a low Relat~onships
orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,
therefore. more-effective; perceived as being results oriented, as knowlng what
he wants, and knowing how to get it without creating resentment.

Characteristics
Makes it qulte clear to subordinates what 1s expected of them.

Both develops and proposes many new ideas.

Shows that he values efficiency and productivity.

Watches the implementation of plans by individuals, and g v e s direct


assistance and guidance where needed.

Believes a strong team needs a strong leader who knows what he is


doing.

Personally sets high output standards for himself and others and works
hard to see that they are met.

Democrat (DEM) Leadership Style


A leader who is using a high Task orlentation and a high Relationships
orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is,

therefore, more-effective; perceived as a team manager and a s a good


motivating force who sets high standards and treats every one some what
differently.

Characteristics
Relieves higher management is slmply another team t h a t should
cooperate effectlve1~-with teams lower down.

Consistently o b t a ~ n sa high output from subordinates

Sets objectives with others whlch are clear and fully agreed to by all
those directly involved.

Plans made represent the best thinking of all concerned.

Informs all concerned well in advance of any possible changes and gives
them on opportunity to influence the proposed change.

Actively supports and promotes the team approach to management.

I t is around these factors, the leadership style Questionnaire (Appendix

I) - a structured instrument - management position Analysis Test - (IMPAT) of


Reddin has been utilised.

5.3

LEADER BEHAWOUR OF TELECOM ENG


EMPIRICAL DATA DISCUSSION
It 1s from the study of Reddin, we have inferred the possible eight

ieadership styles To find out whether, these leadership styles are in tune with
the actual leadership styles of Telecom Engneers

In

Madras Telephones, the

structured Questionnaire (Appendix I) of Reddin has been administrated.


Initially the questionnaire has been used to conduct the pilot study in madras

Telephones.

After testing the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the same
was admin~steredto the Telecom engineers. This group of Telecom engineers
Consists of three levels of the hierarchy. They are : Top level-consisting of the
grades GM, DGhl, DE.
Middle level-consisting of the grades SDE, ADET.

Lower level-consisting of the grades JTO.

In this study, the grades of top level and the middle level officers are
considered as executives and the grade of the lower level officers are
considered as supervisors.

The aim of this present study is to extract the relevant leadership style
of the Reddins 3-D from the total population and secondly, to find the
predominant leadership. This leads the process of psychometric verification of

leadership styles. The analysis was based on the data of total population

(N=

240) on all the 160 variables.

The instrument 'MPAT' is already framed. We can straight away get the
follo~ringfactors that have emerged as possible leader behaviour style of
Telecom Enpneers.

Deserter Leadership Style

2.

Missionary Leadership Style

Autocrat Leadership Style

4.

Compromiser Leadership Style

5.

Bureaucrat Leadership Style

6.

Developer Leadership Style

7.

Benevolent Autocrat Leadership Style

8.

Democrat Leadership Style.

These eight leadership styles are, i n o n e form or other, in tune with the
other leader behaviour topologies.

5.3.1 Inter-correlation between factors related to leadership styles of

Telecom Engineers (Officers of Telecom Executives and


Supervisors)
Behaviour orientations are many within a n individual and hence the
leader behaviour of a n individual could never be predicted on the basis of any
particular behaviour orientation. In this study the possible leader behaviour
of the Telecom Engineers are found to be deserter, missionary, autocrat,

compromiser, bureaucrat, developer, benevolent autocrat, and democrat. To


understand the nature of relationship between these emerged orientations
inter-correlation test was carried out both the Executives and for the
supervisors. Since the leader behaviour orientations are all orthogonal factors,
their relationships with one another is possible and understandable The
find~ngsare given in the following paragraphs

From the table 5.1 it could be seen that all the eight leadership styles
are generally found to have negatively correlated. This is because of the fact
that each leadership style is discrete ie individually distinct in characters and
In behaviour. Further, it is seen that Deserter leadership

Table 5.1
Inter-Correlation of Leader behaviour among the Telecom Engineers
(Executives and Supervisors)

Style is positively related to the bureaucrat leadership style which shows


that the higher the eff(,ctiveness of deserter leadership in the appropriate
situation is perceived and known as bureaucrat. The empirical evidence is
sychronised with the basic concept of the formulation of light styles.

5.3.2 Inferential Statistics


In continuation of the intercorrelatlon analysls results, 't' tests the
significance of the differences between the groups of executives and supervisors

on all the emerged eight leadership related to the leader behaviour

orientations. The findings are given in table 5.2.

Table 5.2

Mean, SD, and CR value of Executives and supervisors of


leadership styles of Telecom Service

Autocrat

VIII
:+'
21:

Democrat

10.53

Significant a t 0.01 level.

2.59

8.87

2.00

0.32

5.18**

It may be seen from table 5.2 t h a t Executives cadre a n d supervisors


cadre differed on factors "Deserter Leadership Stylr-", "Bureaucrat Leadership
Style" and "Democrat ~ e a d e r s h i *Style". The mean score referred i n Table 5.2
are pictorially given in chart 5.3.
In all the above said leadership styles, the officers belongng t o
supervisor cadre have scored higher average than t h a t of the officers belong~ng
to the Executives cadre. The officers belonging to supervisor cadre are the
officers who have entered the service a t lower rungs of the technical hierarety.
By sheer experience over a period of time, they have attained the supervisory
positions in the department. Hence, their experience a t the cutting edge level
of the various sections, might have made them to pick these leadership

orientation with more intensity.

To know exactly the nature of differences between the directly recruited


and promoted Telecom Engineers with respect to the eight leadership styles,
again, CR values have been found a n d presented in table 5 . 3 .

BAR CHART SHOWING MEAN DIFFERENCES OF


LEADERSHIP STYLES OF TELECOM ENGINEERS
(Executives & Supervisors)

DES

MIS

AUT

COM
BUR
DEV
LEADERSHIP STYLES

Chart 5.3

BEN

DEM

Mean, SD and CR Value of Direct Recruited and Promoted


Telecom Engineers on factors related to Leadership Styles

*" Significant a t 0.01 level.


It is evident from the table 5.3 that the two groups of Telecom Engineers
differed only on the factors of deserter, developer, and democrat, at 0.01 level.
The mean scores referred m table 5.3 are pictorially presedted in chart 5.4.
Out of three sigmficant factors, it is seen that direct recruited oEcers have
score lower averages than the officers belonging to rank conferred officers
(promotive officers) of Telecom Service. It is seen that the promotive officers
have more scores in deserter leadershi~style as well as democrat leadership
style. The deserter leadership style is ineffective and the democrats leadership
is effective. Even tho-ugh these two types of styles are contradictory by way of

effectiveness, the promotive officers have entered the government service a t the
lower rank of the hierarchy and because of their early experience they might
have felt the need of having these two leadership orientation in different
situations.

BAR CHART SHOWING MEAN DIFFERENCES OF


LEADERSHIP STYLES OF TELECOM ENGINEERS
[Direct Recruit & Promotive)

DES

MIS

COM
BUR
DEV
LEADERSHIP STYLES

Direat Recruit

E l Promotive

Chart 5.4

BEN

DEM

5.3.3 DISCRIMI

FUNCTION ANALYSIS

To know more exactly the discriminating factors a s far as leader


behaviours are concerned

between

the Executives

and

supervisors,

discr~minantfunction analysis was carried out and wilks Lambda and Rao's

V were used. The findings are given in table 5.4.

TABLE 5.4
Wilks Lambda, Rao's V and Significance level of t h e
Discriminant Function Analysis between Executives
and supervisors (N = 240) on the
eight factors related to leader behaviour

factor entere

Eigen Value

0.216

Percentage of Variance

=,

100

Canonical Correlation
Coefficient

0.422

Table 5.4 indicates t h a t out of eight factors, 'only six factors were
included in the analysis and out of which only factor VIII was found to be
significantly discriminating between t h e two groups. Further factor V, VII i.e.

Bureaucrat, Benevolent autocrat, which did not seem to discriminate


significantly, were not included in the Discriminant Function Analysis. It is
evident from the result that only the factor i.e. Democrat leadership style
(Factor VIII at 0.01 level alone discriminate significantly between the groups
of officers of Executive cadre and the supervisor cadre, when all the factors
were entered into step-wise method.
it is because the supervisors while they were working at the cutting
edge level in the administrative structures they might have had close
interactions with the people in discharging their duties. Hence during that
period they might have experienced and seen the interest of the served in
getting the results from the administrative bureaus. It is because of their field
experience they might have included within themselves more democratic
orientation.
The Eigen value is 0216 shows the discriminating power of function.
The canonical correlation coefficient of 0.422 showed that there was high
degree of association between the two sets ofscores, the dependent variable i.e.
(Democrat leadership style of Telecom Engineers) and high correlation value
shows that the discriminant fkction

discriminated between the said groups

quite effectively. Having known the discriminating factor for the leader
behaviour between the Executives and supervisors, an attempt is also made.
to know the principal discriminating factors for the same leader behaviour
between the directly recruited and promoted Telecom Officers, using the same
wilks Lambda and Rao's V. The findings are given in table 5.5.

Wilks L a m b d a , Rao's V and significance level of the Discriminant


F u n c t i o n Analysis b e t w e e n directly r e c r u i t e d (N = 73) and
p r o m o t e d officers (N=167) on t h e eight f a c t o r s
r e l a t e d to l e a d e r b e h a v i o u r

Eigen value

0.096

Percentage of Variance

100

Canonical correlation coefficient

0.295

Table 5.5 shows the results of discriminant hnction analysis of the


leader behaviour between the two groups ie directly recruited and promoted
officers of Telecom service. From among the total of eight factors taken for the
study only three factors are included in %heanalysis. They are factor I, VII and

VIII. These factors have contributed significantly for the discrimination


between the two groups. These two factors are democrat leadership style,
(Factor VIII a t P < 0.01 level), deserter leadership style (Factor I at P < 0.01).
Eigen value of 0.096 shows the discriminating power of the function. The
canonical correlation coefficient 0.295 shows that there was high degree of

association between the two sets of scores ie discriminant functions and the
dependent variables (leadership styles of Telecom officers). This correlations
shows that the discriminant function discriminated the two groups quite
effectively.
The promotive Telecom officers as mentioned carrier, because of their
field

experiences

at the cuttings edge level in the administrative hierarchies

might have picked more result in the above said behaviour orientations. Hence
these factors play predominant role in &scriminatir?g between promotive
Telecom Engineers and directly recruited Telecom Engineers.
5.4

CONCLUSION
The behaviour topology to be defended is built on three independent

dimension called task orientation, relationship orientation and effectiveness.


Reddin's 3-D model has been formulated on these three dimensions. From the
studies on the eight type topology of leaders behaviour, we have inferred all
the eight leadership orientations among the Telecom Engineers of Madras,
,

Teiephones organisation. These eight leadership styles are termedas Autocrat,

compramiser,

Missionary,

Deserter,

Benevolent

autocrat,

Developer,

Bureaucrai, and Democrat.


The emerged leadership styles are also found to effectively correlate
among themselves. It is seen that deserter leadership style is positively related
to the bureaucrat leadership style which shows that the higher the
effectiveness of the deserter leadership in the appropriate situation is

perceived and known as bureaucrat. The empirical evidence is sychronised


with the basic concept of the formulation of the eight leadership styles.
Among the Telecom Engineers, the promotive officers are gathering
differentiated from the directly recruited officers on the basis of Democrat
leadership styles.

It is seen from the study that the Executives and supertisors are getting
differentiated among themselves as far as democrat leadership style
concerned. Hence the null hypothesis EII stands rejected. Further, it

IS

IS

seen

that the promotive Telecom officers seems to have the democratic leadership
style at a more higher level within themselves than that of directly recruited
Telecom. Engineers. Eence, the null hypothesis TtT stands rejected. To be very
specific, the supervisors seem to have the democrat leadership orientation at
a higher level than that of Executives. Similarly the promotive Telecom officers
seem to have the democrat leadership orientation a t a higher level than that
of directly recruited Telecom officers.

Since supervisors and the promotive officers of Telecom Engg. Service


have started their official carrier at the lower rungs of the departmental
hierarchy they might have got more opportunities to i n k a c t with the public
/ customers / officials at the grass root level. Their understanding of the field

realities would definitely be much less of distortions and might vibe more
closely with realities. It is because of this, these types of supervisors 1 the
promotive Telecom Officers might have democrat leadership style than the
directly recruited officers.