Leadership Style of Managers and Supervisors: A ... - EuroJournals

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 42 (2011) 

© EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 

http://www.eurojournals.com/EJEFAS.htm 

Leadership Style of Managers and Supervisors: 

A Case Study of Rourkela Steel Plant in India 

Bandana Nayak 

Head of the Department (HR), Institute of Business & Computer Studies 

Siksha ‘O’ Anisandhan University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India 

E-mail: dr.bandananayak@gmail.com 

Abstract 

This research aimed at 1) to explore the component of effective leadership style, 2) 

to measure the extent of the presence of different behavioral variables in leadership and 3) 

to find out the effect of leadership style on organizational effectiveness in manufacturing 

industries in India. 360 samples were selected from ten departments by stratified random 

sampling. After follow up request, only 309 responses were collected, which were found to 

be complete and correct. The study reveals that nurturant type of leadership is considered 

as the dominating style among supervisors of all age groups. A,P+N (combination of 

Assertive style, a small amount of Participative style and combines them with an Indian 

type fatherly, i.e., nurturant outlook for his subordinates) and nurturant leadership styles are 

highly influencing organizational effectiveness. The managers of above 50 years are more 

task-oriented. Organizational effectiveness is highly influenced by the behavioral fitness of 

managers and supervisors, particularly in the variables like, Responsibility, Flexibility and 

Endurance. The lower level managers prefer consensus as the approach. They are creative 

and willing to work for the prosperity of the organization. The senior managers mostly 

restrict interactions and centralize decision making power in their hands. 

Keywords: Leadership, Organizational Effectiveness, Behavioral Fitness 

Introduction 

A perfect leadership style of managers brings a congenial organizational climate and helps to bring 

effectiveness in an organization. Leadership is both action and being. It empowers, motivates and 

organizes people to achieve a common objective and provides moral guidance. In turbulent times, 

prudent map makers sketch on canvas. The economy of the nation changes and coincides with global 

economy. The political boundaries also change almost weekly as new nations emerge with varying 

degrees of anguish from the disintegrating empires of yesterday, no part of the world is exempt from 

social disturbances and unimaginable changes takes place within seconds. The industries play a vital 

role in strengthening the nation’s economy. If the industry earns more profit, employee get more salary 

and perks, their purchasing power become more, they spend more and money get circulated in the 

economy, so per-capita income of the individual also increases of that country. The entire cycle 

includes proper planning and executing. The upper level, middle level and lower level managers and 

supervisors play a vital role for the growth of the company and the country as well.

30 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 42 (2011) 

Rourkela Steel Plant is a branch of Steel authority of India Ltd. and considered as one of the 

‘Navratnas’ in India. Initially for years together (around three decades), the total manpower of 

Rourkela Steel Plant was around 40,000. But after modernization in 1990s, due to the implementation 

of golden shake hand, voluntary retirement scheme and voluntary separation scheme, the present man 

power is around 18,000. The management is still trying to do rationalization. In this juncture, 

identifying the effective leaders and lead the employees to be more productive is very important. 

Leaders are the real navigator to reach the organization at its desired level. The effective role of leader 

is the only panacea to maintain the employees’ efficiency. This study is an attempt to identify the 

present leadership style of the managers and Supervisors of Rourkela Steel Plant. 

Review of Literature 

More and more empirical research evidence in recent years has demonstrated on various managerial 

aspects. Various authors have defined leadership differently. George R tarry (1960) viewed that 

leadership is “the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives”. Aswathappa 

(2000) said, “Leadership is another variable in inter-personal behavior in organizations, it is the 

process of encouraging and helping others to work enthusiastically towards objectives”. Murthy (1998) 

says, “A leader has to create customer champions within the organization to bring voice of the 

customers in all major decisions. An organization that plays a zero-sum game with its customers will 

not be a long-term player in the market place.” 

In the study, new era of leadership, “It is found that customers, competition and change are 

driving today’s enterprises requiring changing mindsets that will impact one’s responsibilities as 

business or community leader depending up on the awareness, flexibility, and adaptability of the 

person. Leadership of the coming century would be marked by flexibility, openness, and an ability to 

integrate the human quality, something which should be consciously learnt by current and aspiring 

managers are alike (Sabat, 1998). 

According to Raman, (2000), “Leaders must articulate a compelling customer-focused vision. 

Vision is like a light house pointing to way and showing the hazards. It must be powerful enough to 

ignite the combined imagination of employees, and provide a rallying point to create a positive stretch. 

Leaders must build star performers and teams. They must not only attract the best of minds to join the 

organization but create a strong sense of ownership in them. Ownership is not just offering stock 

options. It has more to do with an emotional engagement and integration with the organization.” 

In a study, “Leadership styles in army at junior level during peace and war”. The researcher 

found that an alarming lack of professionalism in the system Sabat, 1998which does not allow natural 

leadership qualities to blossom both during peace and war. (Pathak & Lal, 1999). Cashman (1989) 

challenges the definition of leadership that focuses on external manifestations and instead defines 

leadership as an authentic self expression that creates value. Mc Call (1998) points out that the leaders 

develop within every organization, with or without a formal development programme. Unfortunately 

leadership development in most organizations occur by happen stance rather than by design. When 

future leaders are not trained on provided healthy learning opportunities, they often choose poor role 

models and emulate behavior that is undesirable or organizationally only functional. Sarkar (1996) says 

that the old leaders have been replaced by the young. The workers are somehow happy with these 

leaders and they think that young leaders have successfully replaced the old relationship. The workers 

also think that local leaders could run the routine union activities dependently but for any vital 

discussion they have to consult the central and senior leaders. 

A study on “Leadership styles and effectiveness” reveals that there is not much difference in 

leadership effectiveness and style across different types of organizations. Indian executives do not 

think on the lines of “concern for the people” but many of them still like to be benevolent autocrats 

rather than participating managers. The efforts to increase participation and decrease direction or 

telling must be made according to the maturity level of workers (Pratap & Srivastav, 1985).


A study on “Nutrient study and participative Task Leadership “, the nurturing task leadership is 

best leader behavior for supervising the workmen and participative task leadership is the best leader 

behavior for supervising the executives. It is also examined that the organization, its objectives culture 

and values shall to a great extent decide the type of leader behavior that its executives shall learn and 

practice i.e., whether they should give nurturant-task and participative leadership or give self 

conflicting and ineffective leadership (Singh, 1987). 

A study of S. Ramachandran, (1989) on “Leadership and the Indian Milieu” is very important 

to strengthen the organization. He viewed that the leader should guide the subordinates to come closer 

to the customer, he should encourage them to participate in the day-to-day affairs of the organization, 

to take practical risk-taking and support good tries. He suggested avoiding matrix organization 

structure and keeps the staff lean for both effective control and action leaders of good organization 

maintain both centralized and decentralized values. 

The Problem of the Study 

The Study is the first one concentrates on leadership styles of managers and supervisors of RSP. This 

study tries to answer the following questions: 

1. What are the leadership style prevailing in the organization? 

2. To what extent the leadership style of managers and supervisors contribute the growth 

and effectiveness of the organization? 

3. What are the visions and proposals for the managers and supervisors to improve their 

leadership style? 

Objective of the Study 

1) To explore the component of effective leadership style. 

2) To measure the extent of the presence of different behavioral variables in leadership. 

3) To find out the effect of leadership style on organizational effectiveness. 

Hypotheses of the Study 

1. A,P+N (combination of Assertive style, a small amount of Participative style and 

combines them with an Indian type fatherly, i.e., nurturant outlook for his subordinates) 

and Nurturant leadership style are highly influencing organizational effectiveness. 

2. The managers of above 50 years are more task-oriented. 

3. Organizational effectiveness is highly influenced by the behavioral fitness of managers 

and supervisors, particularly in the variables like, Responsibility, Flexibility and 

Endurance. 

4. Nurturant type of leadership is considered as the dominating style among supervisors of 

all age groups. 

Sampling Technique 

Purposive sampling technique was used for data collection. 360 samples were selected and 

administered questionnaire. After follow up request, only 309 responses were collected, which were 

found to be complete and correct. 

Data Collection and Tools 

Tools used in each part of methodology were as follows:


1. Questionnaire, data were collected by administering questionnaire. 

2. Three instruments were used in order to ascertain the variables enumerated in the 

objectives of the study. 

The questionnaire booklet was consisted of four parts. The first part was about the components 

which measure the leadership styles of the respondents named as, Managerial Behaviour 

questionnaire(MBQ) and the second part was about the components of behavioural fitness of managers 

and supervisors named as, (BFI), (Wyne Pace, 1985), the third part was about the components of 

organizational climate, known as :Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire” (OEQ), (Daftuar, 

1985). The forth part was about personal information. 

The MBQ includes eight components namely, Task-oriented, Bureaucratic, Personal Relation, 

Nurturant, Authoritative, Participative, A,P+N (combination of Assertive style, a small amount of 

Participative style and combines them with an Indian type fatherly, i.e., nurturant out look for his 

subordinates) and Nurturant- Task. The BFI instrument includes six components, viz, Responsibility, 

Strength, Flexibility, Image, Endurance and Relaxation. The OEQ covers nine components. Those are, 

Consensus, Legitimization, Need for Independence, Self-control, Job involvement, Innovation, 

Organizational Commitment, Organizational Attachment and Job Satisfaction. 

Results of the Study 

The data collected through the above instruments have been analyzed below: 

Table-1: Mean and Standard deviation of leadership style of managers and supervisors in Sex variation 

Sl.No. Types of Leadership 

Male 

Mean( X ) SD 

Female 

Mean( X ) SD 

1 Task-oriented 4.44 0.40 4.40 0.52 

2 Bureaucratic 3.63 0.55 3.77 0.55 

3 Personal relation 4.20 0.52 3.77 0.51 

4 Nurturant 3.99 0.49 3.56 0.53 

5 Authoritative 3.74 0.56 3.86 0.51 

6 Participative 4.13 0.47 4.30 0.48 

7 A, P+N 3.84 0.57 3.65 0.40 

8 Nurturant-task 4.01 0.58 4.18 0.69 

Table-1 represents mean and standard deviation of MBQ variables in sex variation. It depicts 

that males are more task-oriented, can keep more personal relations with subordinates or superiors. 

They are nurturing and having more interactive combination of assertive styles than females. On the 

other hand, the female managers and supervisors are more bureaucratic in nature, authoritative and 

nurturant-task type of leaders. They take special care that the subordinates understand and accept the 

goals and they frame normative structure of the group and the organization and commitment to them. 

Variability among the samples is higher in female category than that of male. 

Table-2: ANOVA table for sex 

Source of variation SS d.f MS F-ratio 

F-limit or the table value 

F(0.05) F(0.01) 

Between columns 0.02 1 0.02 0.48 5.59 12.25 

Between rows 1.34 7 0.19 4.63 3.79 7.01 

Residual error 0.29 7 0.41 

Total 1.65 15


The ANOVA table-2 indicates that the F-ratio between MBQ variables is statistically 

significant where as F-ratio between the sexes is statistically insignificant. It means the difference in 

responses is not due to sex division but due to type of leadership style they do have. 

Table-3: Mean and Standard deviation of leadership style of managers and supervisors in Age variation 


Below 30 Yrs 

Mean SD 

30-40 Yrs 

Mean SD 

40-50 Yrs 

Mean SD 

50 Yrs and above 

Mean SD 

1 Task-oriented 4.37 0.48 4.43 0.38 4.45 0.41 4.47 0.39 

2 Bureaucratic 3.60 0.55 3.54 0.55 3.66 0.54 3.76 0.55 

3 Personal relation 3.93 0.53 4.14 0.64 4.20 0.48 4.27 0.46 

4 Nurturant 3.73 0.51 3.93 0.56 3.95 0.48 4.10 0.43 

5 Authoritative 3.85 0.58 3.84 0.55 3.65 0.59 3.78 0.49 

6 Participative 4.08 0.44 4.14 0.51 4.15 0.50 4.15 0.38 

7 A, P+N 3.69 0.33 3.83 0.61 3.83 0.55 3.88 0.62 

8 Nurturant-task 4.06 0.48 4.03 0.54 3.99 0.62 4.04 0.62 

N=309, a=37, b=78, c=120, d=74 

Table-4 shows the mean and standard deviations of MBQ variables in relation to corresponding 

age of the respondents. It depicts that the managers and supervisors are more task-oriented ( X =4.44) 

less bureaucratic ( X =3.64). The respondents above 50 years are comparatively more task-oriented and 

also having more personal relation ( X =4.27) and participative ( X =4.15) style than other categories. 

Hence, the hypothesis no.2 holds good indicating more task-oriented managers and supervisors of 

above 50 years of age. Variability of responses is comparatively more among people of 30-40 years of 

age group in personal relations variable. 

Table-4: ANOVA table for Age 



F(0.05) F(0.01) 

Between rows 2.22 7 0.32 53.33 2.49 3.61 

Between rows 0.08 3 0.026 4.33 3.07 4.87 


Total 2.44 31 

ANOVA is used in Table-4 to assess the extent of age differences across leadership style 

dimensions of MBQ. F-ratio between age group (4.33) and MBQ variables (53.33) are statistically 

significant because these are more than table values (both at 5% and 1%) level. 

Table-5: Mean and Standard deviation of leadership style of managers and supervisors in Education variation 


NT 

Mean SD 

NT/UG 

Mean SD Mean 

T 

SD 

T/UG 

Mean SD 

1 Task-oriented 4.42 0.44 4.27 0.44 4.46 0.39 4.41 0.42 

2 Bureaucratic 3.65 0.58 3.36 0.67 3.66 0.52 3.62 0.62 


4 Nurturant 3.96 0.55 4.02 0.31 4.01 0.46 3.41 0.57 



7 A, P+N 3.82 0.58 3.91 0.41 3.84 0.57 3.70 0.39 

8 Nurturant-task 3.98 0.57 4.13 0.61 4.02 0.59 4.16 0.59


Table-5 represents the mean and standard deviation values of MBQ dimension in education 

variation. It is observed that the technical people are more task-oriented ( X =4.46) where as non- 

technical people are more bureaucratic ( X =3.66) in comparison to other categories. The results also 

reveals that non-technical undergraduate are keeping more personal relations ( X = 4.25) than others 

where as non-technical supervisors and managers are more authoritative ( X =3.92). Technical under 

graduate people are more participative ( X =4.20) where as non-technical under graduates are more A, 

P+N (combination of assertive, participative and nurturant) in comparison to other groups. It shows 

that technical under graduate respondents are more nurturant-task ( X =4.16) and non- technical 

managers and supervisors are less nurturant ( X =3.98). The variations among the technical undergraduates 

in authoritative variable is high (SD= 0.79), where as less is found among non-technical 

under graduate groups in personal relations variable (SD= 0.30). 

Table-6: ANOVA table for Education 



F(0.05) F(0.01) 


Between rows 19.9 7 2.84 40.57 2.49 3.61 


Total 22.53 31 

Table-6 reports the ANOVA value of MBQ dimensions in relation to educational qualification 

of the respondents. It depicts that the variation among the MBQ variables is statistically significant as 

F-ratio = 40.57. Also the variation in educational qualification of personnel is statistically significant 

both at 5% and 1% (F-ratio = 5.85). 

Table-7: Mean and Standard deviation of leadership style of managers and supervisors in Grade variation 


Supervisor 

Mean SD 

LM 

Mean SD 

MM 

Mean SD 

UM 

Mean SD 

1 Task-oriented 4.42 0.39 4.42 0.44 4.43 0.41 4.51 0.37 

2 Bureaucratic 3.71 0.56 3.71 0.50 3.57 0.59 3.67 0.45 


4 Nurturant 3.87 0.55 4.01 0.49 3.95 0.51 4.07 0.4 



7 A, P+N 3.83 0.57 3.89 0.5 3.80 0.60 3.82 0.51 

8 Nurturant-task 4.02 0.65 4.05 0.54 3.98 0.58 4.12 0.57 

Table-7 indicates the mean and standard deviation of the MBQ variables with relation to 

various grades. It is found that mean scores are comparatively higher in Task-oriented, Personal 

relations and Participative style of leadership within all levels of managers. It is found that mean scores 

are comparatively higher in Task-oriented, personal relations and participative style of leadership 

within all levels of managers. Analysis of different variables of MBQ shows that the respondents 

emphasize the task more and give less importance to the human aspects. They appear to be tough 

persons and believe that ends are more important than means. But at the same time they develop 

personal relationships either with their superiors or with their subordinates. They oblige others by 

doing personal favors and in turn expect something (work) in return from them. The supervisors as 

well as managers are also participative but less that task-oriented because it (RSP) is a public sector 

unit. Variability among the samples is higher in supervisory category compared to that of managers.


Table-8: ANOVA table for Grade 



F(0.05) F(0.01) 


Between rows 2.29 7 0.33 82.5 2.49 3.61 


Total 2.43 31 

The ANOVA table-8 of MBQ variables in grade variation provides information that there is 

variation in responses among the MBQ variables. That means respondents approach to work and their 

behavior, thinking process is different in relation to various types of leadership style. Here F-ratio is 

82.5, which is greater than the table value but the difference in responses due to grade is almost 

similar, i.e., 2.5, which is less than the table value. Hence, it is statistically not significant where as the 

variations between MBQ variables are statistically significant. 

Table-9: Mean and Standard deviation of behavioral fitness of managers and supervisors in Income variation 

Income 

Responsibility Strength Flexibility Image Endurance Relaxation 

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

Below5 lakh 2.15 0.52 3.15 0.40 2.04 0.71 1.75 0.79 2.33 0.64 2.73 0.55 

5-7 lakhs 2.45 0.71 3.20 0.46 1.99 0.65 1.78 0.66 2.28 0.72 2.34 0.64 

7-9 lakhs 2.34 0.69 3.36 0.62 1.92 0.68 1.50 0,56 2.16 0.55 2.17 0.67 

9 lakhs 

above 

2.43 0.73 3.27 0.54 2.06 0.66 1.84 0.77 2.28 0.65 2.28 0.64 

Table-9 indicates that the employees earning below 5 lakhs salary are less responsible in 

comparison to other groups. Similarly, 7-9 lakhs income group is having more strength ( X = 3.36). It 

means this group represents the ability to concentrate energy so as to avoid irrelevances and 

distractions. In flexibility and image variables, higher mean score are found in 9 lakhs and above 

income group. ( X =2.06 and X = 1.84 respectively). Likewise, in endurance and relaxation variables, 

highest mean scores have been found of the respondents earning below 5 lakhs per annuam ( X =2.33 

and X = 2.73 respectively). The variation among variables are more among personnel earning below 5 

lakhs in image variable (SD = 0.79). 

Table-10: ANOVA table for Income 



F(0.05) F(0.01) 


Between rows 0.05 3 0.01 0.5 3.29 5.42 


Total 7.01 23 

Table-10 presents the ANOVA values of BFI variables in income variation. It is observed that 

the variation in the responses of BFI dimensions is higher (F-ratio= 66.5) than the table values (both at 

5% and 1% levels). So, it is statistically significant where as the variation due to income differences is 

negligible (F-ratio= 0.5) which is statistically insignificant as it is lower than the table values.


Table-11: Co-relation matrix for the Behavioral Fitness (BFI) and Managerial Styles (MBQ) 

Behavioural 

Fitness 

Dimensions 

Taskoriented 

Bureaucratic Personal 

Relation 

MBQ Dimensions 

Nurturant Authoritative Participative 

A, 

P+N 

Nurtura 

nt Task 

Responsibili 

ty 

.041* .020 .104* .115* -.029** .087* .049* -.034* 

Strength .063* -.064* .089* .069* -.016 .074* .097* .071* 

Flexibility -.056* .016 -.036* .012 -.001 -.002 .095* .004 

Image -.062* .025 .077* .062* -.028 .015 .003 -.049* 

Endurance .001 .039* -.034* -.023 -.009 .031** 

- 

.082* 

-.044* 

Relaxation .021 .140* .119* .120* .073* .068* .113* .037* 

N=309, *p =


Particularly, A, P+N and Nurturant leadership styles are highly influencing all variables of 

organizational effectiveness. Hence, the hypothesis no.1 is accepted. 

Table-13: Co-relation matrix for the Behavioral Fitness (BFI) and Organizational Effectiveness (OEQ) 

Organizational 

Effectiveness 

Dimensions 

BFI Dimensions 

Responsibility Strength Flexibility Image Endurance Relaxation 

Consensus .021* -0.037* 0.077* 0.076* 0.064* 0.047* 

Legitimization .100* 0.027* 0.085* 0.036* 0.045* 0.050* 

Need for 

Independence 

.100* 0.058* 0.035* 0.020 0.113* 0.064* 

Self-Control .081* -0.036* 0.042* 0.009 0.054* -0.040* 

Job- 

Involvement 

.052* -0.035* 0.101* 0.059* 0.036* 0.077* 

Innovation .124* -0.086* 0.210* 0.118* 0.033* 0.059* 


Commitment 

.068* -0.054* 0.169* 0.051* -0.042** 0.049* 


.059* 0.032 0.128* -0.001 -0.027** 0.015 

Attachment 

Job-Satisfaction .057* -0.007 0.212* 0.029* 0.028* 0.072* 

N=309, *p =


Table-14 shows the regression results related to behavioral fitness and organizational 

effectiveness. In case of self-control, only one variable comes to picture in the equation namely, 

endurance, with the R 2 value of 0.013 which explains 1.3 % of the variance. It is significant at 5% 

level. Similarly, flexibility affecting innovation (R 2 = 0.044), organizational commitment (R 2 =0.028), 

organizational attachment (R 2 =0.016), job satisfaction (R 2 =0.045) and OES composite (R 2 =0.047) 

which explains 4.4%, 2.8%, 1.6%, 4.5% and 4.7% respectively. Endurance and organizational 

attachment are significant at 5% level while others are significant at 1% level. 

Table-15: Regression results of Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ) and Leadership style 

(MBQ) 

Organizational Effectiveness Multiple R R 2 SE F P 

Consensus 

Nurturant 0.238 0.057 0.096 13.824 0.000 

Nurturant- Task 0.238 0.057 0.083 11.704 0.001 

Need for Independence 

Personal relations 0.200 0.040 0.100 12.754 0.000 

Job involvement 

Authoritative 0.148 0.022 0.064 6.885 0.009 

Organizational Commitment 

Nurturant 0.120 0.014 0.075 4.473 0.035 

Job Satisfaction 

A, P+N 0.112 0.013 0.062 3.890 0.049 

OEQ (Comp) 


Nurturant 0.186 0.034 0.058 10.876 0.001 

Table-15 shows only two variables namely, nurturant and nurturant-task come in the equation 

related to consensus with the same R 2 value i.e. 0.057 which in turn explain5.7% of the variance. 

Nurturant again engaged in the equations of organizational commitment and OEQ composite with the 

respective R 2 values i.e., 0,014 and 0,034 which explain 1.4% and 3.4% of the variance. Personal 

relation is related to two variables of OEQ namely, need for independence and OEQ composite (R 2 = 

0.040 & R 2 = 0.034) which explained 4% and 3.4% of variance. Job satisfaction is only related with A, 

P+N (R 2 =0.013) reflecting 1.3 of variance and job involvement is only related with authoritative 

(R 2 =0.022) reflecting 2.2% of variance. Nurturant, nurturant-task with consensus, personal relations 

with need for independence & authoritative with job involvement are significant at 1% level and all 

other variables are significant at 5% level. 

Table-16: Regression results of Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ) with Leadership style 

(MBQ) and Behavioral Fitness (BFI) 


Consensus 

Nurturant 0.238 0.057 0.096 13.824 0.000 



Nurturant 0.206 0.042 0.074 4.438 0.036 

Flexibility 0.206 0.042 0.056 8.922 0.003 

Job Satisfaction 

Flexibility 0.212 0.045 0.051 14.511 0.000 

OEQ (Comp) 

Nurturant 0.281 0.079 0.043 9.636 0.002 


Flexibility 0.281 0.079 0.03 15.358 0.000 

Organizational Attachment 

Flexibility 0.128 0.016 0.057 5.107 0.025


Table-16: Regression results of Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ) with Leadership style 

(MBQ) and Behavioral Fitness (BFI) - continued 

Self-Control 

Endurance 0.113 0.013 0.054 3.976 0.047 

Need for Independence 


Job involvement 

Authoritative 0.148 0.022 0.064 6.885 0.009 

Invention 

Flexibility 0.210 0.044 0.056 14.153 0.000 

Table-16 predicts the regression result related to the leadership style, behavioral fitness and 

organizational effectiveness variables. In case of consensus, two variables only emerge in the equation. 

The nurturant and nurturant-task variables are indicating the same R 2 value i.e., 0.057 explaining 5.7% 

of variation. Nurturant has also emerged with organizational commitment (R 2 =0.042) & OEQ 

composite (R 2 =0.079) where as nurturant-task indicates 0.079 R 2 with OEQ composite indicating 7.9% 

of variance. Flexibility indicates R 2 values with four variables of OEQ namely, organizational 

commitment, job satisfaction, organizational attachment and innovation. Their corresponding R 2 values 

are 0.042, 0.045, 0.016, 0.044 and 0.042. Self control obtains significant R 2 value with only one 

variable namely endurance (R 2 =0.013) whereas need for independence has significant R 2 with only 

personal relations (R 2 =0.040) and job involvement has significant R 2 with authoritative (R 2 =0.022). 

Table-17: Multiple regression results of Leadership style (MBQ) and Organizational Effectiveness 

Questionnaire (OEQ) of Supervisors 


Consensus 

Bureaucratic 0.325 0.106 0.162 7.819 0.007 

Legitimization 

Nurturant 0.472 0.223 0.130 18.310 0.000 

Participative 0.472 0.223 0.138 5.119 0.027 

Need for independence 

Nurturant 0.383 0.147 0.238 10.499 0.002 

Participative 0.383 0.147 0.253 4.290 0.042 

Job Involvement 

Nurturant 0.295 0.087 0.139 6.314 0.014 


Nurturant 0.246 0.060 0.142 4.237 0.044 

Organizational attachment 

Nurturant 0.418 0.175 0.136 5.330 0.024 

Nurturant-task 0.418 0.175 0.115 11.044 0.001 

Job satisfaction 

Nurturant 0.328 0.108 0.122 7.979 0.006 

OEQ Comp 

Nurturant 0.320 0.102 0.078 7.537 0.008 

As evident from Table-17, bureaucratic of MBQ explains R 2 with consensus. The variable has 

yielded R 2 value of 0.106 predicting 10.6% of the variance. On the other hand, nurturant (MBQ) 

showed R 2 with legitimization (R 2 =0.223), need for independence (R 2 =0.147), job involvement 

(R 2 =0.087), organizational commitment (R 2 =0.175) and with job satisfaction (R 2 =0.108) representing 

22.3%, 14.7%, 8.7%, 6% and 10.8% of variances respectively. Participative of MBQ shows R 2 with 

two variables of OES namely, legitimization and need for independence having the R 2 values of 0.223 

and 0.147 respectively representing 22.3% and 14.7% of the variance. In case of nurturant-task, only


one variable emerged in the equation i.e., organizational attachment having the R 2 value of 0.175. This 

variable explained 17.5% of the variance in the result. 

Participative and nurturant are significant with job involvement at 5% level, only nurturant is 

significant with organizational commitment and organizational attachment at 5% level and with rest of 

the variables at 1% significant level. Moreover, nurturant dimension emerged to be dominating 

leadership style of the supervisors. Hence, hypothesis no.4 is accepted. 

Conclusion 

The study of leadership styles of managers and supervisors in Rourkela Steel Plant has thrown some 

new lights towards the growth and effectiveness of the organization. Various styles that emerged to be 

dominating proves a notable correlation between all OEQ variables with different leadership styles like 

nurturant, authoritative and A, P+N. The supervisors are more flexible in nature; having better personal 

relationship and image. The lower level managers prefer consensus as the approach. They are creative 

and willing to work for the prosperity of the organization. The senior managers like to think 

independently about their job problems and to act/work according to their own judgment. This act of 

them is highly influenced by their behavioral fitness. Senior managers also restrict interactions and 

centralize decision making power in their hands. At the same time, they take special care that 

subordinates understand and accept the goals. 

Responsibility is considered as the best tool by the female respondents to bring organizational 

attachment and job satisfaction. It also influences their managerial styles like task-orientation and 

personal relationship. The leadership styles like bureaucratic, authoritative and participative are the 

important factors of organizational development. The higher income group indicates more orientation 

towards task, which is not a good leadership style. They are yet to develop and balance the other 

leadership styles at par with this. 

The technical people think that their jobs contribute most to the success of the organization. 

The non-technical people emphasize fatherly love, guidance, nurturance and growth for the 

subordinates. Mainly participative, task-oriented, authoritative, flexibility, endurance and strength of 

non-technical group are the significant factors, which influence organizational effectiveness. 

Leadership is a very significant functional area for the growth and development of an 

organization. A perfect leadership style of managers and supervisors bring a congenial organizational 

climate and helps to bring effectiveness. Most of the organizations attribute their success through 

effective leadership. Leaders gain credit by virtue of the competence they display in connection with 

the group task. Effective organizational leaders need ethics, sound character and should develop a 

moral environment. 

References 

1] Aswathappa, K. (2000), “Organizational Behaviour”, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay. 

2] Cashman, J.F. (1989), “Situational Leadership Theory, A test of leadership Prescriptions”, 

Group-7, Organization studies. 

3] George R. Tarry (1960), “Principles of Management”, 3 rd edi. Home Wood, III, Irwin; p5. 

4] Mc Call W. Morgan, (1998), “High Flyers: Developing the next Generation of Leaders”, Jr. 

Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

5] Murthy, P.N. (1998), “Leadership: A Comparative Study of Indian Ethos and Western 

Concepts”, Human Values, vol-4, No-2, (July-Dec). 

6] Pathak, R.D. and Col. Lal, Shyam (1999), Leadership Styles in Army at Junior Level During 

Peace and War”, Indian Management, Vol-38, No-12, Dec. 

7] Pratap, S and Srivastava, SK, “Leadership Styles and Effectiveness: A comparative study”, 

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 21(1), 1985.


8] Ramachandran, S. (1989), “Leadership and the Indian Milieu”, Management, Vol-28, No-4, 

April. 

9] Sabat, H.K. (1998), “New era of Leadership, Indian Management, Vol-37, July. 

10] Sarkar, Kanchan (1996), “Trade Union Leadership in a Plantation System”, Indian Journal of 

Industrial Relations, Vol-31, No-4, April. 

11] Singh, Prabhakar (1987), “Nurturant-task and Participate-task Leadership: The Effective 

Leader Behaviours for Indian Industries”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol-23, No-2, 

Oct.

Leadership Style of Managers and Supervisors: A ... - EuroJournals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?