Applied Organizational Psychology

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 95

The study examines subordinates’ perception of leadership styles and their work behaviour in theIndian Air Force. A self-reported questionnaire was used to collect data from 287 airmen and 75officers. The results revealed that the leaders of airmen had a predominantly authoritarian styleand the leaders of officers had a nurturant-task style. Regarding work behaviour, officers weremore committed and satisfied with the job than airmen. Officers accepted challenging tasks, showedbetter performance, achieved targets on time and expressed less desire to quit the defence servicescompared to airmen. Airmen and officers’ commitment to the organisation and job satisfactiondecreased, and stress effect and intention to quit the services increased under an authoritarianleader. Conversely, airmen and officers felt committed, satisfied with the job, accepted challengingtasks, showed higher job performance, and expressed unwillingness to quit the organisation undernurturant-task and participative leaders.

Subordinates’ Perception of LeadershipStyles and Their Work Behaviour

DAMODAR SUAR

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

HARE R. TEWARI


KOSTUBH R. CHATURBEDI


Leadership is essential for the effective functioning of any organisation.Leaders influence not only task, strategies and goals of the organisation, butalso beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of organisational members (Yukl &Van Fleet, 1998). Management without leadership encourages an unin-spired style that deadens activities (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003). The way

Psychology and Developing Societies 18, 1 (2006)Sage Publications New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/LondonDOI: 10.1177/097133360501800106

Address for correspondence: Damodar Suar, Associate Professor, Department of Humanitiesand Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, West BengalFax: + 91-3222-82270/55303; e-mail: [email protected].

2015 at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,pds.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pds.sagepub.com/

96 / DAMODAR SUAR, HARE R. TEWARI and KOSTUBH R. CHATURBEDI

of functioning of the leader or leading can enhance or diminish the sub-ordinates’ commitment, satisfaction and job performance.

Though leaders and managers are differentiated on the basis of roles,responsibilities and skills, for all practical purposes, an executive or a manageris a leader. Leadership styles vary according to the type of organisation(Stogdill, 1974) and level of organisational hierarchy (Katz & Kahn, 1978;Sinha, 1995). Evidence reveals that private sector companies in India operatein a fairly competitive environment, emphasise high task, close relationships,participation, and caring for employees whereas public sector companiesoperate in a protected environment isolated from market pressures, lowtask, impersonal work environment, and bureaucratic set-up with too manyrules and regulations for employees without actual practice (Sharma & Bhal,2001). Leadership at the top, middle, and lower levels differs because ofthe differentiated roles, authorities, and skill demands (Katz, 1974). First-line leaders require more technical than human and conceptual skills to handleday-to-day operations on the shop floor. The role of these leaders is confinedto implementing the decisions that are taken at the highest level. At themiddle level, top management policies and strategies are further concretisedfor action. Jobs of middle level executives are low on choice and high ondemands, and work is generally a “fix-it” type of activity, trying to deal withsystems and processes that are not working, and managing breakdowns inthe normal routine flow of work (Nilakantha & Ramnarayan, 1990). Middlelevel managers act as the bridge between the top and the bottom. Theyrequire more human skills than other skills. At the top, leaders prepare theoverall plan of business and coordinate resources, and their jobs demandgreater conceptual skills. As skills, roles, and responsibilities vary at differentlevels, so do the leadership styles. Hence, for a leadership style to be effectiveit must be appropriate to the type of organisation and to the level of hierarchy.

Scant literature is available on leadership in a defence organisation becauseof its sensitive nature. Questions arise: Do leadership styles vary at differentlevels in an organisational hierarchy? Do different styles of leadership enhanceor diminish the work behaviour of subordinates? This study answers thesequestions.

Leadership Styles

Theories of leadership have emphasised three constructs, with the focuson either a single construct or in combination of constructs. These are




(a) traits of the leader, (b) attributes of subordinates, and (c) situational fac-tors such as nature of task, group climate and cultural context. The last twoare important because the leader has to operate in a specific way dependingon the attributes of subordinates and situations. Hersey and Blanchard’s(1977) “life cycle theory” substantiates this. Effective leadership dependson the maturity of subordinates which is defined in terms of (a) capacity toset high but attainable goals or achievement motivation, (b) willingness totake responsibility, and (c) education or experience. A telling style (hightask and low relationship) of leadership is effective for less mature subordin-ates. As the degree maturity increases, the leader is expected to shift to selling(high task and high relationship), then to participating (low task and highrelationship), and finally to delegating (low task and low relationship) style.

Realising the importance of culture in shaping an individual’s thinking,feeling and doing, Misumi (1985) in Japan raised objections to theoriesdeveloped in the individualistic culture of the west. More than three decadesof research on performance-oriented (task) and maintenance-oriented(people) behaviour by leaders has provided consistent evidence that bothtypes of behaviour are necessary for leadership effectiveness (Misumi &Peterson, 1985). A blend of maintenance with pressure for performanceovercomes the psychological resistance of subordinates towards goal achieve-ment. Hence, effective leaders act in accordance with the culturally acquiredcharacteristics of their subordinates. While some studies in India (Lal, 1983;Srivastava & Sharadkumar, 1984) reveal that an effective leader tends tobe participative (P) or democratic, others (Kakar, 1971; Kaur, 1993) indi-cate that they tend to be authoritarian (F). Meade’s (1967) study in Indianoted that the morale, production and quality of work were higher under aF leader than under a P leader. A F leader may succeed in an authoritarianculture and a P leader in a democratic culture.

For the first time, Sinha (1973) raised doubts about the appropriatenessof the F style in India. He argued that participative management was notconducive either. Unless employees understand and accept the organisation’snormative structure and goals and thereby develop a fair commitment tothe organisation, any attempt to introduce participative management is likelyto fail. The employees may take undue advantage and create indisciplineand dissatisfaction eventually resulting in loss of productivity.

Sinha and Sinha (1974) identified six sociocultural values of Indian sub-ordinates: (a) lack of commitment, (b) lack of team orientation, (c) preferencefor personalised relationship, (d ) dependence proneness, (e) rest and leisure




(aram), and ( f ) show-off. Subordinates tend to depend excessively on theirsuperior, with whom they want to cultivate personalised rather than con-tractual work relationships. They readily accept the authority of the superiorand yield to her/his demands, and do not value work. At the same time,they put in extra work as a part of their efforts to maintain a personalisedrelationship with the superior (Sinha, 1980).

Against the backdrop such values, Sinha’s (1980;1995) programmaticresearch justifies leadership styles for Indian organisations. Bureaucratic andF styles tend to overlap. The nurturant-task (NT) style has a positive overlapwith F on one side and P on the other. Accordingly, F, NT, and P representa broad developmental continuum of styles applicable to bottom and middlelevel leaders in the organisational hierarchy (Sinha, 1995).

The F leader is basically a power-oriented leader, neither caring for thesubordinates nor understanding their problems. Such a leader takes alldecisions, maintains a distance from his/her subordinates, and imposes strictdiscipline. Attaching immense importance to power and position, he/shethinks that by exercising authority he/she can get any job done. This leaderbelieves that he/she is the only person responsible for anything and every-thing happening in the organisation.

The NT leader is predominantly task-oriented, and expresses nurturancein terms of care, consideration, warmth, support and affection for his/hersubordinates, and a deep interest in their growth and well-being. Nurturancefacilitates task achievement and the latter creates conditions for more nur-turance. This leader expresses concern for both productivity and subordin-ates’ need for dependency and personalised relationship. The NT style iseffective in relation to those subordinates who prefer a personalised relation-ship, feel excessive dependency, accept status difference, and have weak workvalues. As the leader guides, monitors, and assigns responsibility to the sub-ordinates, they gain experience, expertise, and develop self-confidence. Atthis point, if the leader is sensitive to their growth and preparedness, he/shewill change too and will shift from the NT to the P style.

The P leader is predominantly people-oriented and takes decisions byinvolving the group members. Such a leader works along with the groupand encourages the members to learn, grow and develop. Communicationflows freely, group members are happy and satisfied, and are responsible forany loss or gain under the P leader.

It has been observed that when the leader perceives subordinates to beless efficient, not committed to work, and unwilling to work on their own,




the effective style may be either F or NT. When subordinates do not dependon the leader and do not need personal care, the leader may adopt the P style.The leader may adopt a dominant style but can shift to other styles whendealing with the subordinates differing in nature. Like the “life cycle theory”(Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), the shift from one style to another dependson the growth/maturity or degree of preparedness of subordinates and thecontext.

It is commonly believed that defence is a traditional, rigid and disciplinedorganisation and authoritarian leaders exist at all levels. A study on theAmerican Air Force (Vecchio, 1990) revealed that the directive leader en-hanced group performance rather than the non-directive leader at the levelof airmen. In the Indian Air Force (IAF), most of the employees are educated,diligent, and trained to handle sophisticated equipment and critical situationsto meet strategic air operations. The bottom level leaders execute the joband achieve the target set by the top and middle level leaders. They workunder pressure to complete the assigned task with the available resourcesand are held accountable for results. Consequently, the leader at the bottomlevel uses authoritative power. The top level leaders discuss various plans,policies and strategies with the middle level leaders before giving them ordersfor execution. It is expected that the predominant leadership style at thebottom level is F and at the middle level NT and P.

Work Behaviour

Work behaviour is conceptualised taking into account (a) organisationalcommitment, (b) job satisfaction, (c) challenging task, (d ) job performance,(e) target realisation, ( f ) stress effect, and ( g ) intention to quit. While jobperformance and target realisation assess work activities, the other variablesassess the attitudes/feelings towards work.

The IAF personnel defend the country against internal disturbances andexternal threat. The personnel are taught to obey the superior’s commands,maintain discipline, sincerity, punctuality and develop respect for their super-iors. Superiors are vested with enormous power and they always maintain adistance from their subordinates. Subordinates are not expected to arguewith their superiors, whatsoever the case may be, rather they should use re-spectable language when addressing their superiors. Lower level subordinates/




airmen are not as responsible as first line superiors/officers. They do routinejobs and perform tasks assigned by their superiors. They are expected topossess practical skills and knowledge of the job they do. However, officersare accountable to the middle level leaders/senior officers. Officers are moreinvolved in coordinating and managing resources to achieve the target. Theirjobs are more innovative and demanding. Because of difference in responsi-bilities and nature of tasks, airmen and officers are likely to differ on workbehaviour.

Work Behaviour and Leadership Styles

Organisational commitment is an attitudinal or a behavioural concept(Salancik, 1977). Attitudinal commitment refers to the process by whichemployees identify with the values, roles and activities of the organisation.Conversely, behavioural commitment refers to the process by which an em-ployee’s past behaviour serves to bind her/him to an organisation. A leaderwho provides excessive directions to subordinates may reduce their autonomyand responsibilities, resulting in decreased commitment of subordinates(Rosin & Korabik, 1991). Commitment increases only if the leader realisesthe values and goals of the organisation (Weiner, 1982) and behaves in asupporting/participative manner (Singh, 1990; Welch & LeVan, 1981).Thus, in accordance with what has already been discussed about leader-ship styles, subordinates’ commitment to the organisation is likely to increaseunder NT and P leaders and decrease under F leaders.

Job satisfaction refers to attitude towards job. A leader possessing technicalcompetence and showing consideration to his/her subordinates increasesjob satisfaction of his/her subordinates (Schriesheim & Murphy, 1976).Also, a leader evoking participation, administering rewards fairly, creating agood organisational climate (Srivastava, 1987) and improving human relationsincreases job satisfaction (Singh & Pestonjee, 1990). P leaders are employee-oriented, fact-minded in administration of rewards and seek participationof subordinates to decide the time, task and resources. NT leaders not onlyattach importance to the task, but also take care of their subordinates.F leaders decide the subordinates’ job and reward those whom they like.Hence, subordinates’ job satisfaction is likely to increase under NT andP leaders and decrease under F leaders.




A challenging task may be characterised by (a) a lot of constraints, (b) risk,and (c) difficulty. The accomplishment of such a task requires employees’extraordinary efforts. If employees receive encouragement, support, and asuitable reward from their superior, they may accomplish any challengingtask. Subordinates are unlikely to accept challenging tasks under F leadersbecause such leaders provide neither encouragement nor reward for taskperformance. Task-minded NT leaders and people-oriented P leaders providesupport and encouragement to their subordinates to take up challengingresponsibilities. Hence, subordinates who perceive their leaders as NT andP are likely to accept challenging tasks.

Job performance refers to the observable things employees do that arerelevant to the organisation’s goal (Campbell, McHenry, & Wise, 1990).Subordinates’ job performance increases when they believe that they havethe relevant knowledge and skills to execute the job, a leader provides jobautonomy, gives contingent reward (Padsakoff & Todor, 1985) and sharestheir feelings (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998). P leaders emphasise rela-tionship, provide autonomy, and administer rewards impartially. NT leaderssupport and guide subordinates and reward performance. Hence, subor-dinates’ job performance is likely to increase under NT and P leaders anddecrease under F leaders.

Target realisation is the extent to which employees achieve their own anddepartmental targets in time. Employees working in a favourable climaterealise higher targets (Verma, 1995). Instead of focusing on the target,F leaders focus on their own goals. P leaders do not emphasise target realisa-tion rather their subordinates decide it. NT leaders inspire subordinates toachieve the goals in time. Hence, subordinates who perceive their leaders asNT are likely to achieve the target as per schedule.

Stress is a state wherein the person’s mind and body are forced to deviatefrom normal functioning (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Stress produces nega-tive effects-like smoking, drinking, and psychosomatic diseases. A favourableorganisational climate, employees’ participation (Cooper, 1983), job auton-omy, and friendly relations with coworkers (Caplan, Cobb, French, VanHarrison, & Pinneau, 1975) reduce the effects of stress. P leaders reducestress by providing job autonomy, evoking participation and maintaining agood relationship with their subordinates. On the other hand, F leadersexacerbate the stress levels of their subordinates because of their “carrot andstick” policy, independent decision-making and directing subordinatesto execute the pre-planned task. Stress effects are likely to increase underF leaders and decrease under P leaders.




The intention to quit refers to the desire of employees to leave the organ-isation. Unwillingness to serve the organisation leads to voluntary turnoverand absenteeism (Michaels & Spector, 1982). Subordinates are likely toquit the organisation under F leaders because such leaders enjoy absolutepower and provide no autonomy to their subordinates. NT and P leadersdevelop an interpersonal relationship with their subordinates, take care ofthem and create a friendly climate where subordinates work with alacrity.Thus, subordinates’ intention to quit is likely to increase under F and decreaseunder NT and P leaders.

Method

Sample

The IAF operates through various commands. Many units work under eachcommand, the rules, regulations and functioning of the units are identicaland all are governed by the Air Headquarters located at New Delhi. Twounits–one from the Eastern Air Command located in West Bengal and theother from the Western Air Command located in Gujarat—were selectedfor the study. There were 3,300 employees working in different departmentsof logistics, technical, medical, etc. There were 7 female employees but theywere excluded from the sample to rule out the possibility of gender bias.Out of the male employees, 20 were senior officers, 240 officers and 3,033were airmen. Since senior officers were few in number, they were excludedfrom the sample. A sample of 100 (41.66%) officers and 400 (13.19%) air-men was randomly selected. Each subject was given a questionnaire andrequested to return the completed questionnaire after a fortnight. Threehundred sixty-two questionnaires (72.4%) were returned—75 from officersand 287 from airmen.

Out of 362 respondents, 66.7% were married and the remainder wereunmarried. Of the total, 33.57% respondents were undergraduates and62.43% had education up to graduation and above. Officers and airmendid not differ in terms of age, years of experience and number of promotionsreceived. Officers had more years of formal education, higher basic salaryand smaller family size compared to airmen (Table 1). Family size indicatedthe predominance of nuclear families in both groups.




Table 1Sample Profile

Airmen Officers

Variable M SD M SD t

Age 32.48 9.22 33.97 6.82 –1.56Years of service 13.33 8.77 12.17 6.62 1.25Years of education 13.36 2.29 16.16 1.55 –12.45∗Basic salary 1488.73 334.91 3583.67 797.93 –22.23∗No. of promotions 2.59 1.52 2.61 .77 –.14Family size 3.98 1.47 3.13 1.11 5.50∗

∗p < .001 (two-tailed).

Measures

The initial part of the questionnaire elicited data on age, length of service,educational qualification, number of years studied, basic salary, number ofpromotion(s), number of family members, and their marital status. Alongwith the socio-demographic characteristics, the following variables weremeasured.

Perception of Leadership Style. F, NT and P styles were assessed using 30items developed by Sinha (1987). Ten items assessed each style. Subordinateswere asked to evaluate their immediate superiors. Items measuring F styleincluded, “My superior keeps the important information to herself/himself ”,and “My superior thinks that s/he is always right in making decisions”. TheNT style was assessed by items like, “My superior gladly guides and directsthose subordinates who work hard”, and “My superior feels good when s/hefinds her/his subordinates eager to learn”. Items measuring P style included,“My superior often consults her/his subordinates”, and “My superior allowsher/his subordinates to solve a problem jointly”. All the items were posi-tively keyed using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “never” (0) to“always” (4). The alpha reliabilities in this study were .71 for the F scale, .87for the NT scale, and .89 for the P scale. High scores indicated greatermanifestation of a particular style.

Organisational Commitment. Nine items were used to measure organ-isational commitment. Eight items were taken from Mowday, Steers, andPorter’s (1979) scale and one item “I support the extra curricular activities




organized by this organisation” was added. Each item was rated on a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).When scores were factor analysed using the principal component methodand rotated through the varimax procedure, two extracted factors explained54.54% of total variance. The first factor, “affective commitment”, com-prised four positively keyed items and its alpha reliability was .75. Itemsincluded “I am proud to tell that I am a part of this organisation”, and “I amwilling to put in a great deal of effort beyond the call of my duty in order tohelp this organisation to be successful”. The second factor, “continuancecommitment”, comprised five items (including three negatively keyed items)and had an alpha reliability of .71. Items included, “There is not too muchto be gained by sticking with this organisation indefinitely”, and “Decidingto work for this organisation was a definite mistake on my part”. High scoresindicated more affective and continuance commitment.

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using an 18-item ques-tionnaire. Fourteen items were selected from the job satisfaction scale ofKanungo, Mishra, and Dayal (1975) and four items were added—leavefacility, accommodation, welfare facilities, and interpersonal relationship.Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “highly dissatisfied” (1)to “highly satisfied” (5). When the scores were factor analysed using theprincipal component method and rotated through the varimax procedure,two factors were extracted that explained 57.78% of total variance. The firstfactor that loaded significantly on 12 items was “extrinsic satisfaction”. Itincluded items like “to what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with...basic salary”, and “... working hours”. The second factor that loaded signifi-cantly on 6 items was “intrinsic satisfaction”. This comprised such items as“to what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with... responsibility”, and“... advancement”. The alpha reliabilities of extrinsic and intrinsic satisfactionwere .88 and .82. High scores were indicative of greater intrinsic and extrinsicjob satisfaction.

Challenging Task. A 3-item scale was developed to assess the willingnessto accept a challenging task. It included items like “I accept the task... thatcarries a lot of constraints”, ... “that involves risk”, and ... “that is most difficultto perform”. Each item was evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom “completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (5). Factor analysis ofthe scores using the principal component method yielded, one factor thatexplained 62.98% of total variance. The alpha reliability of the scale was .70.High scores denoted greater willingness to accept a challenging task.




Job Performance. Seven items were selected to measure job performance—taking decisions, meeting deadlines, producing satisfactory quality of work,producing satisfactory quantity of work, planning and organising work,facing conflict situations, and feeling confident enough to handle the job—from Abrainis’s (1985) job performance scale. Each item was rated on a5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “very poor” (1) to “very well” (5).The respondents were asked to report how well they had done on each itemover the last 6 months. Factor analysis of the scores by the principal compon-ent method yielded one factor that explained 51.45% of total variance. Thealpha reliability of the scale was .76. High scores were indicative of highperformance.

Target Realisation. Two items that measured target realisation were “Howoften is your department able to achieve the target set for your depart-ment?”, and “How often are you able to achieve the target set by you?”.Both items were scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all” (1)to “always” (5). Factor analysis of the scores by the principal componentmethod yielded one factor that explained 76.8% of total variance. The alphareliability was .70. High scores denoted greater target realisation.

Stress Effect. Psychosomatic symptoms of stress were assessed by 4 items—“How often do you get disturbed sleep?”, “How tired do you feel at the endof the day?”, “How often do you take drinks to get relief from tension?’’,and “How often do you go for smoking to get mentally relaxed?”. Eachitem was keyed positively on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “never”(1) to “always” (5). Factor analysis of the scores yielded, one factor thatexplained 43.8% of total variance. The alpha reliability was .57. High scoreswere indicative of greater stress effect.

Intention to Quit. Four items were developed to measure the intentionto quit—“How often do you think of quitting your present organisation?”,“How long do you intend to remain in this organisation?”, “Would youprefer another ideal job than the one you work in?”, and “How frequentlyare you applying for jobs in other organisations?”. The response categoriesfor all items except the second item ranged from “never” (1) to “always” (5).The second item was keyed negatively and response descriptions varied from“one to two years” (5) to “more than nine years” (1). Factor analysis ofthe scores revealed, one factor that explained 56.34% of total variance.The coefficient alpha was .74. Higher scores indicated a greater intentionto quit.




Procedure

After seeking permission from the concerned authority, an appointmentwas fixed well in advance with each respondent separately. Each respondentwas briefed about the purpose of the study and anonymity of responses.They were requested to give their honest responses to each item and completethe questionnaire without mentioning their names.

Results

Subordinates’ Perceived Leadership Styles

The airmen perceived their immediate superiors/officers and first linesupervisors/officers perceived the middle level superiors/senior officers onleadership. Airmen perceived their superiors to be higher on F as comparedto officers. The officers perceived their superiors to be higher on NT followedby P than airmen. Thus, the F style dominated at the bottom level, and theNT style at the middle level (Table 2). These findings substantiated ourproposition (Kaur, 1993). The perceived predominant leadership style atthe bottom level (F) decreased at the middle level and the perceived pre-dominant styles at the middle level (NT and P) decreased at the bottomlevel. As the levels changed from bottom to middle, the predominant stylealso changed on the progressive continuum from F to NT and P type.

Table 2Perception of Leadership Styles

Airmen Officers

Styles M SD M SD t

F 28.18 6.06 25.93 6.69 2.80∗NT 22.92 8.54 26.55 6.59 –3.96∗∗P 17.58 8.61 23.88 8.28 –5.68∗∗

∗p < .01, ∗∗p < .001.

Correlations among styles revealed that when airmen and officers perceivedtheir immediate superiors to be higher on F, they perceived these same su-periors to be lower on NT and P styles (Table 3). The F style of a leaderdeterred the NT and P styles, but the NT and P styles had a significantoverlap (Table 3).




Table 3Correlation between Leadership Styles

Stylesa F NT P

F 1.00 –.12∗ –.32∗∗NT –.42∗∗ 1.00 .73∗∗P –.71∗∗ .70∗∗ 1.00

∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .001.aUpper diagonal values refer to leadership styles of officers and lower diagonal to those ofsenior offices.

Work Behaviour

Officers expressed greater affective and continuance commitment, higherextrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction, greater preference for challengingtask, higher job performance, greater target realisation and lower desire toquit the organisation as compared to airmen (Table 4). If the jobs assignedby senior officers were not executed, officers were accountable which wasnot so in the case of airmen. Hence, officers surpassed airmen on all thedimensions of work behaviour except stress effect.

Table 4Work Behaviour of Airmen and Officers

Airmen Officers

Work Behaviour M SD M SD t

Affective commitment 13.98 3.57 15.89 3.61 –4.10∗Continuance commitment 14.03 4.22 16.44 4.77 –3.98∗Extrinsic satisfaction 33.46 9.89 39.73 8.93 –5.30∗Intrinsic satisfaction 18.05 5.11 22.34 4.66 –6.97∗Challenging task 10.65 2.55 11.64 2.18 –3.37∗Job performance 25.99 4.14 28.75 3.54 –5.79∗Target realisation 7.57 1.41 8.11 1.21 –3.30∗Stress effect 8.49 2.58 8.47 2.65 .07Intention to quit 10.85 3.59 7.93 3.01 7.17∗∗

∗p < .001.

Work Behaviour and Leadership Styles

To examine the influence of leadership styles on work behaviour, the threestyles were regressed against each dimension of work behaviour. The beta




coefficients were often nonsignificant and contrary to the direction of bivariatecorrelations between each dimension of work behaviour and leadership style.Also, when one style of leadership was regressed against the other two styles,R2 was highly significant. These observations confirmed multicollinearity.Hence, each style was regressed against a dimension of work behaviour. Thestandardised beta indicated the bivariate correlation and its square was R2

(Table 5).

Table 5Regression Analysis for Leadership Styles Predicting Work Behaviour

Airmen Officers

DV a IV b B SEB β B SEB β

Affective F –.05 .04 –.08 –.18 .06 –.33∗∗commitment NT .07 .02 .17∗∗ .27 .06 .50∗∗∗

P .07 .02 .17∗∗ .22 .04 .51∗∗∗Continuance F –.21 .04 –.30∗∗∗ –.28 .08 –.39∗∗∗

commitment NT .16 .03 .33∗∗∗ .38 .07 .53∗∗∗P .23 .03 .46∗∗∗ .35 .05 .60∗∗∗

Extrinsic F –.36 .09 –.22∗∗∗ –.67 .14 –.50∗∗∗satisfaction NT .46 .06 .39∗∗∗ .58 .14 .43∗∗∗

P .60 .06 .52∗∗∗ .60 .11 .56∗∗∗Intrinsic F –.16 .05 –.19∗∗∗ –.37 .07 –.54∗∗∗

satisfaction NT .19 .03 .32∗∗∗ .40 .07 .57∗∗∗P .20 .03 .33∗∗∗ .36 .05 .65∗∗∗

Challenging F –.01 .03 –.02 –.05 .04 –.14task NT .06 .02 .19∗∗∗ .08 .04 .23∗

P .05 .02 .18∗∗ .07 .03 .28∗∗Job F –.01 .04 –.01 –.12 .06 –.22∗

performance NT .12 .03 .25∗∗∗ .18 .06 .34∗∗P .11 .03 .22∗∗∗ .15 .05 .35∗∗

Target F –.01 .01 –.01 –.03 .02 –.16realisation NT .04 .01 .23∗∗∗ .02 .01 .14∗∗

P .01 .02 .08 .01 .02 .10Stress effect F .08 .03 .19∗∗∗ .01 .05 .01

NT –.03 .02 –.11 –.02 .04 –.05P –.06 .02 –.19∗∗∗ –.05 .04 –.15

Intention F .16 .03 .27∗∗∗ .24 .04 .54∗∗∗to quit NT –.09 .02 –.22∗∗∗ –.20 .05 –.44∗∗∗

P –.15 .02 –.36∗∗∗ –.21 .03 –.59∗∗∗

∗p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.aDV = Dependent variable, bIV = Independent variable.

Airmen were less committed, less satisfied, experienced stress, and wereunwilling to stay in the defence services under superiors who adopted the




F style. Conversely, airmen were highly committed, experienced greaterjob satisfaction, accepted challenging tasks, had better performance, andreported lower intention to quit the organisation under NT and P superiors.Target realisation of airmen was higher under NT superiors and stress effectwas lower under P superiors. Similar findings were observed in the case ofofficers. Officers were less committed, less satisfied, performed poorly, andexpressed greater willingness to leave the organisation under F superiors.However, they were highly committed, satisfied with their job, acceptedchallenging tasks, performed better, and expressed less desire to quit theorganisation under NT and P superiors. Officers’ desire to realise the targetincreased under NT superiors (Table 5). These findings supported the as-sumptions of the study.

Discussion

In this study, subordinates assessed their superiors on leadership styles andself-reported their work behaviour. First, subordinates assessed superiorsbecause leadership scales embodied positive characteristics. Evidence indi-cated that an individual has a propensity to overevaluate himself/herselfcompared to his/her peers on positive attributes and undervalue himself/herself on negative attributes (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986). If leaders rated them-selves on leadership styles, they would overestimate themselves on positiveattributes. Using subordinates’ ratings of their superiors minimised this prob-lem (Khuntia & Suar, 2004). Second, the Johari window mentiones that inthe interpersonal context, some of the attitudes, motives and behaviour ofthe person are unknown to himself/herself but are known to others withwhom the individual interacts (Luft, 1961). Such unknown attitudes, mo-tives and behaviour of the superior were examined by taking into consider-ation the subordinates’ assessment of their superior.

Sinha (1995) postulated that the F, NT, and P styles represented a develop-mental continuum of styles. The NT style correlated positively and signifi-cantly with the P style. The same leader exhibited different styles dependingon the psychological preparedness of the subordinates. Though airmen per-ceived their leaders (officers) to be predominantly F, the same leaders wereperceived to be NT and P to a great extent. Conversely, officers perceivedthat their superiors adopted the NT style followed by the P and F styles.

Airmen and officers realised their own and departmental targets underthe NT leader. Airman reported less commitment, lower job satisfaction




but greater stress and unwillingness to stay in the organisation when theyperceived their leader to be the F type. However, they were committed, sat-isfied, accepted challenging tasks, and expressed a desire to continue in theIAF when they perceived their leaders to be either the NT or the P type.Also, officers were less committed, less satisfied with their job, performedpoorly, and were unwilling to remain in the organisation when their leaderswere perceived to be F. On the other hand, officers expressed greater commit-ment, higher job satisfaction, accepted challenging task, performed better,and had little intention to quit the organisation when the senior officerswere perceived to be either the NT or the P type.

Many factors affected leadership such as the organisational set-up, natureof task, characteristics of subordinates, and demands from the top. Thesefactors compelled the leader to behave in a particular manner that may notbe appreciated by the subordinates. Results indicated that the F style was apredominant style at the first line supervisory level, and the NT followedby the P style at the middle level. First, the basic objective of the IAF is tomaintain discipline and ensure the effective implementation of orders andcommands. A first line officer was empowered to execute a job through air-men. The distance between an officer and an airman was greater than thatbetween an officer and a senior officer. Previous findings (Habibullah &Sinha, 1980) suggested that power, distance and discipline were associatedwith a F leader. Where distance, discipline and power were highly main-tained, the leader adopted the F style. Second, with respect to task, officersworked under constraints and delivered results to senior officers. Officerswere under so much pressure from senior officers that they were compelledto act in an autocratic manner. Third, the promotion avenues for airmenwere limited and they could not be internally promoted. This probably ex-plains why officers maintained a distance from and exercised authority overairmen. In contrast, power, distance and discipline were less between anofficer and a senior officer. Officers’ performance and length of service weredeciding factors for promotion to the position of senior officer. Moreover,senior officers discussed various plans and strategies with and gave suggestionsto officers to execute the plans. This explains why officers perceived thesenior officer to be the NT type followed by the P type.

The work behaviour of officers differed from that of airmen becauseofficers were more responsible and accountable to their senior officers. Theywere more committed to the organisation, expressed greater willingness toaccept challenging tasks, performed better, and realised targets timely com-pared to airmen. Their high level of commitment and satisfaction under-mined the intention to leave the organisation compared to airmen.




Humane and fair management practices acted as a critical determinantin enhancing employees’ work behaviour. F leaders were power-minded,exhibited least concern for their subordinates, used fear and punishment toget the work done, arbitrarily administered rewards to those whom theyliked, and created a climate of anxiety and tension. The F supervisory style,therefore, reduced commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, and in-creased stress and intention to quit the organisation. Irrespective of the level,the NT leaders supported, guided and encouraged subordinates and targetrealisation was high under them.

In the IAF, everyone needs to be always alert, vigilant and well preparedfor any exigency. Employees are competent, energetic and self-motivated.Task-oriented (NT) and people-oriented (P) leaders assigned responsibilities,supported subordinates and rewarded them fairly, created a friendly groupclimate, and clearly explained to the subordinates what was expected of them.Accordingly, commitment, job satisfaction, acceptance of challenging tasks,job performance, intention to continue in the IAF of airmen and officersincreased when they perceived their leader to be either the NT or the P type.In the defence services, employees work under constraints and difficultiesand are hard-pressed to discharge their responsibilities. Even the NT andP styles of senior officers failed to reduce the stress effects of officers. TheP style of officers reduced stress effects in the case of airmen only.

Work behaviour ensures organisational effectiveness. By and large, F lead-ers deterred but NT and P leaders facilitated such behaviour. As Sinha (1995,pp. 51–55) suggested, through self-analysis, counselling, and training ses-sions, the predominant F style of first line supervisors may be changed tothe NT style to ensure greater target realisation and favourable work behav-iour of subordinates. Moreover, empathy, trust, reciprocity, and interpersonalrelations or social capital may moderate between leadership styles and sub-ordinates’ work behaviour. Further research in this direction is warranted inthe IAF for a greater understanding of leadership.

REFERENCES

ABRAINIS, D.J. (1985). Job stressors, strain, job performance, social support and social conflict:Causal relationship in a four-wave longitudinal panel study. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.

BEEHR, T.A., & NEWMAN, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizationaleffectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4),665–669.




CAPLAN, R.D., COBB, S., FRENCH, J.R. P. Jr, VAN HARRISON, R., & PINNEAU, S.R. Jr. (1975).Job demand and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. (HEW PublicationNo. NIOSH). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.

CAMPBELL, J.P., MCHENRY, J.J., & WISE, L.L. (1990). Modeling job performance in apopulation of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313–333.

COOPER, C.L. (1983). Identifying stressors at work. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27(5),369–376.

GOSLING, J., & MINTZBERG, H. (2003, November). The five minds of a manager. HarvardBusiness Review, 54–64.

HABIBULLAH, A.H.M., & SINHA, J.B.P. (1980). Motivational climate and leadership styles.Vikalpa, 5(1), 85–93.

HERSEY, P., & BLANCHARD, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior (3rd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

KAKAR, S. (1971). Authority patterns of subordinates’ behaviour in Indian organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 298–307.

KANUNGO, R.N., MISHRA, S.B., & DAYAL, I. (1975). Relationship of job involvement to perceivedimportance and satisfaction of employee needs. International Review of Applied Psychology,24(1), 49–59.

KATZ, D., & KAHN, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley.

KATZ, R.L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90–102.KAUR, R. (1993). Managerial styles in the public sector. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,

28(4), 362–368.KHUNTIA, R., & SUAR, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of Indian private and

public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 13–26.LAL, J.L. (1983). Decision making style and situational variables: A study of managers in

large enterprises. Decision, 10(3), 269–281.LUFT, J. (1961). The Johari window. Human Relations Training News, 5(1), 6–7.MAYFIELD, J.R., MAYFIELD, M.R., & KOPF, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language

on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37(3&4),235–238.

MEADE, R.D. (1967). An experimental study of leadership in India. Journal of Social Psychology,72(1), 35–43.

MICHAELS, C.E., & SPECTOR, P.E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley,Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 53–59.

MISUMI, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese researchprogram. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

MISUMI, J., & PETERSON, M. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership:Review of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 198–223.

MOWDAY, R.T., STEERS, R.M., & PORTER, L.W. (1979). The measure of organizationalcommitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.

NILAKANTHA, V., & RAMNARAYAN, S. (1990). Managers in the middle: A case of underdevelopmentand underutilization. Vikalpa, 15(2), 3–12.

PADSAKOFF, P.M., & TODOR, W.D. (1985). Relationship between leader reward and punishmentbehavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, 11(1), 55–73.

PERLOFF, L.S., & FETZER, B.K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability tovictimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502–510.




ROSIN, H.M., & KORABIK, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intentionto leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(4), 317–330.

SALANCIK, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. InB. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds), New direction in organizational behavior (pp. 1–54),Chicago: St. Clair Press.

SCHRIESHEIM, C.A., & MURPHY, C.J. (1976). Relationships between leader behavior andsubordinate satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational moderators. Journalof Applied Psychology, 61(5), 634–641.

SHARMA, P., & BHAL, K. (2001). Ethical decision making by managers in public and privatesector organizations. Psychological Studies, 46(3), 222–232.

SINGH, J.P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organisational Studies,11(1), 75–101.

SINGH, M., & PESTONJEE, D.M. (1990). Job involvement, sense of participation and jobsatisfaction: A study in banking industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(2),159–165.

SINHA, J.B.P. (1973). Organizational climate and problems of management in India.International Review of Applied Psychology, 22(1), 55–64.

SINHA, J.B.P. (1980). The nurturant-task leader. New Delhi: Concept.SINHA, J.B.P. (1987). Leadership styles scale. Patna: Assert Publications.SINHA, J.B.P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage.SINHA, J.B.P., & SINHA, M. (1974). Middle class values in organizational perspectives. Journal

of Social and Economic Studies, 1(1), 95–114.SRIVASTAVA, A.K. (1987). Organizational climate and job satisfaction of junior and middle

level central government officers: A comparative study. Psychological Review, 32(5&6),14–17.

SRIVASTAVA, S.K., & SHARADKUMAR, S. (1984). Leadership style and effectiveness of juniorand middle level central government officers: A comparative study. Psychological Studies,29(2), 136–138.

STOGDILL, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:Free Press.

VECCHIO, R.P. (1990). Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 141–147.

VERMA, Y.V. (1995). Person-organisational fit and organizational climate as facilitators of workbehaviour: A study of Tata Steel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IIT, Kharagpur.

WEINER, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of ManagementReview, 7(5), 418–425.

WELCH, H.P., & LEVAN, H. (1981). Inter-relationships between organizational commitmentand job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior and organizational climate.Human Relations, 34(6), 1079–1089.

YUKL, G., & VAN FLEET, D.D. (1998). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. InM.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 147–197). Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.

Damodar Suar is Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IndianInstitute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.




Hare R. Tewari is Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute ofTechnology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.

Kostubh R. Chaturbedi is a research scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.



Documents

Applied Organizational Psychology