Chapter – Supervisor Relations Company Leadershipshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/35952/8/chapter 6.pdf · “Developing Leadership is the key ... is the leader who values

195

CChhaapptteerr –– 66

SSuuppeerrvviissoorr RReellaattiioonnss

&& CCoommppaannyy

LLeeaaddeerrsshhiipp

196

INTRODUCTION

“Developing Leadership is the key to competitiveness. It is about

expanding Inner Wealth” (Anil Sachdev)

In modern organizations operating, knowledge based economies it is now widely

recognized that traditional ‘command and control’ management systems, characterized

by central planning, management by objectives and carefully controlled implementation

are increasingly ineffective, for two principal reasons.

Firstly they are based on an assumption that the brains of the organization are at the top

– that the detailed knowledge for how to improve and sustain performance will come

from an all knowing senior management, or policy making team – while in fact the

people who know best how to improve products, services and systems are those who

work with them, day in and day out.

The second reasons for its failure are the long time periods that centralized management

processes require for decision-making and change. In markets where success goes to

those who can innovate and adapt most rapidly ‘command and control’ is destined to

fail. As an alternative to ‘command and control’ many organizations are now making a

shift to manage organizations through the development of a set of guiding ideas, or

principles that are designed to ensure that decision-making can be distributed widely

throughout the organization.

“The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It's got to be a vision

you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion" - Theodore Hesburgh,

President of the University of Notre Dame

197

A company must have ‘principle based leadership’ rather than command and control as

principle based leadership demands commitment while command and control leads to

compliance. Some of the companies fail in the leadership because of transitions to

principle-based leadership can also fail because of the perceived impossibility or naivety

of the guiding ideas. As clarity about the ideas develops so does understanding of the

practical difficulties associated with bridging the gap between current reality and the

future.

THEORIES ABOUT LEADERSHIP

There are numerous theories about leadership especially the organizational theories of

leadership (Yukl & VanFleet, 1992).Also the different roles carried out by the leader,

e.g., servant leader, democratic leader, principle-centered leader, group-man theory,

great-man theory, traits theory, visionary leader, total leader, situational leader, etc.

Many of the theories of leadership today have charisma

A leader, is defined as

"Someone who occupies a position in a group, influences others in accordance with the

role expectation of the position and co-ordinates and directs the group in maintaining

itself and reaching its goal"1

Therefore, the term leadership, would be an expansion of this definition, being the

"process of influence between a leader and his followers to attain group,

organizational and societal goals"2

Some forms of leadership exist in all groups, with the central attribute being social

influence. The leader is the person who has the most impact on a group’s behavior and

beliefs.

1 (Raven, 1976, p. 37)

2 (Avery, 1990, p. 453)

198

"He or she is the one who initiates action, gives order, makes decisions, settles disputes

between group members, offers encouragement, serves as a model, and is in the fore-

front of group activity "3

Leadership itself has been accompanied throughout time, by numerous theories, all

claiming to answer the question, Are leaders born or made? Those who accept the

verdict, that leaders are born and not made, maintain,

"... that there are certain inborn qualities such as initiative, courage, intelligence and humor, which altogether pre-destine a man to be a leader ... the essential pattern is given at birth"4

Two leadership theories which concentrate on this point are the Great man/great

woman and the Trait theories. The great man/great woman theory, accordingly to

Wrightsman, involves its followers believing that major events, both nationally and

internationally, are influenced by those persons in power.

"A sudden act by a great man could, according to this theory, change the fate of the nation"5

The trait theory expands further on this conjecture, by concentrating on the personal

characteristics of the leader. The theory, which until the mid-1940s formed the basis of

most leadership research, cited traits believed to be characteristic of leaders, the list of

which grew in length over the years, to include all manner of physical, personality and

cognitive factors, including height, intelligence and communication skills. However, few

traits emerged to conclusively differentiate leaders from non-leaders. The traits an

individual has may, increase the probability that a person will become a leader, though

whether such leadership is guaranteed, is uncertain. Nevertheless, it can be seen to be

true that some people are more likely than others to assume leadership positions.

3 (Sears, 1988, p. 400)

4 (Adler, 1991, p. 4) 5 (Wrightsman, 1977, p. 638)

199

"The research on trait theories of leadership has shown that many other factors are

important in determining leader success, and that not everyone who possesses these

traits will be a leader"6

As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined, researchers focused their

attention on the leader's actions rather than their attributes, which led to the

emergence of the behaviorist theories. The most widely publicized exponent of this

approach was Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's Managerial Grid, which

attempted to explain that there was one best style of leadership, by various

combinations of two factors regarding a concern for production and people. Five

leadership styles were determined from this research, of which one, the team

management style was deemed as preferable.

Due to the disillusionment with the fore-mentioned trait theory, the situational

approach arose, which suggested that the traits required of a leader differed, according

to varying situations. The situational approach, which predominated in the 1950s, held

that whether a given person became a leader of a group, had nothing to do with his/her

personality, but had everything to do with such factors as the flow of events and

circumstances surrounding a group. To put it simply, the leader was a person who was

in the right place at the right time.

"Rather than a great man causing a great event to happen, the situational approach

claims that great events are the product of historical forces that are going to happen

whether specific leaders are present or not "7

Unfortunately, this theory still didn’t answer why one member of a group emerged as

the leader, rather than another, or why one particular leader proved to be a better leader

in some situations than another. The emergence of a related theory, the interactionist

approach, attempted to explain the existing anomalies.

6 (Adler, 1991, p. 267)

7 (Adair, 1984, p. 8)

200

The interactionist theory, proposed that both the characteristics of the individual, and

the situation in which the group found itself, accounted for who would become the

leader. Resulting from this theory, was the view that leaders are both born and made,

due to the leader requiring certain abilities and skill, but as the situation and the needs

of the group changed, so too the person acceptable as leader changed.

Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership effectiveness was one theory which evolved

from this interactions approach. It related the effectiveness of the leader, to aspects of

the situation in which the group operated, suggesting that factors such as the task

structure, the leaders personal relations with the group and his/her power basis,

interact to determine what style of leadership would be effective for the situation, i.e. a

task-oriented or group-oriented approach.

"At one extreme, is the leader who values successful interpersonal relations to the

exclusion of task accomplishment. The leader at the other extreme, places the highest

value on task accomplishment, at the expense of interpersonal relations"8

To determine whether a leader was task-oriented or group-oriented, Fiedler devised a

model, which used as its basis, the measurement of a leader's perceptions and relations

to the least preferred co-worker (LPC), with whom he/she has ever worked with. Those

with a high score, were deemed group-oriented, while those with a low score, were task-

oriented. Fiedler's research concluded, that a task-oriented approach was more effective

when conditions were either highly favorable (good leader/group relations, strong

leadership position and a clear task structure) or, highly unfavorable (poor leader/group

relations, weak leadership position and an ambiguous task).

A group-oriented approach was deemed as preferable, when conditions were

comparatively stable, so more attention is paid to the preservation of group

relationships, to starve off conflict and inefficiency which could eventuate from any

disharmony in the group setting. Research has demonstrated that men are expected to

have high levels of agented attributes (independent, Masterful, assertive, competent)

and the women are expected to have high levels of communal attributes (friendly,

8 (Saks, 1988, p. 490)

201

unselfish, concerned with others , emotionally expressive).When these expectations are

held up to expected leadership behaviors required of supervisors and managers ,

disconnections emerge. Leadership is significantly correlated with masculinity (Bem,

1974; Carmichael, 1995)

From this research, we can discern , that there are no necessarily good or bad leadership

styles, but their effectiveness depends on how appropriate they are to the group

situation. However, Fiedler's theory had its critics, who questioned its use of a model to

measure leadership style and situational favorability, and emphasized, and emphasized

its inconclusiveness. Still, Fiedler's theory was not the only interactionist theory

circulating during the time period concerned, although, each differed slightly in their

prime objectives.

Robert House's path-goal theory proposed a leader 's effectiveness was based on a

leader's ability to raise satisfaction and motivation in-group members, by use of an

incentive scheme to reward or punish those responsible for success or failure in

reaching group objectives. In order to accomplish these goals, a leader would be

required to adopt differing styles of leadership behavior as the situation dictated.

Varying, but related to this view, is Vroom and Yetton's normative theory, which focused

on the degree of participation, a leader should allow, in making any given decision, and

the selection of an approach which would maximize benefits, and a t the same time,

minimize potential obstacles to the groups goals.

An examination of the relationship between leaders and group members, and how

different kinds of relationships develop with different individuals, was the main concern

of yet another interactions theory, the vertical dyad linkage theory. Such factors as age,

experience and knowledge of the task, can affect a members standing with the leader;

i.e. an older experienced worker with extensive knowledge of a task would be able to

work largely unsupervised, whilst, a relatively inexperienced worker, would require a

higher degree of supervision.

Emotions are an integral part of organizational life, and they have applications to

leadership (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995).

202

From a review of leadership theories, it is obvious, that there are no best leadership

styles. Leaders are rarely totally group or task-oriented; group members and the

situation itself, all influence leaders effectiveness. The leader needs to be aware of his

own behavior and influence on others, individual differences of group members, group

characteristics, task structure, environmental and situational variables, and adjust his

leadership style accordingly. Leadership needs to be adaptive. Many of the theories of

leadership today have charisma as their core concept Kuchinke (1999). Weber (1968),

initially defined charisma as a “quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he

is set apart from ordinary men treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or

at least specifically exceptional qualities”.

The functions of leadership are many and varied, depending upon the basic problem

with a group must deal with, and the type of leadership style in action, which is

dependent on the leader’s basis of power which is discussed in the next chapter by the

researcher.

203

INTRODUCTION TO POWER & POLITICS

Power and Politics are fundamental concepts for understanding behavior in

organizations. Generally effects of power, range from budget allocation among sub-units

to executive succession to design and redesign of formal organizational structure

(Pfeffer, 1978). Recent research and observation have identified a number of factors that

appeared to encourage the use of power termed as political behavior.

THE CONCEPT OF POWER

Organizational politics and power is it inevitable? A recent study suggests that it’s more

myth and interpretation than reality. In this study the respondents have felt that politics

and the use of power is a normal part of any decision-making process.

Power is defined in a variety of ways. An element of relationship among social actors can

be found in most of the definitions. Individuals, subunits or organizations can be the

actors. A social actor X has power over social actor Y if X can get Y to do something that

Y would not have done otherwise. Therefore, power is a force or ability sufficient to

change probability of Y’s behavior. This example is given based on the dependency

relationship that exists in power.

FORMATION OF POWER

Individuals in the organizations want to exert influence, and earn awards. Every

individual for that matter wants advance in their careers. From the literature study it is

found that most of the studies have focused on superior-subordinate relationship.

Parrow (1970) believes that power is a structural phenomenon resulting from division of

labor and departmentation.

204

MEANING OF POWER

Power is the ability to influence people and events. The term power may be applied to

individuals, groups, teams, departments, organizations and countries. It is a social term:

that is, an individual has power with relation to others, teams and so on. The concept of

power characterizes interactions among people.

Pfeffer(1978) defines power as a process that involves those activities taken within the

organizations to acquire ,develop ,and use power and other resources to obtain one’s

preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty and dissension about

choice. Various factors contributing to the formation of political behavior may be

individual characteristics that may be derived from the unique qualities of the

individuals and the organization’s factors like the culture of the company and its

internal environment.

Most of the companies use power in one form or the other. There is a common

hypothesis relating power and politics to performance. It states that ‘the greater the use

of power and politics in organizational decision making, the lower the level of

performance’. Generally there is no data to suggest that power and politics lead to

problems in performance.

Unlike the determinants of power that is the capacity to use any of the bases of power

like reward power, coercive power, referent power, legitimate power or expert power,

there are the consequences of power. They are the budget allocations, win-loss record in

debated issues, ability to authorize exceptions to policy, authority to hire and fire others.

POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS

The view of power in the reengineering literature is reflected in the approach it takes to

empowerment. Power is a commodity to be exchanged and utilized. Its source can be

discerned and its distribution can be controlled. It is treated as though it has an

objective reality. Many reject this notion. Power is socially constructed within the

organization and is not just commodity that can be taken from one and given to another.

205

Power accrues through organizational discourse where a member is discussed to be

powerful and where those that control the text have the power. Power is a relationship

that is held between those with and those without power, it is symbolic.

Power, in the case of leadership, is divided into six categories, however, each can be

linked with another, as they are inter-related. Expert and Informational power are

concerned with skills, knowledge and information, of which the holders of such abilities,

are able to utilize, to influence others i.e. technicians and computer personnel. Reward

and Coercive power, differ from the previously mentioned, as they involve the ability to

either reward or punish persons being influenced, in order to gain compliance.

Legitimate power, is power which has been confirmed by the very role structure of the

group or organization itself, and is accepted by all as correct and without dispute, such

as in the case of the armed forces or the police force. Referent power, on the other hand,

involves those being influenced, identifying with the leader, i.e. rock or film

personalities using their image to enter the political arena.

Most leaders make use of a combination of these six types of power, depending on the

leadership style used. Authoritarian leaders, for example, use a mixture of legitimate,

coercive and reward powers, to dictate the policies, plans and activities of a group. In

comparison, a democratic or participative leader would use mainly referent power,

involving all members of the group in the decision-making process.

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

Lasswell (1936) argues that politics is ‘who gets what, when and how’. He feels that

politics includes those behaviors through which power is developed and used. When the

individuals want to exert their influence and advance in their career they convert their

power into action, and this is termed as being engaged in politics.

206

Christopher and Dipboye et al (1995) defines organizational politics as the process that

refers to intentional behaviors that are designed to enhance or protect a person’s

influence and self-interest.

Political behavior in organizations can be understood by Robbins (1997), as those

activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organization, but that

influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages

within the organization.

Politics in general, is characterized by-

• Disagreement

• Diversity

• Scarcity

• Interest (Helga Drummond, 2000)

The individual factors that contribute for the formation of political behavior are:

• Self –Monitoring

• Internal locus of control

• Need of power

Individuals high on these dimensions tend to engage in political behavior. They are

more sensitive to social cues, exhibit higher levels of social conformity and are more

likely to be highly skilled in political behavior. They believe that they can control their

environment and are more prone to take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate

situations in their favor. These individuals exhibit Machiavellian personality that which

has the will to manipulate and have the desire for power.

Newstrom and Keith Davis(2000) feels that organizational politics is used to design

certain behaviors required for the employees, and these behaviors in turn help to attain

a promotion, and gain personal visibility.

207

Organizational factors that contribute to the politicking are:

• When the organization’s resources are declining

• When the existing resources are changing

• When there is opportunity for promotions.

If low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance evaluation systems minimum reward

allocation practices and high pressures for performance characterize an organization’s

culture, there exists the political behavior. Promotion decisions have consistently been

found to be one of the most political in organizations.

Individuals when in a group are forced to attach themselves into certain group norms.

Group norms are a set of beliefs, feelings and attitudes commonly shared by group

members. They can also be referred to as rules or standards of behavior that apply to

group members. Helga Drummond (2000) feels that most norms develop in one of the

following four ways:

• Many norms develop because members bring their past experiences from other groups in

other organizations.

• Primacy is another way of forming group norms. Primacy refers to the first behavior

pattern that emerges in a group.

• A critical incident in the life of an organization often asserts a precedent.

• Explicit statements made by supervisors of co-workers themselves may become norms.

These group norms play a very important role in the formation of power and the politics

developed in the group. Most public sectors use the subjective criteria in the appraisal

emphasizing on the single outcome measure and this creates ambiguity and for the

emergence of politicking. The more an organization’s culture emphasizes the zero-sum

or win-lose approach to reward allocations, the more employees will be motivated to

engage in politicking.

208

ADVANTAGES OF POWER AND POLITICS

Of course there exist advantages to the organizations because of power and politics. One

of the greatest advantages is that politicking facilitates organizational change and

adaptation to new environment. George (1972) has pointed out a strategy called multiple

advocacy system. This is a mixed situation in which a company adopts centralization of

the process in order to maintain and make use of internal diversity, conflict and

competition.

There is another issue confronting political perspective is about the role of a manager.

But from the studies of Pfeffer (1978), it is found that though the manager has an

advanced degree, it did not have any significant effect on a manager’s success. Managers

who are typically inexperienced , with lower incomes and more limited responsibilities

have a view of considering organizations as political jungles. When employees see the

people on top engaging in political behavior, especially when they do so successfully and

are rewarded for it, a climate is created that supports politicking.

It is also true that absolute power corrupts the organizational climate. Power as such has

two faces: one negative and other positive. A negative power is associated with abuse,

exploiting others and indulges in activities to merely accumulate status symbols.

Positive power is characterized by a concern for group goals, helping the group to

formulate its goals and providing group members the support needed to achieve those

goals.

Some of the tactics suggested by Allen R.Cohen and David L.Bradford, (1990), to gain

political power may be as follows:

• Treat the other party as a potential ally

• Specify your objectives.

• Learn about other party’s needs, inters and goals.

• Inventory your own resources to identify something of value you can offer.

• Assess your current relationship with the other person

• Decide what to ask for and what to offer

• Make actual exchange that produces a gain for both parties.

209

This process requires continual give-and-take as a means to gain influence and draws

heavily on the norm of reciprocity.

The survey made by Jeffrey and Kharbanda reveals that

• Politics is common in most organizations

• Managers must be good at politics to succeed

• Politics become more important at higher levels

• Politics can detract from organizational efficiency.

From this one can infer that managers should realize that political power comes from

the support of key individuals as well as the group around them. Therefore it is the

leader’s ability to work with people and social systems to gain their allegiance and

support.

The leader or the manager or the individual must be alert to save their face, engaging in

horse trading, making trade-offs, mending fences, developing indigenous compromises

and engaging in a variety of other activities. This is because most employees are, vitally

interested in their own career success. These employees feel that modern public sector

organizations and its structure provide a fertile place for politics to thrive.

To conclude power is needed to run an organization. All the five bases of power is

utilized in one way or the other as each of the power has an effect on the employees,

ranging from compliance to commitment. Organizational politics is the use of various

behaviors that enhance and protect a person’s influence and self-interest. In general, a

broad range of interpersonal skills is essential for leaders, both for their personal

success and for smoothing the path to employee performance.

TABLE No: VI – 1

Table showing the distribution of response in number and percentage for the

question “My supervisor delegates me enough authority to perform my job

efficiently”

Respondents Strongly Agree

Initial Response (2004)

134

Percentage 13.4%

Revisited

Response (2008) 42

Percentage 4.2%

176

Average 8.8%

Source: Data collected through field survey

Graph No: V1I – 1

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “My

supervisor delegates me enough authority to perform my job efficiently”

13.4%

4.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts



Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Strongly Disagree

376 187 237

13.4% 37.6% 18.7% 23.7% 6.6%

168 238 321

4.2% 16.8% 23.8% 32.1% 23.1%

544 425 558

8.8% 27.2% 21.3% 27.9% 14.9%



e enough authority to perform my job efficiently”

Respondent’s Responses

37.6%

18.7%

23.7%

16.8%

23.8%

32.1%

Agree Undecided Disagree

210



Strongly Disagree Total

66 1000

6.6%

231 1000

23.1%

297

14.9% 100


e enough authority to perform my job efficiently”

6.6%

23.1%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

211

Interpretation of Table & Graph No: VI – 1

13.4% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree for the question “My

supervisor delegates me enough authority to perform my job efficiently” in the

initial response.

37.6% of the respondents have rated as agree, and 18.7% of the respondents were

undecided.

While 23.7% of the respondents have rated as disagree, 6.6% of the respondents

have rated as strongly disagree for the question “My supervisor delegates me

enough authority to perform my job efficiently” in the initial response.

In the revisited response, 4.2% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree

and 16.8% of the respondents have rated as agree.

23.8% of the respondents remained undecided in the revisited response.

A majority of 32.1% of the respondents have rated as disagree and around 23.1%

have rated as strongly disagree for “My supervisor delegates me enough authority

to perform my job efficiently”.

Inference:

Empowerment is key for high performance. IT industries employ young people,

they aspire fast growth. It’s necessary for the organizations to have a right balance

in providing empowerment. Empowerment without responsibility does not serves

any purpose. Similarly when responsibilities are given to employee managers

should to able to provide enough authority.

TABLE No: VI – 2


question “My supervisor creates a cordial environment,

my best”



164

Percentage 16.4%

Revisited

Response (2008) 48

Percentage 4.8%

212

Average 10.6%


Graph No: V1I – 2

Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “

supervisor creates a cordial environment, which helps me to deliver my best”

16.4%

4.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

tsTable showing the distribution of response in number and percentage for the

question “My supervisor creates a cordial environment, which helps me to deliver


Strongly Disagree

387 154 187

16.4% 38.7% 15.4% 18.7% 10.8%

175 224 387

4.8% 17.5% 22.4% 38.7% 16.6%

562 378 574

10.6% 28.1% 18.9% 28.7% 13.7%


Graph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “



38.7%

15.4%

18.7%17.5%

22.4%

38.7%


212


which helps me to deliver


108 1000

10.8%

166 1000

16.6%

274

13.7% 100



10.8%

16.6%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

213


16.4% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree in the initial response for

“My supervisor creates a cordial environment, which helps me to deliver my best”.

A majority of 38.7% have rated as agree, and 15.4% were undecided.

18.7% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 10.8% have rated as

strongly disagree in the initial response for “My supervisor creates a cordial

environment, which helps me to deliver my best”.

In the revisited response, 4.8% has rated as strongly agree and 17.5% have rated

as agree for “My supervisor creates a cordial environment, which helps me to

deliver my best”.

22.4% were undecided in the revisited response.

A majority of 38.7% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 16.6% of the

respondents have rated as strongly disagree for “My supervisor creates a cordial

environment, which helps me to deliver my best”.

Inference:

Employees leave managers, not organizations this has been proved through many

researches. The interpretation shows that though there was a favorable response in

the initial response, the revisited response shows a dip in supervisor’s favorability.

It is very essential for organizations to train their managers in handling different

business situations. The manager’s real test is how they handle tough situations

especially when the environment is not conducive.

TABLE No: VI – 3


question “My Company is a leader in the industry”



243

Percentage 24.3%

Revisited Response (2008)

187

Percentage 18.7%

430

Average 21.5%


Graph No: V1I – 3


Company is a leader in the industry”

24.3%

18.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

he distribution of response in number and percentage for the

question “My Company is a leader in the industry”


Strongly Disagree

423 103 177

24.3% 42.3% 10.3% 17.7% 5.4%

328 189 189

18.7% 32.8% 18.9% 18.9% 10.7%

751 292 366

21.5% 37.6% 14.6% 18.3% 8.1%


raph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “My

Company is a leader in the industry”


42.3%

10.3%

17.7%

32.8%

18.9% 18.9%


214



54 1000

5.4%

107 1000

10.7%

161

8.1% 100

raph showing the distribution of response in percentage for the question “My

5.4%

10.7%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

215


24.3% have rated as strongly agree, and a majority of 42.3% have rated as agree

for “My Company is a leader in the industry”.

10.3% were undecided in the initial response.

17.7% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 5.4% have rated as strongly

disagree.

In the revisited response, 18.7% have rated as strongly agree and a majority of

32.8% have rated as agree.


Similarly 18.9% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 10.7% have rated

as strongly disagree for “My Company is a leader in the industry” in the revisited

response.

Inference:

Every company cannot be a leader. However each organization can have its own

USP and be different in the competition. Employees would always expect their

company to be unique in its own way.

TABLE No: VI – 4


question “My Company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”



228

Percentage 22.8%

Revisited

Response (2008) 178

Percentage 17.8%

406

Average 20.3%


Graph No: V1I – 4


company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”

22.8%

43.2%

17.8%20.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Strongly

Agree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


question “My Company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”


Strongly Disagree

432 118 165

22.8% 43.2% 11.8% 16.5% 5.7%

342 176 196

17.8% 34.2% 17.6% 19.6% 10.8%

774 294 361

20.3% 38.7% 14.7% 18.1% 8.3%



company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”


43.2%

11.8%

16.5%

34.2%

17.6%19.6%

38.7%

14.7%

18.1%


216



57 1000

5.7%

108 1000

10.8%

165

8.3% 100


5.7%

10.8%8.3%

Strongly

Disagree

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

Averaging

217



“My Company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”.

While a majority of 43.2% has rated as agree in the initial response, and 11.8%

were undecided.

16.5% have rated as disagree and 5.7% have rated as strongly disagree for “My

Company is a strong competitor in key growth areas” in the initial response.

In the revisited response 17.6% of the respondents were undecided.

17.8% have rated strongly agree, and a majority of 34.2% have rated as agree for

“My Company is a strong competitor in key growth areas”.

In the revisited response 18.1% of the respondents have rated as disagree and

8.3% have rated as strongly disagree.

Inference:

Every organization should have its key growth area. This helps them to be different

from the competition and also would help them to be innovative in their own way.

Engaging employees through different forums to contribute ideas and share leads

are essential for complete development.

TABLE No: VI – 5


question “My Company’s leadership has a clear vision of the future”



198

Percentage 19.8%

Revisited

Response (2008) 127

Percentage 12.7%

325

Average 16.3%


Graph No: V1I – 5


Company's leadership has a clear vision of the future”

19.8%

58.7%

9.8%

8.6% 3.1%

Initial

Response

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

ibution of response in number and percentage for the

question “My Company’s leadership has a clear vision of the future”


Strongly Disagree

587 98 86

19.8% 58.7% 9.8% 8.6% 3.1%

298 287 173

12.7% 29.8% 28.7% 17.3% 11.5%

885 385 259

16.3% 44.3% 19.3% 13.0% 7.3%



Company's leadership has a clear vision of the future”


19.8%12.7%

29.8%

28.7%

17.3%

11.5%

Revisited

Response

218

ibution of response in number and percentage for the


31 1000

3.1%

115 1000

11.5%

146

7.3% 100


Revisited

Response

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

219


19.8% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree, and 58.7% have rated as

agree for “My Company’s leadership has a clear vision of the future” in the initial

response.

9.8% of the respondents were undecided in the initial response.

8.6% of the respondents have rated as disagree, and 3.1% have rated as strongly

disagree in the initial response.

In the revisited response a good number, 28.7% of them were undecided in their

response.

12.7% of the respondents have rated as strongly agree, and 29.8% have rated as

agree.

While 17.3% rated as disagree, 11.5% have rated as strongly agree for the

question “My Company’s leadership has a clear vision of the future” in the revisited

response.

Inference:

The leadership team in organizations should be clear on their vision for the future.

They should be able to visualize the changing marketing situations and should be

able to make quick decisions in navigating organizations directions.

Leadership team should be felt by all in the organizations. Different channels for

their interaction with the employees should be enabled. Open house meets,

quarterly meets etc should be a common thing.

220

TABLE No: VI – 6


question “My Company’s leadership has made changes which are positive for the

company”

Respondents Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree



154 368 189 176 113 1000

Percentage 15.4% 36.8% 18.9% 17.6% 11.3%

Revisited

Response (2008) 109 387 328 148 28 1000

Percentage 10.9% 38.7% 32.8% 14.8% 2.8%

263 755 517 324 141

Average 13.2% 37.8% 25.9% 16.2% 7.1% 100


Graph No: V1I – 6


Company’s leadership has made changes which are positive for the company”


15.4%

36.8%

18.9%17.6%

11.3%10.9%

38.7%

32.8%

14.8%

2.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Initial

Response

Revisited

Response

221



“My Company’s leadership has made changes which are positive for the company”.

A majority of 36.8% have rated as agree, and 18.9% were undecided in the initial

response.

17.6% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 11.3% as strongly disagree

for “My Company’s leadership has made changes which are positive for the

company” in the initial response.

In the revisited response, 32.8% were undecided.

A majority of 38.7% have rated as agree and 10.9% have rated as strongly agree

for “My Company’s leadership has made changes which are positive for the

company”.

14.8% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 2.8% have rated as strongly

disagree in the revisited response.

Inference:

The leadership team should have a long term focus and should be able to anticipate

business changes and take decision faster.

During recession, while few companies went for lay-offs, few companies went on

cost cutting and few on salary cuts. Each of the methods had their own advantages

and disadvantages. Leadership teams should be able to make the right balance of

the organization.

TABLE No: VI – 7


question “My Company’s leadership is proactive in addressing internal/external

issues”



244

Percentage 24.4%

Revisited

Response (2008) 87

Percentage 8.7%

331

Average 16.6%


Graph No: V1I – 7


Company’s leadership is proactive in addressing internal/external issues”

Strongly

Agree

Initial

Response24.4%

Revisited

Response8.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Re

spo

nd

en

ts




Strongly Disagree

432 76 156

24.4% 43.2% 7.6% 15.6% 9.2%

378 134 108

8.7% 37.8% 13.4% 10.8% 29.3%

810 210 264

16.6% 40.5% 10.5% 13.2% 19.3%






43.2% 7.6% 15.6%

37.8% 13.4% 10.8%

222




92 1000

9.2%

293 1000

29.3%

385

19.3% 100



Strongly

Disagree

9.2%

29.3%

223


22.4% have responded as strongly agree for “My Company’s leadership is proactive

in addressing internal/external issues” in the initial response.

A majority of 43.2% of the respondents have rated as agree, and 7.6% were

undecided.

15.6% of the respondents have rated as disagree, and 9.2% have rated as strongly

disagree in the initial response.

In the revisited response 8.7% have rated as strongly agree, and 37.8% have rated

as agree for “My Company’s leadership is proactive in addressing internal/external

issues”.


10.4% rated as disagree and 29.3% rated as strongly disagree for “My Company’s

leadership is proactive in addressing internal/external issues” in the revisited

response.

Inference:

The leadership team should not only address internally issue but should also be

able to involve in addressing issue in the external world. This not only gives

visibility to organizations but also creates brand value for the organizations.

However caution should be taken to ensure no negativity is created due of such

actions.

224

TABLE No: VI – 8


question “My company’s leadership team serves as ethical role models”

Respondents Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree



276 456 187 67 14 1000

Percentage 27.6% 45.6% 18.7% 6.7% 1.4%

Revisited

Response (2008) 45 278 265 212 200 1000

Percentage 4.5% 27.8% 26.5% 21.2% 20.0%

321 734 452 279 214

Average 16.1% 36.7% 22.6% 14.0% 10.7% 100


Interpretation of Table No: VI – 8

27.6% has rated as strongly agree for “My company’s leadership team serves as

ethical role models”.

A majority of 45.6% has rated as agree in the initial response.

18.7% were undecided in their response. 6.7% have rated as disagree, 1.4% have

rated as strongly disagree for “My company’s leadership team serves as ethical role

models” in the initial response.

4.5% of respondents have rated as strongly agree and 27.8% has rated as agree in

the revisited response.

26.5% respondents were undecided in the revisited response.

225

21.2% of the respondents have rated as disagree and 20% has rated as strongly

disagree in the revisited response for “My company’s leadership team serves as

ethical role models”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a sample of 1000, 323 employees agree that company’s leadership team

serves as ethical role models.

P = 323/1000

=.323

The 95% confidence limits for proportions (p ± 1.96 √pq⁄n)

=.323 ± 1.96 √. 323× .677/1000

= (.323 ± .029)

= (29.4%, 35.2%)

Therefore with 95% confidence we can conclude that only 29.4% to 35.2% of

employees agree that company’s leadership team serves as ethical role models.

Inference:

Leadership team should be role models. Employees look towards them for guidance

and try to move on their footsteps. Ethical leadership does not reflect only in

company operations, but also how different situations are handled in the right

possible way by ensuring legal and statutory compliance.

Documents

Chapter – Supervisor Relations Company Leadershipshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/35952/8/chapter 6.pdf · “Developing Leadership is the key ... is the leader who values