Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 95

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

Subordinates Perception of Leadership

Styles and Their Work Behaviour
DAMODAR SUAR
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

HARE R. TEWARI
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

KOSTUBH R. CHATURBEDI
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

Leadership is essential for the effective functioning of any organisation.

Leaders influence not only task, strategies and goals of the organisation, but
also beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of organisational members (Yukl &
Van Fleet, 1998). Management without leadership encourages an uninspired style that deadens activities (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003). The way
Address for correspondence: Damodar Suar, Associate Professor, Department of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, West Bengal
Fax: + 91-3222-82270/55303; e-mail: ds@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in.

Psychology and Developing Societies 18, 1 (2006)

Sage Publications New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London
DOI: 10.1177/097133360501800106
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

of functioning of the leader or leading can enhance or diminish the subordinates commitment, satisfaction and job performance.
Though leaders and managers are differentiated on the basis of roles,
responsibilities and skills, for all practical purposes, an executive or a manager
is a leader. Leadership styles vary according to the type of organisation
(Stogdill, 1974) and level of organisational hierarchy (Katz & Kahn, 1978;
Sinha, 1995). Evidence reveals that private sector companies in India operate
in a fairly competitive environment, emphasise high task, close relationships,
participation, and caring for employees whereas public sector companies
operate in a protected environment isolated from market pressures, low
task, impersonal work environment, and bureaucratic set-up with too many
rules and regulations for employees without actual practice (Sharma & Bhal,
2001). Leadership at the top, middle, and lower levels differs because of
the differentiated roles, authorities, and skill demands (Katz, 1974). Firstline leaders require more technical than human and conceptual skills to handle
day-to-day operations on the shop floor. The role of these leaders is confined
to implementing the decisions that are taken at the highest level. At the
middle level, top management policies and strategies are further concretised
for action. Jobs of middle level executives are low on choice and high on
demands, and work is generally a fix-it type of activity, trying to deal with
systems and processes that are not working, and managing breakdowns in
the normal routine flow of work (Nilakantha & Ramnarayan, 1990). Middle
level managers act as the bridge between the top and the bottom. They
require more human skills than other skills. At the top, leaders prepare the
overall plan of business and coordinate resources, and their jobs demand
greater conceptual skills. As skills, roles, and responsibilities vary at different
levels, so do the leadership styles. Hence, for a leadership style to be effective
it must be appropriate to the type of organisation and to the level of hierarchy.
Scant literature is available on leadership in a defence organisation because
of its sensitive nature. Questions arise: Do leadership styles vary at different
levels in an organisational hierarchy? Do different styles of leadership enhance
or diminish the work behaviour of subordinates? This study answers these
questions.
Leadership Styles
Theories of leadership have emphasised three constructs, with the focus
on either a single construct or in combination of constructs. These are
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 97

(a) traits of the leader, (b) attributes of subordinates, and (c) situational factors such as nature of task, group climate and cultural context. The last two
are important because the leader has to operate in a specific way depending
on the attributes of subordinates and situations. Hersey and Blanchards
(1977) life cycle theory substantiates this. Effective leadership depends
on the maturity of subordinates which is defined in terms of (a) capacity to
set high but attainable goals or achievement motivation, (b) willingness to
take responsibility, and (c) education or experience. A telling style (high
task and low relationship) of leadership is effective for less mature subordinates. As the degree maturity increases, the leader is expected to shift to selling
(high task and high relationship), then to participating (low task and high
relationship), and finally to delegating (low task and low relationship) style.
Realising the importance of culture in shaping an individuals thinking,
feeling and doing, Misumi (1985) in Japan raised objections to theories
developed in the individualistic culture of the west. More than three decades
of research on performance-oriented (task) and maintenance-oriented
(people) behaviour by leaders has provided consistent evidence that both
types of behaviour are necessary for leadership effectiveness (Misumi &
Peterson, 1985). A blend of maintenance with pressure for performance
overcomes the psychological resistance of subordinates towards goal achievement. Hence, effective leaders act in accordance with the culturally acquired
characteristics of their subordinates. While some studies in India (Lal, 1983;
Srivastava & Sharadkumar, 1984) reveal that an effective leader tends to
be participative (P) or democratic, others (Kakar, 1971; Kaur, 1993) indicate that they tend to be authoritarian (F). Meades (1967) study in India
noted that the morale, production and quality of work were higher under a
F leader than under a P leader. A F leader may succeed in an authoritarian
culture and a P leader in a democratic culture.
For the first time, Sinha (1973) raised doubts about the appropriateness
of the F style in India. He argued that participative management was not
conducive either. Unless employees understand and accept the organisations
normative structure and goals and thereby develop a fair commitment to
the organisation, any attempt to introduce participative management is likely
to fail. The employees may take undue advantage and create indiscipline
and dissatisfaction eventually resulting in loss of productivity.
Sinha and Sinha (1974) identified six sociocultural values of Indian subordinates: (a) lack of commitment, (b) lack of team orientation, (c) preference
for personalised relationship, (d ) dependence proneness, (e) rest and leisure
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

(aram), and ( f ) show-off. Subordinates tend to depend excessively on their

superior, with whom they want to cultivate personalised rather than contractual work relationships. They readily accept the authority of the superior
and yield to her/his demands, and do not value work. At the same time,
they put in extra work as a part of their efforts to maintain a personalised
relationship with the superior (Sinha, 1980).
Against the backdrop such values, Sinhas (1980;1995) programmatic
research justifies leadership styles for Indian organisations. Bureaucratic and
F styles tend to overlap. The nurturant-task (NT) style has a positive overlap
with F on one side and P on the other. Accordingly, F, NT, and P represent
a broad developmental continuum of styles applicable to bottom and middle
level leaders in the organisational hierarchy (Sinha, 1995).
The F leader is basically a power-oriented leader, neither caring for the
subordinates nor understanding their problems. Such a leader takes all
decisions, maintains a distance from his/her subordinates, and imposes strict
discipline. Attaching immense importance to power and position, he/she
thinks that by exercising authority he/she can get any job done. This leader
believes that he/she is the only person responsible for anything and everything happening in the organisation.
The NT leader is predominantly task-oriented, and expresses nurturance
in terms of care, consideration, warmth, support and affection for his/her
subordinates, and a deep interest in their growth and well-being. Nurturance
facilitates task achievement and the latter creates conditions for more nurturance. This leader expresses concern for both productivity and subordinates need for dependency and personalised relationship. The NT style is
effective in relation to those subordinates who prefer a personalised relationship, feel excessive dependency, accept status difference, and have weak work
values. As the leader guides, monitors, and assigns responsibility to the subordinates, they gain experience, expertise, and develop self-confidence. At
this point, if the leader is sensitive to their growth and preparedness, he/she
will change too and will shift from the NT to the P style.
The P leader is predominantly people-oriented and takes decisions by
involving the group members. Such a leader works along with the group
and encourages the members to learn, grow and develop. Communication
flows freely, group members are happy and satisfied, and are responsible for
any loss or gain under the P leader.
It has been observed that when the leader perceives subordinates to be
less efficient, not committed to work, and unwilling to work on their own,
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 99

the effective style may be either F or NT. When subordinates do not depend
on the leader and do not need personal care, the leader may adopt the P style.
The leader may adopt a dominant style but can shift to other styles when
dealing with the subordinates differing in nature. Like the life cycle theory
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), the shift from one style to another depends
on the growth/maturity or degree of preparedness of subordinates and the
context.
It is commonly believed that defence is a traditional, rigid and disciplined
organisation and authoritarian leaders exist at all levels. A study on the
American Air Force (Vecchio, 1990) revealed that the directive leader enhanced group performance rather than the non-directive leader at the level
of airmen. In the Indian Air Force (IAF), most of the employees are educated,
diligent, and trained to handle sophisticated equipment and critical situations
to meet strategic air operations. The bottom level leaders execute the job
and achieve the target set by the top and middle level leaders. They work
under pressure to complete the assigned task with the available resources
and are held accountable for results. Consequently, the leader at the bottom
level uses authoritative power. The top level leaders discuss various plans,
policies and strategies with the middle level leaders before giving them orders
for execution. It is expected that the predominant leadership style at the
bottom level is F and at the middle level NT and P.

Work Behaviour

Work behaviour is conceptualised taking into account (a) organisational

commitment, (b) job satisfaction, (c) challenging task, (d ) job performance,
(e) target realisation, ( f ) stress effect, and ( g ) intention to quit. While job
performance and target realisation assess work activities, the other variables
assess the attitudes/feelings towards work.
The IAF personnel defend the country against internal disturbances and
external threat. The personnel are taught to obey the superiors commands,
maintain discipline, sincerity, punctuality and develop respect for their superiors. Superiors are vested with enormous power and they always maintain a
distance from their subordinates. Subordinates are not expected to argue
with their superiors, whatsoever the case may be, rather they should use respectable language when addressing their superiors. Lower level subordinates/
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

airmen are not as responsible as first line superiors/officers. They do routine

jobs and perform tasks assigned by their superiors. They are expected to
possess practical skills and knowledge of the job they do. However, officers
are accountable to the middle level leaders/senior officers. Officers are more
involved in coordinating and managing resources to achieve the target. Their
jobs are more innovative and demanding. Because of difference in responsibilities and nature of tasks, airmen and officers are likely to differ on work
behaviour.

Work Behaviour and Leadership Styles

Organisational commitment is an attitudinal or a behavioural concept

(Salancik, 1977). Attitudinal commitment refers to the process by which
employees identify with the values, roles and activities of the organisation.
Conversely, behavioural commitment refers to the process by which an employees past behaviour serves to bind her/him to an organisation. A leader
who provides excessive directions to subordinates may reduce their autonomy
and responsibilities, resulting in decreased commitment of subordinates
(Rosin & Korabik, 1991). Commitment increases only if the leader realises
the values and goals of the organisation (Weiner, 1982) and behaves in a
supporting/participative manner (Singh, 1990; Welch & LeVan, 1981).
Thus, in accordance with what has already been discussed about leadership styles, subordinates commitment to the organisation is likely to increase
under NT and P leaders and decrease under F leaders.
Job satisfaction refers to attitude towards job. A leader possessing technical
competence and showing consideration to his/her subordinates increases
job satisfaction of his/her subordinates (Schriesheim & Murphy, 1976).
Also, a leader evoking participation, administering rewards fairly, creating a
good organisational climate (Srivastava, 1987) and improving human relations
increases job satisfaction (Singh & Pestonjee, 1990). P leaders are employeeoriented, fact-minded in administration of rewards and seek participation
of subordinates to decide the time, task and resources. NT leaders not only
attach importance to the task, but also take care of their subordinates.
F leaders decide the subordinates job and reward those whom they like.
Hence, subordinates job satisfaction is likely to increase under NT and
P leaders and decrease under F leaders.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 101

A challenging task may be characterised by (a) a lot of constraints, (b) risk,

and (c) difficulty. The accomplishment of such a task requires employees
extraordinary efforts. If employees receive encouragement, support, and a
suitable reward from their superior, they may accomplish any challenging
task. Subordinates are unlikely to accept challenging tasks under F leaders
because such leaders provide neither encouragement nor reward for task
performance. Task-minded NT leaders and people-oriented P leaders provide
support and encouragement to their subordinates to take up challenging
responsibilities. Hence, subordinates who perceive their leaders as NT and
P are likely to accept challenging tasks.
Job performance refers to the observable things employees do that are
relevant to the organisations goal (Campbell, McHenry, & Wise, 1990).
Subordinates job performance increases when they believe that they have
the relevant knowledge and skills to execute the job, a leader provides job
autonomy, gives contingent reward (Padsakoff & Todor, 1985) and shares
their feelings (Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1998). P leaders emphasise relationship, provide autonomy, and administer rewards impartially. NT leaders
support and guide subordinates and reward performance. Hence, subordinates job performance is likely to increase under NT and P leaders and
decrease under F leaders.
Target realisation is the extent to which employees achieve their own and
departmental targets in time. Employees working in a favourable climate
realise higher targets (Verma, 1995). Instead of focusing on the target,
F leaders focus on their own goals. P leaders do not emphasise target realisation rather their subordinates decide it. NT leaders inspire subordinates to
achieve the goals in time. Hence, subordinates who perceive their leaders as
NT are likely to achieve the target as per schedule.
Stress is a state wherein the persons mind and body are forced to deviate
from normal functioning (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Stress produces negative effects-like smoking, drinking, and psychosomatic diseases. A favourable
organisational climate, employees participation (Cooper, 1983), job autonomy, and friendly relations with coworkers (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van
Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975) reduce the effects of stress. P leaders reduce
stress by providing job autonomy, evoking participation and maintaining a
good relationship with their subordinates. On the other hand, F leaders
exacerbate the stress levels of their subordinates because of their carrot and
stick policy, independent decision-making and directing subordinates
to execute the pre-planned task. Stress effects are likely to increase under
F leaders and decrease under P leaders.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

The intention to quit refers to the desire of employees to leave the organisation. Unwillingness to serve the organisation leads to voluntary turnover
and absenteeism (Michaels & Spector, 1982). Subordinates are likely to
quit the organisation under F leaders because such leaders enjoy absolute
power and provide no autonomy to their subordinates. NT and P leaders
develop an interpersonal relationship with their subordinates, take care of
them and create a friendly climate where subordinates work with alacrity.
Thus, subordinates intention to quit is likely to increase under F and decrease
under NT and P leaders.

Method

Sample

The IAF operates through various commands. Many units work under each
command, the rules, regulations and functioning of the units are identical
and all are governed by the Air Headquarters located at New Delhi. Two
unitsone from the Eastern Air Command located in West Bengal and the
other from the Western Air Command located in Gujaratwere selected
for the study. There were 3,300 employees working in different departments
of logistics, technical, medical, etc. There were 7 female employees but they
were excluded from the sample to rule out the possibility of gender bias.
Out of the male employees, 20 were senior officers, 240 officers and 3,033
were airmen. Since senior officers were few in number, they were excluded
from the sample. A sample of 100 (41.66%) officers and 400 (13.19%) airmen was randomly selected. Each subject was given a questionnaire and
requested to return the completed questionnaire after a fortnight. Three
hundred sixty-two questionnaires (72.4%) were returned75 from officers
and 287 from airmen.
Out of 362 respondents, 66.7% were married and the remainder were
unmarried. Of the total, 33.57% respondents were undergraduates and
62.43% had education up to graduation and above. Officers and airmen
did not differ in terms of age, years of experience and number of promotions
received. Officers had more years of formal education, higher basic salary
and smaller family size compared to airmen (Table 1). Family size indicated
the predominance of nuclear families in both groups.

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,

2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 103

Table 1
Sample Profile
Airmen
Variable

Age
Years of service
Years of education
Basic salary
No. of promotions
Family size

32.48
13.33
13.36
1488.73
2.59
3.98

Officers
SD

9.22
8.77
2.29
334.91
1.52
1.47

M
33.97
12.17
16.16
3583.67
2.61
3.13

SD
6.82
6.62
1.55
797.93
.77
1.11

t
1.56
1.25
12.45
22.23
.14
5.50

p < .001 (two-tailed).

Measures

The initial part of the questionnaire elicited data on age, length of service,
educational qualification, number of years studied, basic salary, number of
promotion(s), number of family members, and their marital status. Along
with the socio-demographic characteristics, the following variables were
measured.
Perception of Leadership Style. F, NT and P styles were assessed using 30
items developed by Sinha (1987). Ten items assessed each style. Subordinates
were asked to evaluate their immediate superiors. Items measuring F style
included, My superior keeps the important information to herself/himself ,
and My superior thinks that s/he is always right in making decisions. The
NT style was assessed by items like, My superior gladly guides and directs
those subordinates who work hard, and My superior feels good when s/he
finds her/his subordinates eager to learn. Items measuring P style included,
My superior often consults her/his subordinates, and My superior allows
her/his subordinates to solve a problem jointly. All the items were positively keyed using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (0) to
always (4). The alpha reliabilities in this study were .71 for the F scale, .87
for the NT scale, and .89 for the P scale. High scores indicated greater
manifestation of a particular style.
Organisational Commitment. Nine items were used to measure organisational commitment. Eight items were taken from Mowday, Steers, and
Porters (1979) scale and one item I support the extra curricular activities

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,

2015

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

organized by this organisation was added. Each item was rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
When scores were factor analysed using the principal component method
and rotated through the varimax procedure, two extracted factors explained
54.54% of total variance. The first factor, affective commitment, comprised four positively keyed items and its alpha reliability was .75. Items
included I am proud to tell that I am a part of this organisation, and I am
willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond the call of my duty in order to
help this organisation to be successful. The second factor, continuance
commitment, comprised five items (including three negatively keyed items)
and had an alpha reliability of .71. Items included, There is not too much
to be gained by sticking with this organisation indefinitely, and Deciding
to work for this organisation was a definite mistake on my part. High scores
indicated more affective and continuance commitment.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using an 18-item questionnaire. Fourteen items were selected from the job satisfaction scale of
Kanungo, Mishra, and Dayal (1975) and four items were addedleave
facility, accommodation, welfare facilities, and interpersonal relationship.
Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from highly dissatisfied (1)
to highly satisfied (5). When the scores were factor analysed using the
principal component method and rotated through the varimax procedure,
two factors were extracted that explained 57.78% of total variance. The first
factor that loaded significantly on 12 items was extrinsic satisfaction. It
included items like to what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with...
basic salary, and ... working hours. The second factor that loaded significantly on 6 items was intrinsic satisfaction. This comprised such items as
to what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with... responsibility, and
... advancement. The alpha reliabilities of extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction
were .88 and .82. High scores were indicative of greater intrinsic and extrinsic
job satisfaction.
Challenging Task. A 3-item scale was developed to assess the willingness
to accept a challenging task. It included items like I accept the task... that
carries a lot of constraints, ... that involves risk, and ... that is most difficult
to perform. Each item was evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5). Factor analysis of
the scores using the principal component method yielded, one factor that
explained 62.98% of total variance. The alpha reliability of the scale was .70.
High scores denoted greater willingness to accept a challenging task.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 105

Job Performance. Seven items were selected to measure job performance

taking decisions, meeting deadlines, producing satisfactory quality of work,
producing satisfactory quantity of work, planning and organising work,
facing conflict situations, and feeling confident enough to handle the job
from Abrainiss (1985) job performance scale. Each item was rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very poor (1) to very well (5).
The respondents were asked to report how well they had done on each item
over the last 6 months. Factor analysis of the scores by the principal component method yielded one factor that explained 51.45% of total variance. The
alpha reliability of the scale was .76. High scores were indicative of high
performance.
Target Realisation. Two items that measured target realisation were How
often is your department able to achieve the target set for your department?, and How often are you able to achieve the target set by you?.
Both items were scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from not at all (1)
to always (5). Factor analysis of the scores by the principal component
method yielded one factor that explained 76.8% of total variance. The alpha
reliability was .70. High scores denoted greater target realisation.
Stress Effect. Psychosomatic symptoms of stress were assessed by 4 items
How often do you get disturbed sleep?, How tired do you feel at the end
of the day?, How often do you take drinks to get relief from tension?,
and How often do you go for smoking to get mentally relaxed?. Each
item was keyed positively on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never
(1) to always (5). Factor analysis of the scores yielded, one factor that
explained 43.8% of total variance. The alpha reliability was .57. High scores
were indicative of greater stress effect.
Intention to Quit. Four items were developed to measure the intention
to quitHow often do you think of quitting your present organisation?,
How long do you intend to remain in this organisation?, Would you
prefer another ideal job than the one you work in?, and How frequently
are you applying for jobs in other organisations?. The response categories
for all items except the second item ranged from never (1) to always (5).
The second item was keyed negatively and response descriptions varied from
one to two years (5) to more than nine years (1). Factor analysis of
the scores revealed, one factor that explained 56.34% of total variance.
The coefficient alpha was .74. Higher scores indicated a greater intention
to quit.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

Procedure

After seeking permission from the concerned authority, an appointment

was fixed well in advance with each respondent separately. Each respondent
was briefed about the purpose of the study and anonymity of responses.
They were requested to give their honest responses to each item and complete
the questionnaire without mentioning their names.

Results

Subordinates Perceived Leadership Styles

The airmen perceived their immediate superiors/officers and first line

supervisors/officers perceived the middle level superiors/senior officers on
leadership. Airmen perceived their superiors to be higher on F as compared
to officers. The officers perceived their superiors to be higher on NT followed
by P than airmen. Thus, the F style dominated at the bottom level, and the
NT style at the middle level (Table 2). These findings substantiated our
proposition (Kaur, 1993). The perceived predominant leadership style at
the bottom level (F) decreased at the middle level and the perceived predominant styles at the middle level (NT and P) decreased at the bottom
level. As the levels changed from bottom to middle, the predominant style
also changed on the progressive continuum from F to NT and P type.
Table 2
Perception of Leadership Styles
Airmen

Officers

Styles

SD

SD

F
NT
P

28.18
22.92
17.58

6.06
8.54
8.61

25.93
26.55
23.88

6.69
6.59
8.28

2.80
3.96
5.68

p < .01, p < .001.

Correlations among styles revealed that when airmen and officers perceived
their immediate superiors to be higher on F, they perceived these same superiors to be lower on NT and P styles (Table 3). The F style of a leader
deterred the NT and P styles, but the NT and P styles had a significant
overlap (Table 3).
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 107

Table 3
Correlation between Leadership Styles
Styles a

F
NT
P

NT

.12
1.00
.70

1.00
.42
.71

.32
.73
1.00

p < .05, p < .001.

a
Upper diagonal values refer to leadership styles of officers and lower diagonal to those of
senior offices.

Work Behaviour

Officers expressed greater affective and continuance commitment, higher

extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction, greater preference for challenging
task, higher job performance, greater target realisation and lower desire to
quit the organisation as compared to airmen (Table 4). If the jobs assigned
by senior officers were not executed, officers were accountable which was
not so in the case of airmen. Hence, officers surpassed airmen on all the
dimensions of work behaviour except stress effect.
Table 4
Work Behaviour of Airmen and Officers
Airmen
Work Behaviour
Affective commitment
Continuance commitment
Extrinsic satisfaction
Intrinsic satisfaction
Challenging task
Job performance
Target realisation
Stress effect
Intention to quit

Officers

SD

SD

13.98
14.03
33.46
18.05
10.65
25.99
7.57
8.49
10.85

3.57
4.22
9.89
5.11
2.55
4.14
1.41
2.58
3.59

15.89
16.44
39.73
22.34
11.64
28.75
8.11
8.47
7.93

3.61
4.77
8.93
4.66
2.18
3.54
1.21
2.65
3.01

4.10
3.98
5.30
6.97
3.37
5.79
3.30
.07
7.17

p < .001.

Work Behaviour and Leadership Styles

To examine the influence of leadership styles on work behaviour, the three

styles were regressed against each dimension of work behaviour. The beta
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

coefficients were often nonsignificant and contrary to the direction of bivariate

correlations between each dimension of work behaviour and leadership style.
Also, when one style of leadership was regressed against the other two styles,
R2 was highly significant. These observations confirmed multicollinearity.
Hence, each style was regressed against a dimension of work behaviour. The
standardised beta indicated the bivariate correlation and its square was R2
(Table 5).
Table 5
Regression Analysis for Leadership Styles Predicting Work Behaviour

DV a

IV b

Affective
commitment

F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P
F
NT
P

.05
.07
.07
.21
.16
.23
.36
.46
.60
.16
.19
.20
.01
.06
.05
.01
.12
.11
.01
.04
.01
.08
.03
.06
.16
.09
.15

Continuance
commitment
Extrinsic
satisfaction
Intrinsic
satisfaction
Challenging
task
Job
performance
Target
realisation
Stress effect

Intention
to quit

Airmen
SEB
.04
.02
.02
.04
.03
.03
.09
.06
.06
.05
.03
.03
.03
.02
.02
.04
.03
.03
.01
.01
.02
.03
.02
.02
.03
.02
.02

.08
.17
.17
.30
.33
.46
.22
.39
.52
.19
.32
.33
.02
.19
.18
.01
.25
.22
.01
.23
.08
.19
.11
.19
.27
.22
.36

.18
.27
.22
.28
.38
.35
.67
.58
.60
.37
.40
.36
.05
.08
.07
.12
.18
.15
.03
.02
.01
.01
.02
.05
.24
.20
.21

Officers
SEB
.06
.06
.04
.08
.07
.05
.14
.14
.11
.07
.07
.05
.04
.04
.03
.06
.06
.05
.02
.01
.02
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.03

.33
.50
.51
.39
.53
.60
.50
.43
.56
.54
.57
.65
.14
.23
.28
.22
.34
.35
.16
.14
.10
.01
.05
.15
.54
.44
.59

p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.

aDV = Dependent variable, bIV = Independent variable.

Airmen were less committed, less satisfied, experienced stress, and were
unwilling to stay in the defence services under superiors who adopted the
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 109

F style. Conversely, airmen were highly committed, experienced greater

job satisfaction, accepted challenging tasks, had better performance, and
reported lower intention to quit the organisation under NT and P superiors.
Target realisation of airmen was higher under NT superiors and stress effect
was lower under P superiors. Similar findings were observed in the case of
officers. Officers were less committed, less satisfied, performed poorly, and
expressed greater willingness to leave the organisation under F superiors.
However, they were highly committed, satisfied with their job, accepted
challenging tasks, performed better, and expressed less desire to quit the
organisation under NT and P superiors. Officers desire to realise the target
increased under NT superiors (Table 5). These findings supported the assumptions of the study.

Discussion

In this study, subordinates assessed their superiors on leadership styles and

self-reported their work behaviour. First, subordinates assessed superiors
because leadership scales embodied positive characteristics. Evidence indicated that an individual has a propensity to overevaluate himself/herself
compared to his/her peers on positive attributes and undervalue himself/
herself on negative attributes (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986). If leaders rated themselves on leadership styles, they would overestimate themselves on positive
attributes. Using subordinates ratings of their superiors minimised this problem (Khuntia & Suar, 2004). Second, the Johari window mentiones that in
the interpersonal context, some of the attitudes, motives and behaviour of
the person are unknown to himself/herself but are known to others with
whom the individual interacts (Luft, 1961). Such unknown attitudes, motives and behaviour of the superior were examined by taking into consideration the subordinates assessment of their superior.
Sinha (1995) postulated that the F, NT, and P styles represented a developmental continuum of styles. The NT style correlated positively and significantly with the P style. The same leader exhibited different styles depending
on the psychological preparedness of the subordinates. Though airmen perceived their leaders (officers) to be predominantly F, the same leaders were
perceived to be NT and P to a great extent. Conversely, officers perceived
that their superiors adopted the NT style followed by the P and F styles.
Airmen and officers realised their own and departmental targets under
the NT leader. Airman reported less commitment, lower job satisfaction
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

but greater stress and unwillingness to stay in the organisation when they
perceived their leader to be the F type. However, they were committed, satisfied, accepted challenging tasks, and expressed a desire to continue in the
IAF when they perceived their leaders to be either the NT or the P type.
Also, officers were less committed, less satisfied with their job, performed
poorly, and were unwilling to remain in the organisation when their leaders
were perceived to be F. On the other hand, officers expressed greater commitment, higher job satisfaction, accepted challenging task, performed better,
and had little intention to quit the organisation when the senior officers
were perceived to be either the NT or the P type.
Many factors affected leadership such as the organisational set-up, nature
of task, characteristics of subordinates, and demands from the top. These
factors compelled the leader to behave in a particular manner that may not
be appreciated by the subordinates. Results indicated that the F style was a
predominant style at the first line supervisory level, and the NT followed
by the P style at the middle level. First, the basic objective of the IAF is to
maintain discipline and ensure the effective implementation of orders and
commands. A first line officer was empowered to execute a job through airmen. The distance between an officer and an airman was greater than that
between an officer and a senior officer. Previous findings (Habibullah &
Sinha, 1980) suggested that power, distance and discipline were associated
with a F leader. Where distance, discipline and power were highly maintained, the leader adopted the F style. Second, with respect to task, officers
worked under constraints and delivered results to senior officers. Officers
were under so much pressure from senior officers that they were compelled
to act in an autocratic manner. Third, the promotion avenues for airmen
were limited and they could not be internally promoted. This probably explains why officers maintained a distance from and exercised authority over
airmen. In contrast, power, distance and discipline were less between an
officer and a senior officer. Officers performance and length of service were
deciding factors for promotion to the position of senior officer. Moreover,
senior officers discussed various plans and strategies with and gave suggestions
to officers to execute the plans. This explains why officers perceived the
senior officer to be the NT type followed by the P type.
The work behaviour of officers differed from that of airmen because
officers were more responsible and accountable to their senior officers. They
were more committed to the organisation, expressed greater willingness to
accept challenging tasks, performed better, and realised targets timely compared to airmen. Their high level of commitment and satisfaction undermined the intention to leave the organisation compared to airmen.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 111

Humane and fair management practices acted as a critical determinant

in enhancing employees work behaviour. F leaders were power-minded,
exhibited least concern for their subordinates, used fear and punishment to
get the work done, arbitrarily administered rewards to those whom they
liked, and created a climate of anxiety and tension. The F supervisory style,
therefore, reduced commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, and increased stress and intention to quit the organisation. Irrespective of the level,
the NT leaders supported, guided and encouraged subordinates and target
realisation was high under them.
In the IAF, everyone needs to be always alert, vigilant and well prepared
for any exigency. Employees are competent, energetic and self-motivated.
Task-oriented (NT) and people-oriented (P) leaders assigned responsibilities,
supported subordinates and rewarded them fairly, created a friendly group
climate, and clearly explained to the subordinates what was expected of them.
Accordingly, commitment, job satisfaction, acceptance of challenging tasks,
job performance, intention to continue in the IAF of airmen and officers
increased when they perceived their leader to be either the NT or the P type.
In the defence services, employees work under constraints and difficulties
and are hard-pressed to discharge their responsibilities. Even the NT and
P styles of senior officers failed to reduce the stress effects of officers. The
P style of officers reduced stress effects in the case of airmen only.
Work behaviour ensures organisational effectiveness. By and large, F leaders deterred but NT and P leaders facilitated such behaviour. As Sinha (1995,
pp. 5155) suggested, through self-analysis, counselling, and training sessions, the predominant F style of first line supervisors may be changed to
the NT style to ensure greater target realisation and favourable work behaviour of subordinates. Moreover, empathy, trust, reciprocity, and interpersonal
relations or social capital may moderate between leadership styles and subordinates work behaviour. Further research in this direction is warranted in
the IAF for a greater understanding of leadership.

REFERENCES

ABRAINIS, D.J. (1985). Job stressors, strain, job performance, social support and social conflict:
Causal relationship in a four-wave longitudinal panel study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.
BEEHR, T.A., & NEWMAN, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4),
665669.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

CAPLAN, R.D., COBB, S., FRENCH, J.R. P. Jr, VAN HARRISON, R., & PINNEAU, S.R. Jr. (1975).
Job demand and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. (HEW Publication
No. NIOSH). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
CAMPBELL , J.P., MCHENRY, J.J., & WISE, L.L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a
population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313333.
COOPER, C.L. (1983). Identifying stressors at work. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27(5),
369376.
GOSLING, J., & MINTZBERG, H. (2003, November). The five minds of a manager. Harvard
Business Review, 5464.
HABIBULLAH, A.H.M., & SINHA, J.B.P. (1980). Motivational climate and leadership styles.
Vikalpa, 5(1), 8593.
HERSEY, P., & BLANCHARD, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
KAKAR, S. (1971). Authority patterns of subordinates behaviour in Indian organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 298307.
KANUNGO, R.N., MISHRA, S.B., & DAYAL, I. (1975). Relationship of job involvement to perceived
importance and satisfaction of employee needs. International Review of Applied Psychology,
24(1), 4959.
KATZ, D., & KAHN, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley.
KATZ, R.L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90102.
KAUR, R. (1993). Managerial styles in the public sector. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
28(4), 362368.
KHUNTIA, R., & SUAR, D. (2004). A scale to assess ethical leadership of Indian private and
public sector managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 1326.
LAL, J.L. (1983). Decision making style and situational variables: A study of managers in
large enterprises. Decision, 10(3), 269281.
LUFT, J. (1961). The Johari window. Human Relations Training News, 5(1), 67.
MAYFIELD, J.R., MAYFIELD, M.R., & KOPF, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language
on subordinates performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37(3&4),
235238.
MEADE, R.D. (1967). An experimental study of leadership in India. Journal of Social Psychology,
72(1), 3543.
MICHAELS, C.E., & SPECTOR, P.E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley,
Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 5359.
MISUMI, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: An interdisciplinary Japanese research
program. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
MISUMI, J., & PETERSON, M. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership:
Review of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 198223.
MOWDAY, R.T., S TEERS , R.M., & PORTER , L.W. (1979). The measure of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224247.
NILAKANTHA, V., & RAMNARAYAN, S. (1990). Managers in the middle: A case of underdevelopment
and underutilization. Vikalpa, 15(2), 312.
PADSAKOFF, P.M., & TODOR, W.D. (1985). Relationship between leader reward and punishment
behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, 11(1), 5573.
PERLOFF, L.S., & FETZER, B.K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to
victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502510.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

Leadership Styles and Work Behaviour / 113

ROSIN, H.M., & KORABIK, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention
to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(4), 317330.
SALANCIK, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In
B. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds), New direction in organizational behavior (pp. 154),
Chicago: St. Clair Press.
SCHRIESHEIM, C.A., & MURPHY, C.J. (1976). Relationships between leader behavior and
subordinate satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational moderators. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 634641.
SHARMA, P., & BHAL, K. (2001). Ethical decision making by managers in public and private
sector organizations. Psychological Studies, 46(3), 222232.
SINGH, J.P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organisational Studies,
11(1), 75101.
SINGH, M., & PESTONJEE, D.M. (1990). Job involvement, sense of participation and job
satisfaction: A study in banking industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(2),
159165.
S INHA, J.B.P. (1973). Organizational climate and problems of management in India.
International Review of Applied Psychology, 22(1), 5564.
SINHA, J.B.P. (1980). The nurturant-task leader. New Delhi: Concept.
SINHA, J.B.P. (1987). Leadership styles scale. Patna: Assert Publications.
SINHA, J.B.P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage.
SINHA, J.B.P., & SINHA, M. (1974). Middle class values in organizational perspectives. Journal
of Social and Economic Studies, 1(1), 95114.
SRIVASTAVA, A.K. (1987). Organizational climate and job satisfaction of junior and middle
level central government officers: A comparative study. Psychological Review, 32(5&6),
1417.
SRIVASTAVA, S.K., & SHARADKUMAR, S. (1984). Leadership style and effectiveness of junior
and middle level central government officers: A comparative study. Psychological Studies,
29(2), 136138.
STOGDILL, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.
VECCHIO, R.P. (1990). Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 141147.
VERMA, Y.V. (1995). Person-organisational fit and organizational climate as facilitators of work
behaviour: A study of Tata Steel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IIT, Kharagpur.
WEINER, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management
Review, 7(5), 418425.
WELCH, H.P., & LEVAN, H. (1981). Inter-relationships between organizational commitment
and job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior and organizational climate.
Human Relations, 34(6), 10791089.
YUKL, G., & VAN FLEET , D.D. (1998). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In
M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 147197). Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.

Damodar Suar is Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,
2015

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

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

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECH on October 29,

2015