RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7734/16/06_chapter...

132

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The chapter is broadly divided into four sections. Section I presents

certain introductory remarks about the usage of various statistical

techniques applied and the assumptions relating to them. It also gives the

mean, range of scores and the standard deviation of the variables used for

purposes of the present study. Section II includes the discussion relating

to the response collected through superiors/leaders, which comprises top,

middle and lower level executives of ten PSUs of UP and MP. Out of ten

six were from UP and four were from MP. Section III includes a

discussion of executives working as subordinates comprises executives

from all level, of different experience and age groups of different PSUs.

The last section of the present chapter gives correlation analysis of

superiors and subordinates. Besides, it presents certain important findings

regarding the relationships, which exist among various variables included

in our study.

To recapitulate, the primary objective of the study is to investigate the

possible leadership styles adopted by executives of different PSUs of MP

and UP and to examine the relationship of these leadership styles with

occupational stress of subordinates. For this, the data have been tabulated

and analysed manually and with computer.

The total sample of the study (104) belongs to three functional levels of

executives, viz., higher, middle and lower levels. Statistically, mean,

standard deviation and range of scores for all the variables were

133

computed. t- test and F- Ratio were calculated for the groups to identify

the mean difference between the groups. To find out the relationships

existing among the various variables under study, the technique of

product moment correlation was employed. As it is well recognized,

correlation is always relative to the situation under which it is obtained

and its size does not represent any absolute natural fact. There are certain

assumptions made before using the Pearson product-moment coefficient

of correlation. These are as follows: (1) the scores should be obtained in

independent pairs, each pair being unconnected with other pairs; (2) the

two variables should be continuous; and (3) the relationship between the

two variables should be rectilinear (Guilford and Fruchler, 1978). Efforts

have been made to fulfill all the criteria of the measurement techniques

that have been used in the present study. Scores on four leadership styles

viz., Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement -Oriented

were computed which was based on a leader's evaluation of his own

style. On the other hand, the scores on twelve occupational stressors

calculated on the basis of subordinates’ self reported response.

The correlation among the demographic variables was computed for the

purpose of our analysis. In the present study, certain organizational

factors such as level, length of service and training received etc were

grouped with the demographic factors. Following this, the correlations

of demographic variables with leadership styles and occupational

stressors were computed for both superiors and subordinates. In addition,

correlations were, computed among four leadership styles. Correlations

were also computed with twelve variables of occupational stressors.

Inter-correlations were then computed for four variables of leadership

134

styles and these four styles were then correlated with twelve variables of

occupational stress.

5.2 PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

First part of the questionnaires seeks the information regarding the

demography of the respondents like age, gender, qualification, salary

drawn per month, qualification, training programmes attended etc. this

data has been calculated and tabulated in this part of the chapter..

5.2.1 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

TABLE: 5.1

State: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN State Respondents

No. Percentage

1 UP 52 50

2 MP 52 50

Total 104 100

Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.

Percentage is calculated by researcher.

From the Table 5.1 it is clear that fifty percent of the respondents are

from Uttar Pradesh (UP) and rest fifty percent belongs to Madhya

Pradesh (MP). A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed for the data

collection and 120 questionnaires were recollected. 104 questionnaires

were selected for the data analyses as rest of the questionnaires were

incompletely filled in which dyadic relationship (superior-subordinate

relationship) was clear.

135

TABLE: 5.2

Organization: Frequency and Percentage

Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Organization Respondents

No. Percentage

1 BPCL, Allahabad 10 9.6

2 BHEL, Jhansi 09 8.7

3 ITI, Allahabad 10 9.6

4 SIL, Lucknow 02 1.9

5 UPSY, Jaunpur 07 6.7

6 DLW, Varanasi 14 13.5

7 BHEL, Bhopal 12 11.5

8 NFL, Vijaypur 20 19.2

9 GAIL, Vijaypur 13 12.5

10 RCF, Bhopal 07 6.7

Total 104 100



The organisation wise distribution of the respondents can be seen from

the above table. All ten organisations to which scope of the study lays

equal number of questionnaires were selected for the study so that equal

representation of the state can be ensured.

136

TABLE: 5.3

Age: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Age Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 40 Yrs 10 9.6

2 41 to 50 yrs 32 30.8

3 51 and above 62 59.6

Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.


From the Table 5.3 it is clear that only 9.6 per cent of the respondents are

from the age category of up to 40 years, 32 per cent from 41-50 years and

remaining 62 per cent from 51 and above age group. It can be clearly

seen that as the age is increasing number of respondents are also

increasing. This shows that public sector organizations have aging

population and new recruitments are less in numbers. All the respondents

were married and of the male category. This gives a clear picture of PSUs

in which very less negligible number of female manpower in the

executive category is placed.

137

TABLE: 5.4

Level: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Level Respondents

No. Percentage

1 LML 09 8.7

2 MML 43 41.3

3 TML 52 50.0



The Table 5.4 shows that as the level is increasing the number of

respondents also increases. Only 8.7 per cent of respondents are from

lower management level i.e. supervisors, foreman, and office

superintendents. 41.3 per cent of respondents from middle management

and rest 50.00 per cent are from top-level management i.e. senior

managers and above.

TABLE: 5.5

Department: Frequency and Percentage


N=104

SN Department Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Technical 82 78.8

2 Non-technical 22 21.2

Total 104 100



The researcher has categorized the respondents into technical and non-

technical departments; as this can be a differentiating factor in case of

138

leadership and occupational stress because of different working

conditions, environment, and job demands.

Majority of respondents i.e. 78.8 per cent are from technical departments

and remaining 21.2 per cent from non-technical departments. This

variable also plays an important role in adopting leadership styles by the

executives.

TABLE: 5.6

Experience: Frequency and Percentage


N=104

SN Experience

Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 10 Yrs 14 13.5

2 11 to 20 yrs 08 7.7

3 21 and above 82 78.8

Total 104 100



From the Table 5.6 it is evident that overall sample has been categorized

into three parts. 13.5 percent of the respondents are of up to 10 years of

experience, 77 percent are from 11-20 years of experience and 78.8 per

cent of respondents have the experience of 21 years and above. From the

above table it is clear that fresh flood in the PSUs of MP & UP is not

being injected.

139

TABLE: 5.7

Salary: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Salary

(in Rs. / month)

Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 15000 26 25.0

2 15001-25000 44 42.3

3 25001 and above 34 32.7

Total 104 100



Salary drowns per month by the executives also plays important role in

the life of executives as this also gives an idea about the level and

experience category. The Table 5.7 gives a clear picture of respondents

classified on the basis of their salary.

25 per cent of total respondents are from the category who gets their

salary up to Rs. 15000 per month, 42.3 per cent of the respondents are

those who gets Rs. 15001 to 25000 and rest 32.7 percent of the

respondents gets Rs. 25001 and above per month

140

TABLE: 5.8

Size of Span: Frequency and Percentage


N=104

SN Span Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 7 48 46.2

2 8 and above 56 53.8

Total 104 100



Number of subordinates directly being supervised by the executives also

a significant contribution in adopting leadership style in the

manufacturing sector. This table gives a picture about the respondents

who are superior/leader.

46.2 percent of the respondents who supervise 0 to 4 subordinates

directly and rest 53.8 per cent who supervise 8 and above number of

executive subordinates. As the study focused on manufacturing

organizations, it was found that in and the technical departments there is

larger span of control in comparison to non-technical departments and

majority of respondents belongs to technical departments.

141

TABLE: 5.9

Qualification: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Education Respondents

No. Percentage

1 UG 72 69.2

2 PG 32 30.8



Education also plays an important role in adopting leadership style as

education brings knowledge and wisdom. The researcher has categorized

the sample into two parts i.e. Under Graduates and Post- Graduates.

Majority of the respondents i.e. 69 .2 per cent are Under Graduates and

remaining 30.8 per cent are Post-Graduates. This also gives an ideas

about the respondents profile that a majority of respondents are from the

technical departments where minimum qualifications required technical

diploma/degree i.e. B.Tech, Polytechnic, ITI.

The majority of respondents are of the higher age group and they have

recruited 25-30 years back that time the required education level was low

as compared to these days.

142

TABLE: 5.10

Training for Leadership: Frequency and

Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Training for

Leadership

Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Yes 58 55.8

2 No 46 44.2



Training received by the executives also contributes in adopting

leadership styles because this gives ideas about leadership variables

importance and their probable outcome. The researcher has categorized

the respondents into two parts. In one part the respondents who ever

received the leadership training in their working life and in the other part

executives’ who never received the leadership training.

55.8 percent of the respondents who play the role of leaders at workplace

received the training for leadership and rest 44.2 per cent of the never

been imparted training for leadership.

143

TABLE: 5.11

Training Programme Attended for Stress:

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Training for

stress

Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Yes 52 50.0

2 No 52 50.0

Total 104 100



Training for stress management is also an important variable in

exercising leadership style as this gives knowledge about the factors,

which play important role in creating extent of stress in the mind of

subordinates and its management. The researcher has categorized the

whole sample into tow parts. In one part those executives are kept who

ever received training for stress management and in the second part these

were considered who never got training for stress management. Exact 50

percent of the respondents are those who ever received stress

management training and rest 50 percent of the executive leaders who

never been imparted training for stress management.

5.3 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, RANGE OF SCORES AND t -

TEST/F-RATIO

This section of the chapter deals with the calculation of Mean, SD, Range

of scores and t- values/ F-Ratio for identification of mean differences

between two/three groups of the respondents.

144

TABLE: 5.12

State: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores and t- Test Values

of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership style

Range

of

scores

UP MP t-

value Mean SD Mean SD

1 Directive 7-35 28.15 6.12 28.23 6.25 0.063

2 Supportive 7-35 26.67 3.81 26.65 3.86 0.026

3 Participative 7-35 26.40 3.90 26.46 3.82 0.076

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 27.71 6.10 27.78 6.11 0.064

Overall 28-140 108.94 16.65 109.13 16.73 0.059

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01


Values are calculated by researcher.

The main objective of the study is focused upon the comparative analysis

of PSUs of MP and UP, keeping it into the mind the researcher has tried

to draw some conclusion with certain statistical tools, which helps to

reach the conclusion about leadership styles adopted by the superior in

execution of task.

145

From the calculation of mean value of leadership styles and compare it

with the help of t-test following conclusion may be drown.

Table5.12 shows four leadership styles and all the styles has the mean

values above the 25 score on seven point Likert scale. Each styles has

five items (as discussed in chapter IV) having range of scores 5 to 35.

From the score one more interpretation can be drawn that executives has

more or less using a blend of all leadership styles for getting things done

with and through their executives subordinates. The values of (standard

deviation) are more or less similar in both the states.

As can be seen from the table that all the leadership styles individually

and in total do not have any significant t-value, which means there is no

significant difference in leadership styles adopted by the superior in both

the states. The reason may that the functioning, policies, organisation

environment and pay structure etc. are the similar in all PSUs located in

different states.

Further it is also evident that executives of both the states have more

score for directive and achievement oriented style and it is slightly lower

for supportive and participative style.

146

TABLE: 5.13

Age: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores and F-Ratio Values


N=104

SN

Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

Up to 40 41- 50 51 & above F-

Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Directive 7-35 19.80 5.90 29.28 5.49 28.98 5.54 12.62**

2 Supportive 7-35 20.40 5.05 26.93 2.91 27.53 3.06 20.92**

3 Participative 7-35 19.80 3.79 27.18 3.19 27.11 3.10 23.76**

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 22.40 2.95 27.34 7.88 28.82 4.84 5.32**

Overall 28-

140 82.40 17.70 110.75 16.77 112.45 12.11 19.48**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01

Source: Data from self reported statements of executives

Values are calculated by researcher

Age of the superior also play an important role in adopting leadership

style. Lower age group has lesser experience; working knowledge and

wisdom adhered to it. Table 5.13 given above gives an idea how age can

be a determinant of leadership style among the business executives. From

the above table it is clear that superior up to the age of 40 years has the

mean score 19.80 (=5.90) for Directive style, 20.40 (=5.05) for

Supportive style, 19.80 (=3.79) for Participative style and 22.40

(=2.95) for Achievement- Oriented style. On the other hand age groups

147

from 41 to 50 have the mean values 29.28 (=5.49), 26.93 (=2.91),

27.18 ( =3.19), 27.34 ( =7.88) in the same sequence. Mean scores of

higher age groups are 28.98 ((=5.54) , 27.53 ( = 3.06), 27.11 ( =

3.10) and 28.82 ( = 4.84). over all mean score for three age groups from

lower to higher are 82.40 (= 17.7.), 110.75 (= 16.77) and 112.45 (=

12.11). It is clear from F-ratio that groups have different opinion, as

values are significant. Directive style of leadership in three age groups

have the value 12.62 (P< 0.01) proves that there is a difference in

exercising this leadership style. Further it can be confirmed from mean

values of the groups that in the lower segment it is 19.80 in comparison

to 29.28 and 28.98 middle and higher segment which depicts that lower

segment has different opinion about leadership style in comparison to

middle and upper segment.

Supportive style of leadership has the F-Ratio value is 20.92 (P< 0.01)

proves that age wise response of this style is different. Further it is

evident from the mean scores that in lower age groups it is 20.40 and

26.93, 27.53 of middle and upper age group. This proves that lower age

group differently using leadership style in comparison to middle and

upper age group. While making comparison for Participative style of

leadership it is also evident that there is a significant difference in the

response with the F-ratio value 23.70 (P < 0.01). Extension to this it is

clear from the mean score of lower age group i.e. 19.80 in comparison to

27.18 and 27.11 of middle and higher age group.

Achievement- Oriented style of leadership is also significantly different

in the three age groups with the value 5.32 (P< 0.01). Further this can be

analysed with mean value of different age groups. Lower aged superiors

148

have mean values of 22.40 on one hand and to the other it is 27.34 and

28.82 respectively for middle and upper aged groups exercising

significantly different style of leadership. Further it is also evident that

executives of lower age group has produced lower scores for all

leadership styles which is below the average of total on the scale and

highest score has been produced for achievement oriented style says that

this group believes more in this style. On the other hand middle age

executives believes more in directive leadership then other style and

higher age group of respondents believes in directive and achievement –

oriented style of leadership.

TABLE: 5.14

Level: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores and F-Ratio Values


N=104

SN Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

LML MML TML F-


1 Directive 7-35 30.88 6.05 24.60 6.69 30.69 3.92 16.09**

2 Supportive 7-35 27.66 3.64 25.62 4.55 27.34 2.97 2.80*

3 Participative 7-35 26.33 5.31 25.30 3.70 27.38 3.48 3.63*

4 Achievement–

oriented style 7-35 30.77 7.79 23.72 5.26 30.55 4.34 23.07**

Overall

28-

140 115.66 21.07 99.25 15.80 115.98 12.00 16.55**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Level of the executives play significant role in exercising leadership

style. The reason may be different caliber of subordinates on whom a

149

blend of leadership style is to be exercised. The Table 5.14 gives a clear

picture of style adopted by the superior on their respective subordinates.

It is evident that superior of lower level and superior of top level has

similar mean score 30.88 ((=6.05) and 30.69 (=3.92) respectively and

24.60 (=6.69) of middle managers for Directive leadership style. The F-

ratio for this leadership style in all three levels of superior is 16.09 (P<

0.01) also proves that level also determines leadership styles of the

superiors. Supportive leadership style also has the significant F-ratio i.e.

2.80 (P< 0.01), proves that this style has been adopted differently in the

different level of superiors. Further this is evident from the mean score of

27.66 (=3.64), 27.34 (=2.97) for lower and top managers and mean

score of 25.62 (=4.55) of middle managers.

Participative style of leadership is also differently being responded by all

three levels of superiors and has F-ratio 3.63 (P< 0.01). This depicts that

all the level takes Participative styles components differently. Lower

middle and upper level managers has the means scores 26.33 (=5.31),

25.30 (=3.70) and 27.38 (=3.48) respectively.

Again the Achievement- Oriented leadership style has been adopted

differently by different level of superior executives and gives significant

F-ratio value 23.07 (P< 0.01) and this is also evident from the mean

scores of lower and top level executives 30.77 (=7.79) and 30.55

(=4.34) respectively on the other hand it is 23.72 (=5.62) for middle

level managers. The overall F-ratio score of all leadership style in

aggregate is significantly different i.e. 16.55 (P< 0.01) which proves that

overall blend of leadership styles adopted by different level of superior

executive is different. This can be seen in the mean value 115.66

150

(=21.07) of and 115.98 (=12.00) for lower and top level executives

respectively on the other hand mean score of middle managers is 99.25

(=15.80) which is different from earlier two styles. Further it is also

evident that executives of lower level group have produced higher scores

for directive and achievement oriented style (30.88 and 30.77

respectively). On the other hand middle level executives believes more

in exercising supportive and participative style (25.62 and 25.30) and

higher level executives strongly believes in directive and achievement

oriented style of leadership (30.69 and 30.55).

TABLE: 5.15

Department: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores t- Values


N=104

SN Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

Technical Non-technical t-value

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Directive 7-35 28.45 6.043 27.22 5.00 0.826

2 Supportive 7-35 26.71 3.99 26.45 3.20 0.287

3 Participative 7-35 26.26 4.29 27.04 0.95 0.841

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 28.58 5.99 24.63 5.43 2.79**

Overall 28-140 110.02 17.46 105.36 12.60 1.17

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



151

Managerial activities (functions of management), are similar in all the

functional areas of management. Even then over all respondents have

been classified into two parts on the basis of nature of job. The difference

in leadership styles exercised by both types of managers is being

analysed in the Table 5.15.

All the styles in both the technical and non-technical departments are

exercised similarly, except Achievement –Oriented style. It is clear from

t-value i.e. 2.97 (P< 0.01). This can be confirmed from the mean score

28.58 (=5.99) of technical and 24.63 (=5.43) Non-technical

departments. This difference may be due to the environment in public

sector undertaking engaged in manufacturing activities where dyadic

relations has competency based and thrust is upon quality output which

requires inspiring attitude of superior, setting challenging goals,

confidence in subordinates in production relating activities. Overall

leadership activities have no significant difference in both the groups as

no significant result is obtained.

Further it is also evident that technical executives have produced higher

scores for directive and achievement oriented style (28.45 and 28.58

respectively). On the other hand for non-technical executives believes

less in exercising achievement –oriented style (24.63) in comparison to

the styles.

152

TABLE: 5.16

Experience: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores

and F-Ratio Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

Up to 10 11- 20 21 & above F-


1 Directive 7-35 19.28 3.02 27.00 5.39 29.82 5.26 26.42**

2 Supportive 7-35 21.57 4.46 25.50 3.07 27.64 2.99 21.70**

3 Participative 7-35 20.28 4.40 26.50 0.92 27.47 2.80 34.56**

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 18.28 3.26 25.50 1.77 29.58 5.05 35.52**

5 Overall 28-

140 79.42 6.62 104.50 9.36 114.53 12.32 55.81**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01

Source: Data from self reported statements of executive


Experience of the superiors play a significant role in determining

leadership style as it brings knowledge, wisdom, skills and man

management tactics. The respondents have been classified on the basis of

their experience.

The table 5.16 gives an idea that how style is changing with experience.

Mean score of Directive style is 19.28 (=3.02) of superiors who have up

to 10 years of experience, mean score of superiors having 11 to 20 years

of experience is 27.00 (=5.39) and 29.82 (=5.26) for higher

experienced. Further the F-ratio value is 26.42 (P< 0.01), which proves

153

that all the categories have significantly different opinion with each other

on this style. Supportive style of leadership for lower experienced (up to

10 years) superior have the mean score 21.57 (=4.46), middle

experienced (11 -20 years) superior 25.50 (=3.07) and higher

experienced superior (21 & above) it is 27.64 (=2.99). The mean scores

are consistently rising with numbers of years passed in the organisation

proves that leader are more Supportive as experience is raised. Further

from the F-ratio value i.e. 21.70 (P < 0.01) proves that all the categories

has different response on Supportive style.

The mean scores of Participative style are again different in each

category. Leaders of lower experience has mean value is 20.28 (=4.40),

superior of 11 to 20 years experience has mean value 26.50 (=0.29) and

superiors 21 years and above of experience, have the mean score 27.47

(=2.80). From the mean score it is clear that with experience the mean

score also increasing. Further from the F-ratio 34.56 (P < 0.01) says that

all the three groups of respondents also have difference in opinion on this

style of leadership.

Achievement- Oriented style of leadership has also the similar results.

Leaders having experience of up to 10 years gives mean value 18.28 (

=3.26). Leaders having the experience from 11 to 20 years has mean

score 25.50 (=1.77), and leaders who has rich experience of 21 years

and above, mean score is 29.58 ( =5.05). The numbers of years as

experience increases the mean score also increases. F-value is 35.52 (P<

0.01) proves that there is significantly different opinion among the three

groups of respondents.

154

The overall response of the groups also has the similar results. Lower

experienced superior has the mean score 79.42 ( = 6.62), leaders having

the experience from 11 to 20 years gives the mean score 104.50 ( =

9.36) and superiors who have the rich experiences from 21 and above has

the mean value 114.53 ( =12.32). Further from F-ratio value i.e. 55.81

(P < 0.01) it is clear that overall leadership styles are also significantly

different among three groups. Further it is also evident that executives of

lower experience have produced higher scores for supportive style

(21.57) on the other hand middle level experienced executives believes

more in exercising directive style (27.00) and higher experienced

executives strongly believes in directive and achievement oriented style

of leadership (29.82 and 29.58).

TABLE: 5.17

Salary: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores

and F-Ratio Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

Up to 15000 15001-25000 25001 &

above

F-Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Directive 7-35 21.11 5.97 29.22 4.43 32.26 2.77 48.47**

2 Supportive 7-35 25.30 5.26 25.88 2.69 28.70 2.93 8.45**

3 Participative 7-35 23.88 5.10 26.20 2.38 28.67 2.93 14.65**

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 21.38 4.16 29.50 6.11 30.35 3.22 30.03**

5 Overall 28-140 91.69 15.97 110.81 12.36 120.00 10.17 37.17**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01

Source: Data from self reported statements of executive.


155

The respondents also have been classified into three categories on the

basis of the salary they receive per month. The Table 5.17 gives an idea

that how salary creates a difference in opinion in their styles.

Directive style of leadership has the mean value 21.11 (=5.97) leaders

who receive their salary up to Rs. 15000. Superiors who receives salary

from Rs. 15001 to 25000 has the mean value 29.22 (=4.43) and leaders

who gets highest salary in the group produced mean value 32.26

(=2.77). Further it is clear from the F-ratio 48.47 (P<0.01) that all the

three groups has significantly different opinion from each other on this

style.

The analysis of Supportive style of the respondents of lower income

group can be done from the mean score 25.30 (=5.26) middle income

group has produced mean value 25.88 (=2.69) and mean score of higher

income group has given 28.90 (=2.93). F-ratio value 8.45 (P< 0.01) says

that all the groups have significantly different opinion on the Supportive

style.

Superiors getting salary up to Rs. 15000.00 produced mean score 23.88

(=5.10) with regard to Participative style. Superior who are middle-

income group has the mean value 26.20 (=2.38). Leaders of higher

salaried produces mean value 28.67 ( =2.93) are more generous in this

Participative style of leadership. Further F-ratio value i.e. 14.56 (P< 0.01)

says that response in all categories are different.

156

Achievement- Oriented style has produced the similar results as earlier

three styles discussed. Executive superiors of lower salary have mean

value of their score 21.38 (=4.16), superior who are on the middle and

higher category has produced mean value 29.50 (=6.11) and 30.35

(=22) respectively. F- Ratio value 30.03 (P < 0.01) proves that opinion

on this style differs significantly.

Opinion on Over all style of leadership produced mean score for lower

salaried executives 91.69 ( =15.97) leaders who are in middle in the

category has produced mean score 110.81 (=12.36) are more generous

and similarly executives who receive the highest salary in the group has

produced mean score 120.00 (=10.17) on the scale. F-ratio values also

gives a clear picture about it and proves that overall response about all

leadership styles in aggregate are significantly different with F-value

37.17 (P< 0.01).

Further it is also evident that lower salaried executives have produced

higher scores for supportive and participative style (25.30 and 23.88) and

for executives in the mid segment believes more in exercising directive

and achievement oriented style (29.22 and 29.50) and for higher salaried

executives also strongly believes in directive and achievement-oriented

style of leadership (32.26 and 30.35).

157

TABLE: 5.18

Size of Span: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores

and t- Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership

style

Range

of

scores

Up to 7 8 & above t-


1 Directive 7-35 27.66 6.86 28.64 5.50 0.805

2 Supportive 7-35 26.35 5.00 26.92 2.41 0.762

3 Participative 7-35 25.85 5.10 26.92 2.20 1.42

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 26.04 6.20 29.21 5.61 2.73**

5 Overall

28-

140 105.91 20.83 111.71 11.39 1.79

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Span of control can play an important role in determining a leadership

style. Smaller span of control has the Directives with subordinates on the

other hand larger span may force to adopt a different leadership style for

a superior. Table 5.18 given below is discussed here with the results.

From the mean values given in the table certain interpretation can be

drown which are as under.

As the respondents are classified into 2 groups, superiors who supervises,

zero to seven subordinates are kept in one group and superior who

supervise minimum 8 and above are kept in second group.

158

Achievement- Oriented style of leadership of superior of smaller span

which controls/ supervise up to seven subordinates directly has produced

mean score 26.07 ( = 6.20) and superiors to control larger span scored

the mean value 29.21 (=5.61). t- Test value on this style is 2.73 (P<

0.01) prove that the opinion of both the groups differ in opinion on this

style.

Further it is also evident that executives supervising smaller span

believes more in directive style (27.66). On the other hand executives

supervising larger span believes more in exercising directive and

Achievement –oriented style (28.64 and 29.21 respectively).

TABLE: 5.19

Qualification: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores

and t- Test Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership style

Range

of

scores

UG PG t-


1 Directive 7-35 26.73 6.30 31.46 4.35 3.85**

2 Supportive 7-35 26.11 4.03 27.90 3.00 2.25*

3 Participative 7-35 26.84 6.70 29.78 3.66 4.82**

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 25.33 3.74 28.90 2.79 2.32*

5 Overall 28-140 105.02 16.77 118.00 12.29 3.94**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



159

Education level of the superiors also a determining factor in selecting

leadership style as this helps in getting knowledge, wisdom and builds

attitude in dealing and managing organizational activities.

Table 5.19 gives an idea those superiors who are educated up to

Graduation and those who have done their Post graduate differ while

selecting any leadership style.

Mean score of leaders who are educated up to Graduation on Directive

style is 26.73 (=6.30) and leaders who are Post graduate are generous as

mean score is 31.46 ( =4.35). Further t-test value on this style is 3.85

(P< 0.01) says that both the groups differ on this style significantly.

Supportive style of leadership of Graduate leaders has mean value 26.11

( =4.03) and Post Graduate leaders have mean value 27.90 (=3.00). T-

test value 2.25 (P < 0.05) proves that this style also differ significantly

with each other.

Mean value of Participative style of Graduate superiors is 26.84 (=6.70)

and Post-Graduate leaders has given mean score 29.78 (=3.66). t-Test

value 4.82 (P < 0.01) signifies that both the groups differ in opinion on

this style.

Achievement- Oriented style of leadership of graduate superiors has

produced mean score 25.33 (=3.74) and superiors of higher

qualification has mean value 28.90 (=2.79). t-Test value of both the

group is 2.32 (P< 0.01) proves that both the groups has different opinion

on this style too.

160

Overall mean score of graduate superiors is 105.02 (=16.77) and Post-

Graduate superiors have mean value 118.00 (=12.29). Further t-value is

3.94 (P< 0.01) says that both the groups opined differently on the scale.

Further it is also evident that UG executives produced similar scores for

all leadership styles and exercise a balanced blend of all the styles. On

the other hand PG executives believe more in exercising directive

(31.46). From the all mean scores it is evident that qualification does not

play any role in determining any leadership style within a group. It is also

evident that executives supervising smaller span believes more in

directive style (27.66). On the other hand executives supervising larger

span believes more in exercising directive and Achievement –oriented

style (28.64 and 29.21 respectively).

TABLE: 5.20

Training for Leadership: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of Scores

and t- Test Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership style

Range

of

scores

YES NO t-


1 Directive 7-35 28.03 6.37 28.39 5.93 0.292

2 Supportive 7-35 27.62 3.14 25.45 4.27 2.97**

3 Participative 7-35 28.08 2.61 24.34 4.14 5.60**

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 26.56 5.86 29.23 6.07 2.27*

5 Overall 28-140 110.31 15.03 107.43 18.45 0.87

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



161

Training received for leadership development can be an important aspect

in superiors’ life while determining style. Keeping this in view the

sample has been classified into two parts. In one part those respondents

are included who ever been imparted training for leadership development

and is second group those superiors are kept who never under gone for

such training. Table 5.20 gives an idea that how training plays an

important role in the determination of style.

Respondents who ever been imparted training for leadership given mean

score 28.03 ( = 6.37) for Directive style. On the other side mean score

of superiors who never been imparted such training has mean value 28.39

( =5.93) which has insignificant t- value 0.292, depicts that both the

group has the similar opinion on this style.

Supportive of leadership has the mean score 27.62 (=3.14) of superiors

who never taken any training for leadership development. On other side

mean score of the superiors who ever under gone some training for the

purpose is 25.45 (=4.27). t- Test value is 2.97 (P < 0.01) signifies that

both the groups have different response on this leadership style.

Participative style of superiors who ever has been trained has the mean

value 28.08 (=2.61) and mean score of superiors who never been

imparted such training is 24.34 (=4.14). t- Test value of both the groups

is 5.60 (P< 0.01) proves that both the groups has opined differently on

the scale.

Achievement- Oriented style has similar results mean score of superiors

who have been imparted training is 26.56 (=5.86) and superiors who

never undergone some training for leadership has the mean score 29.23

162

(=6.03). t-value on this style is 2.27 at 0.05 level of significance says

that both the groups have different opinion on the issue.

Overall mean score of superior who ever undergone some training is

110.31 (=15.03) and mean score of superiors who never been imparted

training for leadership is 107.43 (=18.45). t-value has no significant

difference which is 0.87 say that both the groups has similar opinion in

aggregate.

Executive undergone training for developing leadership styles believes

less in achievement oriented style (26.56). On the other hand Executives

never been imparted such training believes more in exercising directive

and achievement – oriented style (28.39 and 29.23 respectively).

TABLE: 5.21

Training for Stress Management: Mean, Standard Deviation, Range of

Scores and t- Test Values of Different Leadership Styles

N=104

SN Leadership style

Range

of

scores

YES NO

t-value Mean SD Mean SD

1 Directive 7-35 25.55 7.29 30.82 3.03 4.809**

2 Supportive 7-35 25.82 4.23 27.50 3.19 2.275*

3 Participative 7-35 26.48 4.59 26.38 2.94 0.127

4 Achievement–

oriented 7-35 25.15 6.00 30.34 4.97 4.80**

5 Overall 28-140 103.01 19.14 115.05 10.80 3.94**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



163

Training for stress management in the dyadic relationship may play an

important role in deciding leadership behaviour of superiors. There are

some item in leadership styles and occupational stress, which coincide

with each other. Knowledge about the factors, which has the contribution

in occupational stress, may be obtained in any stress management

programme. These factors are autonomy, decision-making power, role

ambiguity, role overload, under participation, and relationship at work

etc. This knowledge obtained from such programmes may give an idea of

using a suitable blend/mix of leadership style on the subordinates. The

respondents have been classified into two parts those superior are kept

who ever participated in training for stress management and in another

part those superiors are kept who never taken any training for stress

management. Table 5. 21 give an idea about the response.

In Directive style of leadership mean value 25.55 (=7.29) has come of

those who ever attended any training for stress management and 30.82

(=3.03) who never participated in such training. t-value of the group

4.089 (P< 0.01) proves that there is a difference in opinion between the

two groups.

Mean score of superiors who received training is 25.82 (=4.23) for

Supportive style and 27.50 (=3.19) of the leaders who never been

imparted training for it. t-value is 2.27 (P< 0.05) proves that both the

groups differ on the style.

Participative style of leadership of the superior who imparted training for

stress have mean score 26.48 (=4.59) and it is 26.38 (=2.94) for

untrained executives. t-value 0.127 is insignificant says that there is no

difference of opinion between the group.

164

Achievement- Oriented style of superior who under gone through

training has mean score 25.15 (=6.00) and superiors who never got the

training has mean score 30.34 ( =4.97). Further it clear from the t-value

4.80 (P< 0.01) that there is a significant difference of opinion on this

style.

Overall mean score of the superior who got training is 103.01 (=19.14)

and it is 115.05 (=10.80) of those superior who never been part of such

training programme. t-value of both the group is 3.94 (P< 0.01) proves

that overall leadership style differ of both the groups with each other.

The mean scores of all leadership styles in both the categories are entirely

different and superiors who have undergone training gives mean score

significantly less in comparison to those who never been part of such

training activities. This difference in scores may be due to the knowledge

acquired for occupational stress and its importance for achieving

higher/difficult targets and getting quality outputs through subordinates.

Executive undergone training for stress management believes produced

similar mean values for all styles, exercises blend of all on the other side

Executives never been imparted such training believes more in exercising

directive and achievement – oriented style (30.82 and 30.34

respectively).

165

5.4 CORRELATION BETEWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND

LEADERSHIP STYLES OF SUPERIORS

TABLE: 5.22

Inter-correlation:

Leadership Styles and Demographic Data of Leaders/Superiors

N=104

SN LEADERSHIP

STYLES

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

AGE LEVEL EXPERIENCE SALARY SPAN

1 Directive 0.314** 0.257** 0.557** 0.670** 0.101

2 Supportive 0.442** 0.104 0.545** 0.350** 0.046

3 Participative 0.410** 0.197** 0.613** 0.474** 0.074

4 Achievement–

oriented 0.287** 0.293** 0.639** 0.534** 0.091

Overall 0.418 0.272** 0.715** 0.634** 0.032

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



5.4.1 AGE AND LEADERSHIP

Age is an important variable in determining leadership style as it brings

experience, knowledge to the superiors.

Directive style of leadership has positive correlation with age. The

correlation value r = 0.314 (P < 0.01) proves that with age respondents

are generous in their response on the scale. Supportive style of leadership

also has the strong positive correlation with r value 0.442 (P < 0.01).

Participative style of leadership has again strong positive strong

correlation with r value 0.410 (P < 0.01) and Achievement- Oriented

166

style of leadership has also strong positive strong correlation with

r=0.287 (P < 0.01). Overall correlation of all leadership styles in

aggregate has strong positive correlation with r value 0.418 (P< 0.01)

with age of the superiors.

5.4.2 LEVEL AND LEADERSHIP

Level of superiors may be an important aspect in deciding leadership

among the executives. Directive style of leadership has the positive

strong correlation with value of r=0.257 (P < 0.01), whereas Supportive

style of leadership do not have significant value of r, which is 0.104,

Participative style has again positive correlation with r value 0.197 (P <

0.05) and Achievement- Oriented style of leadership has again strong

positive correlation with value of r-0.293 (P < 0.01). Overall style of

leadership of business executives who are supervisors in the hierarchy

has correlation coefficient r 0.272 (P < 0.01) says that as level increases

the scores of leadership style on the seven point scale also increases.

5.4.3 EXPERIENCE AND LEADERSHIP

Experience of superiors brings maturity. Leadership is an art which

comes with practice. Past of the executives in an organisation helps to

acquire knowledge, experience etc. Table 5.22 gives a clear picture of

correlation with experience and styles.

Experience and Directive style has positive correlation with r value 0.577

(P < 0.01), Supportive style has again strong positive correlation with r-

value 0.545 (P < 0.01), Participative style has value of r, 0.613 (P < 0.01)

167

and Achievement- Oriented style has r value 0.639 (P < 0.01) signifies

strong positive correlation with of executives.

The aggregate score of all leadership style has strong positive correlation

with experience of executive superiors with r value 0.715 (P < 0.01).

5.4.4 SALARY AND STYLE

Salary has a strong correlation with Age, Experience and level in public

sector organisation as most of the PSUs potentially consider the number

of years as experience in promotion to which leads to higher salaries.

Table 5.22 gives results in this favour. Salary with Directive style has

strong positive correlation with r value 0.670 (P < 0.01), Supportive style

also have strong positive correlation gives the value of r, 0.350 (P <

0.01), Participative style again has positive correlation with value of r,

0.474 (P < 0.01) and Achievement- Oriented style has strong positive

correlation r value 0.534 (P < 0.01). Aggregate of all styles again has

strong positive correlation with salary with r-value 0.634 (P < 0.01)

5.4.5 SPAN OF CONTROL AND STYLE

Span of control has no significant correlation with Directive Supportive,

Participative and Achievement- Oriented with r-values -0.101, -0.046, -

0.074 and -0.091 respectively. Further overall correlation value of r is -

0.032 is again insignificant.

168

5.4.6 INTER- CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLES

TABLE: 5.23

Inter- correlations Between Leadership Style Variables

N=104

SN LEADERSHIP

STYLES

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Directive Supportive Participative Achievement–

oriented

1 Directive 1

2 Supportive 0.595** 1

3 Participative 0.531** 0.703** 1

4 Achievement–

oriented 0.817** 0.353** 0.433** 1

Overall 0.930** 0.743** 0.749** 0.850**

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement- Oriented styles

has strong positive correlation with r-values 0.595 (P < 0.01), 0.531 (P <

0.01) and 0.817 (0.01) respectively. The overall correlation with

Directive style has very strong linear correlation with r-value 0.930 (P <

0.01). Supportive style has again strong correlation with Participative and

Achievement- Oriented style with r-values, 0.703 (P < 0.01) and 0.353 (P

< 0.01). Overall correlation with Supportive style has strong r-value

0.743 (P < 0.01). Participative style also has strong positive correlation

with Achievement- Oriented with r-value 0.453 (P < 0.01) and

correlation with aggregate score of leadership style is also positive

correlation r=0.749 (P < 0.01). Achievement- Oriented style has strong

169

positive correlation with aggregate score of all styles with r value 0.850

(P < 0.01).

The Intra correlation among the leadership styles has strong bond with

each other having strong positive correlations with each other signify

stronger Reliability of leadership questionnaire. The researcher has

computed reliability coefficient through Guttman Split-Half method and

find out reliability coefficients 0.6406 for first half, 0.7212 for second

half and it is 0.8965 for over all shows the reliability of the questionnaire

in the study.

5.5 PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS OF SUBORDINATESSTRESS

In the second phase of the analysis the demographic and psycho graphic

data of frequency and percentage of the respondents is done who has

participated as subordinates and experienced occupational stress.

TABLE: 5.24

Age: Frequency and Percentage

Distribution of Subordinates

N=104

SN Age Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 40 25 24

2 41- 50 41 39.4

3 51 & above 38 36.5


Percentage is calculated by researcher

Age has been an important factor in experiencing occupational stress

among the executives. The table 5.24 above explains frequency

distribution of sample in the study.

170

From the table it is clear that 24 per cent of the respondents are up to the

age 40 years, 39.4 per cent of the respondents are from 41 to 50 years and

remaining 36.5 per cent of the respondents are of the age group of 51 and

above.

TABLE: 5.25

Level: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Level Respondents

No. Percentage

1 LML 27 26

2 MML 61 58.7

3 TML 16 15.3



Level plays a crucial role in experiencing extent of stress due to different

job demands. Table 5.25 shows that 26 percent of the respondent are of

the lower level management which includes supervisors, foreman, office

superintendents, etc. majority of respondents i.e. 58.7 per cent of the

respondents belongs to middle level managers which include Assistant

officers, junior executive, Sr. Executives, Officers, Assistant Managers,

Deputy managers, and managers. 15.3 percent of respondents belong to

top management level, which include senior manager, and above.

171

TABLE: 5.26

Department: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN DEPARTMENT Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Technical 72 69.2

2 Non-technical 32 30.8



Nature of job is also a determinant of occupational stress. Researcher has

categorized the jobs into two categories Technical and Non-technical.

A majority of respondents i.e. 69.2 per cent belongs to the Technical

departments and remaining 30.8 per cent are from non-technical

department, as study is focused upon manufacturing public sector

undertakings.

TABLE: 5.27

Experience: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Experience Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 10 24 23.1

2 11-20 26 25.0

3 21 & above 54 51.9



Number of years as experience also plays a significant role in tolerating

occupation stress. For this purpose this professional demographic

variable has considered in the study. 23.1 percent of the respondents are

of the experience up to 10 years, 25.0 per cent of the respondents are

172

from 11 to 20 years of experience and remaining 51.9 per cent of sample

has the experience of 21 years and above. From these data this is clear

that fresh blood is not being injected in PSUs units due to various cost

cutting measures, technological advancements and other economic

pressures at global level.

TABLE: 5.28

Department: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Salary Respondents

No. Percentage

1 Up to 15000 44 42.3

2 15001-25000 48 46.2

3 25001&

above 12 11.5

Total 104 100



Partially salary also plays an important role in occupation stress

determination. Executives have been categorized into three categories.

This table gives a picture of sample distribution salary-wise.

42.3 percent of the respondents are those who draw salary up tom

Rs.15000.00 per month, 46.2 draw the salary from Rs 15001 to 25000

and remaining 11.5 per cent draw the salary above Rs. 25000.00.

Qualification also plays an important role in experiencing occupational

stress by the subordinates in the executive. Higher qualification gives

173

more knowledge and wisdom raise the aspirations and ambitions that

results into differentiating ability in stress contributing factors.

TABLE: 5.29

Qualification: Frequency and

Percentage Distribution of Respondents

N=104

SN Qualification Respondents

No. Percentage

1 UG 64 61.5

2 PG 40 38.5

Total 104 100



The Table 5.29 shows that 61.5 percent of the participants belong to

lower qualification group i.e. up to Graduation level and remaining 38.5

per cent of respondents have completed their Post Graduation.

Training for stress management is an important aspect in the life of

executive. Training gives an idea of managing occupational stress. In this

variable the respondents have been sub divided into two categories. The

first category of those who ever received training on stress management

and in the second category those respondents were taken into the

consideration who never been imported training for occupational stress.

174

TABLE: 5.30

Training Attended for Stress Management: Frequency

and Percentage Distribution

N=104

SN RESPONSE Respondents

No. Percentage

1 YES 24 23.1

2 NO 80 76.9

Total 104 100



Above Table 5.30 depicts that only 23.1 per cent of the executive who

participated in the study imparted training for stress management and

76.9 percent of the respondents never got training for managing stress.

5.6 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND RANGE OF SCORES AND

F- RATIO /t -TEST VALUES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

VARIABLES

As the main objective of the research is to make comparison between MP

and UP of different PSUs of occupational stress level. The researcher has

find out that in both the states occupational stress level among the

executives is similar as no significant t- test value is obtained.

175

Table: 5.31

Age: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores

F- Ratio Values of Occupational Stress

N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

AGE

F-Ratio Up to 40 41-50 51 & above

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Role Overload 6-30 18.12 7.23 18.09 5.12 17.55 5.27 0.11

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 9.12 2.84 9.07 3.14 7.65 2.53 3.02

3 Role Conflict 5-25 8.96 2.93 10.82 2.69 10.21 3.43 2.94

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 12.92 3.52 13.46 3.64 11.65 3.13 2.80

5 Persons 3-15 9.92 2.49 8.92 2.47 10.31 2.96 2.81

6 Under

participation 4-20 11.72 4.20 10.17 4.18 11.05 2.47 1.47

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.88 3.30 8.97 2.86 9.21 2.80 0.11

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 8.52 3.04 10.80 3.07 8.63 2.18 7.94**

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 9.20 3.35 9.39 2.49 9.15 2.54 0.06

10 Low Status 3-15 5.56 2.82 7.12 2.94 6.57 2.28 2.61

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 11.04 3.06 10.17 3.50 9.42 2.72 2.02

12 Unprofitability 2-10 7.44 2.34 6.46 1.87 6.36 2.08 2.33

TOTAL 46-

230 121.40 20.53 123.48 19.01 117.81 19.84 0.82

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01


Values calculated by researcher

Table 36 indicates the age wise mean, S.D. and F-ratio values of

subordinates about their occupational stress. Poor peer relations has mean

176

scores 8.52 ((=3.04), 10.80 (=3.07) and 8.63 ( =2.18) respectively.

Further from the table F ratio value on its variable is significant (F=7.94,

p<0.01) reveals that groups has different opinion on poor peer relations.

From the mean score it is evident that middle aged group of subordinates

has more stress may lead to poor relations.

This may be due to their career stage where middle-aged people feel

insecurity and competition with other colleagues. In this age executives

may feel doubts that their colleagues are trying to defame them, resulting

into lesser mutual corporation. Rest of the variables does not differ

significantly when categorized on the basis of their age. This proves that

age do not play significant role while determining level of stress among

the executives.

From the over all mean scores of different age group that lower and

higher age group executives experience low stress (121.40 and 117.81)

has moderate level of stress and on the other side it is moderate of the top

level executives (123.48).

177

Table: 5.32

Level: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores and


N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

Of

Scores

Level F-

Ratio LML MML TML


1 Role Overload 6-30 18.11 5.95 17.93 5.49 17.43 6.34 0.07

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 9.03 3.43 8.21 2.64 9.12 2.98 1.09

3 Role Conflict 5-25 9.48 3.46 10.57 2.83 9.68 3.32 1.38

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 12.37 3.54 12.77 3.43 12.81 3.86 0.13

5 Persons 3-15 9.07 2.67 9.93 2.82 9.68 2.33 0.93

6 Under

participation 4-20 11.62 3.98 10.34 3.59 11.56 3.30 1.49

7 Powerlessness 3-15 9.00 3.32 9.01 2.72 9.18 3.14 0.02

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 9.81 3.39 9.49 2.80 8.75 2.79 0.65

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 9.37 3.53 9.31 2.55 8.87 3.15 0.16

10 Low Status 3-15 6.66 3.51 6.83 2.50 5.25 1.61 2.21

11

Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 10.29 2.90 9.88 3.38 10.62 2.80 0.40


TOTAL 46-

230 121.74 18.74 120.83 20.30 119.81 19.79 0.04

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01, Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.

Values are calculated by researcher F-ratio values for all the occupational stress variables are insignificant

say that from the level or status in the organizational point of view the

opinion does not differ significantly. This proves that level do not

determine the amount of stress among the executives. Further from the

over all mean scores of different level of executives it is clear that

178

executive in all levels have low level of stress as the values are at the

threshold of low level (121.74, 120.83 and119.81).

Table: 5.33

Experience: Mean, Standard Deviation,

Range of Scores and F- Ratio Values of Occupational Stress

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

Experience F-

Ratio Up to 10 11-20 21 & above


1 Role Overload 6-30 16.66 7.16 20.07 4.75 17.40 5.17 2.75

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 8.33 3.10 10.38 3.40 7.79 2.15 7.94**

3 Role Conflict 5-25 10.08 3.04 11.00 2.62 9.77 3.29 1.38

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 13.41 3.57 14.76 3.07 11.33 3.08 10.93**

5 Persons 3-15 10.41 2.37 9.00 2.49 9.66 2.90 1.72

6 Under

participation 4-20 11.75 3.95 10.23 4.93 10.77 2.72 1.10

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.91 3.26 9.00 3.01 9.11 2.77 0.03

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 9.08 3.37 9.92 3.05 9.40 2.73 0.51

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 9.25 3.36 9.61 3.11 9.09 2.61 0.28

10 Low Status 3-15 6.41 3.21 6.53 3.24 6.61 2.25 0.04

11

Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 10.91 3.13 11.07 3.26 9.27 2.95 4.09*


TOTAL 46-

230 122.16 20.90 128.69 14.51 116.61 20.31 3.54*

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01, Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.


Table 5.33 reveals the range of scores, mean, SD and F-ratio values on

the number of years as experiences in the organization. Mean values of

variables ‘Role Ambiguity’ are 8.33 (=3.10), 10.38 (=3.40) and 7.79

(=2.15) of lower, middle and higher number of experience of

subordinates respectively. Further F-ratio value is 7.94 (p<0.01) says that

the groups has difference of opinion on this issue. Mean value of group

179

who are in the middle in the segment, which is 11 to 20 years of

experiences, experiences greater amount of occupational stress. This may

be due to ambiguity in role objectives. With experiences in organisation

expectations are more by other and probably respondents are not able to

come up on the expectations. Mid segment has more affinity with both

other groups i.e. lower and higher numbers of experiences.

Mean scores of variable Group/Political pressures are 13.41 (=3.57) for

respondents having experience up to 10 years, 14.76 (=3.07) for 11 to

20 years of experience and 11.33 (=3.08) of executives who has the

experience 21 years and above. Further F-ratio value 10.93 (p<0.01) is

significant explain that all the groups has different amount of stress on

the variable. Executives of higher experience feel lesser stress in

comparison to the other group. This may be due to the bonds developed

with other social groups. On the other hand higher experienced

executives develop their own coping strategies for adjustment in pressure

and could find out the way to avoid violating the rules in group pressures.

Since lower and middle experienced subordinates are in the front, has to

take certain decisions in pressure because they are directly in touch with

people.

Variable strenuous working conditions has mean scores for executives

having experience up to 10 years is 10.91 (=3.13), 11.07 (=3.26) for

11 to 20 years of experience and 9.27 (=2.95) for above 20 years. F-

ratio value is significant which is 4.09 (p<0.05) says that different class

of executives experiences occupational stress significantly different on

this variable. Executives who have higher experiences have lower

occupational stress in comparison to earlier two groups. This may be due

180

to the development of their own coping strategies while working under

tense circumstances, dealing in risky and complicated assignments and

feels that they are working under satisfactory working conditions.

The overall mean scores of these three classes of executives are 122.16

(=20.90), 128.69 (=14.51) and 116.61 (=20.31) for experience up to

10 years, 11-20 and 21 & above respectively. F-ratio value is 3.54

(p<0.05) shows that the overall occupational stress differs in the groups.

Higher experienced executives are undergoing lesser stress due to the

development of their own coping strategies and become habitual in

dealing with stressful conditions.

From the over all mean scores of the group it is clear that low and higher

experienced executives has low level of stress (122.16 and 116.61 )on the

other hand it is moderate who has the experience of 11 to 20 years

(128.69)

181

Table: 5.34

Salary: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores,


N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

Salary (in Rs.) F-

Ratio

Up to 15000 15001- 25000 25001 &

above


1 Role Overload 6-30 18.95 6.13 16.64 5.33 19.08 4.71 2.22

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 8.50 2.72 7.83 2.26 11.75 3.93 10.21**

3 Role Conflict 5-25 10.40 3.26 9.60 3.15 11.41 1.50 1.93

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 12.52 3.65 12.25 3.48 14.91 2.02 2.96

5 Persons 3-15 9.90 2.67 9.79 2.67 8.33 2.87 1.69

6 Under

participation 4-20 11.40 3.86 10.41 3.15 10.66 4.84 0.85

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.84 3.24 8.85 2.53 10.50 3.00 1.71

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 9.11 3.12 9.45 2.65 10.75 3.33 1.45

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 8.93 3.02 9.22 2.80 10.58 2.74 1.54

10 Low Status 3-15 5.81 2.78 6.75 2.25 8.41 3.42 4.83**

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 10.47 3.26 9.50 3.20 11.16 2.16 1.88

12 Unprofitability 2-10 7.31 1.78 6.31 2.16 5.66 2.30 4.44*

TOTAL

46-

230 122.20 18.59 116.64 20.68 133.25 13.57 3.78*

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



182

Table 5.34 indicates Range of score, Mean, SD and F-ratio values

between the groups categorized on the basis of their salaries receiving per

month.

Variable Role Ambiguity has mean scores 8.50 (=2.72) for executives

receiving salaries up to Rs. 15000/month, 7.83 (=2.26) for salaried Rs.

15001 to 25000 and 11.75 (=3.39) for executives getting above Rs.

25000. F-ratio value is 10.21 (p<0.01) is significant, explains that the

entire experiences Role Ambiguity stress differently. Executives drawing

salary above Rs. 25000 experience more stress on Role Ambiguity. This

may be due to uncertainty and Ambiguity about jurisdiction and unclear

expectations by other. Mean scores of variable ‘low status’ are 5.81

(=2.78), 6.75 (=2.25) and 8.41 (=3.42) from lower to higher salaried

executives in the sequence. F-ratio value is 4.83 (p<0.01) is significant

means all the group has different experience about ‘low status’ stress

variable. As salary is increasing mean scores of low status stress variable

also increases, proves that persons getting more salary have the crisis of

status, as they feel that their self respect, social status and dignity in not

being taken care of the authorities. This may be due to the feeling of

being senior on the basis of their salary which they receive.

Mean values of variable ‘Unfrofitability’ are 7.31 (=1.78), 6.31

(=2.16) and 5.66 (=2.30) for salary drawing up to Rs. 15000, Rs.

15001 to 25000 and above Rs. 25000. F-ratio value is 4.44 (p<0.01)

shows that groups have different opinion on the variable. Decreasing

mean score explains that lower salaried groups experiences greater stress

on the aspect, as they feel that they are underpaid and get seldom rewards

183

for their efforts they put in. This is obvious as lower salaried executives

have higher aspiration and on contrary they receive lesser salaries.

Overall mean scores of the groups in the sequence are 122.20 (=18.59),

116.64 (=20.68) and 133.25 (=13.57) for salaried up to 15000, 15000

to 25000 and above 25000 rupees per month. F-ratio value is 3.78

(p<0.05) explains that the groups has different opinion on overall

occupational stress Executives who receives higher salaries experiences

more stress. This may be due to their expectations, aspirations which they

have and PSUs can not provide them according to their expectations.

From the over all mean scores of the group it is clear that low and middle

salaried executives has low level of stress (122.20 and 116.64 )on the

other hand it is moderate who receives the salary Rs.15001 to 25000 per

month (133.25)

184

Table: 5.35

Department: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores


N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

Department t-

Value Technical Non-technical

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Role Overload 6-30 18.08 6.01 17.50 4.95 0.480

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 8.33 3.20 9.09 2.08 1.22

3 Role Conflict 5-25 9.51 3.22 11.59 2.22 3.31**

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 12.36 3.20 13.37 4.05 1.37

5 Persons 3-15 9.94 2.95 9.06 1.98 1.53

6 Under

participation 4-20 11.38 3.75 9.68 3.24 2.21*

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.93 3.15 9.28 2.38 0.56

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 9.34 3.19 9.71 2.35 0.59

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 9.34 3.01 9.06 2.68 0.45

10 Low Status 3-15 6.58 2.91 6.46 2.31 0.19

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 10.20 3.28 9.87 2.90 0.49

12 Unprofitability 2-10 6.90 2.26 6.12 1.56 1.76

TOTAL 46-230 120.94 20.93 120.84 16.73 0.02

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Table 5.35 reveals Range of lower, Mean, SD and t-value of technical &

Non-technical departments. Variable Role conflict has mean score 9.51

185

(=3.22) and 11.59 (=2.22) for technical and non-technical executives

respectively. T-test value is significant is 3.31 (p<0.01) explains that both

the groups opines differently on the issue. Non-technical executive

respondents experience more Role conflict stress. Role conflict has

different sources such as contradictory instructions, Autonomy,

insufficient facilities, importance of formal working procedure and

change difficulties. Obviously these factors are dealt more intensely by

non-technical executives such as Marketing, Human Resource, Finance

etc thus experiences more Role conflict stress.

Variable Under participation has mean scores are 11.38 (=3.75) and

9.68 (=3.24) for technical and non-technical executives respectively. t-

test value is 2.21 (p<0.05) is significant says that both the groups have

different amount of stress on Under participation. Technical executives

experiences more stress and feel that their suggestions are not invited in

problem solving, their cooperation is no sought, their opinion is not asked

in policy making and modifying.

This may be due to the feeling that they are the producer in the

organisation and competent enough to solve the problems but non-

technical people indulged more in above-mentioned activities resulting

into experiencing more stress.

From the over all mean scores of both the group it is clear that both the

groups experiences similarly low level of stress (120.94 and 120.84).

186

Table: 5.36

Qualification: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Scores

t- Test Values of Occupational Stress

N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

Qualification

t-Test UG PG

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Role Overload 6-30 18.07 5.17 17.62 6.55 0.39

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 8.10 2.61 9.30 3.24 2.05*

3 Role Conflict 5-25 9.46 3.11 11.25 2.77 2.96**

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20

12.56 3.27 12.85 3.86 0.40

5 Persons 3-15 10.04 2.71 9.07 2.64 1.79

6 Under

participation 4-20

10.81 3.03 10.95 4.55 0.18

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.91 2.94 9.55 2.87 1.41

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20

9.12 2.68 10.00 3.31 1.47

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20

8.76 3.04 10.05 2.51 2.23*

10 Low Status 3-15 6.29 2.61 6.95 2.89 1.18

11

Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20

10.20 2.98 9.95 3.47

0.39


TOTAL 46-230 118.79 18.28 124.30 21.41 1.39

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Table 5.36 indicates Range of scores, Mean SD and t-values of

Occupational stress of executives on the basis of their qualification. Mean

scores of Role Ambiguity are 8.10 (=2.61) and 9.30 (=3.24) for under

Graduate and Postgraduate executives. t-value is 2.05 (p<0.05) shows that

both the groups has different level of stress on the issue. Mean value of PG

executives explains that this class of respondent experiences more stress.

This may be due to the level of thinking, knowledge, wisdom and

187

experience of post graduate are more resulting in to desire to seek more

information, clarity in role, clarity in jurisdiction and expectations by

others in comparison to UG respondents. Mean values for Role conflict are

9.46 (=3.11) and 11.25 (=2.77) for UG and PG respondents

respectively. t-value is 2.96 (p<0.01) shows that both the groups has

different opinion on the issue. PG executives has more mean scores explain

that this class experiences more Role conflict as they feel that their bosses

gives contradictory instructions, has less Autonomy, feels that they have

unclear instructions and insufficient facilities and face change difficulties.

This class of executives is more qualified seeks for more autonomy, want

clarity in instructions and don’t prefer to be guided by more then one

officer resulting into more Role conflict stress.

Variable ‘Intrinsic impoverishment’ has mean scores 8.76 (=3.04) and

10.05 (=2.51) for UG and PG executives respectively. t-value is 2.23

(p<0.05) explains that both the groups experiences different amount of

‘Intrinsic impoverishment’ stress. PG executives has more mean score says

that their class of respondents has more stress, as they feel that they have

monotonous assignments, are not able to utilize and develop their abilities

and proficiency. Obviously PG executives have more competencies seeks

multiple assignments as they have more knowledge, wisdom resulting into

more expectations from themselves in comparison to UG respondents.

From the over all mean scores of both the group it is clear that

undergraduate executives experience low (118.79) and post graduates

experiences moderate level of stress (124.30).

188

Table: 5.37

Training Attended for Stress Management: Mean, SD,

Range of Scores and t- Test Values of Occupational Stress

N= 104

SN STRESS

VARIABLES

Range

of

scores

Response

t-

Test

YES NO

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Role Overload 6-30 17.33 5.53 18.07 5.76 0.55

2 Role Ambiguity 5-25 8.91 1.93 8.46 3.15 0.66

3 Role Conflict 5-25 10.16 2.56 10.15 3.25 0.02

4 Group/Political

Pressures 4-20 12.58 4.28 12.70 3.25 0.14

5 Persons 3-15 9.08 2.58 9.85 2.74 1.21

6 Under

participation 4-20 9.41 3.69 11.30 3.58 2.24

7 Powerlessness 3-15 8.58 2.78 9.17 2.97 0.86

8 Poor Peer

Relation 4-20 9.33 2.47 9.50 3.09 0.24

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment 4-20 8.75 2.92 9.41 2.90 0.97

10 Low Status 3-15 5.58 1.79 6.83 2.90 2.00*

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

4-20 9.33 2.18 10.33 3.38 1.36


TOTAL 46-230 115.16 13.78 122.63 20.86 1.64

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Table 5.37 depicts Range of scores, mean; SD and t values of

respondents on the basis of training they received for stress management

and who never participated in such training programme.

189

Variable ‘Under participation’ has mean scores 9.41 (=3.69) and 11.30

(=3.58) for respondents who ever received training and who never

received such training respectively. t-value is 2.24 (p<0.05) which is

significant, explains that both the groups differ in their responses on the

issue significantly. Higher mean score for the executives who never been

a part of such activity is obvious. This is due to the feeling that they have

been overlooked; their competencies are not utilized and are sidelined.

Variable Low status has mean scores 5.58 (=1.79) and 6.83 (=2.90)

for both groups in the same sequence. t-test value is 2.00 (p<0.05) which

is significant says that both the groups significantly differ in their

occupational stress on the issue. Higher mean value comes for the

respondents who never received such training emphasizes that people of

this group has the feeling that their self respect is not been taken care of,

weightage is not being given by higher authorities. This may be due to

the non-selection of such group and feeling generated that they have low

status in the organization.

From the over all mean scores of both the group it is clear that executives

who has undergone training for stress management experiences low

(115.16) and executives who never participated in such programme

experiences moderate level of stress (122.63).

5.7 CORRELATION

This part of the chapter deals with the analysis of correlation between

occupational stress variables.

The Intra correlation among various occupational stress items having

strong positive correlations with each other signifies stronger Reliability

190

of the instrument. The researcher has computed reliability coefficient

through Guttman Split-Half method and find out reliability coefficients

0.6385 for first half, 0.7750 for second half and it is 0.7965 for over all

shows the reliability of the questionnaire in the study.

5.7.1 INTER-CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIABLES AND STRESS OF SUBORDINATES

Table 5.38 shows correlation (r) between Demographic data and

occupational stress variables of subordinates.

Variables Role Ambiguity has negative significant inter correlation (r) -

0.028 (p<0.05). with age of respondents. As age increases Ambiguity is

decreasing. This signifies that with age role objective, justification and

expectation of other become clear. Inter –correlation (r) with salary has

significant value 0.204 (p<0.05). This infers as salary is increasing Role

ambiguity increases. This may be due to the ambiguity and uncertainty

about the jurisdictions, feeling of insufficient information among

subordinates. Increased salary brings the feeling of being senior resulting

into exercising in others jurisdiction which creates ambiguity of role.

191

Table: 5.38

Inter- correlations:

Demographic Data and Occupational Stress of Subordinates

N=104

SN Stress variables

Independent variables

Age Level Experience Salary

1 Role Overload -0.04 -0.03 0.006 -0.08

2 Role Ambiguity -0.208* -0.020 -0.146 0.204*

3 Role Conflict 0.130 0.053 -0.071 0.018

4 Group/Political

Pressures -0.161 0.045 -0.305** 0.139

5 Persons 0.085 0.092 0.079 0.141

6 Under

participation -0.049 0.039 -0.084 -0.104

7 Powerlessness 0.045 0.018 0.028 0.130

8 Poor Peer Relation -0.034 -0.108 0.025 0.151

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishment -0.010 -0.048 -0.036 0.151

10 Low Status 0.119 -0.134 0.028 0.289**

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

-0.196* 0.015 -0.240* -0.017

12 Unprofitability -0.184 -0.027 -0.129 -0.282**

Total -0.083 -0.031 -0.158 0.067

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



Group/political pressures have negative significant correlation with

experience of executives with r value between salary and low Status

variable of the occupational stress -0.305 (p<0.01), signifies that with

192

experience group/political pressures are reduced. This is because of

developing own stress coping strategy by getting experiences.

Coefficient of inter correlation (r) 0.289 (p<0.01) infers that as salary of

the executives are increasing stress on low status also increases. This is

because of feeling of being senior/superior and organisation properly not

taking care of their self respect and higher authorities do not give due

weightage to them.

Unprofitability has negative correlation with salary with r value -0.282

(p<0.01). This means as salary increases feeling of underpaid and not

receiving rewards for hard work grows. This may be due to the

comparison which they does with their college-mates who are serving in

private sectors and getting more salaries, as salary structure is increasing

in PSUs on time bound basis primarily.

Strenuous working conditions have the value of coefficient of correlation

(r) -0.196 (p<0.05) with age of the executives. This depicts that with age

is decreased feeling in which they are to work under tense working

conditions among the executives. This is due to habit they develop in

working such environment and become more matured in working on

risky and complicated assignments. This variable also has significant

negative correlation with experience r -0.240 (p<0.05). This signifies that

as experience is increases feeling of working in strenuous working

conditions is less. Executives become easy going as they are habitual of

working in such environment and develop their own coping strategies.

193

5.7.2 INTER- CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STYLES OF SUPERIORS

AND STRESS OF SUBORDINATES

Table: 5.39

Inter- correlations:

Leadership styles of superiors and occupational stress of subordinates

N=104

SN Stress

Variables

Leadership Styles

Directive Supportive Participative Achievement

–Oriented

1 Role Overload 0.043 0.036 -0.139 -0.015

2 Role

Ambiguity 0.006 0.113 -0.010 -0.029

3 Role Conflict 0.321** 0.183 0.139 0.249*

4 Group/Politica

l Pressures 0.036 0.122 -0.072 -0.124

5 Persons 0.093 -0.129 -0.125 0.082

6 Under

participation 0.237* -0.237* -0.139 -0.199*

7 Powerlessness -0.101 -0.133 -0.046 -0.048

8 Poor Peer

Relation 0.140 0.202* 0.221* 0.089

9 Intrinsic

Impoverishme

nt

0.141 0.115 0.087 0.217*

10 Low Status 0.216 0.272** 0.258** 0.156

11 Strenuous

Working

Conditions

-0.085 -0.039 -0.197* 0.103

12 Unprofitability -0.147 -0.100 -0.402** -0.196*

Total 0.067 0.064 -0.076 0.005

* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01



194

Table 5.39 indicates the inter factor correlation (r) between the variables

of occupational stress and Leadership styles.

Role conflict has significant Correlation (r) value 0.321 (p<0.01) with

Directive style of leadership. This means as scores on Directive style

increases Role conflict stress also increases. Superiors believing more on

‘Directive leadership’ creates ‘Role Conflict’ in this style such as setting

standards, emphasis on rules and regulations, communication of superiors

own expectations and setting performance standards. Due to these

reasons subordinates has lesser Autonomy, to work with insufficient

facilities, change difficulties due to strict instructions from superior.

Achievement- Oriented style of leadership has also positive and

significant correlation with r value 0.249 (p<0.01). Achievement-oriented

style of leadership has items such as informing subordinated about their

expectations, setting challenging goals, encouraging for improvements,

showing confidence in subordinates ‘Competencies’. Interestingly Role

conflict is due to unclear instructions, contradictory instructions from

different officers and facing change difficulties also leads to give positive

relationship. Ultimately this can be said that both types of styles has

positive correlation with Role conflict and other two styles Supportive

and participation has no direct relationship with Role conflict stress and

do not create Role stress.

Under participation is also positively correlated with Directive style with

r-value 0.237 (p<0.05). This is evident from the items such as superior

not leaving scope for suggestions in problem solving, do not seek opinion

in policy making and modifying working procedure as this style sets the

195

performance standards, conveying their own expectations thus leave no

scope for using subordinates’ competencies.

Superior believing in Supportive style has negative coefficient of

correlation (r) -0.237 (p<0.01) with ‘Under participation’ as this style has

sub variables friendly working relations with subordinates, participation

in group activities, care for subordinates feelings, extending help in

problem solving and showing empathy with subordinates. This is evident

from the results; superiors practicing this style ensure the participation of

subordinates at work. Participative style of leadership has also negative

trend but given insignificant value of r -0.139.

Achievement –oriented style also has negative coefficient of correlation

r-value 0-0.199 (p<0.05) with Under participation. This style gives full

scope to subordinates in utilizing their potential, knowledge and

competencies and show full confidence in them.

Supportive style of leadership has significant positive correlation with

occupational stress variable ‘Poor Peer Relations’, r= 0.202 (p<0.05).

This occupational stress among the subordinates is due to not having

freedom to choose team members, feelings of defaming by colleagues

and subordinates, non-cooperation of colleagues, being Supportive to the

subordinates probably internal competition begins among then and

everybody tries to impress their superior resulting into not sharing their

ideas with other colleagues and sometime may try to defame as

unsuccessful.

Participative style of leadership also has significant positive correlation

with this Poor peer relations with r value 0.221 (p<0.05) as this style

gives maximum scope for discussion/ consultation with subordinates

196

listening ideas and suggestions, invites the suggestion in problem

solving. This initiates an internal competition in their subordinates and in

order to maintain their originality people do not discuss their ideas in

public and sometimes try to criticize others resulting into Poor Peer

relations at work. On the other hand Directive and Achievement-

Oriented styles at both the ends. Directive style do not leave much scope

for internal competition and Achievement- Oriented style encourage for

improvements sets challenging goals encourage team work resulting into

good relations among the subordinates.

Interestingly, Achievement- Oriented style has significant positive

correlation (r) with stress variable ‘Intrinsic Improvement’ with value

0.217 (p<0.05). This indicates that superiors who believes in setting

challenging goals for subordinates, have complete confidence in their

competencies, informing subordinates about their expectations and

encourages for improvement creates stress on ‘Intrinsic Improvements’.

This unusual phenomenon may be due to fear of failure in the

subordinates mind and some times perceives careless behaviour of their

superiors in their mind.

Directive style of superior has significantly positive correlation

coefficient (r) value 0.216 (p<0.05) with stress due to feeling of ‘low

status’ among their subordinates. Obviously, as this style does not give

any scope for decision making, autonomy, and gives emphasis on

standards rules and regulation and avoids subordinates feeling resulting

into the feelings that their self respect is not being taken care and not

being given weightage by higher authorities. Similarity Supportive and

197

Participative style also have positive correlation with value 0.272

(p<0.01) and 0.258 (P<0.01) respectively.

Participative style has significant negative coefficient correlation (r)

value -0.197 (p<0.05) with variable ‘Strenuous Working conditions’.

This style gives scope for subordinates’ participation by consultation,

listening ideas and suggestions. This leads to easing of subordinates in

tense working conditions, helps in risky and complicated assignments

leading the satisfactory working conditions.

Occupational stress variable ‘Unprofitability’ has significant negative

correlation with Participative and Achievement- Oriented styles of

leadership with r values -0.402 (p<0.01) and -0.196 (p<0.05)

respectively. Superiors who exercise these styles helps subordinates to

overcome from the feeling of being underpaid and gets rewards for their

hard work which they put in their workings.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7734/16/06_chapter...

Documents

Transcript of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7734/16/06_chapter...