LEADERSHIP STYLES ACROSS HIERARCHICAL LEVELS-

STUDY OF INDIAN MANAGERS

Madhavi Latha Kaithapalli1∗ and Raghava Rao Gundala2

1
Assistant Professor of Business, Frederick Institute of Technology, Nicosia, Cyprus.
and
2
Associate Professor – Business Studies, Americanos College, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Abstract. An understanding of leadership and its style is very important to understand

how to motivate employees and to achieve organizational goals. Several studies have
examined the leadership styles and behaviour of managers across hierarchical levels
to see whether or not the styles and behaviour are similar. The present study is an
attempt to find out the difference between the leadership styles of Indian managers
across various hierarchies. It found out that there are differences between the top,
middle, and lower levels of management with respect to the styles of leadership.
Managerial Styles among top management, middle and lower managements in public
and private sector respondents is also analyzed and found no significant differences in
the two sectors.

Key Words: Leadership Styles; Managerial Styles; Levels of Management;

Democratic; Developer; Benevolent autocrat; Bureaucrat; Compromiser; Autocrat;
Missionary; Deserter.

1. INTRODUCTION

Leadership styles play a significant role in the area of job satisfaction, interpersonal
relationships, job performance and commitment to work to reach the goal of any
organisation. A great deal of research on leadership has focused on leaders at the
upper organisational levels alone. This has happened as it was thought until recently
that the middle and the first level leaders have significantly less roles to play
towards the organisational success (Oshagbemi and Gill, 2004).

With the changes in the organisational structures and use of empowerment, the
development of leaders at all levels has become important for organisational
success. Despite the predominant role-played by managerial style there is,
unfortunately, a paucity of information regarding studies on managerial behaviour in
India. The present study examines the leadership styles and behaviour of managers
at different levels in Indian organisations. It found that there were significant
differences with respect to the styles of leadership across the hierarchies.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 22 345159, Fax: +357 22438234

E-mail Address: bus.km@fit.ac.cy
2. REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND LITERATURE

The issue of leadership has been an ongoing discussion for several decades (Bennis,
1989; Bennis and Nanus, 1985: Kotter, 1990; Posner and Kouzes, 1990; Truske,
1999) and has roots as far back as 1921 (Huges, Ginnett and Curphy, 1999). It is
considered an essential component of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Howell and Dipboye, 1982). Leadership is considered an essential component of
powerful organisational cultures (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). Recently there have
been works on emotional intelligence and leadership (Cooper and Sawaf, 1997;
Goleman, 1998). Thus the subject of leadership is an endlessly debated and
amplified topic of discussion.

There are several studies that examined the leadership styles and behaviour of
managers across hierarchical levels to see whether the styles of leadership are
similar or not. Nealey and Blood (1968) found in their study that effective
leadership styles and behaviours were different across various supervisory levels. It
was found out in this study that at the second level of supervision relationship
oriented leaders performed better where as at the first level task oriented leaders
were effective. As per Simon (1977) authority rests in the individual based on their
job as each job carries certain amount of authority, higher jobs carrying more and
lower jobs carrying less. So leadership style is contingent upon organisational
hierarchy. Mintzberg (1980) has many works which confirms that managerial work
is affected by the organisational hierarchy.

Bass (1997) studied on transactional leadership in New Zealand and US and found
out that management by exception is found out more in the lower levels than at the
higher levels in the organisation. There were no significant differences found
between the hierarchical levels and leadership styles in a study made on the
managers in Chinese- Japanese joint venture, by Wang and Satow (1994). One
study in North American organisations by Kabacoff (1999) found out that there are
clear and interpretable differences in leadership styles were obtained between
groups based on organisation level and function.

The views of several authors on leadership styles across hierarchies has been
summarised by Edwards (2000). As per Khaleelee and Woolf (1996) leadership
should be demonstrated at all levels in the hierarchy. They presented two case
studies in support of their views on this issue. As per Yukl (2002) there are
differences in job requirements and discretion across levels. He found that
hierarchies determine the leadership style. Colvin (2001) discusses the role of
meddle managers and how they significantly differ from the senior and lower level
managers.

Brosnahan (1999) has the view that hierarchy smoothers the leadership where as
Trichy (1997) suggests that hierarchy can be used as a framework for leadership
effectiveness. Recently one study made by Oshagbemi and Gill (2004) examined the
leadership styles and behaviours of managers at different levels in UK organisations.

2
It found that, generally, there are significant differences in the leadership styles
between senior and first – level managers, but not between senior and middle- level
managers nor between middle and first- level managers. As per Hunt (1996) the
various studies of leadership based on hierarchies does not advance the knowledge.

It can be seen from literature that there is no agreement on the relationship of

leadership style and organisational hierarchy. The present research is designed to
test whether there are any differences in leadership styles across hierarchical levels
in Indian organisations, where there are very few published articles on this subject.

3. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE DESIGN

To study the similarities and differences in the leadership styles of managers across
hierarchical levels in Indian organisation, the following research method was
employed in the study. The data was collected on the basis of a structured
questionnaire – Inventory of Managerial Styles, 3-D Theory, and Reddin (1987).

There are many styles of leaders which deal with either task or relationship
orientation. Managers have a social duty to be more effective. The earlier
frameworks did not consider effectiveness. W. J. Reddin (1987) has introduced the
angle of effectiveness in measuring managers in addition to task and people
orientation. Reddin believes three-yard sticks can measure all managers. On this
basis, he defines eight styles. The present study uses the eight styles proposed by
Reddin

Based on how much of each characteristic a manager possess, eight styles can be
defined. They are:

1. The deserter, who has none, or only a minimum of these three

characteristics;
2. The bureaucrat, who has effectiveness only;
3. The missionary, who only has relationship orientation;
4. The developer, who has both effectiveness and relationships
orientation;
5. The autocrat, who has task orientation only;
6. The benevolent autocrat, who has both effectiveness and task
orientation;
7. The Compromiser, with both task orientation and relationships
orientation;
8. The Democratic, which has all three characteristics.

The questionnaire was modified in the light of a pilot study consisting of 50

respondents. The questionnaire consisted of ten dimensions, viz., (1) planning, (2)
data collection (3) implementation, (4) evaluation, (5) flexibility, (6) conflicts, (7)
controls, (8) communications, (9) superiors, and (10) subordinates. Each dimension
consisted of eight statements measuring eight managerial styles – democratic,

3
benevolent autocratic, developer, bureaucrat, Compromiser, autocrat, missionary
and deserter. Thus the total number of statements was eighty. The dimensions
included in this study cover most of the managerial styles exhibited in their day to
day functioning either in achieving organisational or self-goals.

The study utilized a sample drawn from ten industrial units – four from the public
sector and six from the private sector. These were large, well-known enterprises
with a cosmopolitan approach to the selection, recruitment, and composition of their
workforces.

400 respondents were initially chosen for the study using stratified random
sampling. Some of the responses were rejected at the processing stage because of
their inconsistency and non-validity – resulting in a final sample size of 350.

The respondents were asked to read the eight statements of each dimension and
assign ten points to not more than four statements. The respondents were given
adequate latitude of choice ranging from choosing one statement to four statements.
The assignment of points reflects the extent to which a particular statement reflects
the role behaviour of the respondent on his job. The ranks were assigned on the
basis of the scores. Percentage analysis was also performed. Two-way analysis of
variance by ranks was used to examine the association between the dependent and
independent variables.

Of the 350 respondents, 200 respondents (57.14 percent) were from the public
sector, with the remaining 150 (42.86 percent) from the private sector. The relatively
smaller number of private sector respondents resulted from a larger number of
rejected responses from this group. Thirty respondents were from top management,
70 from middle management, and 250 from lower management. With respect to
age, 18.57 percent of respondents were 47 years or older, 27.15 percent were aged
from 36 years to 46 years, and 54.28 percent were aged from 25 years to 35 years.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. OVERALL PATTERN OF MANAGERIAL STYLES

Table 1 shows the profile of managerial styles of both public and private sector
managers. Bureaucratic style is assigned the first rank followed by Benevolent-
autocratic. Developer and democratic styles are ranked third and fourth. The
percentage analysis indicates that about 25 per cent of managerial behaviour is
towards bureaucratic style. Benevolent-autocratic behaviour existed in about 19 per
cent. The developer behaviour having trust and confidence in subordinates is 15 per
cent and 14 per cent is directed towards democratic work culture.

Analysis of this shows that bureaucratic, benevolent-autocratic and autocratic

managerial styles which are cantered on organizations authority and uses coercive
and reward power for achieving goals amount to more than 53 per cent. Against

4
this, democratic and developer styles that emphasize democratic systems placing
trust and confidence on subordinates amount to only 29 per cent.

Compromiser, autocratic, missionary and deserter styles which are not functionally
conducive are ranked fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth. But these four styles amount
to 28 per cent of managerial behaviour.

4.2. PROFILE OF MANAGERIAL STYLES VIS-À-VIS LEVELS OF

MANAGEMENT

Utmost care has been taken to analyse the profile of managerial styles at all levels of
management, which show the comparative results of private vs. public sectors in
tables 3, 4, 5 and 6, which presents the managerial styles of the top, middle, and
lower management. The evidence presented in these tables leads us to conclude that
the managerial hierarchy significantly affects the profile of managerial styles.
Further, the tables indicate clearly that the top management follows more of
benevolent autocratic style and less of others. It is followed by democratic and
developer styles. Benevolent- autocratic and autocratic behaviour patterns taken
together account for 38 per cent. The combined democratic and developer
behaviour, on the other hand, works out to around 37 per cent. On the basis of this
analysis, one could conclude that even the top management, in India, does not
appear to have developed firm managerial styles and values.

The anatomy of the lower and the middle management brings out that bureaucratic
style is the most pronounced in both the middle management and the lower
management. It is followed by the benevolent autocratic style. Between the two,
the attitude towards teamwork is, however, higher in the lower management than in
the middle management. The percentage of the democratic style is around 15 in the
lower management, as against only 9 in the middle management. The percentage of
autocratic style is more in the lower management than in the middle management;
the respective percentages are 10.09 and 8.48. Further comparison between the
middle management and the lower management indicates that the percentage of
deserter is negligible in the lower management in comparison with the higher
percentage in the middle management. It is even less than 1 per cent in the former
case as against 7 per cent in the latter.

The foregoing analysis indicates that managing through formal authority systems
and attitude towards bureaucratic functioning are quite common in all the
management categories, viz., and top, middle and lower, irrespective of the
corporate ownership. However, managing through economic rewards and
punishments is more common in the top management category than in the middle
and lower management. Bureaucratic attitude is more pronounced in the lower and
the middle management categories than in the top management, the respective
percentages being 26, 25 and 12.05. The attitude towards benevolent autocratic,
however, shows a reverse trend. The percentage of this behaviour works out to
more than 25 in the top management group, as against only 20 and 18 in the case of

5
the middle and the lower management respectively. The percentage of non-effective
behaviour is 25 in the top management category as against 30 and a little more than
27 in the middle and the lower management categories. The difference on this
dimension is, thus, not pronounced. On the basis of the above analysis we can draw
some interesting conclusions.

Top management lacks a clear belief structure about managerial styles. Even in this
category, surprisingly, there is a style flux. Management in this category (top)
adopts more formal organisational authority and economic rewards and less non-
formal power (democratic and placing trust in the subordinates) in achieving the
organisational and personal objectives.

The lower and the middle management are in their approach more bureaucratic and
less democratic and developer. However, orientation towards democratic behaviour
is higher in the lower management than in the middle management. There is no
evidence of a crystallised style in both the middle and the lower management.

Managerial Styles among top management in public and private sector respondents
is given in table 4. From this table one can understand that there is no difference
among public and private sector respondents’ goal values in top management. Table
5 shows middle management styles in public and private sectors. Table 6 shows
lower management styles in public and private sectors. In these tables also there is
no significant difference is found.

5. CONCLUSION

Overall, this study indicates that the bureaucratic style is the most predominant style
among the managers of India. The benevolent autocratic, developer and democratic
styles follow it. The analysis indicates the absence of a clear-cut direction in the
managerial behaviour, which reflects lack of managerial conviction and values of
Indian managers.

Organizational hierarchy is found to be one of the significant determinants of the

managerial styles. The top management is characterized by benevolent autocratic,
the middle management and the lower management by the bureaucratic behaviour.
These behaviour differences can be on account of the different opportunities
sanctioned to these groups for the exercise of power and control over organizational
systems and subordinates. The top management is normally sanctioned sufficient
control over the organizational reward and punishment system. This makes it more
capable of regulating the behaviour of the subordinates. The middle and the lower
management cannot exercise as much control over the subordinates in the absence
of embedded organizational authority. This explains the dominance of the
bureaucratic style among them.

6
REFERENCES

[1] Bass, Bernard, M, Does the Transactional-transformational Leadership

Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries? American
Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139, 1997.
[2] Bennis, W, On Becoming a Leader, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[3] Bennis, W and Nanus, B, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, New
York: Harper & Row, 1985.
[4] Brosnahan, J, Public sector reform requires leadership”, Paper presented at the
Govt of the Future: Getting from here to thee Symposium, OECD Paris, 14-15
September, 1999.
[5] Cooper, R and Sawaf, A, Executive EQ: Intelligence and Leadership in
Organisations, New York: Grosset – Putnam, 1997.
[6] Edwards, G, Differences in leadership Style and Behaviour According to
Hierarchical Level in and organisation, A Monograph, The Leadership Trust
Foundation, Ross on Wye, 2000.
[7] Goleman, D, Working with Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam, 1998.
[8] Howell, W., and Dipboye, R, Essentials of Organisational and Industrial
Psychology, Homewood: The Dorsey Press, 1982.
[9] Hughes, R, Ginnett, R, and Curphy, G, Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of
Experience, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[10] Kabacoff, R.I, Management Level, Job Function and Leadership Style: A Large
Sample Study, paper presented at the 107th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association in Boston, MA, 1999.
[11] Katz, D, and Kahn, R, The Social Psychology of Organisations, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
[12] Khaleelee, O and Woolf, R, Personality, life experience and leadership
capability, Journal of Leadership & Organisation Development, Vol.17, No.6,
pp. 5-11, 1996.
[13] Kotter, J, A Force for change: How Leadership differs from Management, New
York: McMillan, 1990.
[14] Kotter, J and Heskett, J, Corporate Culture and Performance, New York: Free
Press, 1992.
[15] Mintzberg, H, The Nature of Managerial Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
[16] Nealey, SM, and Blood, MR, Leadership Performance of Nursing Supervisors
at Two Organisational Levels, Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 414-21,
1968.
[17] Oshagbemi, T, and Gill, R, Differences in Leadership Styles and Behaviour
across Hierarchical Levels in UK Organisations, Journal of The Leadership &
Organisation Development, 25(1), 93-106, 2004.
[18] Posner, J, and Kouzes, B, The Leadership Challenge: How to get extraordinary
things done in Organisations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
[19] Reddin, WJ, Effective Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi, 1987.

7
[20] Simon, H, The New Science of Management Decision, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
[21] Trichy, NM, and Devanna, MA, The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New
York, NY, 1986.
[22] Truske, S, Leadership in High Performance Organisational Cultures, Westport;
Quorum, 1999.
[23] Wang, Z and Satow, T, Leadership Styles and Organisational Effectiveness in
Chinese- Japanese Joint Ventures, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(4), 31-
7, 1994.

8
 Table 1: Overall Profile of Managerial Styles
N = 350
Styles Score Percentage Rank
Democratic 3,883 13.87 4
Developer 4,276 15.27 3
Benevolent autocratic 5,235 18.70 2
Bureaucratic 6,882 24.58 1
Compromiser 3,400 12.14 5
Autocrat 2,786 9.95 6
Missionary 896 3.20 7
Deserter 642 2.29 8
Total 28,000 100.00

Table 2: Ownership Pattern and Managerial Styles

Ownership Pattern
Public Sector N = 150 Private Sector N = 200 Total
Styles
N = 350
Score % Rank Score % Rank Score
Democratic 454 3.03 6 3,978 19.89 3 4,432
Developer 2,997 19.98 3 2,531 12.56 4 5,528
Benevolent 1,065 7.10 5 5,028 25.14 1 6,098
autocrat
Bureaucrat 4,653 31.02 1 4,200 21.00 2 8,853
Compromiser 3,471 23.14 2 1,207 6.04 6 4,678
Autocrat 1,743 11.62 4 1,804 9.02 5 3,547
Missionary 252 1.68 8 809 4.04 7 1,061
Deserter 365 2.43 7 443 2.22 8 808
Total 15,000 100.00 20,000 100.00 35,000

Xr2 = 9.91 (xr2, to be significant at p < 0.01, should be > 18.475).

9
 Table 3: Managerial Hierarchy and Managerial Styles

Managerial Hierarchy
Top Management Middle Management Lower Management Total
Styles
N = 30 N = 70 N = 250 N = 350
Score % Rank Score % Rank Score % Rank Score
Democratic 595 19.85 2 599 8.55 5 3,716 14.87 3 4,910
Developer 528 17.60 3 1,164 16.63 3 3,658 14.63 4 5,350
Benevolent 753 25.10 1 1,378 19.68 2 4,440 17.76 2 6,571
autocrat
Bureaucrat 361 12.05 5 1,766 25.23 1 6,409 25.64 1 8,536
Compromiser 200 6.65 6 762 10.88 4 3,267 13.07 5 4,229
Autocrat 389 12.95 4 594 8.48 6 2,522 10.09 6 3,505
Missionary 81 2.70 8 245 3.50 8 790 3.16 7 1,116
Deserter 93 3.10 7 492 7.03 7 198 0.79 8 783
Total 3,000 100.00 7,000 100.00 25,000 100.00 35,000

Table 4: Managerial styles in Top Management (N=30)

Private (N= 10) Public (N=20) Total

Styles
Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank
Democratic 178 17.8 2 417 20.85 2 595 19.85 2
Developer 174 17.4 3 354 17.7 3 528 17.60 3
Benevolent autocrat 249 24.9 1 504 25.2 1 753 25.10 1
Bureaucrat 160 16.0 4 201 10.05 5 361 12.05 5
Compromiser 72 7.2 6 201 10.05 5 361 12.05 5
Autocrat 128 12.8 5 261 13.05 4 389 12.95 4
Missionary 32 12.8 5 261 13.05 4 389 12.95 4
Deserter 46 4.6 7 47 2.35 8 93 3.10 7

Table 5: Middle Management and Managerial Styles (N=70)

Private (N= 30) Public (N=40) Total

Styles
Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank
Democratic 238 7.93 5 361 9.02 6 599 8.55 5
Developer 581 19.36 3 583 14.57 2 1,164 16.63 3
Benevolent 727 24.23 2 551 13.77 3 1,378 19.68 2
autocrat
Bureaucrat 918 30.60 1 848 21.20 1 1,766 25.23 1
Compromiser 289 9.63 4 473 11.82 4 762 10.88 4
Autocrat 222 7.4 6 372 9.3 5 594 8.48 6
Missionary 99 3.3 8 146 3.65 8 245 3.50 8
Deserter 217 7.23 7 275 6.87 7 492 7.03 7

10
 Table 6: Lower Management and Managerial Styles (N=250)

Private (N= 110) Public (N=140) Total

Styles
Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank Freq. % Rank
Democratic 1486 13.50 4 2230 15.92 3 3,716 14.87 3
Developer 1609 14.62 3 2049 14.63 4 3,658 14.63 4
Benevolent 1998 18.16 2 2442 17.44 2 4,440 17.76 2
autocrat
Bureaucrat 2435 22.13 1 3973 28.37 1 6,409 25.64 1
Compromiser 1404 12.76 5 1863 13.30 5 3,267 13.07 5
Autocrat 1210 11 6 1312 9.37 6 2,522 10.09 6
Missionary 396 3.6 7 394 2.81 7 790 3.16 7
Deserter 65 0.59 8 133 0.95 8 198 0.79 8

11