Upload
doantu
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 1
http://www.ijars.in
Research Article
An Empirical Analysis of Interpersonal Styles with Special
Reference to Employees in Public Sector Banks
Authors Dr. Arindam Chatterjee
Address for Correspondence:
Asst. Professor, GDGWI (Lancaster University Management School, UK), Gurgaon, India
Abstract:
The study is an attempt from the behavioral
perspective of individuals to understand the
predominant interpersonal style of 116
middle level officers in public sector
banking firms and also to analyze whether
the transactional styles are same or different
for male and female officers. The study
takes into account factors like Transactional
analysis, Ego states and the 12 different
Interpersonal Styles. It deals with assuming
the level of OK styles displayed in the
organization and to develop strategies to
improve the OK styles and reduce the Not-
OK styles so that the interpersonal behavior
is optimized which will lead to
organizational effectiveness. The study
revealed that the operating effectiveness
quotient of the officers could be generalized
to be average. Also there is need for training
in creative child and regulating parent Ego
states. The study also revealed that there is
significant difference between the
transactional styles of male and female
officers.
Keywords: Interpersonal Styles, Ego states,
Transactional Analysis, OK and Not OK
Styles
Introduction:
An organization’s effectiveness and
efficiency mainly depend on the Human
resource and its management. The job of a
manager demands a mixture of many types
of skills, whether he belongs to a business
organization or a non-business organization.
Since organizations are becoming more
complex, widely dispersed, large sized, and
widely decentralized, the central function to
ensure that the organization and its key
managers are on the right track and progress
at the right pace to meet the predetermined
objectives has become a very difficult
proposition. Effectiveness is best seen as
something a manager produces from a
situation by managing it appropriately. Once
the manager has decided that he wants to
become effective, he should initially focus
on how he can contribute more, or
contribute more effectively than what he is
now doing. In general, most successful
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 2
http://www.ijars.in
managers achieve the state of effectiveness
by having strong combination of technical,
interpersonal (human), and conceptual skills
(Mintzberg, 1973).
Theoretical Background of Styles:
Studying interpersonal styles is a complex
subject that is often given inadequate
attention by behavioral scientists (Pareek,
2002). Each individual in a group has unique
interpersonal style that has been shaped by
the lifetime of their experience with others.
A consistent Pattern of behavior, with quasi
- constancy and predictability can be called
“Style” (Pareek, 2003). The styles can be
generally or broadly classified into Personal
and Interpersonal styles. Personal Styles
include the leadership styles; motivational
styles etc. and interpersonal styles include
styles of interaction with superiors, peers
and subordinates. Whether as individuals or
in social or organizational roles, we interact
with others. There are three main areas of
interpersonal interactions.
1. We interact in relation to the tasks being
performed or to be performed
2. We interact in relation to the values and
norms, which are or should be followed
or are violated
3. We also interact with emotions: affection,
fear, anger, curiosity etc.
The habitual way of the person’s interaction
with others can be called his/her
interpersonal style. Interpersonal styles help
a person to relate in positive or negative
ways with superiors, subordinates and peers.
This may mean being able to make and keep
friendly relationships as well as being able
to end relationships constructively. A useful
conceptual framework to describe an
individual’s style is Transactional Analysis
(TA). Transactional Analysis concepts
assume the use of two basic concepts to
understand Interactional styles, the Ego
states and the Existential Positions.
Transactional Analysis:
The theory of transactional analysis
originated in the psychotherapeutic practice
and theoretical works of the Canadian
psychiatrist, Eric Bernstein (Berne, 1961,
1963, 1966a, 1966b, 1972) and his
collaborators and followers (for instance,
Steiner, 1974; Dusay, 1972; English, 1971,
1972; Goulding and Goulding, 1976, 1979;
Crossman, 1966; Klein, 1980; Clarkson,
1992; James et. al 1974; Stewart, 1996,
2000). Even if transactional analysis is
mostly about the cure of psychopathological
behavior, its theoretical framework is
suitable for analyzing well-functioning
behavior and communication. Some of its
results have contributed to further
development of the principles of
transactional or interactional styles.
As mentioned earlier the concept of
interpersonal or transactional styles is
structured by the combination of ego states-
model and existential positions of
transactional analysis theory. Ego-state
model of transactional analysis claimed that
through our conscious or preconscious life,
we operate from one of the three different
ego states: the Parent, the Adult and the
Child; and that we continuously switch
between them. The ego states may be
identified by the behavioral, social,
historical and phenomenological modes of
the ego states-diagnosis (Berne, 1961; 66-
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 3
http://www.ijars.in
69). An ego state may be described
phenomenologically as a coherent system of
feelings related to a given subject, and
operationally as a set of coherent behavior
patterns; or pragmatically, as a system of
feelings which motivates a related set of
behavior patterns (Berne, 1961; xvii). Figure
1 shows the ego state model proposed by
Eric Berne.
Figure 1: Ego states Model
Source:
http://www.businessballs.com/transactional
analysis.htm
According to Berne (1961), the Child is a set
of feelings, attitudes and behavior patterns
that exist as relics in the adult person. It is
preserved in the exact forms of behavior,
emotional reactions, ways of speaking,
mannerisms etc. that the person used to
express as a child. The healthy Child is said
to be the best part of a person, the source of
enjoying life, being spontaneous, creative,
and sexual. It also motivates the activities of
the Adult so as to receive most of the
pleasure from the successful learning and
adaptation. When healthy, the Adult ego
state is an autonomous set of feelings,
behavior patterns and attitudes adequate for
different aspects of the real, external
environment. Its function is to regulate
learning, adaptation, intelligence skills, and
organization of a person, to provide her with
responsibility, reliability, sincerity and
courage. The Parent is a set of feelings,
behavior patterns and attitudes formed by a
person’s re-playing the corresponding
features of his parents or other authorities.
The function of this ego state is to form
certain automatic, habitual behavior and a
set of rational prohibitive attitudes through
which we save time and psychophysical
energy. It also provides people with the
capacity to help and protect another
individual. (For elaborate ego states-model,
see Berne, 1961, 1966b; Steiner, 1974;
Klein, 1980; Stewart, 2000.)
Each ego state is important. However, the
functional or dysfunctional role of these ego
states depends on the general life position a
person takes. Harris (Pareek, 2002) has
conceptualized four primary existential or
life positions:
1. I’m OK - you’re OK.
2. I’m not OK - you’re OK.
3. I’m OK - you’re not OK.
4. I’m not OK - you’re not OK.
Defining Transactional Styles:
James (Pareek, 2002) has suggested that, in
general, the concepts of OK and not OK can
be used to understand how bosses behave.
Avary (Pareek, 2002) has similarly proposed
OK and not OK dimensions of the six ego
states; and Savorgnan (Pareek, 2002) has
discussed the OK and not OK dimensions of
the two parent ego states. Figure 2 shows the
four life positions in terms of interaction
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 4
http://www.ijars.in
styles. The four general interaction styles
can be elaborated by combining them with
the ego states. Two dimensions of the parent
ego state (critical or regulation and
nurturing), three of the child ego state
(adaptive, reactive and free or creative) and
the adult ego state are used. All three-ego
states and the sub-ego states are important
and perform distinct functions. The
transactional style of an individual depends
on the person’s combination of ego states
with life positions. Combining the six ego
states (two parent, one adult and three child)
with the two life positions (OK and not OK),
we obtain 12 styles. These are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1
Interpersonal Styles
Ego States Styles in two life Positions
OK NOT OK
Nurturing parent Supportive Rescuing
Controlling
Parent Normative Prescriptive
Adult
Problem
Solving
Task
Obsessive
Creative Child Innovative Bohemian
Rebellious Child Assertive Aggressive
Adaptive Child Resilient Sulking
Source: Pareek, 2002, Training Instruments
for HRD and OD
1. Supportive style: In this style, support is
provided when needed. James (Pareek,
2002) uses the term supportive coaches
for managers with this style. They
encourage their subordinates and provide
the necessary conditions for continuous
improvement.
2. Sulking style: People with this style keep
their negative feelings to themselves, find it
difficult to share them, and avoid meeting
people if they have not been able to fulfill
their part of the contract.
3. Normative style: These managers are
interested in developing proper norms of
behaviors for their subordinates and in
helping them to understand why some
norms are more important than others.
4. Aggressive style: People with this style
are fighters. They may fight for their
subordinates, clients of participants or for
their ideas and suggestions, hoping that this
will help them achieve desired
results. Their aggressiveness, however,
makes people avoid them and not take them
seriously.
5. Problem-solving style: In this style the
manager is concerned with solving
problems, but does not see them as being
merely confined to the task. For such
persons, problems have various dimensions.
The focus of the manager, consultant trainer
is on dealing with and finding solutions to
problems.
6. Bohemian style: The creative child is
active in this style. The person has lots of
ideas and is impatient with current
practices. The person is less concerned with
how the new ideas work than with the ideas
themselves. Such people are nonconformists
and enjoy experimenting with new
approaches.
7. Resilient style: In this style persons show
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 5
http://www.ijars.in
creative adaptability- learning from others,
accepting others’ ideas and changing their
approach when required.
8. Rescuing style: Such a style indicates a
dependency relationship in which the
manager, trainer or consultant
perceives his or her main role as rescuing
the subordinate, participant, trainee
or client, who is seen as being incapable of
taking care of him or herself.
9. Confronting style: In this style the
person is concerned with the exploration of
a problem. Such persons confront the
organization to get things done for their
subordinates or clients.
10. Prescriptive style: People with this style
are critical of the behavior of the others;
they develop rules and regulations and
impose them on others. Managers using this
style make quick judgments and insist
that all subordinates follow certain norms.
11. Innovative style: Innovators are
enthusiastic about new ideas and approaches
and enthuse others, too. Unlike the
bohemian, they pay enough attention to
nurturing their ideas so that they result in
concrete action and become internalized in
the system.
12. Task-obsessive style: People with this
style are more concerned with the task.
Matters not directly related to the task are
ignored; they are not concerned with
feelings and in fact fail to recognize
them since they do not perceive them as
related to the task.
Objective of the study:
To study the various transactional styles
exhibited by the officers and to find out
whether the transactional styles are identical
between male officers and female officers.
For the same purpose following hypotheses
were proposed that were subsequently put to
test.
Proposed Hypothesis:
H1- The difference in the mean values of the
respective styles for male and female
officers is significant.
H0- The difference in the mean values of the
respective styles for male and female
officers is not significant.
The alternate hypothesis in general is taken
as the difference in the mean values of the
respective styles for male and female
officers is significant. Thus, if the calculated
level of significance is less than the
acceptable level of significance, the null
hypothesis is rejected and if the calculated
value is more than the acceptable level, the
null hypothesis is accepted.
Methods
Participants: A sample of one hundred and
thirty two middle level officers working in
the public sector in the banking industry
participated in the study. The sample
includes both male and female participants.
Majority of the respondents fell between the
age group of thirty to forty five. Around 132
questionnaires were distributed to the
working professionals. A final usable
sample size of 116 was obtained indicating a
response rate of 87% approximately. The
sample comprised of 42% female and 58%
male respondents. Majority of them were
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 6
http://www.ijars.in
well qualified, graduates and postgraduates
having professional qualification in their
respective field.
Measures of Data Collection:
The instrument used for the data collection
in this study is “Transactional Styles
Inventory – Managers (TSI - M)”.
Transactional Styles Inventory (TSI) has
been created to help the respondents
examine their interaction and transactional
styles, and develop strategies to enhance
their interpersonal effectiveness (Pareek,
2002). A respondent can examine the
operating effectiveness scores for each of
his ego states; if he feels concerned about
the low scores; he can prepare a plan for
behavioral changes, based on the related
items by reducing Not-Ok behavior and
increasing OK behavior. The retest
reliability coefficient (with an interval of
four weeks) for TSI-M with several groups
have found to range between 0.51 and 0.74
for the different styles. The validity of the
instrument was tested by correlating TSI-M
scores with egogram scores. On the whole,
the correlation data provides evidence of the
validity of the instrument for training
purposes.
Analysis of the data:
The TSI-M was administered to all the 132
respondents and the scoring was done. The
mean value of the different styles as per
their responses referring to TSI-M key
(general) was found out. This is given in
Table 2. In the next step the obtained scores
were compared to Operating Effectiveness
norm score (OEQ) as mentioned in table no.
3
Table 2 Mean value of the different styles as per the responses and TSI-M Key
(General)
Style Total of values Mean value Approximated
as
OK, Nurturing Parent Supportive 1677 12.705 13
Not-OK, Nurturing Parent Rescuing 1570 11.894 12
OK, Normative parent Normative 1399 10.598 11
Not-OK, Normative parent Prescriptive 1417 10.735 11
OK, Adult Problem solving 1609 12.189 12
Not-OK, Adult Task obsessive 1375 10.417 10
OK, Creative Child Innovative 1583 11.992 12
Not-OK, Creative Child Bohemian 1403 10.629 11
OK, Reactive Child Assertive 1399 10.598 11
Not-OK, Reactive Child Aggressive 1235 9.356 9
OK, Adaptive Child Resilient 1552 11.758 12
Not-OK, Adaptive Child Sulking 1084 8.212 8
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 7
http://www.ijars.in
Table 3 Operating Effectiveness Quotient (OEQ)
Not OK Scores
OK Scores
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 0 50 67 75 80 83 85 87 89 90 91 92 92
5 0 33 50 60 67 71 75 78 80 82 83 85 86
6 0 25 40 50 57 62 67 70 73 75 77 78 80
7 0 20 33 43 50 55 60 64 67 69 71 73 75
8 0 17 28 37 44 50 54 58 61 64 67 69 70
9 0 14 25 33 40 45 50 54 57 60 62 65 67
10 0 12 22 30 36 42 46 50 53 56 59 61 63
11 0 11 20 28 33 38 43 47 50 53 55 58 60
12 0 10 18 25 31 36 40 44 47 50 53 55 57
13 0 9 17 23 28 33 37 41 44 47 50 52 54
14 0 8 15 21 27 31 35 39 42 45 48 50 52
15 0 8 14 20 25 29 33 37 40 43 45 48 50
Table 4 OEQ Norms
Functions Mean SD Very Low Low Average High Very High
Nurturing 50 10 Below 36 36-45 46-55 56-65 Above 65 Regulating 50 10 Below 36 36-45 46-55 56-65 Above 65
Task 55 10 Below 41 41-50 51-60 61-70 Above 70 Creative 65 10 Below 51 51-60 61-70 71-80 Above 80 Reactive 60 10 Below 46 46-55 56-65 66-75 Above 75
Adaptive 65 10 Below 51 51-60 61-70 71-80
Above 80
Finding out operating effectiveness
quotient from the mean values:
1. Supporting and rescuing: (Nurturing
parent): The mean value for supporting is
taken as 13 and that for rescuing is taken as
12 from the Table No. 4. The operating
effectiveness quotient is found out from the
OEQ table (Table.No.3.) Corresponding to
the OK score 13 and Not-Ok score 12, the
OEQ is obtained as 53. This is considered as
an Average effectiveness in this Ego state.
This was found out referring to the OEQ
Norms, which is given in Table 4.
2. Normative and Prescriptive
(Regulating parent): The mean value of
normative style is 11 and the value for
prescriptive style is also 11. The
corresponding OEQ value is 50. This is
considered as an Average effectiveness in
this Ego state referring OEQ norms.
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 8
http://www.ijars.in
3. Problem solving and Task-obsessive
(Adult): The mean value of problem solving
style is 12 and the value for task-obsessive
style is 10. The corresponding OEQ value is
56. This is considered as high effectiveness
in this Ego state referring OEQ norms
4. Innovative and Bohemian (Creative
Child): The mean value of Innovative style
is 12 and the value for bohemian style is
also 11. The corresponding OEQ value is
53. This is considered as a low effectiveness
in this Ego state referring OEQ norms.
5. Assertive and Aggressive (Reactive
child): The mean value of Assertive style is
11 and the value for Aggressive style is also
9. The corresponding OEQ value is 57. This
is considered as an Average effectiveness in
this Ego state referring OEQ norms.
6. Resilient and Sulking (Adaptive child):
The mean value of resilient style is 12 and
the value for sulking style is also 8. The
corresponding OEQ value is 64. This is
considered as an Average effectiveness in
this Ego state referring OEQ norms.
Hypothesis Testing:
For testing the hypothesis, independent
sample test is used to check whether there is
a direct relation between each of the
corresponding transactional styles of male
officers and female officers and to analyze if
there are similarities in the interpersonal
styles of both the groups. Table No: 5 and 6
show the mean values and level of
significance of the OK and Not-OK Styles
of the two groups – male and female
officers. (Equal variance is not assumed
since there is large difference in the number
of respondents of male and female groups;
accepted level of significance is taken as 5%
or 0.05).
Table no. 5
Descriptive group statistics of male and female officers
Styles Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Supportive male
female
67
49
12.7881
12.0000
1.2530
1.0377
.1154
.2774
Rescuing male
female
67
49
12.0000
11.0000
1.8397
2.0755
.1694
.5547
Normative male
female
67
49
10.3729
12.5000
1.3256
1.5566
.1220
.4160
Prescriptive male
female
67
49
10.5847
12.0000
1.9185
.0000
.1766
.0000
Problem Solving male
female
67
49
12.2712
11.5000
1.8613
1.5566
.1713
.4160
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 9
http://www.ijars.in
Task Obsessive male
female
67
49
10.5254
9.5000
1.8979
2.5944
.1747
.6934
Innovative male
female
67
49
11.9915
12.0000
1.5050
2.0755
.1385
.5547
Bohemian male
female
67
49
10.5847
11.0000
2.0437
4.1510
.1881
1.1094
Assertive male
female
67
49
10.7881
9.0000
2.5008
1.0377
.2302
.2774
Aggressive male
female
67
49
9.5763
7.5000
2.6064
.5189
.2399
.1387
Resilient male
female
67
49
11.8475
11.0000
1.7861
.0000
.1644
.0000
Sulking male
female
67
49
8.1780
8.5000
2.7476
1.5566
.2529
.4160
Table no. 6
Independent sample mean test of male and female officers
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2 -
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of Mean
Lower Upper
1 Supportive
Equal
variance
assumed
0.205 0.651 2.261 130 0.025 0.7881 0.3486 8.49 1.4778
Equal variance
not
assumed
2.624 17.827 0.017 0.7881 0.3004 0.1566 1.4197
2 Rescuing
Equal
variance
assumed
4.118 0.044 1.897 130 0.06 1.00 0.5271 4.28 2.0428
Equal
variance
not
assumed
1.724 15.522 0.105 1.00 0.58 -0.2326 2.2326
3 Normative
Equal
variance
assumed
4.268 0.041 -5.572 130 0.00 -2.1271 0.3817 -2.8823 -1.3719
Equal
variance
not
assumed
-4.906 15.321 0.00 -2.1271 0.4336 -3.0495 -1.2047
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 10
http://www.ijars.in
4 Prescriptive
Equal
variance
assumed
21.75 0.00 -2.751 130 0.007 -1.4153 0.5145 -2.4331 -0.3974
Equal
variance
not
assumed
-8.013 117.00 0.00 -1.4153 0.1766 -1.765 -1.0655
5 Problem
Solving
Equal
variance
assumed
0.038 0.846 1.488 130 0.139 0.7712 0.5128 -0.2539 1.7963
Equal
variance
not
assumed
1.714 17.728 0.104 0.7712 0.4499 -0.1751 1.7175
6 Task
Obsessive
Equal
variance
assumed
11.263 0.001 1.833 130 0.069 1.0254 0.5539 8.11 2.1319
Equal
variance
not
assumed
1.434 14.697 0.172 1.0254 0.715 -0.5014 2.5523
7 Innovative
Equal variance
assumed
10.772 0.001 -0.019 130 0.985 0.47 0.4442 -0.8872 0.8703
Equal
variance
not
assumed
-0.015 14.666 0.988 0.47 0.5717 -1.2295 1.2126
8 Bohemian
Equal
variance
assumed
59.461 0.00 -0.627 130 0.531 -0.4153 0.6618 -1.7246 0.8941
Equal
variance
not assumed
-0.369 13.757 0.718 -0.4153 1.1252 -2.8327 2.0021
9 Assertive
Equal variance
assumed
3.864 0.051 2.641 130 0.009 1.7881 0.677 0.4488 3.1275
Equal
variance
not
assumed
4.961 35.227 0.00 1.7881 0.3604 1.0566 2.5197
10 Aggressive
Equal
variance
assumed
11.505 0.001 2.964 130 0.004 2.0763 0.7005 0.6905 3.4621
Equal
variance
not assumed
7.492 103.89 0.00 2.0763 0.2771 1.5267 2.6258
11 Resilient Equal
variance
assumed
25.362 0.00 1.769 130 0.079 0.8457 0.479 -0.1001 1.7951
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 11
http://www.ijars.in
Equal
variance
not
assumed
5.154 117.00 0.00 0.8475 0.1644 0.5218 1.1731
12 Sulking
Equal variance
assumed
1.445 0.231 -4.29 130 0.668 -0.322 0.7498 -1.8055 1.1614
Equal
variance
not
assumed
-0.661 24.022 0.515 -0.322 0.4869 -1.3269 0.6828
Supportive style: The accepted level of
significance is taken as 5% and from the
Table.6 it is obtained as 0.017, which is less
than 0.05. This shows that the difference in
the mean values of male (12.79) and female
(12.00) officers is not a chance occurrence
but a sure one.
Rescuing style: The test shows that the
difference in the mean values of male
(12.00) and female (11.00) officers is not so
significant since the two tailed test shows a
significance of 0.105 which is higher than
0.05. The difference is a chance occurrence.
Normative style: From the tables it can be
summarized that there is a valid difference
between the normative styles of male
(10.37) and female (12.50) officers because
of the significance is acceptable and below
0.05. Hence it can be concluded that the
female officers are more normative than the
male officers.
Prescriptive style: The two tailed test
shows that the significance can be accepted
since it is less than 0.05. This describes that
there is definite difference between the male
(10.58) and female (12.00) officers. The test
substantiate that female officers are more
prescriptive than the male counterparts.
Problem solving style: The test describes
that the similarity in the mean values of
male officers (12.27) and female officers
(11.50) is not so significant and is just a
chance occurrence as the significance
(0.104) is more than 0.05.
Task obsessive style: There is a difference
between the mean value of the task
obsessive style of the male (10.53) and
female (9.50) officers. But the test states that
the difference is just a chance occurrence
since the level of significance is more than
0.05.
Innovative style: The mean values of the
innovative styles of male (11.99) and female
(12.00) officers are similar. But the test of
significance tells that this is a chance
occurrence and hence cannot be concluded
thus.
Bohemian style: There is similarity in the
values of bohemian style of the two groups,
but the significance level is not acceptable
and hence this is just a possibility
occurrence and not a sure one.
Assertive style: The mean values of the
assertive style of male (10.79) and female
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 12
http://www.ijars.in
(9.00) officers are different and the level of
significance substantiates that the
occurrence is not by chance but definite.
Hence it can be concluded that male officers
are more assertive than their female counter
parts.
Aggressive style: The mean value tells that
male officers are more aggressive than the
female officers since there is a difference in
their scores (male– 9.58 and female -7.50).
The test of significance validates that the
difference is not a chance event but a
specific one. Hence it can be concluded that
male officers are more aggressive than their
female counterparts.
Resilient style: The two-tail test implies that
the difference of mean values of the resilient
styles is a definite one and not a chance
incident. Hence it can be summarized that
male officers are more resilient than female
officers.
Sulking style: The significance test
describes that the difference in the mean
values of sulking style of male officers and
female officers is just a chance event and
hence it cannot be concluded to be true
always
.
Conclusion:
The study reveals that there is a significant
difference between transactional styles of
males and females officers. How managers
can be more effective is a core issue to the
field of HRD. This study was intended to
address a gap existing in the literature today
in providing a more informed link between
the theory and practice of the differences in
transactional styles of males and females
officers. This is one study however, and
others would need to be completed to see if
this premise holds true in other
organizations.
References
1. Berne, Eric (1961), Transactional
Analysis in Psychotherapy, New York,
Grove Press
2. Berne, Eric (1963), The Structure and
Dynamics of Organizations and Groups,
Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott
3. Berne, Eric (1966a), Games People
Play, London, Andre Deutsch (first
published 1964, by New York, Grove
Press)
4. Berne, Eric (1966b), Principles of Group
Treatment, New York, Oxford
University Press
5. Berne, Eric (1972), What Do You Say
After You Say Hello?, New York, Grove
Press
6. Clarkson, Petruska (1992),
Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy:
an Integrated Approach, London,
Routledge
7. Crossman, Patricia (1966), “Permission
and Protection”, Transactional Analysis
Bulletin, 5 (19), 152-154
International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480
iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 13
http://www.ijars.in
8. Dusay, Jack (1972), “Egograms and the
´Constancy Hypothesis´”, Transactional
Analysis Journal, 2, no.3
9. English, Fanita (1971), “The
Substitution Factor: Rackets and Real
Feelings”, Transactional Analysis
Journal, 1, no. 4, 225-230
10. English, Fanita (1972), “Rackets and
Real Feelings, Part II”, Transactional
Analysis Journal, 2, no.1, 23-25
11. Goulding, Robert and Goulding, Mary
(1976), “Injunctions, Decisions and
Redecisions”, Transactional Analysis
Journal, 6, no. 1, 41-48
12. Goulding, Robert and Goulding, Mary
(1979), Changing Lives Through
Redecision Therapy, New York,
Brunner/Mazel
13. James, Muriel and Contributors (1974),
Techniques in Transactional Analysis for
Psychotherapists and Counselors,
California, London, Amsterdam,
Ontario, Sydney, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company
14. Klein, Mavis (1980), Lives People Live:
A Textbook of Transactional Analysis,
Chichester, New York, Brisbane,
Toronto, John Willey & Sons
15. Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of
managerial work. New York: Harper &
Row
16. Pareek Udai & Rao Venkateswara
(1991) “First hand book of
Psychological and social instrument”
17. Pareek Udai, (2004) “Training
Instruments in HRD and OD”, Second
Edition, Tata
18. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi, 2002
19. Pareek, James, Avery (1999) Training
Instruments in HRD and OD, Second
Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Limited, New Delhi, 2002
20. Steiner, Claude (1974), Scripts People
Live: Transactional Analysis of Life
Scripts, New York, Grove Press
21. Stewart, Ian (1996), Developing
Transactional Analysis Counselling,
London, Sage Publications
22. Stewart, Ian (2000), Transactional
Analysis Counselling in Action (first
published 1989), London, Sage
Publications
Website:
1. http://www.businessballs.com/transactio
nalanalysis.htm