Leadership Textbook PDF

CHAPTER -1 Leadership Concept and Theories  CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION “Be the servant while Leading” — Swami Vivekananda Leadership means many things to many people. This is due to the changing environment of leaders in d...

CHAPTER -1 Leadership Concept and Theories  CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION “Be the servant while Leading” — Swami Vivekananda Leadership means many things to many people. This is due to the changing environment of leaders in different roles in different functions in different settings starting from leadership of the family to the top positions in multinational organizations. However, the essentials of leadership are the same to all leaders in all positions. Nevertheless, due to the variation in the skills required, roles played, functions performed, issues tackled and the relationships promoted, different leaders have different perceptions of leadership. As such, several attributes have been made both for the success and failure of leadership in the form of properties and processes or traits and styles of leaders. Further, even these attributes cannot provide a totally satisfactory guidance for the success of leadership. Hence, theoreticians and practitioners of leadership have gone to the extent of developing the ‘contingency approach’, which emphasizes that there is ‘No single best way’. The functions, roles, variables, power, influence, success and effectiveness of leaders, leadership theories and leadership in general discussed by different writers, researchers and practitioners are discussed in the following passages.  2 DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP There are as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars who have attempted to analyze and understand the concept, but there is no universally accepted definition of it1. The word ‘leader’ stems from the root leden meaning ‘to travel’ or ‘show the way’. It has been derived from the verb “to lead.” This also implies “to advance,” “to expel,” “to stand out,” to guide and govern the actions of others. A leader is a person who leads a group of followers. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) notes that the word "leader” appeared in the English language as early as 1300 A.D. However, the word “leadership” did not appear until about 1800 A.D.2 Albeit, leadership appears to be a rather sophisticated concept, words meaning ‘chief or ‘king’ are the only ones found in many languages to differentiate the ruler from other members of society. A preoccupation with leadership occurred predominantly in countries with Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, leaders have always been there in all cultures through history and the practice and philosophy of leaders and leadership can be gleaned from well-known writings as diverse in content, philosophy, and time as the Greek classic Homer’s Iliad, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Bhagavatha and the Kautilya’s Arthashastra in India, essays of Confucius in China, 1 Bennis, W. G. “Leadership Theory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problem of Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.4,1959, pp. 259-269. 2 Ralph M. Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, The Free Press, New York, 1974, p.7.  3 Machiavelli’s The Prince which is concerned with rales and principles for obtaining and holding power. But, the understanding, developing, predicting and managing the behaviour of leaders is still an enigma, despite the fact there are about 33,000 articles and books written about leadership so far in 20th century. The basic question is ‘what in fact constitutes leadership?’ While Gore and Silander*3 have mentioned about five thousand entries on the concept of leadership, Stogdill4 reviewed seventy two definitions of leadership. Karmel5 is of the opinion that it is very difficult to settle on a single definition of leadership that is general enough to accommodate these many meanings and specific enough to serve as an operationalisation of the variable. However, there is a certain underlying unity among the various conceptualizations made in this area. Hodge and Johnson6 are of the opinion that “Leadership is fundamentally the ability to form and mould the attitudes and behaviour of other individuals, whether informal or formal situation and that management relates to the formal task of decision and command.” Gore, WJ. and Silander, F.S. “A Bibliographical Essay on Decision-Making,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.6,1959, pp.121-129. 4 Stogdill, R.M., Hand Book of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, Free Press, New York, 1974, p.7. 5 Karmel, B. “Leadership: A Challenge to Traditional Research Methods and Assumptions,” Academy ofManagement Review, Vol.3,1978, pp.475-482. 6 B J. Hodge and Johnson H.J., Management of Organisational Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1970, p. 250.  4 Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace7, define Leadership as “the relationship betweeatwo or more people in which one attempts to influence the other toward the accomplishment of some goal or goals.” In the words of Keith Davis8, “leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor that binds a group together and motivates it towards goals.” In the words of Koontz O’ Donnell9, “Leadership is the ability to exert interpersonal influence by means of communication towards the achievement of a goal.” Leadership is defined by Paul Hersey and K.H. Blanchard10 as “the process of influencing group activities towards the accomplishment of goals in a given situation.” Robbins*11 defines Leadership as “the ability to influence a group towards the achievement of goals”. “Leadership is the interpersonal influence exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, towards attainment of a specific goal or goals” say Tannenbaum and others.12 7 Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace, Organisation Behaviour and Performance, p.273 (Adopted from Dr. M.J. Mathew, “Organisation: Theory and Behaviour,” RBSA Publishers, Jaipur, 1993, p.181) 8 Keith Davis, Human Behaviour at work, Tata McGraw-Hill Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1975, p.124. 9 Koontz O’ Donnell, Management, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, 1st Printing, New York, 1984, p.506. 10 Paul Hersey and K.H. Blanchard, Management of Organisational Behaviour, Engle wood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1977. 11 Robbins, S.P., Organisational Behaviour: Concepts and Controversies, Engle wood cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1979, p.240 12 Robert Tannenbaum, R. Weschier and Fred Massarik, Leadership and Organisation: A Behavioural Science approach, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1961, p.24.  5 According to G.R. Terry13, “leadership is the relationship in which one person or the leader influences others to work together willingly on related tasks to attain that which the leader desires”. In the words of Ivancevich, Donnelly and Gibson14, “Leadership is the ability to influence through communication the activities of others individually or as a group, towards the accomplishment of worthwhile, meaningful, and challenging goals.” According to James J. Cribbin15, Leadership is “a process of influencing a group in a particular situation at a given point of time and in a specific set of circumstances that stimulates people to strive willingly to attain organizational objectives, giving them the experience of helping attain the common objectives and satisfaction with the types of leadership provided.” According to Management Guru, Peter F: Drucker16, “Leadership is the lifting of man’s visions to higher sights, the raising of a man’s performance to a higher standard, the building of a man’s personality beyond its normal limitations.” 13 George R. Terry, Principles ofManagement, Richard, D. Irwin, Inc. Home Wood, Illinois, 1968, p.45. 14 Ivancevich, Donnelly and Gibson, Management Principles and Functions, Fourth edition, All India Traveller Brook seller, Delhi, 1991, p.296. 15 James J. Cribbin, “Effective Managerial Leadership,” American Management Association, 1972, p.9. 16 Peter Drucker, Practice ofManagement, Allied publishers, New Delhi, 1970, p.159.  6 Different scholars have focused on multiple aspects of leadership, like the creative and directive force of morale (Munson717,* 1981); * * * *the * * process ** by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner (Bennis18,1959); the presence of a particular influence relationship between two or more persons (Hollander and Jullian19,1969); directing and coordinating the work of group members (Fiedler20,1967); an interpersonal relationship in which others comply because they want to, not because they have to (Merton21, 1969); transforming followers, creating visions of the goals that may be attained, and articulating for the followers the way to attain these goals (Bass22, 1985; Tichy and Devanna23, 1986); the process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals (Roach and Behling24,1984); actions that focus resources to create desirable opportunities (Campbell , 1991); the 7 Munson, C.E. “Style and Structure in Supervision”, Journal ofEducation for Social Work, 17,1981 pp.65-72. 18 Bennis, W.G. “Leadership Theory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problem of Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 4,1959. 19 Hollander, E.P., and Jullian J.W., “Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership Processes,” Psychological Bulletin, 71,1996, pp.387-391. 20 Fiedler, F.E., A Theory ofLeadership Effectiveness, McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. 21 Merton, R.K. “The Social Nature of Leadership,” American Journal ofNursing, 69, 1969, pp.2614-2618. 22 Bass, B.M., Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, 1985. 23 Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A., The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New York, 1986. 24 Roach, C.F. and Behling, O. “Functionalism: Basis for an Alternative Approach to the Study of Leadership,” in Leadership and Managers by J.G, Hunt (ed.), Pergamon, New York, 1984. 25 Campbell, D.P. Campbell Leadership Index Manual, National Computer System, 1991.  7 leader’s job is to create conditions for the team to be effective (Ginnett26, 1996); etc. According to Andrew27 (1998), some view leadership as the personal relationship between the individual and the group; others as the process of striving toward common goals and values; still others, as aspects of behaviour, whether desired and in control of the individual or, alternatively, reactive and driven by forces in the environment. The common characteristic that can be found in many of the definitions is the ‘influence’ exerted by the leader. That is, he tries to influence the behaviour of others in a specific direction. LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Though management and leadership are seen as synonyms, however, there is a difference between the two. The emphasis of leadership is on interpersonal behaviour. It is often associated with the willing and enthusiastic behaviour of the followers. But leadership does not necessarily take place within the hierarchical structure of organization. Many people operate as leaders without their role ever being clearly established or defined. A leader often has sufficient influence to bring about long-term changes in people’s attitudes and to make changes more acceptable. Accordingly leadership can be seen primarily as an inspirational process. 26 Ginnett, R.C. “Team Effectiveness Leadership Model: Identifying Leverage Points for Change,” Proceedings of the National Leadership Institute Conference, College Park, MD: National Leadership Institute, 1996. 27 Kakabadse, Andrew, “Leadership for the Third Millennium,” Essence of Leadership, International Thompson Publishing, 1998.  8 Management is more usually viewed as getting things done through and with others in order to achieve stated organizational objectives. The manager may react to specific situations and be more concerned with solving short-term problems. Management is regarded as relating to people working within a structured organization and with prescribed roles. To people outside the organization, the manager might not appear in a leadership role28. The following table explains the differences between leadership and management. Table 1.1 LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENCES Leadership Management Creating an Establishes direction: Develops a Plans and budgets: Establishes Agenda vision and the strategies needed detailed steps and timetables for for its achievement achieving needed results; allocate necessary resources Developing Involves aligning people: Organizes and staffs: Establishes a Network Communicates direction by structure for achieving the plans; for words and deeds to all those staffs; delegates responsibility and Achieving whose cooperation may be authority for implementation; the Agenda needed to help create teams and develops policies and procedures coalitions that understand the to guide people; creates vision and strategies, and accepts monitoring systems their validity. Execution Motivates and inspires: Controls and solves problems: Energizes people to overcome Monitors results against plans, and major political, bureaucratic, and then plans and organizes to close resource barriers to change by the gap. satisfying basic human needs. Outcomes Produces change, often to a Produces a degree of dramatic degree: Has the predictability and order: Has the potential of producing extremely potential to consistently produce useful change, such as new key results expected by various products desired by managers stockholders (such as meeting deadlines for customers and paying dividends to stockholders) 28 Hunt, J.W., Managing People at Work, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986, p.38.  9 Source: John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management (New York: The Free Press, 1990): Wayne K. Kirchner, book review of “A Force for Change,” Personnel Psychology, Autumn 1990, P.655. According to John P. Kotter, a prominent leadership theorist, today’s managers must know how to lead as well as manage. Without leading as well as managing, organizations face the threat of extinction. Kotter29 draws the following distinctions between management and leadership: Management is more formal and scientific than leadership. It relies on universal skills such as planning, budgeting, and controlling. Management is an explicit set of tools and techniques, based on reasoning and testing that can be used in a variety of situations. Leadership, in contrast to management, involves haying a vision of what the organization can become. Leadership requires eliciting cooperation and teamwork from a large network of people and keeping the key people in that network motivated, using every manner of persuasion. FUNCTIONS OF LEADERSHIP Many theorists of leadership have classified the several functions of a leader and attached to him many roles. Often an overlapping can be seen among the different classifications. In order to understand the process of leadership it is necessary to analyze the functions and responsibilities of leadership. These functions AQ John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free Press, New York, 1990; Warren Bennis, “An Invented Life: Reflections on Leadership and Change,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1993)...  10 require different emphases in different situations according to the nature of the groups. A leader’s position in the same group may also change over a period of time. It is possible, however, to list a range of general functions which are served by the leader. A useful summary is provided by Krech30 who has identified fourteen functions. 1. The leader, as an executive, is a top coordinator of group activities and an overseer of the execution of policies. 2. The leader, as a planner, decides the ways and means by which the group achieves its both short-term and long-term ends through proper action and proper planning. 3. The leader, as a policy-maker, establishes the group goals and policies. 4. The leader, as an expert, is a source of information and skills. 5. The leader, as a representative is the official spokes-person for the group, the representative of the group and the channel for both outgoing and incoming communications. 6. The leader, as a controller of internal relations,; determines specific aspects of the group structure. 7. The leader, as purveyor of rewards and punishment, exercises controls over the group members by the power vested in him to give rewards and impose punishments. 8. The leader, as arbitrator and mediator, controls inter-personal conflict within the group. 30 Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S. and Ballachey, E.L., Individual in Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962, pp.26-34.  11 9. The leader, as exemplar is a role model for members of the group, setting an example of what is expected. 10. The leader, as a symbol of the group, enhances the group unit by providing some kind of cognitive focus and establishing the group as a distinct entity. 11. The leader, as a substitute for individual responsibility, relieves the individual member of the group from the necessity of, and responsibility for, personal decision. 12. The leader, as an ideologist, serves as the source of beliefs, values and standards of behaviour for individual members of the group. 13. The leader, as a father figure, serves as focus for the positive emotional feelings of individual members and the object for identification and transference. 14. The leader, as a scapegoat, serves as a target for aggression and hostility of the group, accepting blame in the case of failure. Herbert G. Hicks refers to the following as the common leadership activities: 1. Arbitrating: Often members disagree on the best decision for an organizational matter. An effective leader often will resolve such disagreement by arbitrating on making the decision on the course of action to be taken. 31 Herbert G. Hicks and C. Roy Gullet, The Management of Organizations, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill Series in Management, New York, pp.447-449.  12 2. Suggesting: Suggestions are often employed by an adroit leader for a long-term. Suggestion is likely to be a powerful tool in the manager’s kit. 3. Fixing objectives: A manager often personally fixes the objectives for his organization. He must see to it that the organization has always specific and suitable objectives before it. 4. Catalyzing: In organizations some force is required to start or accelerate their movement. A leader is expected to be a catalyser and provide such a force. 5. Providing security: In organizations the personal security of followers is very important. A true leader can provide a large measure of security by maintaining a positive and optimistic attitude towards them even in the face of adversities. 6. Representing: A leader is usually treated as the representative of his organization. 7. Inspiring: In organization many persons work more productively in organizations when their leader makes them feel that the work they do is worthwhile and important. 8. Praising: Managers can help to satisfy the needs of their assistants and i fellow employees by sincerely praising them for the work they do.  13 Stogdill32 says, “Leadership is consistent with problems of human performance and interactions.” He33 suggested that it is the function of the leader to maintain group structure and goal direction and to reconcile conflicting demands arising outside the group. LEADERSHIP ROLES Henry Mintzberg34 offers a number of interesting insights into the nature of managerial roles. He concludes that managers play ten different roles, which fall into three basic categories: interpersonal, informational and decisional. (i)Interpersonal Roles: There are three interpersonal roles inherent in the manager’s job. They are roles of figurehead, leader, and liaison, which involve dealing with other people. First, the manager is often asked to serve as a figurehead—taking visitors to dinners, attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and the like. These activities are typically more ceremonial and symbolic than substantive. 32 Stogdill, R.M and Coons, A.E. (eds) “Leader Behaviour its Perception and Measurement,” Columbus, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. 33 Stogdill, R.M., Individual Behaviour and Group Achievement, Oxford University Press, New York, 1959. 34 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, 1973; J. Kenneth Graham, Jr., and William L. Mihal, “The CMD Managerial Job Analysis Inventory,” Rochester Institute of Technology, Center for Management Development, Rochester, New York, 1987, pp.2-6.  14 The manager is also asked to serve as a leader—hiring, training, and motivating employees. A manager who formally or informally shows his subordinates how to do things and how to perform under pressure is leading them. Finally, the manager has a liaison role to play, which often involves serving as a coordinator or link between people, groups, or organizations. (ii) Informational roles: The three informational roles of the manager identified by Mintzberg flow naturally from the interpersonal roles: the roles of monitor, disseminator, and spokesperson, which involve the processing of information. The process of carrying out these, roles places the manager at a strategic point to gather and disseminate information. As monitor, the manager actively seeks information that may be of value to the organization. He questions his subordinates, and is receptive to unsolicited information. As disseminator of information, he transmits relevant information to others in the workplace. When the roles of monitor and disseminator are viewed together, the manager emerges as a vital link in the organization’s chain of communication. The third informational role as spokesperson focuses on external communication. The spokesperson formally relays information to people outside the unit or outside the organization. (iii) Decisional roles: Mintzberg identifies four decisional roles: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. All of them primarily relate to making decisions. First, the manager has the role of entrepreneur, the  15 voluntary initiator of change. His second role as disturbance handler is initiated not by him but by other individuals or groups. The manager responds to his role as disturbance handler by handling such problems as strikes, copyright infringements, and energy shortages, etc. In his third decisional role as resource allocator, the manager decides how resources are to be distributed, and with whom he or she should work most closely. A fourth decisional role is that of negotiator. In this role the manager enters into negotiations with other groups or organizations as a representative of the company. Apple White (1965) had summarized much of the research on leadership roles and functions, the question of why people attempt to lead, leadership under stress conditions, the relationship of communication to leadership, the problem of leader assessment and the concept of leadership styles. LEADERSHIP VARIABLES Every group of people that performs to its total capacity has some person as its head who is skilled in the art of influencing. This seems to be a compound of at least four major components: (1) to use power effectively and responsibly; (2) to comprehend that human beings have different motivational forces at different times and in different situations; (3) to inspire; and (4) to act 35 Apple White, Phillip B., Organisational Behaviour, Engle Wood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1965 (Chapter 6).  16 in a manner that will develop a climate conducive to responding to and arousing motivations36. According to Douglas McGregor37 there are at least four variables involved in leadership. They are: (i) characteristics of the leader; (ii) the needs, attitudes and other personal characteristics of the followers; (iii) the characteristics of an organization, such as its purpose, its structure and the nature of the task to be performed; and (iv) the social, economic and political environment. He38 also notes that leadership is not a property of the individual, but a complex relationship among these variables. He identifies two major perpetual structures, which are labeled Theory X for the authoritarian approach and Theory Y for the participative approach. POWER AND INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP Leadership influence depends upon the type of power that the leader can exercise over other people in his organization. The exercise of power is a social process, which helps to explain how different people can influence the behaviour of others. Leadership has long been considered as one of the most important factors influencing organizational performance and achievement of goals. As such, it constitutes an important aspect of managing. The ability to 36 Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H., Management, 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill Company, Yew York, 1989, p.438. 37 Douglas McGregor., The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York, 1960, p.182. 38 Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1960.  17 lead effectively is one of the keys to become an effective manager. Effective direction is not possible by managers unless they are effective leaders. The need for effective leadership would be evident if one looks into the comparative use of authority, power and influence by managers in any organization. Power is the capacity of one party to influence other parties to act as it wants39. Power can influence behaviour through compliance, identification and internationalization. It is a function of ties of mutual dependence in social relationship. Power is the ability of one to control the actions of others40. Robbins41 defines power as the ability to influence and control anything that is of value to others. From an organizational point of view, it can be defined as the degree of influence an individual or group has in decision-making, without being authorised by the organisation to do so. There are multiple sources of power in leadership roles. Henry Mintzberg’s42 classic study of what managers do on the job fails to describe the influence tactics used. French and Raven43 propose that social power is used to influence others. They state that the bases of power include 39 Szilagyi and Wallace, “Organisational Behaviour and Performance,” Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Homewood, Illinois, 1968. p.333. 40 V.S.P. Rao and P.S. Narayana, Organisation Theory and Behaviour, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1986, p.656. 41 S.P. Robbins, Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p.263. 42 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial work, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980. 43 John R.P. French and Betram Raven, “The Basis of Social Power,” in studies in Social Power. D. Cart Wright, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1959, pp. 150-167.  18 reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expertise power. Seven influence strategies have been proposed as particularly vital for practising leadership roles44. These strategies are: i) Reason: Using facts and data to develop a logically sound argument; ii) Friendliness: Using supportiveness; flattery and the creation of goodwill; iii) Coalition: Mobilizing others in the organization; iv) Bargaining: Negotiating through the use of benefits or favours; v) Assertiveness: Using a direct and forceful approach; vi) Higher, Authority: Gaining the support of higher levels in the hierarchy to add weight to the requests; and vii) Sanctions: Using rewards and punishment. Managerial influence is exercised through persuasion, suggestions and advice with the intention of affecting the subordinates’ behaviour. In the case of influence, the subordinates will have the option of either rejecting or accepting the proposition. Chester I Bernard45 has remarked that every management comes across “a zone of influence for authority acceptance.” 44 Davis Kipnis, Stuart M. Schmidt, Chris Swaffin-Smith, and Ian Wilkinson, “Pattern of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacicians, and By Standards,” Organisational Dynamics, Winter 1984, pp.58-67. 45 Chester I Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1946, pp. 168-169.  19 SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP Factors that influence leadership effectiveness include the leader’s personality, past experience and expectations; the superior’s expectations and behaviour; the subordinate’s characteristics, expectations and behaviour; the requirements of the task; the organizational climate and policies; and the expectations and behaviour of peers46. These factors also influence the leader in turn. The influence process is reciprocal involving leaders and group members. Leader’s personality, past experiences and expectations: The leader’s personality or past experience helps his or her leadership style. It does not mean that the style is unchangeable. It is important to note that managers who attempt to adopt a style that is very inconsistent with their basic personality, are unlikely to use that style effectively. The leader’s expectations are another component of leadership. Evidence has shown that, for a variety of reasons, situations tend to work out the way we expect them to; this is sometimes referred to as self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, one study found that new leaders who were told that their subordinates were low performers managed in a much more attractive manner than new leaders who were told that their subordinates were high performers47. 46 Joseph Reitz, H. “Behaviour in Organizations,” Rev. Ed. (Home Wood D3. Irwin, 1981) and Paul Heresy and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behaviour, 3rd Ed. Engle Wood Cliffs, Prentice- Hall, N.J., 1977, pp. 133-143. 47 George, F. Farris and Francis, G. Lim, Jr. “Effects of Performance on Leadership, Cohesiveness, Satisfaction and Subsequent Performance,”' Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.53, No.6, December 1969, pp.490-497.  20 Expectations and behaviour of superiors The leadership style that a manager’s superiors approve of is very important in determining the orientation a manager will select. For example, a superior who clearly favours a task-oriented style may cause the manager to adopt that type of leadership. A superior who favours an employee-oriented style encourages the manager to adopt a more employee-centred orientation. One study found that the supervisors who learned new behaviors in a human relations training program tended to give up those behaviors quickly if they were not consistent with their immediate superior’s leadership style48. Subordinate’s characteristics, expectations and behaviour Subordinates play a crucial role in influencing the manager’s leadership style. They are, after all, the people whom that the style is supposed to affect. The characteristics of subordinates affect the manager’s leadership style in a number of ways. Highly capable employees will normally require a less directive approach. Secondly the attitude of subordinates will also be an influencing factor. The expectations of subordinates are another factor in determining how appropriate a particular style will be. Subordinates who have had employee- centered managers in the past may expect a new manager to have a similar style. Similarly, highly skilled and motivated workers may expect the manager not to ‘meddle’. The reactions of subordinates to their manager’s leadership style will usually signal to him how effective his style is. 48 Fleishman, E.A. “Leadership Climate, Human Relations Training, and Supervisory Behaviour,” Personnel Psychology, Vol.6, No.2, Summer, 1953, pp.205-222.  21 Task requirements The nature of the subordinates’ job responsibilities will also affect the type of leadership style a manager will adopt. Similarly, where much cooperation and teamwork are involved, as in new product development, employees generally prefer people-centered supervision, whereas those working in isolation prefer more task-oriented direction. Organizational climate and policies The ‘personality’ or climate of an organization influences the expectations and behaviour of the organization members. The stated policies of the organizations also affect a manager’s leadership style. In organizations where climate and policies encourage strict accountability for expenses and results, managers usually supervise and control subordinates tightly. Peer’s expectations and behaviour One’s fellow managers are an important reference group. They form friendship with their colleagues in the organization, whose opinions matter to them. In addition, the attitude of the manager’s peers can often affect how effectively he performs; hostile colleagues may compete aggressively for organization resources, harm the manager’s reputation, and prove uncooperative in other ways. In many ways, the behaviour of managers affects and influences that of their associates. According to Hersey and Blanchard, there is a difference between a successful leader and an effective leader. A successful leader is one who merely changes the behaviour of his followers (and not their attitudes) by using  22 largely his positional power. On the other hand, an effective leader is one who not only changes the behaviour of his followers but also their attitudes largely by using his personal power. The result is that in the first case the change is short-lived whereas in the second case it is enduring. Thus, all successful leaders are not effective leaders. But all effective leaders are also successful leaders,. Effective leadership is a function of the leader, the followers and situations. According to Koontz and O’ Donnell49, “leadership” can be effective only when the following principles are complied with in the area of leading as It applied to managers: (i) Principle of Harmony of objectives: It calls for a careful and sincere attempt on the part of the managers desirous of proving themselves as effective leaders to enable members of the organization to see and understand that their personal goals are in harmony with enterprise objectives. (ii) Principle of maximum clarity and integrity in communications: Managerial leading should ensure that their communication is clear, and unambiguous so as to support understanding by the individuals for enabling them to achieve and maintain the co-operation that is required to meet the enterprise goals. (iii) Principle of supplemental use of informal organization: In order to make the communication most effective, the manager should make the best use of informal organization as a supplement to the communication channels of formal organization. 49 Harold Koontz.and Cyril O’ Donnell, Essentials of Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1978, PP.454-455.  23 (iv) Principle of motivation: Motivation is not a simple “cause and effect” process. Hence, managers who are keen on emerging as effective leaders should make the motivational program very effective by: (a) carefully assessing the reward structure; (b) looking upon it from a situational and contingency point of view; (c) integrating it into the entire system of managing; (d) understand correctly as to what motivates their individual subordinates; (e) how and in what way these motivators operate; and (f) most sincerely reflect such an understanding in carrying out their managerial actions. Types of Leaders: Conway50 (1915) has mentioned three types of Crowd leaders, viz., Crowd- compeller, Crowd-exponent and Crowd-representative. Bogardus51 (1918) has suggested four types of leaders: 1. The autocratic type who rises to office in a powerful organization; 2. The democratic type who represents the interests of a group; 3. The executive type who is granted leadership because he can get things done; and 50 Conway, M., The Crown in Peace and War, Long-mans Green, New York, 1915. 51 Bogardus, E.S., Essentials of Social Psychology, University of Southern California Press, Los angels, 1918.  24 4. The reflective intellectual type who may fincl it difficult to recruit a large following. Sanderson and Nafe52 (1929) have proposed four types of leaders: the static, the executive, the professional and the group leaders. Pigors53 (1936) has observed that leaders in-group work tend to act either as master or educator. Levine54 (1949) has identified four types of leaders. The charismatic leader helps the group rally around a common aim, but tends to become dogmatically rigid. The organizational leader highlights and tends to drive people to effective action. The intellectual leader usually lacks skill in attracting people. The informal leader tends to adopt his style of performance to group needs. Harding55 (1949) enumerated twenty types of educational leaders as follows: autocrat, cooperator, elder statesman, eager beaver, pontifical, muddled, loyal staff man, prophet, scientist, mystic, dogmatist, open-minded, philosopher, business expert, benevolent despot, child protector, community- minded, cynic, optimist and democrat. 52 Sanderson, D. and Nafe, R.W. “Studies in Rural Leadership,” Publ. Amer. Social. Soc., 23 (1929), pp. 163-175. 53 Pigors, P. “Types of Leaders in Group Work,” Sociology and Social Research, 21 (1936), pp.3-17. 54 Levine, S. “An Approach to Constructive Leadership,” Journal of Sociological Issues, 5 (1949), 46-53. 55 Harding, L. W. “Twenty-One Varieties of Educational Leadership,” Educational Leadership, 6 (1949), pp. 299-302.  25 Maier56 (1950) investigated the effects of training group leaders in democratic leadership techniques on group problem solving quality and decision acceptance. His subjects role-played an assembly line situation, and it was found there from that decision quality and decision acceptance were greater under leaders trained to use democratic techniques than under untrained leaders. Bales57 (1950) at Harvard and Hare58 et. al. (1955) had done work on the study of small group. They found that in small groups two different kinds of leaders emerge. One kind was the task-leader characterized by those who talk more and who offer suggestions, and the other kind was called socio-emotional leader represented by those who make it easier for others to talk and offer psychological support. Haiman59 (1951) suggested that five types of leaders are needed in a democracy. These are: 1. The executive, 2. The judge, 3. The advocate, 4. The expert, and 5. The discussion leader. Cattell60 (1954) explored four types of leaders in experimental groups. These are: (1) persistent-momentary problem solvers, high in interaction rate, 56 Maier, N.F.R. “The Quality of Group Decisions as Influenced by the Discussion Leader,” Human Relations, 6, (1950), pp.161-173. 57 Bales, R.F. “Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the study of Small Groups,” Cambridge, 1950. 58 Hare, A.P. Borgatta, E.E., and Bales, R.F. “Small Groups Studies in Social Group Interaction,” New York, 1955. 59 Haiman, F.S., Group Leadership and Democratic Action, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951. 60 Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F. “Four formulae for Selecting Leaders on the basis of Personality,” Human Relations, 7(1954).  26 (2) salient leaders picked-up by observers as exerting the most powerful influence on the group, (3) socio-metric leaders-nominated by their peers and (4) elected leaders-attaining office by election. LEADERSHIP THEORIES: Leadership has been discussed, analysed and understood from several dimensions. The varied experiences of people involved in the process through changing times have provided different perceptions of the subject. Consequently theoreticians and practitioners have approached the subject from their own perspectives resulting in many theories of leadership. As a result leadership has come to mean different things to different people in different contexts. Though the idea of leadership has been known from times immemorial and practiced, it is in the 20th century that it has been explored/studied in depth and theorized from many angles. Economists, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists and others have been investigating into the subject. Nevertheless, there has been no consensus among them regarding it except that leadership is the relationship between a leader and his followers. Whatever may be one’s position in the organizational hierarchy or institutional context, he guides, directs, or influences others towards specific objectives. However, the controversy relating to leadership regarding its meaning, inputs, processes and outputs and their impact on the motivation of people, organizational performance and  27 executive effectiveness and success, has continued with the result that search for new theories, comprehensive and adequate, too has been going on. In simple terms, leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a goal. It is essential to business, government and countless groups and organizations that shape the way we live, work and play61. The source of influence may be formal, such as that provided by virtue of his position by the manager of an organization or informal as in other social and political organizations. Approaches to Leadership: From the voluminous literature on leadership three basic approaches can be. identified to explain what makes an effective leader. The first approach seeks to find universal personality traits that leaders have and non-leaders do not have. The second approach tries to explain leadership in terms of the behaviour that a person is engaged in. Both approaches have been considered as ‘false starts’, because they are based on erroneous and over-simplified conceptions. The third one is contingency model which has been evolved not only to explain the inadequacies of earlier theories but also to identify which of the situational factors is most important for leadership and to predict which leadership style will be most effective in a given situation. 61Fiedler, F.E. “Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma”, Psychology Today, March, 1969, p.39 62 Vroom, V.H., The Search for a Theory of Leadership in Contemporary Management: Issues and Viewpoints, Ed. Joseph W. McGuire, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1974, p.396.  28 In the early twentieth century with the development of the Scientific Management Movement, increasing emphasis was laid on organizational leadership. F.W. Taylor initiated time and motion studies to analyze work tasks to improve performance in every aspect of organizational functioning. The primary aim of the leader was to improve organizational efficiency and not individual efficiency. The most notable function of the leader under the Scientific Management or the classical theory was to enhance organizational effectiveness. In the 1930’s Taylor’s emphasis was drastically modified by the Human Relations Movement that was initiated by Elton Mayo and his colleagues. Mayo emphasized that for an organization to enhance its effectiveness it has to take into account human feelings, attitudes and processes involving inter­ personal interaction. Therefore, in the Human Relations School, the focus of the leader was not only on the development of the organization, but also on the growth of the individuals manning such an organization. In recent years the assumption of Human Relations Approach has been challenged by a number of researchers like McGregor, Argyris, Schein, Likert, etc., who highlight the Human Resources Approach rather than the over­ simplified approach of human relations. This approach views that human beings are influenced by a set of complex and interrelated factors. These factors take into account the enormous talent, and potential that an individual brings to his work-place with him. It is a question of giving him opportunities  29 to utilise his talent, creativity and potentials by giving him a meaningful work assignment and by adding greater responsibility, autonomy, variety, etc. The theories of leadership can be conveniently divided into three viz., (i) Trait theory (ii) Behavioural theory (lii) Contingency theory. (i) TRAIT THEORY “Great enterprise, boundless courage, tremendous energy, and above all, s perfect obedience-these are the only traits that lead to individual regeneration” -Swami Vivekananda Early studies of leadership in the 1940s and the 1950s concluded that leadership is largely a matter of personality, a function of specific traits. A successful leader not only secures the desired behaviour from his followers but succeeds in creating a sense of satisfaction among them. Leadership traits cannot be fixed with certainty for all leaders. But a leader cannot be effective unless he possesses certain basic qualities. The following are some of the studies that attempted to identify these traits: Ordway Tead63 has suggested ten qualities of a good leader: (a) Physical and nervous energy, (b) Sense of purpose and direction, (c) Enthusiasm, (d) Friendliness and affection, (e) Integrity, 63 Ordway Tead, The Art ofLeadership, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, 1953, p.83.  30 (f) Technical mastery, (g) Decisiveness, (h) Intelligence, (i) Teaching skill, and (j) Faith. Chester I. Barnard64 has indicated two aspects of leadership traits: (a) Commanding subordinates’ admiration includes outstanding qualities in respect of physique, skill, technology, perception, knowledge, memory and imagination, (b) Individual superiority in determination, persistence, endurance and courage. Henry Fayol65 regards the following as the qualities of a good leader: 1. Health and physical fitness, 2. Intelligence and mutual vigour, 3. Moral qualities, 4. Knowledge, and 5. Managerial ability. George R. Terry66 has suggested the following qualities: 1. Energy - both mental and physical 2. Emotional stability 64 Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1946, p.260. 65 Henry Fayol, General and Industrial Management, Pitman and Sons, London, 1949. 66 George R. Terry, Principles ofManagement, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Home Wood, Illinois, 1968, pp.461-463.  31 3. Knowledge of human relations 4. Empathy 5. Objectivity 6. Personal motivation 7. Communication skills 8. Teaching ability 9. Social skills and technical competence. Stogdill67 identifies through research the following traits: 1. Physical characteristics such as age, appearance, height and weight; 2. Social background - education, social status and mobility; 3. Intelligence - superior judgement, decisiveness, knowledge and fluency of speech; 4. Personality - alertness, self-confidence, personal integrity, self- assurance and dominance needs; 5. Task related characteristics - high need for achievement and responsibility, initiative and a high task orientation; and 6. Social characteristics. Keith Davis68 lists the following as the characteristics of leadership: 67 Ralph M. Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature”, Journal ofPsychology, Jan.1948, pp.35-71. 68 Keith Davis, Human Behaviour at work, 4th edition, Me Graw Hill, New Delhi, 1972, pp.102-104.  32 a) Intelligence: Leaders tend to have higher intelligence than their followers. b) Social maturity and breadth: Leaders have a tendency to be emotionally mature and to have a broad range of interests. c) Inner motivation and achievement drives: Leaders want to accomplish things; when they achieve one goal, they seek out another. They are not primarily dependent on outside forces for their motivation. d) Human relations attitudes: Leaders are able, to work effectively with other persons. They respect individuals and realize that to accomplish tasks they must be considerate to others. Leadership Skills: Some researchers have mixed the skills with the traits resulting from the development of human relations by a leader with the subordinates. Chris Argyris69 mentions the following characteristics of a leader: 1. The leader is constantly interacting and commanding. 2. The leader makes the organization a part of his self image. 3. The leader’s personal goals, values and feeling are organizationally centred. 4. The leader handles the supervisors as individuals. 5. The leader controls the transmission of important information. 6. The leader emphasizes the present. 69 Chris Argyris, Executive Leadership, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1953, pp.4-5.  33 7. The leader sets realistic goals. According to Harold Koontz70, every group of people that performs near its total capacity has some person as its head who is skilled in the art of leadership. This skill seems to be a compound of at least four major ingredients: (1) the ability to use power effectively and in a responsible manner, (2) the ability to comprehend that human beings have different motivation forces at different times and in different situations, (3) the ability to inspire followers,. and (4) the ability to act in a manner that will develop a climate conducive to responding to and arousing motivations. Katz71, in his classic study of managers identifies three important types of managerial skills: technical, interpersonal, and conceptual. Diagnostic skills are also prerequisites to managerial success. Technical skills. These are the skills necessary to accomplish or understand the specific kind of work being done in an organization. Interpersonal skills. The ability to communicate with, understand, and motivate both individuals and group. Conceptual skills. These depend on the manager’s ability to think in the abstract. Managers need the mental capacity to understand the overall workings of the organization and its environment, to grasp how all the parts of the organization fit together, and to view the organisation in a holistic manner. 70 Harold Koontz and Heinz Weihrich, Essentials ofManagement, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Series in Management, New York, 1990, p.345. 71 Robert L. Katz, “The Skills of an Effective Administrator,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1974, pp.90-102.  34 Diagnostic skills. These are skills that enable a manager to visualize the most appropriate response to a situation. Successful managers have them. Gary Yukl72 (1981) summarising the research in the field till his times, identified the following traits and skills as characteristic of successful leaders: Traits Characteristic of Successful Leaders: 1. Adaptable to situations 2. Alert to the social environment 3. Ambitious and achievement-oriented 4. Assertive 5. Cooperative 6. Decisive 7. Dependable 8. Dominant (the desire to influence others) 9. Energetic (high activity level) 10. Persistent 11. Self-confident 12. Tolerant of stress 13. Willing to assume responsibility Skills Characteristic of Successful Leaders: 1. Clever (intelligent) 2. Conceptually skilled 3. Creative 72 Yukl, Gaxy., Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.  35 4. Diplomatic and tactful 5. Fluent in speaking 6. Knowledgeable about the group task 7. Organized (administrative ability) 8. Persuasive 9. Socially skilled Michael and Dean73 suggest a number of leadership skills critical to success in the global economy. They include the following: 1. Cultural flexibility. In international assignments this skill refers to cultural awareness and sensitivity. In domestic organizations the same awareness could be increasing diversity. Leaders must have the skills not only to manage but also to recognize and celebrate the value of diversity in their organizations. 2. Communication skills. Effective leaders must be able to communicate, in writing, orally, and nonverbally. 3. Human, resource development (HRD) skills. Since human resources are so much a part of leadership effectiveness, that leaders must have the HRD skills of developing a learning climate, designing training programs, transmitting information 73 Michael J. Marquart and Dean W. Engel, “HRD Competencies for a Shrinking World,” Training and Development, May 1993, pp.62-64.  36 and experience, assessing results, providing career counseling, creating organizational change, and adapting learning materials74. 4. Creativity. Problem solving, innovation, and creativity provide the competitive advantage in today’s global marketplace. Leaders must possess the skills to not only be creative themselves but also provide a climate that encourages creativity and assist their people to be creative. 5. Self-management of learning. This skill refers to the need for continuous learning of new knowledge and skills. In the times of dramatic change and chaos, leaders must.undergo continuous change themselves. They must be self-learners. ne An academic analysis made by Kanungo and Misra noted “the prevailing conceptualizations of skills required for successful managerial performance hinders our understanding of the phenomenon”. To get over this problem, Whetten and Cameron provide a more empirical derivation of effective leadership skills. On the basis of an interview study of over 400 highly effective managers, the following ten skills were identified 1. Verbal communication (including listening) 2. Managing time and stress 74 Ibid., p.63 75 Rabindra M. Kanungo and Sasi Misra, “Managerial Resourcefulness: A Reconceptualization of Management Skills,” Human Relations, December 1992, pp.1311- 1332. ' 76 David A. Whetten and Kim S. Cameron, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, New York, 1991, p.8.  37 3. Managing individual decisions 4. Recognizing, defining, and solving problems 5. Motivating and influencing others 6. Delegating 7. Setting goals and articulating a vision 8. Self-awareness 9. Teambuilding 10. Managing conflict. Follow-up studies and related research have found skills similar to the ten above. Through statistical techniques, the results of various research studies were combined into the following four categories of effective leadership skills: 1. Participative and human relations 2. Competitiveness and control 3. Innovativeness and entrepreneurship 4. Maintaining order and rationality77 Traits Research and Results: In general, the search for leadership traits has been largely unsuccessful. It has failed to demonstrate a consistent and definite relationship between leadership ability on one, hand and physical traits or personality characteristics 77 Ibid., p.ll.  38 or a combination of the two on the other78. Byrd79, in a critical assessment of research on Trait theory upto 1940, identified a long list of traits made by studies, which had differentiated between leaders and the led. He found that only 5 per cent of the traits listed in them were common to four or more of the studies. Another study, by Jennings80, concluded: ‘fifty years of the study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders5. Later studies identified some correlation between leadership and certain personality traits: for example a significant correlation was seen between leadership effectiveness and such traits as intelligence, supervisory ability, initiative, self-assurance and individuality81. A definite correlation was observed in some cases between the traits of intelligence, scholarship, dependability, responsibility, social participation and socio-economic status of leaders, as compared with non-leaders82. But even these correlations between traits and leadership are not really pervasive. Most of the so-called traits are in 78 Gibb, C.A. “Leadership” in Hand Book of Social Psychology Edited by Lindzey, G. and Aronson, Vol.4, Addison-Wesley, Mass, 1969, pp.215-229. 79 Byrd, C., Social Psychology, Appleton- Century- Crofts, 1940, ppl83-188. 80 Jennings, E.E. “The Anatomy of Leadership”, Management ofPersonnel Quarterly, Vol.l, Autumn, 1961, p.2. 81 Gheselli, E.E. “Management Talent”, American Psychologist, Vol.18, Oct, 1963, pp.631- 642. 82 Stogdill, R.M. “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of Literature”, Journal ofPsychology, Vol.25,1948, pp.35-71.  39 essence the pattern of behaviour that one would expect from a leader, particularly in a managerial position83. Bhatt and Pathak84 (1962) found high intelligence and dependability as important perceived characteristics of effective supervision. Sequeria85 (1962), who worked with Ganguli, has outlined the characteristics of the effective supervision. He has come to the conclusion that effective supervisory practice is less ambiguous and less relative. The main criterion seems to be the level of supervisor in the hierarchy. Amin86 (1963) reports on the behaviour and traits of jobbers who were liked by the workers. Qualities perceived in successful jobbers were high technical knowledge and ability to co-ordinate supply of materials, good behaviour, politeness and straightforward and persuasive approach. They were not expected to pass on duties to workers under them but were expected to give freedom to workers in their work. In general, studies of leader’s traits have not been a very fruitful approach to explain leadership. Not all leaders possess all the traits, and many non-leaders may possess most or all of them. Also, the trait approach gives no guidance as to how much of a particular trait a person should have to be a 83 Koontz, H. and O’ Donnel, C., Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976, p.591. 84 Bhatt L. J. and Pathak, N.S. “A Study of Functions of Supervisory Staff and Characteristics Essential for Success as viewed by a Group of Supervisors,” Manas, 9 (1962), pp.25-31. 85 Sequeria, C.E. “Functions of a Supervisor,” Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, (1962), pp.46-54. 86 Amin, D.L. “Perception of the First Line Supervisor about His Job,” Industrial Relations, DDBM, Calcutta, 1963.  40 leader. Furthermore, the dozens of studies that have been made do not agree as to what traits are leadership traits or what their relationships are to actual instances of leadership. Most of these so-called traits are really patterns of behaviour. (ii) BEHAVIOURAL THEORY: It is evident that effective leaders did not seem to have any distinguished traits or characteristics peculiar to them. The researchers tried to isolate the behaviors that made leaders effective. In other words, rather than try to figure out what effective leaders were, researchers tried to determine what effective leaders did - how they delegated tasks, how they communicated with and tried to motivate their subordinates, how they carried out their tasks, and so on. Unlike traits, however, behaviors can be learnt; if followed, therefore, that individual trained in appropriate leadership behaviors would be able to lead more effectively87. ' The following are the important studies, which come under the behavioral approach to leadership. McGregor’s theory V and theory ‘y’: This theory is related to both leadership and motivation. From the leadership point of view it emphasizes the assumptions of managers regarding the behavioural patterns of subordinates. From the motivation point of view it provides directions to managers to deal with subordinates of different types as 87 James Owen, “The Uses of Leadership Theory”, Michigan Business Review, Vol.25, No.l, January, 1973, pp.13-19.  41 perceived by the managers. McGregor identified two major perceptual structures which he labeled ‘theory X’ and ‘theory Y’88. The manager who perceives people according to either structure, regardless of whether or not he recognizes or acknowledges such perceptions, will behave in predictable patterns because of his personal assumptions, beliefs and attitudes. The assumptions about the nature of man which underlie the two theories are as follows; Theory ‘X’ assumptions a. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can. b. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort towards the achievement of organizational objectives. c. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility,' has relatively little ambition and wants security above all. Theory ‘Y’ assumptions a. The average human being does not have inherent dislike of work. t Depending upon controllable conditions, work may be a source of satisfaction (and will be voluntarily preferred) or a source of punishment (and will be avoided if possible). 88 McGregor, D., The Human Side ofEnterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960, pp.33-57.  42 b. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means to bring about efforts towards the organizational objectives. Any person will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed. c. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievements. d. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely distributed in the population. e. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility. f. Under the conditions of modem industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. According to McGregor, the assumptions of a given manager that may be inferred in his actions are traced backward from how he must perceive people to cause him to act that way. If he is strongly authoritarian, he insists on giving orders and commands, rather than suggestions and counseling. In this one would predict theory ‘x’ perceptual structure. The manager who is less aloof; spends time, teaching and training his subordinates emphasizes obtaining results rather than following procedures, and delegates authority, shows signs of embracing theory ‘y’ assumptions. Thus theory ‘x’ approximates closely to ‘authoritarian’, and theory ‘y' to 'participative’ leadership styles of managing. As an addition to ‘x’ and ‘y’, theory ‘z’ has been introduced.  43 Theory ‘z’: In contrast to the traditional, more bureaucratic American organization environment, Ouchi89 recommends a Japanese style Theory ‘z’ environment. The problem of productivity in the United States will not be solved with monetary policy or through more investment in research and development. It will only be remedied when we learn how to manage people in such a way that they can work together more effectively. The characteristics of Theory ‘z’ are: Long-term, life time-employment; Slow process of evaluation and promotion; Development of company-specific skills, and moderately specialized career path; Implicit, informal control mechanisms supported by explicit, formal measures; - Participative decision-making by consensus; Collective decision-making but individual ultimate responsibility; Broad concern for the welfare of subordinates and co-workers as a natural part of a working relationship, and informal relationship among people. 89 Ouchi, W.G., Theory Z: How American Business can meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, 1981. p.4  44 Lewin, Lippitt and White study: One of the earliest attempts to delineate the dimensions of leadership behaviour was made by Lewin and others.90 This research, in addition to triggering off many other studies based on the same model, was also picked by managerial practitioners. As a result of their observations of the behaviour of a small group of children in a laboratory situation, the following three categories of leaders were identified. a. The authoritarian leader: He himself makes all the decisions that relate to the group and is probably the only source of influence in the group’s activities. His most effective technique in maintaining this leadership position is by withholding knowledge of goals, not sharing information required for the task, and not providing feedback to members on their progress. b. The democratic leader: He makes decisions jointly with his subordinates, showing his power and influence with the group. The participative process, although time-consuming, effectively encourages each member’s input and familiarity with the problem. The leader gains additional information from group members as well as a greater commitment to the decision than would occur under authoritarian conditions. 90 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally Created ‘Social Climates’”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.10, 1939, pp.271-299.  45 c. The laissez-faire leader: He allows subordinates to make all the decision. His role becomes that of a general supervisor who establishes merely the broad policies and. outline of things to be done and then delegates the implementation to his subordinates. As the term, ‘laissez- faire’ implies, such a leader is a figurehead and makes no contribution to the group goal attainment. No direction is given to the group members. According to their study of Lewin and others, the democratic style of leadership is more effective than the other styles. Bhusan91 (1968) in his study concluded that persons in the middle age with higher education and those coming from urban areas have shown significantly greater preference for a democratic style of leadership. Ohio state studies: The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioural theories resulted from research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s92. These studies sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behaviour. Beginning with over a thousand dimensions, they eventually narrowed the list down to two categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behaviour described by subordinates. They called these two dimensions initiating structure and consideration. 91 Bhusan, L.I. “Leadership Performance as related to Age, Education, Residence and Sex,” Indian Journal ofSocial-Work, July, Volume 1, (1968), pp.193-196. 92 Steven Kerr, Chester, A. Schniesheim, Charles J. Muiphy, and Ralph. M. Stogdill. “Toward a Contingency Theory of Leadership based upon the Consideration and Initiating Structure Literature”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, August 1974, pp.62-82.  46 The Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of subordinates in the search for goal attainment. It includes behaviour that attempts to organize work, work relationships and goals. The leader characterized as high in the initiating structure could be described in terms such as, ‘assigns group members to particular tasks’; ‘expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance’; ‘and emphasizes the meeting of deadlines’. The Consideration is described as the extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. He shows concern for his follower’s comfort, well-being, status and satisfaction. A leader high in consideration could be described as one who helps subordinates with personal problems, being friendly and approachable and treats all subordinates as equals. Consideration and initiating structures were found to be uncorrelated and independent dimensions. They are separate behavioral categories and give rise to four types of leadership behaviour. Leaders may be. Low on consideration and low on structure; Low on consideration and high on structure; High on consideration and high on structure; or High on consideration and low on structure. Leadership behaviour could, therefore, be shown on two separate axes instead of along a single continuum. As a result four quadrants were developed  47 which illustrated the-different combinations of ‘consideration’ and ‘structure’, (see Appendix 1.1) Extensive research based on these definitions found that leaders high in initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve high subordinate performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated low on either consideration, initiating structure or both. The Ohio State studies suggested that the ‘high - high’ style generally resulted in positive outcomes, but enough exceptions were found to indicate that situational factors needed to be integrated into the theory. YuM93 (1968) found that task-oriented leaders tend to be described high in structure and low in consideration. Rambo94 (1958) found that executives in different departments of an organization differ in consideration and structure. However, no significant differences were found between executives in different echelons of the vertical structure. Anderson95 (1964) found that those who prefer nursing care activities are described high in consideration. Those supervisors who prefer coordinating activities are not described high in structure. 93 Yuld, G.A. “Leader Personality and Situational Variables as Co-Determinants of Leader Behavior,” Dissertation Abstract, 29 (1968), p.406. 94 Rambo, W.W. “The Construction and analysis of a Leadership Behavior Rating Form,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 42 (1958), pp.409-415. 95 Anderson, L.R. “Some Effects of Leadership Training on Intercultural Discussion Groups,” University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, Technical Report, Urbana, (1964).  48 Siegel96 (1969) found that neither consideration nor structure is related to personality measures, but those managers described high in consideration and structure report higher degrees of need satisfaction. Fleishman and Simmons97 (1970) studied the effectiveness of Israeli foremen. Those high in both consideration and structure were most effective. Those low on both scales were least effective. A theory of effective management known as “Managerial Grid” was advocated by Blake and Mouton98 (1964). The two dimensions of effective leadership are concern for people and concern for production. Managerial Grid was popularized depicting five types of styles viz., Impoverished, Task, Team, Country Club and Middle of the Road Managers. Brunson and Wickhert" (1973) supported the contingency theory and Likert’s Participation theory. The most effective division with a short-term orientation and manufacturing goal orientation appeared to be least participative, while the most effective division with the longer-term time orientation and scientific goal orientation appeared to be most participative. 95 Siegel, J. P. “A Study of the Relationship among Organizational Factors, Personality Traits, Job and Leadership Attitudes,” Dissertation Abstracts, 29 (1969), pp.2662-2663. 97 Fleishman, E.A. and Simmons, J. “Relationship between Leadership Patterns and Effectiveness ratings among Israeli foreman,” Personnel Psychology, 23 (1970), pp.169-172. 98 Blake, R.R. and Mouton, S.J., The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Taxaus, 1964. 99 Brunson, R.W. and Wickhert, F.R. “The Empirical Investigation at the Contingency Theory within a Conglomerate,” Paper Presented at the American Psychological Association, 1973.  49 Michigan studies: Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, at about the same time as those being done at Ohio State, had similar research objectives: to locate behavioural characteristics of leaders that appeared to be related to measure of performance effectiveness. Effective supervisors (measured along dimensions of group morale, productivity and cost reduction) appeared to display four common characteristics: 1. delegation of authority and avoidance of close supervision; 2. interest and concern in their subordinates as individuals; 3. participative problem-solving; and 4. high standards of performance. The Michigan group came up with two dimensions of leadership behaviour which they labeled ‘employee-oriented’ and ‘production- oriented’100. Leaders who were employee-oriented were described as emphasizing interpersonal relationships; they took personal interest in the needs of their subordinates and accepted individual differences among members, the production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tended to emphasizing the technical or task aspects of the job keeping their main concern over accomplishing their group’s task through the means of group members. 100 Khan, R. and Katz D. “Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale” in Group Dynamics, Research and Theory, 2nd Ed. D. Cartwright and A. Zander Elonsford, Row, Paterson, New York, 1960, pp.93-98.  50 The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly favoured the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behaviour. Employee- oriented leaders were associated with high group productivity and higher job satisfaction. Production-oriented leaders tended to be associated with low group productivity and lower worker satisfaction. Likert system 4 management: Rensis Likert101, again incorporating the basic style , categories of task orientation and employee orientation, devised a four-level model of management effectiveness. In System 1 managers make all the work-related decisions and order their subordinates to carry them out. Standards and methods of performance are also rigidly set by them. Failure to meet the managers’ goals results in threats or punishment. The managers feel little trust or confidence in their subordinates, and the subordinates, in turn, fear the managers and feel that they have little in common with them. In System 2 managers still issue orders, but their subordinates have some freedom to comment on those orders. The subordinates are also given some flexibility to carry out their tasks but within carefully prescribed limits and procedures. Those subordinates who meet or exceed the manager’s goals may be rewarded. In general, the managers have a condescending attitude towards their subordinates, and the subordinates are cautious when dealing with their managers. 101 Rensis Likert, New Pattern ofManagement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961, pp.5-25.  51 In System 3, managers set the goals and issue general orders after discussing them with their subordinates. The subordinates can make their own decisions about how to carry out their task, since only broad and major decisions are made by high-level managers. Rewards, rather than the threats of punishment, are used to motivate the subordinates. The subordinates feel free to discuss most work-related matters with their managers, who, in turn, feel that to a larger extent the subordinates can be trusted to carry out their tasks properly. System 4 is Likert’s ideal system towards which organizations should work. Goals are set and work-related decisions are made by the group. If managers formally reach a decision, they do so after incorporating the suggestions and opinions of the other group members. Thus, the goal they set or the decision they reach may not always be the one they personally favour. To motivate the subordinates, managers not only use economic rewards but also try to give their subordinates the feeling of worth and importance. Performance standards exist to permit self-appraisal by subordinates, rather than to provide the managers with a tool to control them. Interaction between the managers and subordinates is frank, friendly and trusting. Rensis Likert102 (1967) on the basis of intensive research, he has shown that high producing departments in several organizations are marked by system 4 (democratic). 102 Rensis Likert, The Human Organization,'McGraw Hill, New York,. 1967, P.47.  52 Managerial grid: The managerial grid identifies a range of management behaviours based on the various ways that task-oriented and employee-oriented styles (each expressed as a continuum on a scale of 1 to 9) can interact with each other (see Appendix 1.2). Thus, style 1,1 management is an impoverished management with low concern for people and low concern for tasks or production. This style is some times called laissez-faire management, because the leader abdicates his or her leadership role. Style 1, 9 management is country club management in which there is high concern for employees but low concern for production. Style 9,1 management is task or authoritarian management with high concern for production and efficiency but low concern for employees. Style 5,5 is middle- of-the-road management in which there is an intermediate amount of concern for both production and employee satisfaction. Style 9,9 management is team or democratic management in which is found a high concern for both production and employee morale and satisfaction. Blake and Mouton argue strongly that the 9, 9 management style is the most effective , type of leadership behaviour. This approach will, in almost all situations, result in improved performance, low absenteeism and turnover, and high employee satisfaction. 103 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton., The Managerial Grid, (Gulf Publishing, Houston, 1978) Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally Created Social Climates”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.10, No.2, May, 1939, pp.271-299.  53 Leadership continuum: Another important work on leadership styles is that of Tannenbaum and Schmidt104. They suggest a continuum of possible leadership behaviour available to a manager and along which various styles of leadership may be placed. At one extreme of the continuum is the boss-centered leadership (authoritarian) and at the other extreme is the subordinate-centered leadership (democratic). The continuum presents a range of action related to the degree of authority used by the manager and to the area of freedom available to the subordinates in arriving at decisions. Moving along the continuum, the manager may be characterized according to the degree of control that is maintained over the subordinates. Neither extreme of the continuum is absolute as there is always some limitation on authority and on freedom. This approach can be seen as identifying four main styles of leadership by the manager: tells, sells, consults, and joins. Tells - the manager identifies the problem, chooses a decision and announces this to his subordinates, expecting them to implement it without an opportunity for participation. Sells - the manager still chooses a decision but recognizes the possibility of some resistance from those faced with the decision and attempts to persuade his subordinates to accept it 104 Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W.H. “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1973. pp.162-175,178-180.  54 Consults - the manager identifies the problem but does not choose a decision until the problem is presented to the group, and the manager has listened to the advice and solutions suggested by the subordinates. Joins - the manager defines the problem and the limits within which the decision must be chosen and then passes on to the group, with the manager as a member, the right to make decisions. Tannenbaum and Schmidt suggested that there are three factors or forces, of particular importance in deciding what types of leadership are practicable and desirable. These are: forces in the manager; forces in the subordinates; forces in the situation Forces in the manager: The manager’s behaviour is influenced by his own personality, background, knowledge and experiences. These internal forces will include: value systems; confidence in subordinates; leadership inclinations; and feelings of security in an uncertain situation. Forces in the subordinates: The subordinates are influenced by many personality variables- and their individual set of expectations about relationship with the manager. Characteristics of the subordinates are: the strength of the needs for independence; the readiness to assume responsibility for decision making; the degree of tolerance for ambiguity; interest in the problem and the feelings as to its importance; understanding and identification with the goals of an organization; necessary knowledge and experience to deal with the problem; and the extent of learning to expect to share in decision making.  55 Forces in situation: The manager’s behaviour will be influenced by the general situation and environmental pressures. Characteristics in the situation include: type of organization; group effectiveness; nature of the problem; and pressure of time. Tannenbaum and Schmidt105 conclude that successful leaders are keenly aware of those factors or forces which are most relevant to their behaviour at a particular time. Successful managers are both perceptive and flexible. Further, more attention would be given to the interdependency of. the forces in the manager, in the subordinates and in the situation (see Appendix 1.3). Behavioural Research and Results: Leadership consists of patterns of behavior of a person that influence other entities such as individuals and teams. It is common to conceptualize leadership as a typology, which defines patterns or clusters of leader behaviors (Yukl, 2002). Leadership typologies have changed and evolved over the past few decades. From the very beginning of the Ohio State leadership behaviors (e.g., consideration and initiating structure), articulated by a group of Ohio State researchers (Fleishman, 1973; Judge, Piccolo, & lilies, 2004), to the currently dominant transactional- transformational paradigm identified by Bass and his colleagues (Bass, 1981; 1998; Bass, & Avolio, 1990), researchers have explored and articulated typologies that could clearly delineate classes or patterns of leader behavior. Although there is no “one best” typology, the 105 Ibid., Retrospective Commentary, pp.166-168.  56 more we can capture the conceptual representations of leadership, the more effectively real leaders can behave in practice (Pearce et al., 2003) The research conducted in the early part of 19th century was replete with identification of certain personality traits essential for leadership. Research studies conducted at the Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University have attempted to identify initiating structure and consideration106. A series of pioneering leadership studies were conducted on high school children in the late 1930s by Ronald Lippitt and Ralph. K. White under the direction of Kurt Lewin at the University of Iowa107. They studied the decision-making component of the leader’s behaviour and classified leaders into three types as authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire. One definite finding was the boys’ over-whelming preference for the democratic leader. In individual interviews, nineteen of the twenty boys stated they like the democratic leader better than the authoritarian leader. The boys also chose the laissez-faire leader over the autocratic one in seven out of ten cases. Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Centre108 divided leadership into employee-Centered and production- centered. The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly favoured the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behaviour. 106 Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Ed) “Leader Behaviour: Its Description and Measurement,” Research Monograph No.88, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1957. 107 Lewin, Lippitt, R., and White, R.K. “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally Created ‘Social Climates’,” Journal ofPsychology, 1939, pp.271-299;. 108 Daniel Katz et. al. “Productivity, Supervision and Morale in Office Situation,” Survey Research Centre, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1950.  57 Employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction. Production-oriented leader tended to be associated with low group productivity and lower work satisfaction. In 1945, the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University initiated a series of studies on leadership. Stogdill and Coons (1957)109 tentatively started with nine dimensions.. Factor analysis of the nine subscales revealed two dimensions. They were initiating structure and consideration. The research studies also showed that initiating structure and consideration are two separate distinct dimensions and not mutually exclusive. The study found that leaders high in initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve high subordinate performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated low either on consideration, initiating structure or both. Hemphill110 (1949) and his associates at Ohio State Leadership Studies developed a list of approximately 1,800 items describing different aspects of leader behaviour. The items were sorted by the research team into nine different categories or hypothetical subscale, with most items assigned to several subscales. However, 150 items were found on which sorters were agreed to subscale for assigning an item. These items were used to develop the first form of the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) 109 Stogdill, R.M. and Coons. A.E. (Eds.) “Leader Behaviour: Its Perception and Measurement,” Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1957. 110 Hemphill, J.K. “The Leader and his Group,” Journal ofEducational Research, 28 (1949).  58 111 A study by Katz, Maccoby, and Morse (1950) investigated the relationship between the productivity of clerks in an insurance company and various leadership characteristics. Twelve pairs of work groups which performed the same type of work but which differed in their productivity were studied. The supervisors of the high producing groups employed were rated as less ‘production centered’ and more ‘employee centered’; exercised better judgment; were more rational and less arbitrary, and were more democratic and less authoritarian than supervisors of low-producing sections. Kidd and Christy112 (1961) used an air controller simulator and investigated into three types of leader behaviour-autocratic, democratic, and ffee-reign on several measures of air controller effectiveness. They found that free reign-pattern of leadership allowed the controller to concentrate on maintaining a quick flow through the system but produced high error scores. The autocratic behaviour, on the other hand, reduced the total number of errors and at the same time resulted in inhibiting the rapidity of flow. The participative style was found to result in an intermediary situation. 111 Katz. D.N., Maccoby and Morse, N. “Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation,” Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arber, Michigan, 1950. 112 Kidd, J.S., and Christy, R.T. “Supervisory Procedures and Work Team Productivity,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 45, (1961), pp.388-392.  59 Stogdill113 (1965) found in 27 organizations that leader structure is related to follower satisfaction with organization, while consideration is associated with satisfaction with freedom of action. Korman114 (1966) reviewed the research in which consideration and structure scores of industrial supervisors were related to various criteria of supervisory effectiveness and work group performance. It was found that ratings made by peers of supervisory and group performance are not related to the supervisor’s consideration and initiation of structure. However, evaluations by superiors and subordinates, as well as various objective criteria tend to be related significantly to the supervisor’s leader behaviour as described by subordinates. Skinner115 (1969) foun