a model of effective leadership styles in india

Inl. Studies of Man. i Org.. Vol. XIV. No. 2-3. pp. 86-98M. E. Sharpe. Inc.. 1984

JAI B . P. SINHA (INDIA)

A Model of EffectiveLeadership Styles in India

The model

It is generally agreed that the effectiveness of a leadership style ina work organization is contingent on task characteristics and thenature of the leader-subordinate relationship. Task characteris-tics are much less crucial in Indian work organizations than inmany other countries because of the cultural preference to viewwork in the context of relationship. Work in itself is not quitevalued in India.' For a leader who is liked and respected, it isperformed with involvement; otherwise, it gets perfunctory at-tention.

Indian subordinates prefer a personalized rather than acontractual relationship. An ideal superior is not just a bosswhose authority is clearly delimited by the organizational manualor task requirements: he represents a benevolent source on whichsubordinates can depend for indulgence: Subordinates readilyaccept the boss's higher status and respect and obey him willingly

The author is Professor of Social Psychology, A.N.S. Institute of SocialStudies, Patna, Bihar, 800 001, India. This paper was presented at the Inter-national Conference on Leadership, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan, 23-25August 1984.

86

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLES IN INDIA 87

provided he extends support to them and caters to their work,personal, and social needs.^

In other words, a leader in such a situation has to be nurturant.A nurturant leader "cares for his subordinates, shows affection,takes personal interest in their well-being, and above all is com-mitted to their growth."^ In order to be effective, however, hemakes his nurturance contingent on the subordinate's task ac-complishment. He structures his and his subordinates' roles andinteractions in such a way that the subordinates understand andaccept the goals and the normative structure of the group andcultivate commitment to them. He guides and directs them towork hard and maintain a high level of productivity. Those whomeet his expectations are reinforced by nurturance. In the pro-cess, there develops a relationship of understanding, warmth,and interdependence, leading to higher productivity and bettergrowth of both subordinates and leader.

The growth process is based on a reciprocal influence relation-ship between the leader and his subordinates. Initially the subor-dinates (5) depend heavily on the leader not only for guidance anddirection but also for support and encouragement (at t-l). But asthey work hard, they develop skill and experience and hence gainself-confidence. They start enjoying hard work and tend to as-sume greater responsibility. They now need less direction. Asthey mature and acquire commitment to their work, they strivefor recognition, influence, and participation in decision making(5-1 a.tt-2). If the leader responds to these altered expectations ofthe subordinates by reducing the quantum of direction, retainingthe warmth, and delegating more responsibility and autonomy(ntip), the subordinates feel more encouraged and involved andthus make further efforts to increase productivity. In the process,they become more prepared for greater participation (5-2).Eventually, the leader and the subordinates create a participativesystem (at t-2) in which they participate fully aind freely—al-though the cultural flavor of deference and affection blended in apersonalized relationship still persists. There is a possibility,although a distant one, that they might even create an autonomous

88 JAl B. P. SINHA (INDIA)

group* in which the distinction between leader and subordinatesis minimized. The leader represents the group to outsiders, andthe members run the group with full involvement of the leader.

The progression from nurturant-task to participative style is agradual and interactive process. In certain instances the processcan become regressive. A nurturant-task leader, because of hissuccessful experience in the first phase of the work relationship,may continue to insist on close supervision and paternal affec-tion, which the matured subordinates may not relish anymore.Their frustrations and the resultant resentment may threaten theleader, who, as a result, may regress toward an authoritarianstyle.^ If he does, he will disrupt the interaction system and putthe subordinates on the defensive. Consequently, all—the leader,the subordinates, and the group—may suffer.

The evidence

In order to test the model, over 30 field and laboratory studiesover the course of a decade have been conducted by Sinha and hisco-workers. Fifteen of therii have been published in the book Thenurturant-task leader (1980) *; a report on 12 appeared later, in1982,' and a number of them are still in progress.* Taken togetherthey examine the meaning, the structure, and the overlap amongauthoritarian, nurturant-task, and participative styles, their cor-relates, and their relationship with some outcome variables suchas the effectiveness of subordinates, units, or departments, jobsatisfaction, etc. A selective presentation of the findings is at-tempted below.

Relationships among leadershipstyles

The first major concern was to differentiate the nurturant-task{NT) style from the participative (P) style, on the one hand, andtbe authoritarian (JF) on the other. Some critics have contendedthat NT is almost identical with (9,9) style, or high on


Consideration-initiating Structure.^ It is true that nurturant andparticipative styles share a concern for subordinates, their needs,and feelings. Yet the people orientation ofthe participative styleis fraternal in nature, assuming the values of equality. Thenurturance style contains the affection, care, and warmth of abenevolent, paternal symbol; it reflects a difference in status inwhich the nurturance of a superior is symbiotically related to thedependence ofthe subordinates. The two, however, do overlap,and thus entertain a possibility of a smooth transition from NT toP under conducive circumstances.'"

Similarly, critics argue that nurturance in a basically feudal andauthoritarian culture such as India's is a glorified facade to coverup an underlying authoritarian stance. The facade is likely todisappear as soon as the leader is put under stress. In other words,an authoritarian leader in a favorable condition can afford theluxury of bestowing affection and care on his subordinates, butbasically he is a self- and power-oriented person."

There is no unequivocal evidence that Indian culture is authori-tarian. There are some overt authoritarian features, such as anemphasis on hierarchy, discipline, obedience, power, structuredrelationships, etc.; but the presence of the correspondingpsychodynamics of authoritarianism—of anxiety, insecurity,cynicism, ego-alien sexuality, and paranoid dispositions—isdoubtful. There may be some overlap between authoritarian andNT styles in terms of the preference for structure, but whetherthis preference reflects secondary authoritarianism is a matter ofdispute.

A number of studies have been conducted to shed light on theseissues. In two ofthe studies,'^ leaders were induced to conducttheir groups in either F (i.e., authoritarian), NT, or P (i.e.,participative) styles. The subsequent ratings by the group mem-bers, who were blind to the experimental manipulations, dis-closed that A^rieaders were perceived as similar to authoritarianones in being strict, in pushing their ideas through, and in control-ling the members' ideas and activities. A^rieaders were, however,close to P leaders in encouraging the members to contribute to the

90 JAI B. P. SINHA (INDIA)

Table 1

Intercorrelations of Three Major Leadership Factors with theRemaining Factors

First three factors of leadershipSubordinate-

Otherfactorsof ieadership

Guidance &encouragement

DirectionTask orientationFriendly orientationPower'Role performanceDistance & discipline

Note: Decimal points have

*P < 0.01.

**P < 0.05; N = 523.

basedparticipa-

tion

37*56*58*60*

- 1 6 *07

- 1 2 * *

been omitted.

Leader-centered

nurturance

53*25*20*55*

- 4 9 *- 0 5- 1 1 * *

Authori-tarianstyie

- 1 4 *12**22**

- 0 357*15*37*

group task, for which they were given due credit. The moststriking finding was that whereas P leaders were perceived asbeing interested in getting members' participation and F ones inmaintaining their leadership, NT leaders showed concern for get-ting the work done.

Leaders rating themselves on a Likert-type scale revealed amoderate overlap of A^rwith F(r = 0.31) and P (r = 0.39); thelatter two were almost unrelated (r = 0.11).>^A factor structureof leadership styles'" based on the self-ratings of 523 executivesof a large public enterprise generated ten dimensions of leader-ship, the first three being subordinate-based participation,leader-centered nurturance, and authoritarian style. Thesubordinate-based participation was strongly related to the fac-tors friendly, task orientation, and direction. The nurturancefactor was strongly positively related to friendly orientation,guidance, and encouragement, and negatively to power, which,


along with distance and discipline, was strongly associated withan authoritarian style (see Table 1).

A unique feature of this study was the emergence of a distinctfactor of task orientation, which was found to be more or lessindependent of the factors of either participation or nurturance.In other words, an executive can be task oriented without beingeither participative or nurturant. Research in government depart-ments and public enterprises subsequently indicated a widespreadprevalence of a bureaucratic style. Hence, the leadership-stylescale was expanded to incorporate five dimensions —bureaucrat-ic (JS), authoritarian (F), nurturant (AO, participative (P), and taskoriented (7)—each having ten items in a Likert-type format. Theitems were written in such a way that an executive could rate hisown styles and those of his superior.

Two attempts to examine the stability in the factor structures ofthe styles yielded a rather complicated picture. One study'' iden-tified ten factors. A people-oriented style emerged first, and apersonal task-oriented (nearest to NT) style was second. Partici-pation emerged as a different configuration, in seventh place.The three were highly correlated Xr = 0.64, N = 196, P< 0.01). Surprisingly, the three were closely related to the factorclose supervision Xr = 0.50, P< 0.01). On the other hand, theauthoritarian style was fragmented into the factors power orien-tation, suspicion and limited role, and closed-mindedness. Thethree were highly interrelated (Xr = 0.43, P < 0.01). The factorimpersonal orientation, as expected, was associated withbureaupathic style (r = 0.55, P< 0.01).

In the second study'* task mastership emerged as the firstfactor and structured task orientation as the third. The participa-tive style was differentiated into pure participative and equity-oriented styles. Nurturant came out as the tenth factor and includ-ed some of the participative items. The three factors clusteredtogether, reflecting a people-oriented style. Task-oriented factorsin this study combined with closed-mindedness and power orien-tation, which are components of an authoritarian style.

When the executives' ratings ofthe styles of their departmental


heads were factor analyzed, task-oriented style again emerged asthe first factor, authoritarian as the second, bureaucratic as thethird, participative as the sixth, and nurturant as the seventhfactor. Some items of the bureaucratic style got clustered aroundrestricted role relationship or rigidity in role performance.

In summary, when particular styles are experimentally inducedin group leaders, subordinates perceive them as such, althoughthere are some meaningful overlaps. In reality, however, thestyles get mixed up. Executives do not adopt an exclusive style.They always have a mix, and the nature of the mix depends partlyon the commonness of the styles and partly on the specific organi-zations.

By and large, the nurturant and participative styles and theirderivatives cluster together, meaning that these styles belong to amore generalized style of people's orientations. Hence, it maynot be difficult for an executive to move from one style to another.Similarly, the authoritarian and bureaucratic styles and their de-rivatives are often combined. Task orientation is a distinct config-uration, which in some organizations aligns with the people'sorientation and in others with the authoritarian-bureaucratic com-plex.

Correlates of leadership styles

A field study'' of self-ratings on the NT and P styles disclosedgreat similarity (r = 0.88,7V = 165). A^Thad a moderately posi-tive correlation with F (r = 0.27). P and F were negativelyrelated (r = -0.18). Despite this unusually high overlap betweenNT and P, the two had distinctly different patterns of relationshipwith the perception of their subordinates. When the subordinateswere perceived to be neither efficient, dedicated to work, norwilling to work on their own, the appropriate styles were either For NT, the former getting higher weight than the latter (Table 2).However, F was reported to be ineffective, and caused dissatis-faction among subordinates. NT, on the other hand, led to greatereffectiveness. But in the opposite condition, NT was quite


Table 2

Correlations between Leadership Styles and Perception ofSubordinates

Perceptionof subordinates

1. Efficiency2. Dedication to

work3. Willingness to

work withoutsupervision

4. Need for personalcare

5. Being difficult tosupervise

Noie: Decimal points haveP = Participative style.

•P < O.Ot.

*»P < 0.05.

F

- 4 3 *

- 3 4 *

- 5 5 *

17**

10

been omitted. F

StylesNT

- 1 7 * *

- 2 4 *

- 2 9 *

14

18**

= Authoritarian, NT

P

01

- 0 7

01

- 1 5 * *

06

= Nurturant-task,

ineffective—that is, when the subordinates were efficient, dedi-cated to work, and willing to work on their own, it was the Pstyle, rather that the NT,, that was reported to be effective. Theparticipative style was conducive to greater satisfaction irrespec-tive of the work orientation of the subordinates (Table 3).

In a survey,'* leadership styles were correlated with the indica-tors of effectiveness in fertilizer and coal organizations. Manag-ers who rated themselves as nurturant also perceived their subor-dinates, their superiors, themselves, their department, and theirorganization as effective. Those who were task oriented andpeople oriented also found their subordinates effective. Bureau-cratic and authoritarian leaders, however, did not find either theirsubordinates, departments, or organizations effective.

In another study, conducted in university departments, theleadership styles of department heads were correlated with educa-tional climate and quality of education. First, a sample of post-graduate students was asked to spell out the various leadership


Table 3

Correlations among Leadership Styies and Leader's Effectiveness,Unit's Efficiency, and Subordinates' Satisfaction for GroupsAccording to Preparedness

Subordinates'preparedness

High (N = 84)Low(N = 81)

High (N = 84)Low(N = 81)

High (N = 84)Low(N = 81)

Note: Decimal points

•P < 0.01.

•*P < 0.05.

F

1719

- 2 7 * *- 2 2 * *

- 3 1 *- 2 4 * *

have been omitted.

Leadership stylesNT

Leader's effectiveness- 5 8 *

29*

Unit's efficiency- 3 7 *+ 30*

Subordinates' satisfaction- 2 2 * *

11

P

38*04

09- 1 6

47*38*

acts that a university head performs. Then a sample of 250 post-graduate students rated their heads on the various acts. The actsgenerated three distinct styles: authoritarian, nurturant-task, andparticipative. The styles were correlated with the most dominantfactors of educational climate and teaching methods. The generalfactor educational climate reflected a "situation in which peopleresort to flattery, but at the same time, communication is openand free, and the growth of the organization also takes place.Other items forming the cluster . . . contained ideas . . . whichincluded closeness to the head, concern for establishing authority,willingness to share information, and vigilance." This kind ofeducational climate was very highly associated with NT(r = 0.83) and P( r = 0.57) and negatively with F(r = -0.67).Similarly, teaching by directive methods combined with encour-agement and emotional support was again highly correlated with


NT (r = 0.68) and P (r = 0.42) and negatively with F {r = -0.50).

Further support for the thesis of the effectiveness of the NTstyle was provided by a study by Singhal'' in which she tried todetermine the causal relationship between an NT style on the partof college teachers and students' commitment to education. Shereported satisfactory consistency in the measurement of both.Furthermore, she provided statistical evidence to show that NTresulted in greater commitment than the other way around.

Evidence from an experimentalstudy

As stated in the beginning, the model suggests that if subordinatesprefer dependency and a personalized relationship, accept statusdifferences, and are not quite work motivated, the A r̂ style maybe expected to be effective. A phase of the NT style, it is furtherpostulated, prepares subordinates for a P style of supervision,which thereafter will be more effective.

An experimental study^° was designed to test these hypotheses.First, a,23-item Belief and Preference Scale measuring one'spreference for a personalized and dependency relationship and abelief in status difference was administered to a sample of 150freshmen students. The 40 with the highest scores were selectedfor 20 2-person groups. Twenty randomly selected students fromthe senior classes were assigned the role of leaders—one for eachgroup. The 20 3-person groups thus formed were randomly as-signed to 4 treatment conditions, each having 2 phases of leader-ship with an interval of 24 hours between.

The design was as follows:

Conditions

1234

Phase 1

NTNTPP

Phase

NTP

NTP


In condition 1, the leaders adopted an A^rstyle and continued withthe same style in phase 2; in condition 2, the leaders adopted anNT style in phase 1, but switched over to P in phase 2, and so on.Leadership styles were verbally induced, and sufficient rationalewas provided for continuing with the same style or switching toanother. The group members worked on ten social problems,discussed one problem at a time, and suggested possible solu-tions, which were either accepted or rejected by the other mem-bers and the leader of the group. A group's performance wasmeasured in terms of (a) number of ideas, (b) degree of appropri-ateness of the ideas, and (c) extent of involvement of the groupmembers.

The findings provided strong evidence in support of the model:1. The highest scores on all three variables were reported

under a P style of leadership when it was preceded by a phase ofNT leadership.

2. The NT—P- combination yielded the best results on allvariables.

3. NT leadership, when it followed P leadership, led to areversal on all three counts.

The members and the leader were also asked to indicate theirsupport for each other's ideas. The findings were again unequivo-cal. The NT—P- combination was the best. Prolonged use of A r̂(i.e., NT—NT- combination) or of TVr following P reduced theeffectiveness of a leader.

A note of precaution

The success story of the model will be misleading if it is notpointed out that there have been cases of failures. In a number ofstudies, the A r̂ style did not lead to greater effectiveness of thesubordinates. At times it worked through the organizational cli-mate, which then infiuenced effectiveness of the subordinates. Atothers, its infiuence was probably overshadowed by other factors,such as power or organizational norms.

We have yet to conduct longitudinal studies in which we can


follow and facilitate the interactive process of the leader-subor-dinate relationship as it evolves from A r̂ through nt/p to P stylesand thus helps the subordinates as well as the leader realizegreater effectiveness and personal growth. The conceptualizationof the shift from NT to P suggests that a leadership style is notlinked with personality traits and that a leader can employ a"cafeteria" approach in adopting different styles for differentsubordinates. There is some support for these contentions, butthe evidence is not yet conclusive.

Notes

1. See J. B. P. Sinha (1978) "Superior Subordinate Relationship andAlienation." National Labour Institute Bulletin, 4(3). 209-223. Kahar statesthat what an Indian is "sensitive to (and concerned with) are not the goals ofwork and productivity that are external to the relationship, but the relationshipitself, the unfolding of emotional affinity" (S. Kakar [1978] The Inner World: APsycho-Analytic Study of Hindu Childhood and Society. London: Oxford Uni-versity Press). McClelland supports this view further when he observes thatIndiansperform their work as a "favor" to someone (D. C. McClelland [1975]Power: The Inner Experience. New York: The Free Press).

2. J. B. P. Sinha (1980) The Nurturant Task Leader. New Delhi: ConceptPublishing House.

3. Ibid., p. 55.4. P. G. Herbst (1976) Alternatives to Hierarchies. Leiden: Martinus

Nijhoff, Social Science Division.5. A. Nandy (1975) "Master Builders." The Sunday Statesman. P. 12.6. Sinha (1980) Op. cit.7. J. B. P. Sinha (1982) "Further Testing of a Model of Leadership

Effectiveness." Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 19(2). 143-60.8. A. Hassan, "Subordinate and Task Characteristics as Moderators of

Leadership Effectiveness." Ph.D. thesis, Patna University, Patna, India; C. B.P. Singh, "Behaviour Strategic in Power Relationship." Ph.D. thesis. PatnaUniversity, Patna, India; N. Verma. "The Implicit Theory of NT Leadership."ICSSR project. New Delhi, India.

9. R. R. Blake and J. S. Monton (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston,TX: Gulf Publishing; J. K. HcmphiU (1954) A Proposed Theory of Leadershipin Small Groups. Columbus, Ohio: Personnel Research Board. Ohio StateUniversity.

10. Sinha (1980) Op. cit. In fact, the Indian culture prescribes such atransition in father-son relationships. As a son matures, the father is expectedto treat him as an equal and to fade away eventually as the son takes charge ofthe family.


11. A. Nandy (1976) "Adorno in India: Revisiting the Psychology ofFascism." Indian Journal of Psychology, 51, 168-78.

12. Sinha (1980) Op. cit., pp. 171-92.13. J. Verma, quoted by Sinha (1980) Op. cit., p. 99.14. A. H. M. HabibuUah and J. B. P. Sinha (1980) "Motivational Climate

and Leadership." Vikalpa, 5, 85-93.15. Hassan, Op. cit. Research in progress.16. Singh, Op. cit. Research in progress.17. J. B. P. Sinha and G. P. Chowdhary (1981) "Perception of Subordi-

nates as a Moderator of Leadership Effectiveness in India." Journal of SocialPsychology, 113, 115-21.

18. S. B. P. Singh (1982) "A Study of Leadership Styles and Their Effec-tiveness." Ph.D. thesis, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, India.

19. S. Singhal (1981) "Effective Leaders and Leadership Styles in a CollegeContext: Some Research Evidence." Paper presented at the Workshop onOrganizational Research in India, Department of Psychology, Allahabad Uni-versity, 1-2 October.

20. J. B. P. Sinha and T. N. Sinha, quoted by Sinha (1980), Op. cit., pp.179-92.

a model of effective leadership styles in india

Documents