34

CHAPTER – II

THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

2.1 Introduction :

Leadership is one of the most critical behavioral processes

of all human activities, survival, development and continuity of

civilization depending upon the qualities of leadership. It has drawn

the scholarly attention, because of its universal and indispensable

character. Leadership is inevitable for every society, as no society can

be organized, continue, grow and develop without it. The leaders are

„Great men „, who through their social vision and dynamic action can

change the course of history. Political development, democratic growth

and administrative capabilities of a nation greatly depend upon the

qualities of its leadership. Leadership paves the way towards „‟ social

change” resulting in political modernization and development of a

country. Leadership is crucial for emerging nations as they are

attempting to build a social economic structure and a strong

democratic edifice which needs men of vision, foresight and

workmanships.

35

Generally speaking leadership refers to the act of leading

others in social situation. Like Democracy it may mean many things to

many people. The term is used in two different senses if we look to

the dictionary meaning of the verb “to lead “, in one sense it means “to

excel, to be in advance, to be prominent „‟, in another sense it means

to guide others, to be the head of an organization to hold command. It

may connote different notions when viewed in different prospective.

For example , to call someone a leading doctor , a leading professor , a

leader artist mean that he enjoy greater esteem and superior position

compared with his fellow men in his profession or occupation ; but it

also mean that he is capable of exercising influence on them and

bring about desired change in their behavior and actions .

Therefore, leadership may be perceived or viewed in

diverse ways because there are different ways one individual may

separate himself from others in social situations. Despite such

different notion and lack of unanimity of definition on the concept of

leadership, some important definition and views of scholar may be

presented here so as to discern the general attributes of leadership.

2.2 Definitions and Views On Leadership:

The leadership has been variously defined by different

scholars .Some scholars defined it in term of group activities.

36

According to Adolf Hitler, leadership means ability to move masses of

men. To begin with, according to E. C Lindeman, a leader is “an

individual whose rationalizations, Judgments and feelings are

accepted by the group as the basis of belief and action”.1 Ordway

Tead upheld such view as he observes “ leadership is the activity of

influencing people to co-operate to some goal which they come to

find desirable”.2 According to psychologists and sociologists,

leadership is the characteristics of a group rather than of individuals.

Leadership is a set of function which is to be performing by the Group.

As Cartwright and Zender suggest, “…… stresses the characteristics

of the group and the situation in which it exists………. Seeks to

discover what action is required by groups under various conditions if

they are to achieve their goals or their valued states and how different

group members take part in group action. Leadership is viewed as the

performance of these acts which help the group achieve its‟ preferred

outcomes”. 3 Gibb observed that newly formed groups some degree of

leadership emerged within the first few minutes of interaction. Collins

and Guetzkow confidently stated that “the greater the personal

attraction of other group members to a single individual, the greater

power of that individual”. 4

According to some scholar leadership involves some kind

of outstanding initiative in group activities. Charles. H. Cooley defines

37

it as “leadership is only silent initiative.”5 W. H. Cowley also gave

similar opinion when he adds the idea of fellow – responsiveness and

defines it as “A leader is an individual who is moving in a particular

direction and who succeeds in inducing others to follow after him”.6

Herbert S. Lewis emphasized that initiative as a defining

characteristics and define leadership as ……leaders initiate action and

play central role in group decision-making”.7 Dwight D. Eisenhower

who says that “leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done

and then to get others want to do it.8 Harry S. Truman who says “A

leader is a man who has ability to get other people to do what they do

not want to do, and like it.”9

Personality of the leader that enables him to exercise

influence on others and to bring about intended changes in their

behavior is, however conditioned by the social environment in which

the leader function. Paul Pigour is of the opinion that leadership

involves personality-environment relationship. According to him,

leadership emerges when a personality is so placed in the

environmental that his “will, feeling and insight direct and control

others in the pursuit of a common cause”. 10 John K. Hemphill who

emphasized that the impact of the social environment upon the leader

in conditioning the exercise of his influence for realizing group goals.

He defined leadership as “To lead is to engage in an act which initiates

38

a structure in the interaction of others as part of the process of solving

a mutual problem”. 11 when an individual initiates and decides group

goals and become successful in realizing them through interactions

with other members of the group of the society then he may be said to

have attained the status of a leader. As leadership is a higher social

position in the hierarchical order of the society, it brings power, status

and respect for the leaders then others in the society .As Bernand

Bass points out, “…….we consider leadership an interaction between

members of a group ……it has been equated with any positive

influence act; with behavior required to direct a group …….”12 Bass ,

however , asserts that leadership may be characterized by the degree

to which desired changes in the behavior of others for realizing group

goals take place . Again Lewis states that “whether or not a society has

institutionalized chiefs, rulers, or elected officials, there are always in

any society, leaders who initiate action and play central roles in group

- decision making.”13. He further explained, “There are no known

societies without leadership of at least some aspects of their social life,

even though there are many that lack a single leader to enforce the

decision.”14

E. P. Hollander highlighted the interactive attribute of

leadership and opines that “………leadership is a relationship between

a person exerting influence and those who are influenced, and

39

…….best seen within the framework of group process.”15 According to

him, a leader is required to have social perceptiveness 16 while

exercising influence over the influencee. He is required to be aware of

the group circumstances so that he may take action for designed

structural-functional change in it. For effective group functions, its

stability and viability a leader has to develop congruence between its

structure and functions .The degree of his effectiveness17 can be

determined from his ability to develop co -relationship between group

structure and functions.

Effectiveness of the leader in exercising influence over its

members may also be measured, according to Raymond B. Cattell, the

psychologist in terms of “group syntality.” He defined “group syntality”

“ as the performance of the group as a whole”.18 The idea of group

syntality seems related to the concept of “social facilitation” defined by

W.C. Allee, a student of comparative animal and human “sociology” as

“any increment in frequency , intensity or complexity of behavior of

one individual resulting from the presence of the other”. 19

Cattell suggested that the measure of a leader‟s influence

may be sought not so much on his influence on group members but

in his influence upon total group locomotion or group “syntality” i.e.

characteristics , nature or quality , analogous to individuals

personality , which is Judged from the effectiveness of total

40

performance of the group as group . The extent of leader‟s influence on

the total group performance as a group would reveal the degree of his

effectiveness. Therefore leading may occur only with in groups, and

leader may be seen to occupy a position within a group and fulfill

group role .i.e. high proportion of initiating, decision making or leading

acts .The individual who engages in leadership events becomes a

leader. Thus, the group leader would be the person who engages in

more leadership events than others. So we identified the leadership

only those interactive events in which intended influence are

consummated. So leadership involves the relationship between an

individual‟s group built around some common interest and behaving

in a manner directed and determined by him.

A leadership is always linked with a particular situation as

well as a given point of time and specific set of circumstances.

Distinguished scholar civil A. Gibb has characterized the following

attributes of leadership. Firstly, it is always “relational to the situation

and flourishes only in a problem situation”. Secondly, the nature and

role of the leader is determined by the goal of the people .Thirdly,

leadership is “a process of mutual stimulation, a social interaction

phenomenon in which the attitudes, ideals and aspiration of the

followers play as important and determining role as the individuality

and personality of the leader.”20

41

In defining leadership Report Tannenbaum , Irving R .

Wechsler, and Fred Massanik have emphasized on the criterion of

inter – personal influence. According to them, leadership is “inter

personal influence, exercised in situation and directed through the

communication process, toward the attainment of specified goal or

goals”.21. It involves attempts on the part of a leader (influencer) to

influence the behavior of the follower (influencee) or followers in a

situation. Tannenbaum and his associates are of the opinion that

leadership arts are goal- oriented, goals may be organizational goals,

group goals, personal goals of the leader or personal goals of the

followers which is to be realized by interpersonal influence exercised

through the communication process. In this inter–personal process of

goal attainment, the degree of leadership effectiveness is determined

by influence effect. The leadership effectiveness is the outcome of the

dynamic inters- relationship of the personality characteristics of the

leader, the personality characteristics of the situation in which each

actor is required to play his role. 22According to G. Ram Reddy and

Seshadri elaborate “leadership manifests itself in the total process of

the rise of a leader, the influence he exerts on his followers and the

way and the ways he not only ensure and gather power around him

and seek to ascend still further or the range of the leadership ladder,

but also tries to perpetuate his achieved position. 23 Accordingly,

42

leadership is a process and not a person, involving a leader, followers

and their situation.

The concept of leadership is different from that of a

„leader‟. However, a few authors have used them synonymously.

Ordway Tead defines : “ leadership is the activity of influencing people

to co- operate towards some common goal which they come to find

desirable”.24 The personal relation of leadership has been focused by

Allport when he explains : “leadership according to our present usage,

means the direct, face to face contact between leader and followers; it

is personal social control‟‟,25 the term leader has traditionally implied

a person clearly distinguished from others in power , status , visibility

and in any of a number of character , such as decisiveness , courage ,

integrity and intelligence . But in present time participative approach

to leadership which de-emphasizes status has failed to make

conceptual distinction between leaders and followers. Some scholar

defines it in terms of follower need, “serve the people” –Mao Tse -Tung

.26 Leadership as influence by example. “What a few will do, others will

copy”. 27 “Clean examples have a curious method of multiplying

themselves‟‟28 Gandhi said in this context.

Leadership does not mean Domination. According to

Schmidt, leadership influence must not take the form of coercive

influence but of spontaneous influence. He opines , strictly speaking

43

the relation of leadership anises only where a group follows an

individual from free choice, and not under command or coercion, not

in response to blind drives but on positive and more or less rational

grounds.29 leadership is different from Domination as W. J .W sprott

points out , leadership is a process of mutual stimulation and co-

operation between the leader and the followers for realizing group–

goals but domination is a process of control in which, by assumption

of superiority, a person or group regulates the activities of others

coercively.”30

Therefore, leadership are thus, creators and builders of

the group or society because they are concerned as much with

innovation as with collective stability, and they perform such actions

which “aid in setting group goals , moving the group towards its goals ,

improving the quality of interactions among the members building the

cohesiveness of the group , and making resources available to the

group”.31 Arnold S. Tannenbaum also held the same view and points

out : “leadership defines, initiates and maintains social structure. The

social system is, so to speak, „programmed‟ through leadership.

Understanding leadership, then, should be a simple and parsimonious

approach to understanding the larger social system”.32

44

Also political leadership implies politics and politics

means politician. According to H.D. lasswell, “A fully developed

political personality combines certain motives with certain skills,

emotional capacity to externalize impulses with enough skills to secure

success.”33 in the words of Robert Dhal “politic is unavoidable fact of

human existence ; everyone is involved in some fashion at some time

in some kind of political system34 Administrative leadership is an

essential complement to political leadership .The relationship between

politics and leadership has been well defined by Edinger . He defines

“politics as the competition for control over the distribution of public

benefits and obligations while political leadership involves the direct or

indirect exercise of influence over the distribution of these goods and

services. Thus, the whole question of politics focuses on these who

exercise influence and power and how these are employed for the

purposes of distributing scare resources”.35 The political leaders

interlink the complex social variable and promotes the stability and

equilibrium in the political systems and maintain balance in the

administrative machinery . Hence, political leaders are the wielder of

power, maker of decisions, originator and recipient of messages,

performer of functions, creator and operator of institutions. As one

cannot separate the process of change from the agents of change, any

fruitful analysis of the politics of development must include the

45

political leadership .To speak politics then is to speak of political

leadership, the two phenomena are inseparable. Janada and Friedrich

defined leadership in terms of power. Janada attempts to differentiate

leadership from coercive domination and he defined it as consensual

follower response to legitimate leader initiative. He again states that, it

is a form of consensual, but not coercive, power. He had explained

that leadership is “a particular type of power relationship

characterized by group member‟s perceptions that another group

member has the right to prescribe behavior patterns for the former

regarding his behavior as a member of a particular group.” 36 Friedrich

also defines leadership in terms of power and said that as power itself

is partly „a possession‟ and partly „a relation‟ among men that

manifests itself in the behavior of followers so also leadership can be

either coercive or consensual.37 In his opinion , leaders are “power-

holders”, “power-spenders, “and “power-makers.” 38 Leadership has

three primary roles “initiating, maintaining, and protecting”; followers

have three corresponding pattern of behavior “imitating, obeying and

acclaiming.”39 thus types of power and the type of leadership are all

related and interchangeable.

Downtown made an early effort to link the idea of

leadership with a structural- functional approach to political analysis.

He defines leadership broadly as “the chief coordinating structure of

46

social system.”40 A function is taken as “a task that is relevant to the

system‟s performance of services.”41 Here function refers to

instrumental function i.e. goal setting, communicating and mobilizing

and expressive functions. (Ego-support) Thus, the leader is the central

figure in socio-political system as its stability and viability or

instability and change depends by his leadership acts. Hence, taking

in to account all the above views it can be said that leadership is the

interaction between the leaders and his followers in a particular

situations.

2.3 Elements of Leadership:

A close look in to these definitions provides the fact that

leadership is an inter-individual relationship in which the leader

influences the followers for accomplishment of intended group-goal.

Therefore, it is composed of four elements or variables such as the

leader, the followers, the situation, and the task or goals of the group.

So the interaction among these four elements or variables for

understanding the leadership phenomenon may be analyzed and

comprehend.

2.3.1 The leader:

The leader performs the act of leading which would be

performed for some duration and that leadership position would be

47

occupied for considerable time by the same individual. The leader

enjoys a status that permits him to exercise power and influence over

other individuals in the group. Therefore, the ability of an individual to

undertake influence attempts and to become effectives in realizing the

desired goals or objects becomes central to the concept of leadership.

The ability of the leader can be derived from various sources to which

people considered most valuable. These constitute the sources of his

influence which may be used to secure followers‟ compliance to the

initiatives and decisions of the leader. However compliance is secured

in free inter - change within group context and followers through such

spontaneous compliance, accord a status to the leader by virtue of

which leadership acts are performed by him and influence is exercised

effectively for realizing group goals . Group-consent is, therefore, a

central feature of leader - follower relationship. 43

2.3.2 Follower:

Without followership, leadership cannot be conceived as it

is a two way traffic in which both leader and follower help each other

for realizing the group goals. The leader exercise influence over the

followers and secure their compliance to the initiatives, decisions and

directives of the leader and contrary to this, leadership would become

ineffective. Both leaders and followers stimulate not only the other‟s

needs and goals but also its determination and action. They perform

48

complementary tasks by reinforcing each other‟s strength and

confidence in achieving both individual and common objectives. Again

they are collaborators as there would be no leading without following,

and no following without leading. Therefore, the concept of follower is

a major variable 44 or element in the phenomenon of leadership.

2.3.3 Situation:

The third important element in the process of leadership is

the situation in which the act of leadership is undertaken by the

leader. Leadership is a nexus of need fulfillments that binds

situational demands and group membership. The term situation in its

broad sense include structural and cultural characteristics of the

group , its physical conditions desired goals or need, inter-personal

relationship and cultural context I.e. the leaders and led‟s attitudinal

pattern. The leader- follower relationship takes place in the context of

this situation. Groups are expected to select leaders who diagnose

problems quickly and act decisively during crisis situation. It is the

situation which to a large extent determines effectiveness of the leader

in goal-attainment. 45

2.3.4 Group-goal:

Another important element of the process of leadership is

the group-goal or task. The group-goal or objectives is transmitted by

49

the leader to the followers through the process of communication; and

the leader tries to influence their behavior in the direction of

attainment of group-goal. Hence, the effectiveness of the leader

depends on his ability to realize the group-goal or task.

Thus, the leadership process involves interaction among

the four elements i.e., the leader, the followers the situation and the

tasks or goals to be realized. The leader initiates interpersonal

influence through communication and tries to influence the followers‟

attitude, action, behavior and dispositions for accomplishment of

intended group-goals in the context of a situation .All these elements

together tend to play significant roles in determining leadership

effectiveness. Hence, in order to understand the leadership process, it

is desirable to analyze and comprehend the interaction between the

personality of the leader and followers, group goals characteristics of

the situation in which the leader undertakes the act of leading.

2.4 Leadership Approaches:

There are various approaches for the study of leadership

phenomena. However, two distinct approaches i.e. Trait approach and

the situation Approach can be used for study and analysis of

leadership roles.

50

2.4.1 Trait Approach:

It is the earliest approach adopted by scholar during the

first part of the twentieth century for the study of leadership. It is

concerned with identification of peculiar physical and psychological

characteristics and distinguishing personality traits of the leaders,

which are not generally found among other members in the society.

Due to his superior physical, psychological and intellectual traits he

easily influences the others and he seems to be bigger and brighter

than the rest of the population. Thus this approach focuses exclusively

on the leader and asserts that the effectiveness of the leader may be

explained in terms of psychological and physiological characteristics of

traits which differentiate him from other members of group.

The physical qualities of leadership are strong and

imposing physique, vigor and strength, dramatic expression, a

pleasant voice and self confidence. He is expected to be a strong and

stout man who can successfully tackle a violent situation and provide

his followers with a sense of security. Some of the important

psychological traits of leadership are intelligence, tact, courage,

courtesy, initiative, flexibility impartiality and emotional stability.

According to R.M. stogdill has found traits among successful leader

these characteristics are “Intelligence, Dependability, Responsibility,

scholarship, social participation and socio-economic status.”46

51

According to Ghiseli the following are common traits among successful

leaders namely “Intelligence, supervisory ability, initiative, self

assurance and self- perceived occupational level.”47

A number of studies on leadership have been undertaken

on the basis of trait approach and which has provided evidences that

personality traits contribute to the emergence and maintenance of

leadership status. In this context mention may be made of the work of

W. H. Cowley, 48 Carter and Nixon, 49 Borgatta, couch and sales 50

cattle and stice 51, and Borg. 52

Lack of universal traits or qualities of this approach has

failed to make any substantial contribution to our understanding of

leadership phenomena. Reaction against and criticism of the Trait

Approach come to the fore with the publication of works by Gibb53 and

stogdill54 which upheld the situational view and asserted that those

personality traits which were leadership traits depends upon the

situation and necessity of the group , as a result of which the attempt

to discover leadership traits that makes the leader different from

others has been disappointing in the word of Gouldner “At this time

there is no reliable evidence concerning the existence of universal

leadership traits”.55 So the trait approach has become fruitless

because the leader does not function on isolation; they must interact

52

with the followers in a particular situation or socio- cultural milieu of

the group.

2.4.2 The Situational Approach:

According to the protagonists of this approach, a leader is

born out of a situation. An individual may have several traits, but he

would not be a leader so long as these traits remain dormant.

However, it is the situation which may ignite these traits and inspire

him to assume the leadership role. Critical situation, may produce a

leader, and for a potential leader situation works as a catalyst. Hence,

different situation requires different leadership behavior and attributes

which make for effective leadership are determined by the particular

situation prevalent in the group at a given time. This approach is

championed by the works of Gibb,56 Hemphill57 and Carter 58 et .al ,

and they conceives of leadership in terms of functions performed in

group-situation, rather than in terms of the leadership traits . As

stogdill emphatically point out: “the qualities, characteristics and

skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the

demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader”.59

In this approach followers defines a situation in

responding to leadership and therefore, they constitute a major

element in the leadership process. Followers are not passive creatures,

53

but they are active participant whose roles and activities tend to

determine the effectiveness of the leadership. “According to the

situationist the situations calls for certain types of action and that the

leader himself does not inject his leadership but tries to become

instrumental in bringing about a solutions. In the process, the concept

of “inter-personal relationship” is highlighted, 60 Thus the account is

placed not on “Leadership qualities”, but on the “Leadership process,”

as performed by various people under different situations.

Behaviouralists highlighted the fact that leadership is not

only the act of a particular individual, but it revolves around the acts

of mutual interaction and relationship among all members of a group.

Thus, the follower oriented approach contribute to a meaningfully

towards the study of leadership process. As F.H.Sanford states that

“There is some justification for regarding the follower as the most

crucial factor in any leadership event and arguing that research

directed at the follower will eventually yield a handsome pay-off. Not

only it is the follower who accepts or rejects leadership, but it is the

follower who perceives both the leader and the situation and who

reacts in terms of what he perceives.And what he perceives may be,

to an important degree, a function of his own motivations, frames of

reference and readiness”.61

54

Thus different approaches to the study of leadership

phenomenon may be discerned. The Trait Approach, the Situational

Approach and the Follower-Oriented Approach, each giving special

emphasis on the corresponding element of the leadership process.

Thus, as leading is a socio-psychological phenomenon, all the above

approaches are complementary and should be combined together for

fruitful research and analysis.

2.5 History of Leadership:

The desire to study the Individuals who provide guidance

to the lesser one and who has capacity to provide solution to the crisis,

is an age old phenomena. In early time the strongmen controlled the

weak and the weak had respect for the strong and superior people

though it was based on fear.

Plato, the eminent Greek Philosopher, distinguished

between the leader and the led. According to him , to devise a method

of barring Incompetence from public office and selecting the best for

the common good is the problem of political philosophy. So he

specified an Ideal environment congenial for creating and developing

philosopher-king. The `Arthasastra‟ of Kautilya and „The Prince‟ of

Machiavelli are nothing but a guidelines or an advice for successful

leadership.

55

With the growth of an Idea that society as a collective

entity, Democratic Ideas and Ideals the Importance of leadership

reduced and Institution were given more Importance and they were

studied. But in 1960s, interest in leadership was revived and attempt

was made to study leadership and their Importance was realized.

Then the contractualist Philosopher Hobbes, Locke and

Rousseau elevated the Individual to the rank of creator of the state

and Political order, thereby the Individual became leader to rule the

state. Economic dimension of the state is highlighted by the

Philosopher like Adam Smith and Marx.

A study on leadership would be incomplete without

highlighting the concept of Political elites. While Marx classified state

on economic basis, paroto divided it on the basis of Individual‟s

quality. Pareto divided society into two classes, i.e. Elites and Non-

Elites and Elites always rule over the society. Mosca divided the

society in to `the Elites‟ and `the Masses‟ and both of them viewed

elites as “group of people who either exercised directly or were in a

position to influence very strongly the exercise of political power.”62

Robert Michels discuss the concept of „elite‟ and opine that modern

organized society give birth to elites and elites are necessary for the

successes of any Organization and they are the leaders of the

Organization.63. In modern times the concept of Political leadership is

56

analyzed to ascertain their role in Socio-Cultural, and economic

development of a country.

2.6 Leadership Styles:

Leadership styles i.e. leadership acts and behavior not

only determine the pattern of leader-follower relationship but also the

structure of the group. Three different styles of leadership i.e.

Authoritarian style, Laissez-faire style and Democratic style 64 may be

identified on the basis of the role of the leader in the decision making

process.

2.6.1 Authoritarian style:

The style of leadership may be called as Authoritarian

style, If the leader centralizes and monopolizes all decision making

power, determines the policies of the group without allowing nominal

role to his subordinates in the decision –making process. He thinks

that power-relationship in society is hierarchal and he demands

absolute unquestioning obedience from the subordinates. He also

decides the techniques and steps of the work to be done, personnel to

be required and goal to be achieved. An authoritarian leader dislike

participatory tendency and tend to remain completely aloof from active

group participation.

57

2.6.2 Laisser-faire style

The style of leadership may be called laissez-faire style, if

the leader gives complete freedom to his followers in the decision

making process and accomplishment of group-goals policies with the

leader limited participation or complete non-participation. It is

characterized as complete delegation of all decision making power to

the group as a whole. His role is limited as a facilitator of contract to

the group with the outside world. The leader entrusts all responsibility

to the members of the group for deciding and doing the works and let

the group function on its own. But such type of leadership rarely

found in the real world situations because a leader never abdicates his

authority and responsibility for deciding group-goals and their

Implementations.

2.6.3 Democratic style

The style of leadership may be called democratic

style if the leader motivates the people to participate actively and

alertly along with his active participation in the group decision-making

process. It stands in between the two extreme style of leadership i.e.

authoritarian and laissez-faire in terms of group-decision making is

concerned. Goals, policies, techniques, steps and personnel are

decided through debate and discussion, deliberations and consultation

58

duly encouraged and Inspired by the leader. The leader does not

abdicate his authority and responsibility but instead actively

participate and motivate the people to participate in deciding societal

goals. In evaluating the work of the group members he becomes

objective and fact-minded. Being `participantly-Oriented‟, the leader

motivates the members of the Group to develop participant

orientations and a high sense of competence. Thus, he is a `

Democratic personality, 65 and type and style of leadership is

`Democratic‟.

So, we cannot view this leadership style as water-tight

compartments but distinct attributes in the process of deciding

societal-goal. For example, it is very difficult that, a totally democratic

approach or styles can be made to fit into a hierarchical form of

Organization, especially in traditional Societies where non- democratic

values are still held rather high.

2.7 Types of Leadership:

The leaders enjoy a status66 which enables him to

exercise influence over other members of the group and that facilitates

spontaneous compliance of the followers to the leadership act

undertaken by the leader. This status is derived from the followers

who may accord or withdraw it. Followers accord a status to the leader

59

by way of placing him along a dimension in terms of some criterion of

value, so that they comply with his leadership acts. As the followers

belief that the acts of leadership are good , just and legitimate , so they

accord status to the leader and then accord legitimacy to the power of

the leader and his leadership act as a consequence of which leadership

is converted in to “Authority,” 67 that facilitates stable and effective

leader-follower relationship.

Since leadership acquires authority through legitimacy,

types of leadership may be discerned from the source of legfitimacy.

According to MaxWeber there are three sources or bases of legitimacy

for „a system of imperative co-ordination‟ which he defines as “the

probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) from a

given source will be obeyed by a given group of persons.”68 Charisma,

tradition and laws are the three sources of legitimacy corresponding to

which three types of leadership i.e. Charismatic Leadership,

Traditional leadership, and Rational-legal leadership, as distinct

authority patterns69 may emerge.

2.7.1 Charismatic leadership

Charismatic leadership means a leader of exceptional

qualities and personal magnetism. It all so means gifted leadership. He

is believed to be possessing super natural and super human power.

60

People regarded him as all–wise, infallible, all- powerful and morally

perfect. He is omniscient and incorruptible. Weber defines charisma as

“a certain qualities of an individual personality by virtues of which he

is set apart by ordinary man and treated as endowed with super

natural, super human, or at least specifically exceptional powers and

qualities.”70 It is a personal attributes of the leaders that encharm the

people and secure people‟s responsiveness and obedience to him.

2.7.2 Traditional leadership

Traditional leadership, as distinguished from charismatic

leadership, rest on a belief of the people in the sanctity of immemorial

tradition. 71 He assumes office on the basis of tradition and heredity as

there is no election for such offices. For example, when the son

succeeded to his father‟s office. The kings, feudal lord, caste chief,

tribal chief, the village head, are best example of traditional leaders.

2.7.3 Rational-legal leadership

Rational-legal leadership rest on a faith of the people in

the legality of formal rules and laws.72. The legitimacy of the leader is

derived from respect for the legality of power. It emphasizes a

“government of laws, not of people “. The President of America or the

Prime-Minister of India are best example of rational- legal leadership.

61

Thus, rational-legal leadership acquires status from

formal laws and rules; traditional leadership acquires a status from

customs and traditions; and charismatic leadership acquires a status

from the exceptional personal qualities of the leader himself.

In terms of the scope of exercise of power, these three

types of leadership differ widely from one another. The Charismatic

leadership exercises enormous and unlimited influence arbitrarily

because there is no difference between the source of leadership and

the leader himself. By virtues of his charisma there may not be any

limit to his scope of influence. The source of legitimacy and leader are

not same and identical in case of traditional and rational-legal

leadership. Traditional leadership acquires legitimacy from traditions

and customs as believed and adhered to by the followers; so the scope

of influence of the leader tends to be limited by the traditions. But

there is certain scope for arbitrary exercise of influence by traditional

leader as rules and regulations are not codified. However, in case of

rational-legal leadership, scope for exercise of influence arbitrarily

seems to be extremely limited because legitimacy is gained deliberately

framed and codified rules and laws.

In terms of leader-follower relationship, Traditional

leadership and Rational-legal leadership enjoy stability because

followers criticism of leadership acts may not mean criticism of

62

sources of legitimacy and therefore, if the leader view the leadership

acts with dissatisfaction, the leader may be replaced, but the source

of legitimacy would remain in tact. But in case of charismatic

leadership, the followers criticism of leadership acts would mean the

criticism of source of legitimacy, as a result of which charismatic

leadership may be threatened or wither away. So Charismatic

leadership may transform itself in the lineage of either rational- legal

leadership or traditional leadership and thus, institutionalized. Weber

called this process of transformation as “routinization of charisma”. In

his words “in the process of routinization, the charismatic element

does not necessarily disappear. It becomes rather, dissociated from the

person of the individual leader and embodied in the objective

institutional structure, so that the new holders of authority exercise it,

at second remove as it were by virtue of an institutionally legitimized

status or office.”73

However, these three types of leadership are ideal types in

real practice; leadership may be found as combination of these three

Weberian types. For example, rational-legal leadership is not

exclusively legal as it includes traditional as well as charismatic

elements. 76 It is partially traditional in the sense that that legality

comes to be established and habitual and it is partly charismatic

because continuous failure of policies of leader would lower his

63

position. Hence, through formal rules and regulations, charisma and

tradition, Rational-legal leadership may acquire legitimacy.

2.8 Leadership And The Political Culture:

The pattern of attitude of the Individual which is termed

as culture determined his behavior and dispositions. It also

determines the shape and structure of his activities, leadership styles

in relation to the followers and other members of the group. Leaders

being members of their society, tend to form and develop patterns of

perceptions and orientation toward the societal political system, its

institutions and role- incumbent‟s leaders and follower‟s political

actors, the ongoing political process and towards themselves as

political actors. The pattern of such orientation towards politics and

different political object is called as political culture. Gabriel A.

Almond, the pioneer of the concept of political culture defines it as

“patterns of orientation to politics”75. He emphatically asserts that

“every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of

orientations to political action.” 76 Again he point out that political

culture is “a set of attitude, cognition, valued-standards and feelings-

towards the political system and Its various roles and role-

incumbents. It also includes knowledge of values-affecting and feeling

towards the input of demands and claims into the system and its

authoritative outputs.” 77 According to him political culture of a society

64

refers to “the political system as internalized in the cognitions, feelings

and evaluation of it population”78 and it may be typified on the basis of

the particular distribution of patterns of orientation towards political

object. 79 Orientation and disposition may be discerned in terms of

cognitive, affective and evaluation dimensions towards the four

political objects such as political system as a general object, output

objects, input objects and self as an actor in political process. So, their

pattern of political culture or attitudinal pattern may be ascertained,

by analyzing and enquiring into these three dimensions of orientations

towards the four broad categories of political objects both at individual

level and collectivity.

2.8.1 Pure-type political culture

Accordingly, political culture may be typified into three

pure types such as parochial political culture, subject political culture

and participant political culture as per the theoretical framework

developed by Almond and Verba.80

2.8.1.1 Parochial political culture

.Parochial political culture is one where individual‟s

cognitive orientation about the national political system, Its output

and inputs objects and self as a political actor is zero. His affective and

evolutional orientation is also zero.

65

2.8.1.2 Subject political culture

Subject political culture is characterized by the presence

of cognitive, affective and evaluation orientations towards the national

political system and its output objects, but the absence of orientations

toward the input objects and the self as an actor in the political

process.

2.8.1.3participant political culture

As different from the above two participant political

culture is characterizes by the presence of cognitive, affective and

evolutional orientations towards the National political system as a

general object, its input and output objects and self as an active actor

in the political process. Therefore, participant individual tends to

participate actively in the political process as he possesses a high

sense of political competence. 81

The above three types of political culture are pure type

which are not found exclusively in any society as no individual is

exclusively parochial, subject or participant . The case is same with

the political system as no political system is exclusively parochial,

subject or participant. in reality, both individual and collectivity revel

the phenomenon of „cultural mix.‟82 At individual level, acquisition of

subject orientation does not eliminate parochial orientations to the

66

immediate structures of the community, in a same manner growth of

participant orientation does not eliminate subject and parochial

orientations . Hence, these three types of orientation are present in

individual though in a different proportions. So, individual may be

classified as parochial, or a subject or participant and on the basis of

the pre-dominance of the corresponding orientations in his attitudinal

pattern. similarity, at the collective level, the population found to be

composed of the subject therefore, the phenomenon of „cultural

mix„tend to characterize both individual and collectively found to be

composed of the parochial, the subject and the participants end its

political culture may be classified on the basis of the majority of people

revealing parochial, the subject or participant orientations.

2.8.2Mixed-Types of Political Culture:

Keeping in view, the phenomenon of „cultural mix „in real

situation, Almond and Verba classified „systematically mixed political

culture‟83 in to four types viz, the parochial-subject culture, the

subject-participant culture, the parochial-participant culture, and the

civic culture .84

2.8.2.1 The Parochial—Subject culture

The parochial-subject culture is one in which a large-

majority of population have parochial orientations where a small

67

portion of the population is found to have developed output

orientation. This small group of individual may drift away from

parochial and primordial institutions and has developed subject

orientations of rendering obedience to National government of the

polity. This type of mixed culture was found in the erstwhile Ottoman

Empire and the Prussian kingdom of the middle Ages .85

2.8.2..2 The Subject—Participant culture

The subject-participant culture is one in which a large

majority of the population have developed subject orientation or

output orientations whereas small portion of the population are

politically active and have high sense of orientations towards four

types of political objects. This group may find it difficult to play

effective roles and cannot become „a competent self-confident „body of

citizens. We can found this type of culture in France, Germany and

Italy in the Nineteenth centre. 86

2.8.2.3 The Parochial –Participant culture

The parochial-participant culture is one in which the bulk

of population continue to retain strong parochial-orientation and

primordial allegiances, but they have to develop participant culture as

participatory structures have been introduced in the political system.

The parochial orientation emanating from their identification with

68

race, tribe, caste, language, religion etc are so strong that the

participant structure of the political system loss their participant

nature under heavily stress and strain. This type of political culture

can be seen in a large number of political systems in Asia, Africa, Latin

America and the Middle East .87

2.8.2.4 The Civic culture

The civic culture is a mixed political culture which

represents a harmonious co-existence and synthesis of parochial,

subject and participant orientations both at the individual level and

the collectivity. it is an “allegiant participant” culture88. The individual

participate actively in the political process and high sense of political

competence; render obedience to the authority of political system and

does not show primordial allegiances to primary groups .His subject ,

parochial and participant orientation do not confront with one another

but synthesized harmoniously each reinforcing the other . As a result

of which individual becomes „allegiantly participant „in the sense that

he is positively oriented towards the political system, its input and

output objects and self as an active participant in the political

process? So, the individual who is characterized by civic culture, are

truly democratic civic culture, are truly democratic in thought and

sprit, as well as dispositions and behavior. Accordingly society can be

69

characterized as civic culture if most of the persons developed civic

orientations.

Hence by applying the above model of Almond and Verba

Patten of political culture of the leader may be discerned and typified.

Accordingly effort can be made for discerning pattern of leadership in a

society basing on the role-orientation and leadership styles of its

leader.

The Culture - Structure Relationship:

As political culture of the people is the foundation of

political system, the stability and survival of the political system

depends upon the congruence relationship with the former. A political

system is likely to be stable and viable in its working provided the

structural edifice is supported and sustained by the political culture of

its people for example, the structure of a democratic system will be

stable if the people acquired allegiant participant political culture or

the civic culture. Therefore, the pattern of political culture of the

people of a society trends to be significant determinant variables in

bringing stability and change of a political system. So, every political

system should make an effort to internalize or educate its people the

pattern of political culture which is congruent and allegiant to its

structure, through the process of attitude formation. Hence, it

70

becomes imperative to undertake a study and analysis of process of

attitude formation and political socialization of political leaders

Leadership and Process of Attitude Formation:

Political culture or the pattern of political attitude may be

learned, internalized and formed through a process known as political

socialization. It is a process through which individual learn political as

well as politically relevant non political orientation or dispositions and

as a consequence, his political self is formed and his political culture

is shaped. it is a process through which the individual “learns

politically relevant attitudinal dispositions and behavior patterns “ 89

which “help him comprehend , evaluate , and relate to the political

world around him “90 according to Aimond “it is the process of

induction in to the political culture”.91 Greenstein is of the opinion

that political socialization encompasses “all political learning , formal

and informal , deliberate and unplanned ,at every stage of the life

cycle, including not only explicitly political learning but also nominally

non political learning of politically relevant personality characteristics”.

92 Langton opines that political socialization as the process by which

“society transmit its political culture from generation to generation.”93

In this process of political learning different agents play significant

roles and help towards formation of political self and political culture

of the individual by way of transmitting him both explicitly political

71

and politically relevant non-political orientations at different stages of

his life. In this context, some universal and important agents of

socialization are the Family, the school, the peer group, the mass

media, the non-political voluntary organization, the political party and

the political world.

2.10.1 Role of the Family:

Family is the first and foremost agents of political

socialization because the individual born and brought up in the family

environment during the formative period of his life. From birth to

adolescence he is dependent upon the family for fulfilling his basic

needs like food, clothes, shelter, protection and affection .Not only that

parents also provide reward for approved behavior and punishment for

disapproved or deviant behavior. So the children perceive his parents

as models and attitudes of the parents and perform gratification-

eliciting activities.94

Family may undertakes both latent and manifest political

socialization of the child. Family may transmit, deliberately as well as

unintentionally, non political orientations and attitudes, which may be

politically relevant subsequently when he grows up and perform

political roles during adulthood. For example, the parents asks the

child to perform „gender-appropriate roles‟ where female child is asked

72

to be homely, docile, concerned with his physical beauty and charm

where as the male child is instructed to be active in social and public

life. Such Deliberate transmission of politically relevant non political

orientations may subsequently make women passive and less active in

politics than men.

The parent may also undertake Non-deliberate

transmission of politically relevant non-political orientations. it may

includes parental authority pattern or parental authority structure.

Parental authority structure may be Authoritarian or Democratic

depending upon the inter-personal relationship with the child. If the

parents are very strict, treat the child harshly, do not give scope to

express him and participate freely in the decision-making process of

the family, then the parental Authority structure is Authoritarian. 96

On the other hand if the parents treat the child with love and affection,

allow him to freely express himself and actively participate in the

decision making process of the family it is called Democratic Authority

structure. 97

A child is likely to develop Authoritarian orientation if he

is reared up by authoritarian parents and the child tends to develop

Democratic attitudinal pattern when he is born and brought up in a

family with democratic parental authority structure. The family In its

manifest political socialization may also transmit deliberately explicit

73

political orientation and attitudes through political discussion at

home. Through this the child may acquire orientation toward political

leaders, political parties, public policies, governmental authority

figure, law and political process. Politicization of the family may

transmit to the child the participant orientations.

Thus, the family may play crucial role in the process of

political socialization and attitude formation of the individual during

his childhood by transmitting deliberately as well as non-deliberately

both political orientation and politically relevant non–political

orientations belief, value and attitude relevant subsequently when as

an adult he would come to play roles in the political process of the

political system .

Role of the School:

The school is the first public institution, beyond the family

environment with which the child come into contact and spends some

formative years of his life. The school can undertake both manifest and

latent political socialization through its various agencies and

mechanism such as the curriculum, the teacher, the school rituals,

the school social milieu, and the extra-curricular activities.

74

2.10.2.1 The school-curriculum

The School-curriculum is one of the important mechanism

through which manifest and deliberate political socialization of the

child take place. The curriculum may be so designed to contain the

value and ideology as enshrined in the constitution, may directly

transmit the political orientation and contribute allegiant participant

citizenry by political indoctrination of desired values and orientations.

2.10.2.2 The teacher

The Teacher imparts the curriculum in the school. While

imparting teaching to the students inside the class room the teacher

may transmit non-deliberately some important politically relevant non

political orientations through his authority pattern or authority

structure and inter- personal relationship with them. The Teacher-

Authority structure said to be authoritarian if he is very strict and

rigid with his relationship with the students and does not allow and

encourage them for active participation in the class room programme.

98 On the contrary his Authority-structure may be said to be

democratic if he interacts student with warmth and affection and

motivates them for active participation in teaching programmed inside

the class- room.99 Exposure to the Democratic authority pattern of the

teacher is likely to develop democratic orientation and a high sense of

75

political competence , whereas exposure to the Authoritarian-authority

structure of the teacher is likely to develop authoritarian orientation

in the students . So the teacher‟s authority structure may indirectly or

non deliberately transmit authority orientations and mould their

political orientations and attitude subsequently .

2.10.2.3 The school rituals

The School rituals such as singing of patriotic songs

national anthem , observance of national festivals , hoisting of national

flag on relevant occasions may undertake manifest political

socialization of the students by way of directly and intentionally or

deliberately transmitting to them values of nationalism and patriotism.

2.10.2.4 Extra-curricular activities

Extra-curricular activities of the school such as debate

competitions, sports and athletic competitions tend to transmit non-

deliberately non-political orientations with subsequent political

implications. Students participation in Extra-curricular activities of

the school may develop in them participatory Orientations and high

sense of political competence which in turn help them to play active

political role in the political process in his adulthood.

76

2.10.2.5 School social milieu

The School social milieu is another important mechanism

of political socialization of school may undertake latent political

socialization. Social milieu or social composition of student‟s

population of the school, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous,

may serve to instill values of group identification and conflict or

harmony and co- operation, which may shape their political

orientation in later period of their life.

The school , thus play a significant role in the process of

attitude formation of the pre-adult which may be politically relevant

subsequently when they would come to play roles in the political

process as a citizens .

2.10.3 Role of the peer Groups:

The peer groups refer to “a form of primary group

composed of members sharing relatively equal status and intimate

ties.”100 It is also called “age homogeneous friendship group”101 and

“informal face to face group.”102 The individual may be a member of

various peer groups at different stages of his lie such as children play

group in childhood, friendship clique, and adolescent gang, youth

group in adolescence and work group in adulthood. It is characterized

by free-interaction among the peers as there is no authority-structure

77

and superior- subordinate relationship. Therefore , the peer group

may provide congenial environment for effective transmission of values

and orientation among its members .

The peer group which is politicized may transmit explicitly

political value and orientation more effectively whereas non-publicized

peer-group may transmit participatory orientations and sense of

political competence to the peers through their active participation in

peer group activities.

2.10.4 The role of mass-media:

The mass media refers to the media for mass-

communication such as News papers, Radio, Television, Films, books,

magazines and periodicals etc which transmit a large verities of

information‟s to the people. It can play significant roles as political

socializers due to its mass appeal.

The mass-media can undertake both manifest and latent

political socialization of the individual. Non-political communication is

transmitted through stories, articles, films, songs, music and

advertisement which may indirectly and non-deliberately inject in the

individual a sense of cultural identification or patriotism, values of

cooperation or conflict, peace and violence, Regionalism and

Nationalism and also feeling of self-potency. Thus, such type of non-

78

political communication may be subsequently relevant in the

formation of political culture, their attitude and dispositions and also

individual‟s behavior. Hence, media communication package which is

designed “merely to entertain the audience, or sell a product and make

money for a producer, may well serve the latent function of political

socialization.”103 Thus, the non-political communication package

transmitted through mass media may serve as a buffer104 between

the individual and the political world and save him from burden of

excessive political news and may thus “produce a responsive audience

for political news.” 105

Mass-media may undertakes manifest political and

transmit socialization deliberately explicit political information, values

and news through news bulletins in the Radio and Television, political

news, views and editorial in the news papers , political articles and

essays in the magazines and the periodicals. These explicitly political

information, news and views may contribute significantly in shaping

and developing his political values, attitude and beliefs which is called

as political culture. Thus, the mass media can undertake both latent

and manifest political socialization of the socializee.

79

2.10.5 Role of the Non-Political Voluntary Organization:

These groups are characterized by non-political objectives.

It may be formed by a group of individual who subscribe to identical

non-political interest and attitude along various socio-cultural,

economic, demographic and occupational dimensions. Different types

of pressure Groups and interest Groups such as Trade unions,

chamber of commerce and industry, Teachers Associations, Farmers

Association are the examples of such Groups who always try to protect

or promote their non-political objectives, by putting pressure on the

authority of the political system.

Non-political voluntary Organizations tend to undertake

only latent political socialization by transmitting politically relevant

non-political orientations mainly participatory orientation and sense of

self-competence, to their members through their participation in the

activities of the group. This enables them to develop their participatory

orientations and sense of political efficacy. Almond and Verba while

analyzing the data from five nations under their study, conclude that

those individuals “who are members of non political organizations are

more likely to feel subjectively competent then those who belong to no

organization.” 106

80

Thus, Non-political voluntary Organization may play

significant roles in the process of formation of political culture or

attitude or orientation of its members.

2.10.6 Role of the Political Party:

Political parties are formed for political purpose and try to

achieve definite political objectives i.e. to capture the governmental

power and authority, and to mobilize the support of the people in their

favor. By organizing public meetings and rallies, conducting political

discussion and debate expressing their programmed and policies,

values and ideologies through the mass media, they can undertake

deliberate manifest political socialization of the people as well as its

members and infuse in them desired political values and ideology.

Political parties may also undertake latent political socialization of its

own member who through participation in party activities may acquire

participant political orientations and the sense of political competence.

2.10.7 Role Of The Political World:

Political world, refers to the total political process of the

society, may significantly undertake manifest political socialization of

the individual by facilitating direct political experience. Direct political

experiences may be gained through performing political roles such as

voting at the elections , campaigning in the election , contesting in the

81

election, participating in the political movement, attending political

meeting, petitioning the government , ventilating demands on public

issues and playing role as role- incumbent in input and output

structures of the political system . These direct political experiences

acquired by the individual as a result of his exposure to and

participation in the political world may acquaint him with the political

reality and therefore may “serve to correct or complete the political

learning that took place during the pre-adult years”.107 “It may also

facilitate the formatting of his attitudes and orientations towards

politics and the political objects”. 108

2.11 Agental influence:

The amount of influence of the political socializers or the

agents of political socialization upon the political socializee depends

upon three important factors or pre – conditions such as exposure,

communication and receptivity.109 The agents may transmit the

orientation, values etc only when the socializee is exposed to it.

Therefore, exposure of political socializee to the various agents of

political socialization may be a vital factor or pre-requisite before

political learning occurs. But mere exposure to the agents will not help

in the process of socialization. What is required is that agents should

be active in transmitting communication with political

content.However, mere exposure and communication may not ensure

82

Agental influence. Another vital pre-condition or factors for agental

influence is receptivity of the learner. Receptivity of the learner to

agental communication is affected by two other factors such as timing

of communication and nature of relationship between socializers and

socializee . communication as transmitted by the agents is required to

be so timed as to be understood by the individual and in turn his

understanding depends upon his cognitive and biological maturity .

Hence agental communication should be so timed as to be understood,

received and inculcated by the socializee. Receptivity of political

communication can be effective provided there is strong emotional

relationship between the socializer and socializee. Therefore, exposure,

communication and receptivity seem to be three vital factors or pre-

conditions for agental influence and these pre – conditions conjointly

are likely to determine the amount of agental influence upon the

political socilizee.110

Hence, in the process of formation of political

attituditional pattern or political culture of the leaders of the society ,

these important agents such as family , school , mass -media , non -

political voluntary organization , political party and the political world

likely to play significant roles . Therefore, an enquiry can be made in to

the role of these agents and an analysis of the extent of their influence

83

become essential to discern the pattern of political culture of the

political leaders.

2.12 Leadership and the Political System:

The attitudinal pattern of the leaders or their pattern of

political culture as shaped through agental influence is likely to

determine not only their behavior and dispositions and their

relationship with the followers but also their leadership roles in the

context of working of the political system. As they are at the helm of

affairs of the society, they decide societal goals, co- ordinate the

functions of the people, for achievement of the intended group goals.

As Jame V. Downton emphatically point out: “through goal setting

and attainment leadership co –ordinates the activities of other

structures in order to increase the extractive, regulative, distributive

and responsive capabilities of the system. By increasing capabilities,

leadership contributes in a positive way to the service capacity of the

system which enhances its ability to persis.”111

Thus, performance of the political system largely depends

on leadership roles. This leadership role seems to be determined by

pattern of political culture or attitudinal pattern of the leaders. Unless

and until, there is a congruence between pattern of political culture of

the leaders and structure of the political system, leadership roles may

84

not substantially help for realizing or achieving „societal- goal‟ and the

capability of the political system. Congruence between leader‟s political

culture and structural arrangement of the political system may

significantly contribute towards the enhancement of systemic

capability and toward political stability, viability and development.

Thus, the attitudinal pattern or patterns of political culture of the

leaders crucially determine the performance of the political system.

In view of the enormous relevance of the pattern of

political culture as an important determinant of individuals‟ political

behavior as well as the working of the political system an humble

endeavor has been undertaken in the following chapters to enquire in

to the pattern of political culture and political socialization process of

the political leaders of Kalahandi District of Orissa. As socio-economic

variables tremendously affect the formation of political culture of the

political leaders, an enquiry in to the socio-economic profile of the

leaders has been made in the subsequent chapter No-3.

85

REFERENCES

1. E.C. Linderman, Social Discovery (New York ,1924) p. 222

2. Ordway Tead, The Art of leadership ( New York,1935) P. 20

3. Canwnnght, Dorwin; and Zander,Alvin(editor) (1953) 1960

Group Dynamics: Research and Theory 2nd ed . Evarsion III.

Peterson; New York: Harpur.

See especially pp.487-510; leadership and Group performance:

Introduction)

4. Collins, Barry E. and Guetzknow, Harold: A social Psychology of

Group Process for Decision Making .( New York: Wikely1964)

5. Charles H. Cooley, Social Organization. ( New York: Scribner‟s

1909) p. 135.

6. W.H. Cowley,``Three Destinations in the study of leaders” ,

Journal of Abnormal and social psychology,23 (July,

September,1928) p. 145

7. Herbert S. Lewis , leaders and Follower some Anthropologycal

perspectives” Addition- Wesley Module in Anthropolgy. No

50(Reading; Addtion Wesley, 1974) p. 3.

86

8. Eisen hower quated in Arthher Larson, Eisenhower; The

President. Nobody Knows (New York; popular Library, 1968

p.89) p. 21.

9. Hanry S. Truman, Memoni (Garden City; Doubleday, 1958) Vol-

I , P. 139.

10. Paul Pigors, Ouoted in cecil A. Gibb, `leadership; psychological

Aspects, in David I, sills (ed) , International Encyclopedia of

social Sciences ( New York; Macmillan & Free press, 1968)

Volume 9 p. 74.

11. John K. Hemphill, Quoted Gleen D. Paige, The Scientific study

of political leaders. (New York: The Free Press, 1972) p. 74.

12. Bernard M. Bass, leaders, Psychology and Organizational

Behaviour (New York: Herper & Row, 1960) P. 89.

13. Lewis , Op. Cit., P. 3.

14. Ibid., p. 4.

15. E.P. Hollander , leaders Groups and Influence. (New York:

Oxford University press, 1964) p. I.

16. Ibid., p. 8.

17. Ibid., p. 9.

87

18. Raymond B. Cattell, ; New concepts for Measuring leadership in

Terms of Group Syntality; Human Relations, 4,2(1951) pp.

161-184.

19. Fieder op. Cit; Idem, A theory of leadership Effeciveness (New

York; Mc Graw –Hill, 1967).

20. Cecil A. Gibb, “The principle and traits of Administartive

leadership”, in G. C. Brown and Thomas S. Cohn, eds, The

study of leadership (New York 1958, p.74.

21. Robert Tannenbacum, I.R. Weschler and Fred Marsarik,

`leadership and Organization: A Behavioural science Approach

(New York; MC Graw Hill, 1961), p. 24.

22. Ibid., p. 31.

23. G. Ram Reddy and Seshadni , “studies of leadership”, in

I.C.S.R. project: A survey of Research in political science , Vol.I

(New Delhi: Allied publishers Pvt. Ltd; 1979), p. 99.

24. Ordway Tead , The Art of leadership(London: Wittlesey House,

1935), p.20.

25. J.H. Allpont, Social psychology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,

1924), p. 419.

88

26. The famous Chinese phrase is “Wei Jen-Min fu-Wu” ( Mao Tse –

tung”. Serve the people,” Selected Works, 4: 219-220) . A fuller

discussion of Mao‟s leadership principles, including the Idea of

“from the masses to the Mastes”, is “On Method of Leadership ,”

April 11, 1972.

27. Mohan Das K. Gandhi, “Indian Home Rule, In paul Sigmund, Jr.

ed., Ideologies of the Developing Nations (New York: Praeger,

1963), p. 84.

28. Mohan Das K. Gandhi , Non-violent Resistence (New York:

Schocken, 1951), P. 139.

29. Richard Schmidt Quoted in Arolds Tanmeknbaum,`leadership:

sociological Aspects‟ in David L. sills leds, International

Encyclopedia oof social sciences (New York: Mcmillan & Free

press, 1968) Vol. 9, p.102.

30. W.J.W. sprott , Social psychology(London: Metuen & Co., 1956)

p. 73.

31. Dorwin Cartwnight and Alvin, `leadership and performance of

Group Functions: Infoduction‟ in Dorwin cartwhight & Alvin

Zander (eds) , Group Dynamics: Research and Theoory (New

York : Harper & Row, 1968) p. 304.

89

32. Arnold, S. Tannenbaun, `leadership: Sociological Aspects in

David L. Sills (ed) International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences

(New York: Mc Millan and Free press, 1968) Vol.9, p. 102.

33. See Harold lasswel, Political Writtings of Harold D. lasswell

(Glence, illnous, the free press ,1951) p. 71.

34. Robert A. Dahl, `Mode4rn political Analysis (New Delhi,

prentice-Hall of India, 1995) p.1.

35. Quoted in Sunita Das “Emergence of Political leadership in

Sundergarh Districtunpublished thesis , submitted to

Sambalpur University. 2007.

36. Kenneth F. Janda, “ Towards the Explication of the concept of

leadership in terms of the concept of power” in paige , op.cit.,

p.56.

37. Cunl J. Friedrich, man and His Government (New York: Mc

Graw-Hill, 1963), Chap.9,” Power and leadership.”

38. Ibid; p.170.

39. Ibid; p. 171.

90

40. Jammes U. Downten, Rebel leadership: Commitment and

charisma in the Revolutionary process (New York: free press,

1973).p.14.

41. Ibid; p.8.

42. Cecil A. Gibb, `leadership: psychological Aspects‟ `in Devil Z.

Sills (ed) International Encyclopedia of social Science, Op. cit.,

p.91.

43. E.P. Hollander,`Emergent leadership and social Influence‟ in I.

petrullo and B.M. Bass (ed), leadership and Interpersonal

Behaviour (New york: Holt, Rinehart & Winston , 1961) p. 30.

44. F. H. Sanford, Authoritarianism and leadership, (Philadephia;

Institute for Research in Human Relations,1950) chapter 1.

45. Cecil A. Gibb, `leadership in Gardner Lindzey(ed) , Hand Book of

Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass-Addison-Wesley, 1954)

vol.2, pp.877-920. See also J.K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in

leadership(Columbus-Ohio state University, 1949).

46. For details see R.M. stogdill “personal factors Associated with

lleadership: A survey of the literature”. Journal of psychology,

Vol-25,1948,pp.35-71.

91

47. For details see Ghiselli,”The validity of Management traits

Relatedto Occupational level” Personal psychology, Vol. 16.No-2,

1963, pp.109-114.

48. W.H. Cowley,`The traits of Face to face leaders‟ Journal of

Abnormal social psychology 1931,(26) pp.304-313.

49. L.F. Carter and M. Nixon , ` Ability , perceptual, personality and

interest Factors Associated with Different Criteria of leadership‟,

Journal of psychology,1949(27) pp. 377-388.

50. Edgar F. Borgatta , et-al .,” Some findings Relevant to a

Greactman Theory of leadership; Americal Sociological

Review,1959.(19), pp.755-759.

51. Raymond Cuttell and Glen F. Stice `Fair formula for selecting

leaders on the basis of personality . Human Relations,1954(7) ,

pp.493-507.

52. Walter R Borg,`Prediction of small Group Role Behaviour from

personality variables‟. Journal of Abnormal and social

psychology,1960(60) pp.112-116.

53. Ceeil A. Gibb , `The principle and Traits of leadership.‟ Journal

of Abnormal and social psychology,1947(42) pp.267-284.

92

54. Ralph M. Stagdill,`personal Factos Associated with Leadership‟,

Journal of psychology,1948(25),pp.35-71.

55. Alvin W. Gouldner(ed) , studies in leadership (New York: Hanpue

& Brothers,1950) p.34.

56. Cecil A. Gibb, `The principles and Traits of leadership, op.cit.

57. J.K. Hemphil, `Situational Factors in leadership‟ (Columbus:

Ohio state University , 1949).

58. L.F. Carter, W. Hagthorn , Beatrice shriver & J. Lanzetta, “ The

Behaviour of leaders and Group Members‟ Journal of Abnormal

and Social psychology, 1951(46) , pp.589-595.

59. Ralph M. Stagdill `Personal factors Associated with leadership: A

Survey of the literature‟ , Journal of psychology, 1948,(25), p.

63.

60. For details C. Basil, leadership skills for Executive Action (New

York 1971) , p.156.

61. F.H. Sanford, Authoritarianism and leadership. (Philadelphia:

Institute for research in Human Relations,1950)p.4

62. Bottomore, Tom, Elitites and Society‟( Routledge, London,1993)

p.3

93

63. A.K. Mukhapadhyaya , Political Society,(K.P. Bagchi & Co.

Calcutton 1990),p.46.

64. Ralph white and Ronald lippitt, Autocracy and Democracy (New

York, Harper, 1960),especially chapters 3& 5.

65. Horold D. laswell `Democratic character in the political writing of

Harold D. lasswel. (Glencoe, Illinois: the free press, 1951) pp.

465-525 see also Robert E. lane , Political Ideology.(New York:

The free press of Glencoe ,1962) pp.400-412.

66. E.P. Hollander, leaders, Groups and Inflience (New York: Oxford

University press, 1964)p.16.

67. Robert A. Dahl , Modern political Analysis( New Delhi: printice

Hall of India , 1972) p. 33 Originally published by printice –Hall,

Englewwood cliffs N.J. , U.S.A. in 1965.

68. Max weber , The theory of Social and Economic Orgganisation,

Edited by Talcott parsona . (New York: Free press, 1947) , p.

324.

69. Ibid. p.328.

70. Ibid . p.358.

71. Ibid, p.328.

94

72. Ibid., p.328.

73. Ibid., p.67.

74. Ibid., p.382.

75. Gebriel A. Almond , `Coimparative political system‟, (The Journal

of politics, Vol.18, No. 3, 1956) ,p.396.

76. Ibid. p..396.

77. Gubriel A. Almond,`Introduction: A Functional Approach to

Comparative Politics‟, in Gabriel A. Almond and James S.

Coleman(eds) . The politics of Developing Areas (Princeton, N.J:

Princeton university press, paperback Edn, 1970) pp.27-28.

Originally published by the Princeton university press (USA) in

1960.

78. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney verba The civic Culture: Political

Attitude and Democracy in Five Nations. (Princeton N.J:

Princeton University press, 1963).

79. Ibid. p.14-15.

80. Ibid., p.17-19.

81. Gabriel A. Almond & Sidney Verbs , `The Civic Culture „ op cit,

p.13.

95

82. Ibid, p.20.

83. B.K. Mahakul, `Emerging pattern of Municipal leadership: A

study of the Municipal Councillors of Sambalpur District of

Orissa (Jaipur, printwell, 1999) p.25.

84. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney verba , The civic Culture op. cit.

p. 31.

85. Ibid, pp.22-23.

86. Ibid; p. 25.

87. Ibid; p. 26. 69. Ibid . p. 328.

88. Ibid; p.30.

89. Kenneth P. longton, political socialization.(New York: Oxford

University press Second printing 72) pp.4-5.

90. Richard E. Dwson & Kenneth prewitt political socialization

(Baston: Little Brown & Co., paper back Edn., 1969) p.13.

91. Gabriel A. Almond.` A Functional Approch to the comparative

politics‟, in Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (eds) the

politics of developing Areas: op, cit. p.27.

96

92. Fred I. Greenstein,`political Socialization‟, in David sills‟ (ed) ,

International Encyclopedia of social sciences (New York; The

Macmillan & Free press, 1968) Vol. 14, p.551.

93. Kenneth P. longton , Political Socialization: Op. cit. pp. 4-5.

94. James C. Davies, “ The family‟s Role in political socialization,

Annas of `The American Academy of political and social science,

361(September 1965) pp.10-19.

95. Fred I. Greenstein, children and politics, (New Haven: Yale

University press, 1965).

96. T.W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian personality ( New York:

Harper,1950) pp. 482-483.

97. Harold D. lasswell, `Democratic character‟ in political Writtings

of Harold D. Lasswel ( Glencoe, Illinois: The Free press, 1951)

pp.465-525.

98. Richard E. Dawson & Kenneth prewitt, political socialization, op.

cit 152.

99. Ibid., p. 127.

100. Ibid., p. 127.

97

101. Paul Allen Beck-` The Role of agents in political socialization‟ in

Stanley Allen Renshoned, Hayd Book of Political socialization:

Theory and Research, op. cit. p. 131.

102. Ibid.

103. Herber H. Hyman, ` Mass –media and political socialization: The

Role of patterns of communication‟ in Lucian W. pye (ed) ,

Communication and political development ( New Delhi: Radha

Krishna Prakashan, 1972) p. 129. Originally published in 1963

by priceton University press , Princeton. N.J. , U.S.A..

104. Robert E. Lane, - Politicall life: Why people Get Involved in

politics. (New York: The free press , 1959).

105. Sidney Verba ,- ` Organizational Membership and Democratic

Consensus , (Journal of politics, 27 1965) pp. 467-497.

106. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, -The Civic Culture‟ Op .cit.

p.306.

107. Richard E. Dawson & Kenneth prewitt , political socialization,

op.cit. p.194.

108. Ibid, p. 191.

98

109. Paul Allen Beck, `Role of Agents in political Socialization, in S.A.

Rennshon (ed) , Handbook of political socialization: Theory and

Research (New York: The free press , 1977)p.117.

110. See Paul Allen Back, `Role of Agents in political socialization‟.

111. James V. Downton , Rebel leadership: Commitment and

charisma in the Revolutionary process( New York: Free press,

1973) p. 14.

112. Gabriel A. Almond & Sidney Verba , The Civic Culture, Op cit,

especially pp. 33-34.