RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP STYLES, CEREBRAL DOMINANCE AND TYPE-A PERSONALITY...

RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP STYLES, CEREBRALDOMINANCE AND TYPE-A PERSONALITY DECISION-

MAKING BEHAVIOUR AMONG MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL

A. P. Singh* and P. Somchat Phiutongngam**

ABSTRACT

The present study included 85 managerial personnel from different organizations to examinethe relationship of leadership styles, cerebral dominance, type A behaviour with decisionmaking behaviour. In this study leadership styles, cerebral dominance and type A behaviourhave been treated as predictor variables whereas decision making behaviour has been usedas a criterion variable. For the measurement of leadership styles, Task-People LeadershipStyle Questionnaire (Ritchie & Thomson, 1988) is used. For the measurement of cerebraldominance, Human Information Processing Survey (Taggart & Torrance, 1984) is used andfor the measurement of type A behaviour, Type A Personality Inventory (Friedman &Rosenmann, 1974) is used. Decision making behaviour is measured by Decision MakingQuestionnaire I & II (Mann, 1982). The statistics employed are correlation, mean, SD and t-test. The results of coefficient of correlation indicate that decision making behaviour (selfesteem, vigilance, hyper-vigilance, defensive avoidance, buck passing, rationalization andprocrastination) is significantly correlated with task oriented leadership style, people orientedleadership style, right hemisphere, integrated hemisphere and type A behaviour. No significantcorrelation is obtained between decision making behaviour with left hemisphere. Further,results show that there is significant mean difference in decision making behaviour betweenhigh (Q3 group) and low (Q1 group) task oriented leadership style, people oriented leadershipstyle, right hemisphere, integrated hemisphere and type A behaviour groups. But the meandifference of decision making behaviour between high and low left hemisphere groups wasnot found significant.

Key words: Relationship, Leadership styles, Cerebral dominance, type A Personality,Decision-making, Management Personnel.

* Professor, Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

** Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN: 0973-8533

Vol. 1 No. 1, June 2007GJBMGJBMGJBMGJBMGJBM

12

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Today the success of any organization is contingent upon the styles of leadership practiced bymanagers. Managers have to make short term and long term planning and they are alsoinvolved in active decision making processes which require more cognitive ability to thinkcreatively, logically to foresee the future perspectives of the effect of their plans and decisions.The way of processing such information to make plans, decisions to implement is an importantaspect. Due to this reason, cerebral dominance is included. Although numerous studies havebeen conducted in this area (Herrmann, 1988; Leonard & Staus, 1997; Shurur & Sherwani,2004; Reynolds, 2006). But less attention has been focused on the aspects like cerebraldominance (human information processing system), assertiveness, Type A personality/behaviourpattern and decision making in relation to styles of leadership of managers. The cognitiveaspects like planning, decision making, problem solving, logical and rational thinking, intuitiveskill, creativity, reasoning, verbal and communication patterns, effective execution of tasksare localized in specific centers of brain these are most important ingredients without whichthe managers cannot function as an effective leader.

The task of the managers being hectic, research evidences prove that generally the menholding managerial positions often manifest Type-A behaviour patterns. Due to high riskresponsibilities they shoulder, managers are always under pressure and tension and theyattempt to do more and more work in less and less time which pave way for coronary heartdiseases (CHD), stress, tension and other psychosomatic ailments to hail within themselves.

With the market forces gradually decreasing and more and more automation cominginto existence, decision-making processes in corporate have become highly imperative andare therefore considered as a strong predictor of success of any organization. The effectivemanagers have made use of decision since business began. Therefore, there is a pressing andurgent need for an action research in this area of specialization.

In this context, the present study attempts to examine the relationship between leadershipstyles, cerebral dominance, and type A personality with decision making behaviour ofmanagerial personnel in organization.

LEADERSHIP STYLESLeadership is an integral role of management and plays a vital role in managerial

operations. Organizational success depends upon the dynamic and effective leadership (Mohanand Naik, 2005). Leadership style is the relatively consistent pattern of behaviour thatcharacterizes a leader. Leadership styles are classified into three types based on the powerorientation, namely autocratic, democratic and free rein or laissez faire leadership styles. Thestudy of leadership style is an extension of understanding leadership behaviours and attitudes.The study conducted by Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, USA, identifiedtwo concepts such as the employee orientation and production orientation. This is calledemployee-production oriented style.

A. P. Singh and P. Somchat Phiutongngam

13

Global Journal of Business Management

There is some research evidence which also seems to suggest a need for cluster examinationof the issue Sinha, (1973 a) and Pestonjee and Singh (1973 a) previously reported positiveassociation between employee-centered leadership and satisfaction. They also reported a highpositive correlation between authoritarianism of a leader and morale among the subordinates.Similarly, Pestonjee (1973) and his associate (Singh and Pestonjee, 1974) reported greatersatisfaction under democratic supervision. Pandey (1975 a) in a well designed experimentalstudy examined the effects of leadership styles, personality characteristics and the methodsand leadership selection on group productivity. The result showed that among other thingsrelationships oriented leadership leaders were more effective in creating a favourable andconducive atmosphere leading to high productivity than the task oriented leaders. Kakar(1971 b) found that helping superiors of fraternal ideology (i.e. democratic type) led to betterwork performance and satisfaction of subordinates. In an experimental study (Sinha andSinha, 1975) it was found that authoritarian leadership was least effective in terms of outputsas well as satisfaction. The supportive and participation leaderships were significantly moreeffective, thus, latter having an edge over the former.

As mentioned earlier the nurturant leadership style has been shown to be more effectivein the Indian setting (Kalra & Gupta, 1995, 1999). However, there were significant differencesin the results of the studies by Kalra and Gupta, (1995, 1999) and Sinha (1999), in terms ofthe impact of the nurturant leadership on subordinate outcomes.

Singh (1998) tried to examine the moderative effects of role conflict on the relationshipof supervisory behaviour with subordinate’s job satisfaction and productivity. The resultsindicate that the production and job satisfaction scores are highest in low production-orientedand high on employee-oriented category of supervisor. Hangar (1986) in his study of leadershipstyles and job satisfaction, found that nurturant style was not related to the indicators ofeffectiveness. But task oriented style was found to be correlated with effectiveness of supervisor,efficiency of division and efficiency of the organizations. Khandwalla (1995) found that therewas strong correlation between leadership style and organizational effectiveness. Meade (1967)concluded that ‘work done under authoritarian leadership was of a high quality than that ofwork done under democratic leadership.

In addition, researchers have also examined the variations in leadership styles based ondifferences in cultures and ethic background (e.g. Yang, 1977; Everett, et al., 1984; Kang &Saiyadain, 1994; Abdullah, 1996; Carney, 1998). Bennis (1989) suggested that membersmake good leaders. Quoting several examples of significant leaders in American history, hefeels persuaded to accept the under-appreciated importance of effective members in mouldingthe styles of their leaders. Heresy and Blanchard (1982) emphasized the maturity of membersdetermining the optimal level of leadership style.

Relationship of Leadership Styles, Cerebral Dominance and Type-A Personality ...

14

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

CEREBRAL DOMINANCECerebral dominance refers to the tendency of one of the cerebral hemispheres of the

brain to dominate certain functions, as when the left hemisphere predominates languagefunctions, or when it predominates voluntary control in a person who is right handed, and theright hemisphere predominates, for spatial and musical functions (Colman, 2004).

Although surrounded by controversy (Hinses, 1985; Goleman, 1977) considerableevidence supports the functional asymmetry of the human brain (Bogen, 1973; Bryden, 1982;Corballis, 1983; Kimura, 1973; Sperry, 1968). Data suggest that the left hemisphere tends tobe associated with logical, convergent, sequential and analytic operations, and such activitiesas reading, writing and computation. It is assumed, based on best available anatomical andneuropsychological data that the right hemisphere on the other hand, is associated withintuitive, divergent, spatial and holistic operations, and such skills related to stimulus integration(visual, tactile, and auditory) (Payne & Evans, 1986). The role of right hemisphere in problemsolving, creative thinking and analogies has been reasonably well documented by Bogen(1969), Wallch and Kogan (1965) and Torrance and Reynolds (1978).

Many disciplines have been quick to grasp the potential implications of brain researchfor their own fields and management is not an exception. Mintzberg (1976) was stimulated bybrain lateralization study (see Springer & Deutsch, 1993; and Davidson & Hugdahi 1995 forreviews of lateralization research) and Ornstein’s work (see reviews in Ornstein 1993; andOrnstein & Thompson, 1984). Mintzberg proposed that hemisphericity (left brain vs. rightbrain differentiation in cognition) was the reason for organizational discrepancies at the policylevel; the techniques of planning and analysis had little influence on the function of topmanagers. Doktor and Bloom (1977) contrasted the EEG alpha wave activity of executivesand systems analysts. They concluded that system analysis engage primarily the left cerebralhemisphere and executives engage primarily the right cerebral hemisphere.

The potential implications for management only begin with a basic understanding oftype differences. Deweale (1978), Keen and Wagner (1979) and Taggart and Robey (1982)have discussed decision support systems and their need to complement ‘natural’ decisionstyles of managers. In this way, managers with a right brain orientation might delegate thenecessary logical, left brain duties to a computer. Alternatively, left brain managers mightneed a very different type of computer systems to help formulate problems more intuitive.Awareness of preferred styles can guide system designers to consider, flexible option, althoughthere are obvious practical limitations to the idea of matching the system to its user (Huber,1983).

Leavitt (1975a, 1975b) discussed the consequences of over emphasizing analytical problemsolving in management education. He suggested that the intuitive and emotional element ofinformation processing deserve the same attention as the logical and analytical.


15


Simon (1987) concludes that it is a fallacy to contrast ‘analytical’ and ‘intuitive’ styles ofmanagement. The effective manager does not have the luxury of choosing between analyticand intuitive approaches to problems. Behaving like a manager means having command of thewhole range of management skills and applying them as they become appropriate.

Agor (1982) studied 1679 members of the American society for public administration.He found that the dominant management style of all government managers is intuitive/integrative. Thus this decision seems to be guided by intuition, but they also demonstrated acapacity to integrate left and right brain skills. He also found that top level managers tends tobe right brain dominant and also more integrative than the middle and lower managers.

Harpez (1990) studied the relative contribution of cognitive functions of the left and rightcerebral hemispheres on an individual’s behaviour. 119 economics and accountancyundergraduates and 50 creative arts undergraduate were administered the battery of lateralitymeasuring serial order, verbal ability, digit span, and verbal fluency, and spatial orientation.Two factors separating left and right hemispheric tests emerged. Economics and accountancysubjects scored consistently higher in left hemisphere tests, while the creative arts subjectsperformed better on right hemisphere tests.

Herrmann (1996) developed a brain dominance profile instrument to help people assessthe manner in which they use their brains. Herrmann’s research suggests that people invarious professionals tend to be either left brain or right brain oriented. Managers, for instance,tend to be left brain dominant, focusing on organizing, structuring and controlling situations.Social workers tend to be right brain dominant.

In a study to compare various thinking styles Carey (1997) reported that all the groups ofsample (managers) had stronger preferences for analytical and integrative thinking than forlimbic mode thinking. Scientists are analytic in defining problems and processing data andintegrative in discussing results and contributing to theory. Craycraft (1999) also revealed thatpersons in the top executive level are characterized by a brain dominance style.

TYPE A PERSONALITYTABP is defined as a set of interrelated behaviour reflecting impatience, time urgency,

competitiveness, achievement striving, aggressiveness, and hostility (Friedman and Rosenman,1974: Glass, 1977: Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979). Though somewhat mixed, availableevidence suggests that TABP is associated with increased illness, particularly coronary heartdisease (CHD) (Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987; Matthews, 1988). In addition to prospectivestudies which examined TABP as predictor of CHD (Borzova, 1985: Friedman and Rosenman,1959; Haynes, et all., 1978; Jenkins, Friedman, & Rosenman, 1965; Matthews, 1982),researchers have also examined the relationship between TABP and somatic complaints,current physiological risk factors, and occupational stress.


16

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Type A personality has received considerable attention in the stress literature. Glass andCarver (1980) theorized that Type A person are hyper-reactive to uncontrollable stressors.Consistent with this view, Ganster (1986) concluded that Type As were more reactive tostressful job condition than Type Bs. Kirmeyer (1988) assessed Type A, objective workload,and reported workload in a sample of police dispatchers. She found that Type As tended toreport heavier workloads than Type Bs, but did not actually have heavier workloads.

Although the examination of Type A and Type B differences in cardiovascular,neuroendocrine, psychological, social, behavioural and work related domains have been quiteextensive ( Albright, Andreassi & Steiner, 1988; friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Howard et al.,1986; Jamal, 1985 a,; Lee & Gillen, 1989; Sanders & Malkis, 1982), only limited attentionhas been devoted to examining how job stress and type A behaviour jointly affect employees’well being as well as that of organization (Ivancevich et al., 1982; Nowack, 1987; Orpen,1982). Type A people not only experience high job stress (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984;Nowack, 1987), but they are also attracted to work environments which are fast-paced,competitive and have excessive workloads (Baker, Dearborn, Hastings & Hamburger, 1984).Few available studies which employed both job stress and Type A behaviour measures weregenerally, with the exception of one (Ivancevich, et all, 1982), restricted to a few job stressorsand outcome variables. Jamal (1990) found that Type A behaviour was associated with highjob stress, high role ambiguity, conflict, resource inadequacy and psychosomatic healthproblems.

Davidson and Cooper, (1980) made an attempt to assess the Type A coronary pronebehaviour in the work environment. The result showed that Type A persons reported greaterfeelings of competence, mastery and self esteem in their occupational role than did Type Bindividual. In summary, Type A invest more of themselves in the occupational milieu than doType Bs but may experience less satisfaction in the private lives then do Type Bs. Further,Gastorf, Suls and Sanders (1980) found Type As performance levels to be higher than TypeBs on difficult tasks but poorer on less complex tasks. Kelly and Houston (1985) found intheir study that type A was related to more reported stress and tension for women who feltthey had many sources of support but not for women who did not perceive of having manysources of support.

A study conducted by Barron (1989) show that the Type A managers report a higherincidence of conflict with peers and subordinates than Type B managers; however, they didnot report a higher incidence of conflict with supervisors than did Type B managers.

DECISION MAKING BEHAVIOURDecision making is the selection of a course of action among alternatives; it is the core of

planning. Managers must make choices on the basis of limited, or bounded, rationality. Thatis, they must take decisions in light of everything they can learn about situation, which may


17


not be everything they should know. The life of managers is a perpetual choice decisionmaking activity (Davar, 1966). Decision making is an essence of managing process. Inmanagerial hierarchy, all managers make decisions. Although, the nature, efficacy andsignificance of decisions made by them may vary from manager to manager and situation tosituation. But without making decisions they can not manage. Decisions are made by them forsolving problems, inventing the solutions, handling crisis and resolving conflicts which areinevitable in organizations (Moshal, 1998).

Decision making is determined by the individual attributes namely, motivation (Vroom &Mann, 1960; Tosi, 1970; Carroll & Tosi, 1973; Invancevich, 1976; personality (Maslow,1970; Sacheflen et al., 1971; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Mann (1982) identified six decisionmaking styles on the basis of the conflict theory model of decision making developed by Janisand Mann in 1977 which are listed as following 1) vigilance 2) hyper- vigilance 3) defensiveavoidance 4) rationalization 5) buck passing 6) procrastination. The decision making styles ofmanagers are very significant in success of organization. Making important decisions accordingto Janis and Mann (1977) is stressful and conflicting. The effectiveness of decisions madedepends on how stress generated by decisional conflict is resolved by the decision maker. Inthis process, the manager has to mobilize all available resources in his repertoire like hispersonality, motivation, experience etc. (Suresh & Rajendran, 1995).

Related research emphasizes the significance of the relationship between personality anddecision making styles (Cambell, 1981; Amalor, 1992). A study conducted by Rajaram (1995)found that negative personality dimensions are significantly related to non-vigilant decisionmaking style, indicating that personality of an individual play an important role in adoption ofdecision making styles. Suresh and Rajendrann (1995) tried to examine the relationship ofwork locus of control and risk taking with decision making styles of 99 middle executives.Their study shows that scores on work locus of control and risk taking were positivelycorrelated with vigilant decision making style.

Researches from a variety of perspectives show that conflict and disagreement betweendecision makers can improve organizational decision making (Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan,1986; Schwenk, 1982, 1984 b; Tjosvold 1985). However, despite this evidence, research hasshown that decision makers’ dislikes may lead to a reduction in conflict under stress (Janis &Mann, 1977).

Several studies have attempted to test the Janis and Mann (1977) model by examiningthe impact of hyper vigilance on decision making performance. Baradell and Klien (1993)and Keinan (1987) found that stress tended to increase the use of hyper vigilant decisionmaking, which resulted increased task errors. In a study examining how decision makersadapt to time constrains, Payne et al., (1988) found that time pressure led to the use ofsimpler, less analytic decision making strategies and this type of decision making resulted in abetter outcome than the use of a truncated normative procedure.


18

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

METHOD

Sample

The sample comprise of 85 managerial personnel from different private and public sectororganizations in Chennai city, selected randomly based on their availability. Participation wasvoluntary and confidentiality was assured.

Tools

The following questionnaires were administered to participants in the present study:

1. Task-People Leadership Styles Questionnaire: To ascertain whether a manager adoptstask oriented or people oriented styles of leadership, Task-People Leadership StylesQuestionnaire was used. It was adapted from Sergiovanni, Metzcus and Bruden’s revision ofthe leadership behaviour description questionnaire (1969), (Ritchie & Thomson, 1988). TheTask-People Leadership Styles Questionnaire consists of 35 test items, having a five pointrating scale from Always Frequently, Occasionally, Seldom, to Never.

2. Human Information Processing Survey: One of the few instruments specially developedwith hemispheric specialization in mind is the Human Information Processing Survey byTaggart and Torrance (1984). This survey consists of 40 test items with three forced choicesamong three phrases: one each presenting Right, Left and Integrated processing orientations.

3. Type-A Personality Inventory: To measure Type A behaviour the adaptation of Type-Apersonality inventory by Friedman and Rosenmann (1974) was followed. They popularizedthe use of Type-A and opposing Type-B personalities in their studies about stress.

4. Decision Making Questionnaire: The decision making questionnaires (DMQI andDMQII) were designed by Leon Mann (1982) to measure decision making. DMQI consists of6 items that measures self esteem as a decision maker. DMQII consists of 31 items thatmeasures the tendency to use different patterns of decision making namely, vigilance, hyper-vigilance/panic, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing, procrastination.

Apart from these, several other information was also obtained regarding the person’sdemographic characteristics. The major variables of interest included: age, marital status,educational qualifications, monthly income, years of service, blood group, training andhandedness.

Procedure

All the managerial personnel were contacted individually after getting permission formchief manager of each organization. These respondents were given the questionnaires. Initially,respondents were instructed in brief about the purpose of investigation and after that theywere requested to respond honestly according to the instructions printed on the scale. There


19


was no time limit fixed for filling up the questionnaire. However, they were asked not to takeunnecessarily long time.

RESULTS

For getting better understanding about the relationships between the variables, we haveused the statistics namely, coefficient of correlation, mean, SD and t-test. The results recordedin table 1 indicate that age has significant positive correlations with marital status, monthlyincome, year of service, task oriented leadership style, left oriented hemisphere, type Abehaviour and vigilance decision making. Monthly income is significantly related with yearof service and task oriented leadership style in positive direction. Year of service is found tobe positively correlated with task oriented leadership style, left oriented hemisphere andvigilance decision making and negatively with Type A behaviour.

Findings further revealed that task oriented leadership style is observed to be positivelyassociated with vigilance, hyper-vigilance, and to be negatively associated with Type Abehaviour, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing and procrastination. Peopleoriented leadership style is positively related to self esteem, hyper vigilance and negativelyrelated with defensive avoidance, buck passing and procrastination. Right oriented hemispherehas significant positive correlation with Type A behaviour, hyper vigilance, buck passing andsignificant negative correlation with left oriented hemisphere and vigilance. Left orientedhemisphere is negatively correlated with integrated oriented hemisphere. Integrated orientedhemisphere is positively related with vigilance and negatively related with Type A behaviour.Type A behaviour has significant positive correlations with hyper vigilance, defensiveavoidance, rationalization, buck passing, procrastination and significant negative correlationwith self esteem and vigilance. Self esteem is found to be positively correlated with vigilance,rationalization, buck passing, and procrastination. Vigilance is positively related to buckpassing, and negatively related with hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, andprocrastination. Hyper vigilance is observed to be positively associated with defensiveavoidance, rationalization, buck passing, and procrastination. Defensive avoidance issignificantly related with rationalization, buck passing, and procrastination. Rationalization isfound to be positively correlated with buck passing, and procrastination. Buck passing hassignificant positive correlation with procrastination.

The findings of significance of difference (t) between mean scores of decision makingbehaviour (vigilance, hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing, andprocrastination) for high and low task oriented leadership style group are presented in table 2.The results indicate that vigilance, hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buckpassing and procrastination score on decision making behaviour differ significantly betweenhigh and low task oriented leadership style groups.


20

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Tabl

e 1:

Coe

ffic

ient

of c

orre

latio

n be

twee

n al

l var

iabl

es (N

=85)

Varia

bles

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

21

1.Ag

e.35

3**

.126

.340*

*.92

3**

.105

-.002

.078

.289*

*.17

2-.1

80. 2

53**

-.046

.253*

.080

.357*

*-.0

82-.1

03.03

6-.1

13-.1

372.

Mari

tal st

atus

.005

.105

.298*

*.21

0-.2

03.12

8.11

2.07

5-.3

84**

.192

.171

-.277

*.02

8.38

6**

-.180

-.165

-.149

-.201

-.321

**3.

Quali

ficati

on.00

6.19

0.01

9.25

5*.09

3-.0

30.14

4-.1

39.12

1.01

7.08

7.04

8-.0

01-.0

54-.1

89-.0

77.01

3-.0

864.

Mon

thly i

ncom

e.28

0**

.137

-.277

.071

.255*

.163

.001

.093

-.073

-.174

-.202

.099

-.167

-.174

-.111

-.160

.024

5.Ye

ars of

serv

ice.10

1.01

8-.0

19.31

6**

.194

-.177

.230*

.009

-.255

*.13

5.36

8**

.071

-.102

.082

-.067

-.128

6.Bl

ood g

roup

-.051

-.202

-.057

.098

-.099

-.156

.110

.097

-.134

.118

.096

.146

.034

.076

.039

7.Tr

aining

.044

-.166

-.088

.169

-.031

-.081

.026

.082

-.202

.324*

*.39

3**

.277*

.373*

*.31

8**

8.Ha

nded

ness

.086

.031

-.093

-.060

.112

-.042

.141

-.007

-.090

-.153

-.183

-.277

*-.1

699.

Task

orien

ted st

yle.18

5-.1

73.06

9.09

5-.3

33*

.211

.451*

*.38

5**

-.432

**-.3

58**

-.460

**-.4

57**

10.

Peop

le or

iented

style

-.143

.181

-.025

-.144

.222*

.296*

*.24

2**

-298

**-.1

05-.2

91**

-.263

*11

.Ri

ght h

emisp

here

-.159

-.699

**.37

5**

-.167

-.475

**.34

8**

.201

.181

.246*

.429

12.

Left

hemi

sphe

re-.5

99**

.049

.164

.132

-.020

-.059

.075

.085

.006

13.

Integ

rated

hemi

sphe

re-.3

48**

.047

.273*

-.242

-.100

-.167

-.104

-.330

**14

.Ty

pe A

-.332

**-

.398*

*.50

8**

.394*

*.44

1**

.462*

*.49

4**

15.

Self

estee

m.27

4*-.1

90.17

9.25

5*.30

8**

.340*

*16

.Vi

gilan

ce-.4

21**

-.388

**-.2

92**

.434*

*-.5

57**

17.

Hype

r vigi

lance

.706*

*.48

4**

.641*

*.55

3**

18.

Defen

sive a

voida

nce

.590*

*.66

9**

.645*

*19

.Ra

tiona

lizati

on.67

7**

.613*

*20

.Bu

ck pa

ssing

.633*

*21

.Pr

ocras

tinati

on

* p <

.05

** p

< .01


21


Table-2: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of task oriented leadership style in caseof decision making behaviour (N=85)

Variables Task oriented style——————————————————————————————————————————————————High group = 1 N M SD tLow group = 2

Self esteem 1 49 8.7143 2.23607 .7522 36 8.3611 2.00218

Vigilance 1 49 10.4490 2.10219 2.566*2 36 9.1944 2.38830

Hyper-vigilance 1 49 3.4898 2.35516 2.370*2 36 4.8611 2.97756

Defensive avoidance 1 49 3.1633 2.05494 2.526*2 36 4.3056 2.06770

Rationalization 1 49 3.5102 2.44201 2.263*2 36 4.6944 2.30303

Buck passing 1 49 2.3265 2.22100 3.000**2 36 3.7778 2.17927

Procrastination 1 49 1.9388 2.23055 2.932**2 36 3.4167 2.38298

** p < .01* p < .05

The significance of difference (t) between mean scores of self esteem between high andlow people oriented leadership style group indicated that managerial personnel who havehigher scores on people oriented leadership style scored significantly higher on self esteem(t=2.357, p<0.05) in comparison to manager of low people oriented leadership style group.Similarly, managerial personnel who have higher score on people oriented leadership stylealso scored significantly higher on vigilance (t=3.111, p<0.01) in comparison to managers oflow people oriented leadership style group. Managerial personnel who have higher score onpeople oriented leadership style scored significantly lower on defensive avoidance (t=2.186,p<0.05) in comparison to manager of low people oriented leadership style group. Managerialpersonnel who have higher score on people oriented leadership style scored significantlylower on buck passing (t=2.357, p<0.05) in comparison to manager of low people orientedleadership style group. Managerial personnel who have higher score on people orientedleadership style scored significantly lower on procrastination (t=2.317, p<0.05) in comparisonto manager of low people oriented leadership style group (refer to table 3).


22

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Table-3: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of people oriented leadership style in case of decisionmaking behaviour (N=85)

Variables People oriented style——————————————————————————————————————————————————High group = 1 N M SD tLow group = 2

Self esteem 1 49 9.0204 2.03603 2.357*2 36 7.9444 2.13735

Vigilance 1 49 10.5510 1.87151 3.111**2 36 9.0556 2.56286

Hyper-vigilance 1 49 3.6327 2.84820 1.7622 36 4.6667 2.41424

Defensive avoidance 1 49 3.2245 2.10422 2.186*2 36 4.2222 2.04396

Rationalization 1 49 3.8571 2.28218 .6792 36 4.2222 2.66309

Buck passing 1 49 2.4490 2.01102 2.357*2 36 3.6111 2.53296

Procrastination 1 49 2.0612 2.15453 2.317*2 36 3.2500 2.56766

** p < .01 * p < .05

Table-4: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of right oriented hemisphere in case ofdecision making behaviour (N=85)

Variables Right oriented behaviour——————————————————————————————————————————————————High group = 1 N M SD tLow group =2

Self esteem 1 41 8.2955 2.20549 -1.2082 44 8.8537 2.04403

Vigilance 1 41 9.1818 2.40419 -3.221**2 44 10.7073 1.91369

Hyper-vigilance 1 41 4.4318 2.60052 1.2792 44 3.6829 2.79678

Defensive avoidance 1 41 3.7727 2.12257 .5622 44 3.5122 2.14618

Rationalization 1 41 4.1136 2.58993 .3962 44 3.9024 2.3005

Buck passing 1 41 3.2727 2.31641 1.3812 44 2.5854 2.26909

Procrastination 1 41 3.1818 2.4709 2.536*2 44 1.9024 2.15412

** p < .01 * p < .05


23


The significance of difference (t) between mean scores of vigilance in high and low rightoriented hemisphere group indicated that managerial personnel who have high level of rightoriented hemisphere significantly scored lower on vigilance in comparison to managers oflow right oriented hemisphere group. The significance of difference (t) between mean scoresof procrastination in high and low right oriented hemisphere group indicated that managerialpersonnel who have high level of right oriented hemisphere significantly scored higher onprocrastination in comparison to managers of low right oriented hemisphere group (refer totable 4). But the mean difference (t) in decision making behaviour (self esteem, vigilance,hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing and procrastination) betweenhigh and low left oriented hemisphere groups was not found significant (refer to table 5).

Table-5: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of left oriented hemisphere in case ofdecision making behaviour (N=85)

Variables Left oriented hemisphere——————————————————————————————————————————————————

High group =1 N M SD tLow group =2

Self esteem 1 43 8.8372 2.06939 1.1942 42 8.2857 2.18962

Vigilance 1 43 10.1395 2.23161 .8992 42 9.6905 2.37351

Hyper-vigilance 1 43 4.1163 3.07966 .1572 42 4.0238 2.30046

Defensive avoidance 1 43 3.3953 1.92897 -1.1062 42 3.9048 2.30386

Rationalization 1 43 4.0000 2.42997 -.0452 42 4.0238 2.48398

Buck passing 1 43 2.8372 2.41947 -.4192 42 3.0476 2.20810

procrastination 1 43 2.5349 2.15306 -.1152 42 2.5952 2.65090

** p < .01 * p < .05

The comparison of high and low groups of managerial personnel based on dimension ofintegrated oriented hemisphere and type A behaviour revealed some interesting findings. Theresults indicated that managerial personnel of high integrated oriented hemisphere groupsignificantly scored higher on vigilance and procrastination in comparison to managerialpersonnel of low integrated oriented hemisphere group (refer to table 6). Managerial personnelwho scored high on Type A behaviour significantly scored lower on self esteem, and vigilancein comparison to manager of low group. Managerial personnel of high Type A behaviourgroup significantly scored higher on hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization,buck passing, and procrastination in comparison to manager of low group (refer to table 7).


24

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Table-6: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of integrated oriented hemisphere in case of decisionmaking behaviour (N=85)

Variables Integrated oriented hemisphere——————————————————————————————————————————————————

High group =1 N M SD tLow group =2

Self esteem 1 45 8.5556 2.11655 -.0422 40 8.5750 2.18254

Vigilance 1 45 10.4000 2.03827 2.091*2 40 9.3750 2.47746

Hyper-vigilance 1 45 3.5778 2.66705 -1.8042 40 4.6250 2.67646

Defensive avoidance 1 45 3.3778 2.16678 -1.2432 40 3.9500 2.06249

Rationalization 1 45 3.6222 2.10291 -1.5732 40 4.4500 2.73580

Buck passing 1 45 2.7333 2.03827 .8802 40 3.1750 2.5087

procrastination 1 45 1.9111 2.25451 -2.769*2 40 3.3000 2.36643

** p < .01 * p < .05

Table-7: The Mean, SD, and t statistics of Type A behaviour in case of decision makingbehaviour (N=85)

Variables Type A behaviour——————————————————————————————————————————————————High group = 1 N M SD tLow group = 2

Self esteem 1 47 8.0426 1.95557 -.2.592**2 38 9.2105 2.19530

Vigilance 1 47 9.3191 2.46811 -2.772**2 38 10.6579 1.84942

Hyper-vigilance 1 47 4.9149 2.41220 3.392**2 38 3.0263 2.71619

Defensive avoidance 1 47 4.2340 2.00231 2.960**2 38 2.9211 2.07145

Rationalization 1 47 4.5745 2.40240 2.431*2 38 3.3158 2.33777

Buck passing 1 47 3.6170 2.48082 3.162**2 38 2.1053 1.76741

procrastination 1 47 3.2979 2.49273 3.317**2 38 1.6579 1.94903

** p < .01 * p < .05


25


DISCUSSIONSThe problem of the present study was to find out leadership style, cerebral dominance

and Type A behaviour as predictors and to find out decision making behaviour as criterionvariables. The results of correlation indicate that age was found to be positively correlatedwith task oriented leadership style, left oriented hemisphere, type A behaviour and vigilancedecision making. Thus it can be easily concluded that with advancing age the managers usemost predominantly task oriented leadership style and left oriented hemisphere at workplace.Managers with more maturity lead to higher level of type A behaviour. It is consistent withpast research (Jamal and Baba, 1991) who found that nurses over 35 years of age were morelikely to be Type A than nurses who were younger. Managers with more age tend to carefullysearch for alternatives and evaluate the alternatives before finally reaching a decision. Positivecorrelation between monthly income and task oriented leadership style indicated that monthlyincome make manager’s task oriented in style. Managers mostly use task oriented style ontask which they pressurize people to work hard. Years of service was found significantlypositively correlated with task oriented leadership style, left oriented hemisphere and vigilancedecision making and negatively with Type A behaviour. It means that as managers mature inthe service they become more effective and assume task oriented leadership style, they like tothink logically or analytically and make decisions effectively. As managers mature in servicethey tend to follow less Type A behaviour.

Findings further indicated that task oriented leadership style is also found to be significantlypositively associated with vigilance and hyper vigilance decision making and negativelyassociated with Type A behaviour, defensive avoidance, rationalization buck passing andprocrastination decision making. This leads to the conclusion that the task oriented managersare likely to be very vigilant in making decisions, because they have adequate exposure in avariety of distributed situations, they also occasionally make decisions impulsively and risky.Usually the task oriented manager have little or no concern for people, their only concern iswith production, but they exist low in type A behaviour and may have high need forachievement at work. The task oriented managers are low in defensive avoidance. It showsthat such leaders do not try to avoid or escape from having to make decision. The taskoriented managers are also low in rationalization which may not tend to avoid the reality ofdecision which is achieved by ignoring or denying unpleasant aspects of decision. The taskoriented managers score low in buck passing. It means they do not tend to leave the harddecision to others and avoid taking responsibility for decision. The task oriented managersalso are also low in procrastination which may not allow putting of making decisions bydoing other things or by thinking about them too long.

Findings further revealed that people oriented leadership style was found to be significantlypositively associated with self esteem and hyper vigilance decision making and negativelyassociated with defensive avoidance, buck passing and procrastination decision making. Itindicated that because the people oriented managers have high self esteem so they have self


26

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

confidence in making decisions effectively. Hyper vigilance involves inadequate search forinformation and looking for quick, easy solutions to problem so the people oriented managermake decisions impulsively with taking risk. People oriented managers are low in defensiveavoidance, buck passing and procrastination and make decision unhealthy and defectively.Results indicated that mangers with right oriented hemisphere has significant positive correlationwith Type A behaviour, hyper vigilance, buck passing decision making and significant negativecorrelation with left oriented hemisphere and vigilance decision making. These findingsindicated that managers with right oriented hemisphere have high level of type A behaviour atworkplace. In addition right oriented hemisphere play a vital role in decision making behaviourof managers which is in line with previous finding of Taggart, Robey and Kroeck (1985).Velayudham (1993) also found in his study that the right oriented hemisphere play a vital rolein decision making in business success. Managers with right oriented hemisphere low in lefthemisphere and high on vigilance decision making may not follow rational and logical methodsof reasoning to make decision effectively. The results of this study are in conformity with thefindings of Herrman (1996) and Mcalindon (1995) who also found that managers with rightoriented hemisphere use intuition rather than logic to make decision. Negative correlationbetween left oriented hemisphere and integrated oriented hemisphere indicated that managerswith left oriented hemisphere will have low score in integrated oriented hemispheres may notuse right and left oriented hemisphere simultaneously.

The results of the study indicated that integrated oriented hemisphere is positively relatedwith vigilance and negatively related with Type A behaviour. It means that in making effectivedecision managers use right and left oriented hemisphere simultaneously. Managers whoprefer using integrated oriented hemisphere have low level of Type A behaviour. The resultsof correlation showed Type A behaviour has significant positive correlations with hypervigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing, procrastination decision makingand significant negative correlation with self esteem and vigilance decision making. Theseresults revealed that usually Type A managers have a sense of time urgency and competitionso their decision making may be unhealthy and defective. In addition Type A managers havelow scores in self esteem and vigilance may not tend to carefully search for alternatives andevaluate the alternatives before finally reaching a decision. Self esteem is found to be positivelycorrelated with vigilance decision making. It indicated that high level of self esteem leadmanagers making decision healthy. The findings of the present investigation find supportfrom Suresh and Rajendran (1995) which reported that high self esteem promotes vigilancedecision making. This may be due to the high self confidence possessed by the executive withhigh self esteem and also the eagerness to face challenges that motivate the executives tomake quality decisions. In addition, self esteem is found to be positively correlated withrationalization, buck passing, and procrastination decision making. It implied that managerswith high self esteem adopt rationalization, buck passing and procrastination styles of decisionmaking.


27


The results of t test indicate that vigilance decision making is significantly influenced bytask oriented leadership style. The managers having high task oriented leadership style showmore vigilance decision making. In opposite, managers having low level of task orientedleadership style, involve in less hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buckpassing and procrastination decision making (refer to table 2).

The results of t test also show that self esteem and vigilance is significantly influencedby people oriented leadership style. Managers of high people oriented leadership style groupare more involved in self esteem and vigilance decision making. This may because that theyare friendly, mixe freely, so they consistently receive the benefit of the best information,ideas, suggestion from their people before finally reaching decision. In contrast, managershaving low level of people oriented leadership style group are less involved in defensiveavoidance, buck passing and procrastination decision making. This may be due to unhealthydecision making behaviour and not affected people oriented leadership style (refer table 3).

The results of t-test also indicate significant difference in vigilance and procrastinationbetween high and low groups of right oriented hemisphere. The reason may be that vigilancemaking decision is affected by right hemisphere dominant managers who use imagination,emotion and intuition to make decision. While procrastination decision making is also affectedby right oriented hemisphere (refer table 4). The results further show that there is no significantdifference in decision making behaviour between high and low left oriented hemispheregroups. All managerial personnel were selected from a company in city. So it is assumed thatthey work consistently and extremely under high work and time pressure. This is the possiblereason why the role of left oriented hemisphere does not play any vital role in decision-making behaviour at workplace (refer table 5).

Results of t test between high and low integrated oriented hemisphere groups indicatedthat managerial personnel who have higher scores on integrated oriented hemisphere alsoscored significantly higher on vigilance. This result denotes the positive effects of integratedoriented hemisphere on vigilance decision making. In contrast managerial personnel whohave higher scores on integrated oriented hemisphere scored significantly lower onprocrastination. This result indicated the deteriorating effects of procrastination decision making.(refer table 6). In addition managerial personnel who have higher scores on Type A behaviourscored significantly lower on self esteem and vigilance decision making. This result denotesthat Type A behaviour of managers play vital role in determining self esteem and vigilancedecision making because managers with high on Type A behaviour involve powerful emotiveconstraints and it inclined to rely upon simple emotive rule to escape psychologically orbehaviourally form the situation that is evoking intense emotional stress. In contrast managerialpersonnel who have higher scores on Type A scored significantly higher on hyper vigilance,defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing and procrastination decision making. Thisresult indicated Type A behaviour have affected by unhealthy decision making behaviours ofmanagers (refer table 7).


28

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

CONCLUSIONSOn the basis of results obtained we can conclude:

1. Vigilance decision making is significantly influenced by task oriented leadershipstyle.

2. Self esteem and vigilance decision making is significantly influenced by peopleoriented leadership style.

3. Procrastination decision making is significantly influenced by right orientedhemisphere.

4. Vigilance decision making is influenced by integrated oriented hemisphere.5. Hyper vigilance, defensive avoidance, rationalization, buck passing and procrastination

are influenced by Type A behaviour.6. Task oriented leadership style is positively correlated with vigilance, hyper vigilance

and negatively correlated with Type A behaviour, defensive avoidance, rationalization,buck passing and procrastination decision making.

7. People oriented leadership style is significantly positively correlated with self esteemhyper vigilance and negatively correlated with defensive avoidance, buck passingand procrastination decision making.

8. Right oriented hemisphere is significantly positively correlated with Type A behaviour,hyper vigilance, buck passing and negatively correlated with left oriented hemisphereand vigilance.

9. Integrated oriented hemisphere is significantly positively correlated with vigilanceand negatively correlated with Type A behaviour.

10. Type A behaviour is significantly positively correlated with hyper vigilance, defensiveavoidance, rationalization, buck passing, procrastination and negatively correlatedwith self esteem and vigilance decision making.

REFERENCESAbullah, A. (1996). Going glocal. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management.

Agor, W. H. (1986). The logic of intuition: How top executive make important decision. OrganizationDynamics, 14, 5-18.

Albright, G. I., Andreassi, J. L., & Steiner, S. S. (1988). Interactive effects of type A personality andpsychological and physical stresses of human cardiovascular functions. International Journal ofPsychophysiology, 6, 315-326.

Amalor, D. (1992). A study of decision making styles in relation to some personality characteristics ofuniversity students. Unpublished M. Phil. Thesis, Annamalai University.

Baradell, J. G., & Klein, K. (1993). Relationship of life stress and body consciousness to Hyper-vigilance decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 267-273.


29


Barker, N. J., Dearborn, M., Hastings, J. F., & Hamburger, K. (1984). Type A behaviour in women: Areview. Health Psychology, 3, 477-497.

Barron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organization conflict: Effects of the type A behaviour patternand self monitoring. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 44, 281-297.

Bennis, W. (1989). Followers make good leaders good. The New York Times, December, 31.Bogen, J. E. (1969). The other side of the brain-II: An appositional mind. Bulletin of the Los Angeles,

Neurological Society, 34, 135-162.

Bogen, J. E. (1973). The other side of the brain: an oppositional mind. In R. E. Ornstein (Ed.), Thenature of the human consciousness. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Booth-Kewley, S., & Friedman, H. S. (1987). Psychological predictors of heart disease: A quantitativereview. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 343-362.

Borzova, E. (1985). Psychological risk factors in ischemic heart disease. Studia Psychologica, 27,299-306.

Bryden, M. P. (1982). Laterality: Functional asymmetry in the intact brain. New York: AcademicPress.

Campbell, R. (1981). Individual differences and decision making: An analysis using the conflictmodel. Unpublished manuscript. The Flinders University of South Australia. School of socialscience.

Carney, M. (1988). A management capacity constraint? Obstacles of the development of overseasChinese family business. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15, 137-162.

Carroll, J. S., & Tosi, H. L. (1973). Management by objectives: Application and research. New York:Macmilln.

Carey, A. B. (1997). Cognitive styles of forest service scientist and managers in the pacific northwest.Unpublished. M.A. Dissertation, Department of Organizational Development, Central WashingtonUniversity, Washington.

Colman, A. M. (2004). A dictionary of psychology. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Corballis, M. C. (1983). Human laterality. New York: Academic Press.

Craycraff, S. J. (1999). The relationship between brain dominance and leadership style of schoolsuperintendents and business chief executive officers. Unpublished PH.D. Dissertation, Sam HoustonState University, Huntsvile, Texas.

Davar, R. S. (1966). Executive decision making; Modern concept and techniques. New Delhi; UniversalBook Stall.

Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1980). Type A coronary prone behaviour in the work environment.Journal of Occupational Medicine, 22, 375-383.

Davidson, R. J., & Hugdahl, K. H. (Eds.) (1995). Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Deweale, M. (1978). Managerial style and design of decision aids. Omega, 6, 1, 6-13.

Doctor, R., & Bloom, D. M. (1977). Selective lateralization of cognitive style related to occupation asdetermined by EEG alpha symmetry. Psychophysiology, 14, 385-387.


30

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Everett, J. E., Krishnan, A. R., & Stening, B. W. (1984). South earth Asian managers: Manualperceptions of Japan and local counterparts. Singapore: Eastern University Press.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1959). Association of specific overt behaviour pattern with bloodand cardiovascular findings. Journal of American Medical Association, 169, 1286-1296.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart. New York: Knopf.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1984). Type A personality inventory. New York: PsychologicalCorp.

Ganster, D. C. (1986). Type A behaviour and occupational stress. Journal of Organizational BehaviourManagement, 8, 61-84.

Gastorf, J. W., Suls, J., & Sanders, G. S. (1980). Type A coronary prone behaviour pattern and socialfacilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 773-780.

Glass, D. C. (1977). Behaviour patterns, stress and coronary disease. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.

Glass, D. C., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Environmental stress and Type A response. In A. Baum & J. E.Singer (Eds.), Applications of personal Control (pp. 59-83), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goleman, D. (1977). Split-brain psychology: Fad of the year. Psychology Today, 11, 89-90.

Hangar, A. (1986). Leadership styles and job satisfaction. Jaipur: Printwell Publishers.Harpez, I., (1990). Asymmetry of hemispheric functions and creativity: An empirical examination.

Journal of Creative Behaviour, 24, 161-170.

Haynes, S., Levine, S., Scotch, N., Feinleib, M., & Kkannel, W. (1978). The relationship of psychologicalfactors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham study. American Journal of Epidemiology,107, 326-327.

Heresy, P., & Blanchard K. H. (1982). Management for organizational behaviour (2nd Edn.). EnglewoodCliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.

Herrmann, N. (1988). The Creative Brain. Lake Lure, North Carolina: Brain Bosoks.

Herrmann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Hines, T. (1985). Left brain, right brain: who’s on first? Training and development Journal, 32-34.

Howard, J. H., & Cunningham, D. M., & Rechnitzer, P. A. (1986). Role ambiguity, type A behaviour,and job satisfaction : Moderating effect associated with coronary risk. Journal of Applied Psychology.71, 95-101.

Huber, G. P. (1983). The user’s cognitive style as a basis for M. I. S. and D. S. S. designs. Much adoabout nothing? Management Science, 29, 567-579.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). Effects of goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61, 605-612.

Ivancevich, J.M., Matteson, M. T., & Preston, C. (1982). Occupational stress, type A behaviour andphysical well being. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 373-391.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1984). A type A-B person work environment interaction modelfor examining occupation stress and consequences. Human Relations, 37, 491-513.


31


Jamal, M. (1985a). Type A behaviour and job performance: Some suggestive findings. Journal ofHuman Stress, 11, 60-68.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V. V (1991). Type A behaviour, its prevalence and consequences among womennurse: An empirical examination. Human Relations, 44, 1213-1228.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice andcommitment. New York: The Free Press.

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1979). Jenkins Activity Survey manual. New York:Psychological Cooperation.

Kakar, S. (1976b). Authority patterns of subordinate behaviour in Indian organizations. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 16, 298-307.

Kalra, S. K., & Gupta, R. K. (1985). Patronizing as an effective managerial style in the context ofIndian culture, Symposium of indigenous behaviour in effective management and organization.Asia Pecific regional Conference on Psychology, Guangzhao, China.

Kalra, S. K., & Gupta, R. K (1999). Some behavioural dimensions of effective managerial style inIndian context, In Kao Henry, S. R. et al. (Eds). Management and cultural values: The indigenizationof organizations in Asia Thousand Oaks New Delhi & Sage: London.

Kang, S. H., & Saiyadain, M. S. (1994). A comparative study of the managerial styles of Malaysianand Taiwanese managers. Isu Pentrusan, 3, 1-17.

Khandwalla, P. N. (1995). Management Styles. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Keen, P. G., & Wagner, G. R. (1979). D S S: An executive mind support system. Datamation,177-122.

Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under controllable anduncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 639-644.

Kelly, K. E., & Houston, B. K. (1985). Type A behaviour in employed women relation to work,marital status and leisure variables, social support, stress, tension and health. Journal of personalityand Social Psychology, 48, 1067-1079.

Kimeyer, S. L. (1988). Coping with competing demands: Interruption and the Type A pattern. Journalof Applied Psychology, 73, 621-629.

Kimura, D. (1973). The asymmetry of the human brain. Scientific American, 241, 70-78.

Leavitt, H. J. (1975 a). Beyond analytic manager. California management review, 17, 5-12.

Leavitt, H. J. (1975 b). Beyond analytic manager. Part II. California management review, 17, 11-21.

Lee, C., & Gillen, D. J. (1989). Relationship of type A behaviour pattern, self efficacy perceptions ofsale performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 10, 75-81.

Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company’s whole brain to work. Harvard BusinessReview, 75, 111-121.

Mann, L. (1982). Flinder decision making questionnaire I & II. Unpublished questionnaires, School ofsocial sciences, the Flinders University of South Australia.


32

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Maslow, A. H. (1970). The superior person. In W. G. Bennis (Ed). American Bureaucracy. ChicagoIII: Aldine.

Matthew, K. A. (1988). Coronary heart disease and Type A behaviours: Update on and alternative tothe Booth-Kewley and Friedman (1987) quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 373-380.

Mcalindon, H. R. (1995). Effective Creativity. Bombay: Jaico Publishing House.

Meade, R. D. (1967). An experimental study of leadership in India. Journal of Social Psychology, 72,35-43.

Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard Business Review,59, 49-58.

Moshal, B. S. (1998). Organization and management: Text and cases. New Delhi: Galgotia PublishingCompany.

Norwack, K. M. (1987). Health habits, type A behaviour and Job burnout. Work and Sress, 1, 135-142.

Orpen, C. (1982). Type A personality as a moderator for the effects of role conflict, role ambiguity androle overload on individual strain. Journal of Human Stress, 8, 8-14.

Ornstein, R. (1993). The roots of self: Unraveling the mystery of who we are. New York: HarperCollins.

Ornstein, R., & Thompson, R. F. (1984). The amazing brain. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Pandey, J.(1975a). Effect of leadership style, personality characteristics and methods of leader selection onmember’s and leader’ behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology (in press).

Payne, D. A., & Evans, K. N. (1986). Interrelationships among three measures of preference forcognitive style based on hemisphere specialization theory. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 63, 19-25.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 543-552.

Pestonjee, D. M., & Singh, A. P. (1973a). Morale in relation to authoritarianism of supervisor. IndianJournal of Social Work, 33, 361-366.

Rajaram, V. (1995). Personality correlates of decision-making styles. Journal of Psychological Research,39, 47-52.

Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A Neurocognitive Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process: Implicationsfor Study and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 737-748.

Richie, J. B., & Thomson, P. (1988). Organization and people, (2nd Edn.). West, St. Paul, Minn.

Sanders, G. S., & Malkis, F. S. (1982). Type A behaviour, need for control and reactions to groupparticipation. Organizational behaviour and human performance, 30, 71-86.

Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Ragan, J. (1986). Group approaches to improving strategic decisionmaking. Academy Management Journal, 29, 51-71.

Schwenk, C. (1982). Effects of inquiry methods and ambiguity tolerance on prediction performance.Decision Science, 13, 207-221.


33


Schwenk, C. (1984 b). Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision making. Journal of ManagementStudy, 21, 158-168.

Shurur, S., & Sherwani, N. U. K. (2004). Creativity in Management: Effective decision making bythinking differently. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications PVT. LTD.

Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role intuition and emotion. Academy ofManagement Executive, 1, 57-64.

Singh, A. P. (1998). Supervision and organizational effectiveness: Role conflict as moderator. Journalof the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 24, 19-25.

Singh, A. P., & Pestonjee, D. M. (1974). Supervisory behaviour and job satisfaction. Indian Journal ofIndustrial Relation, 9, 407-416.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1973a). Organizational climate and problems of management in India. InternationalReview of Applied Psychology, 22, 55-64.

Sinha, T. N., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1975). Styles of leadership and their effects on group productivity. A.N. S. Institute of Social Studies. Patna, Mimeograthed.

Sinha, D. (1999). Approach to indigenous management, In Kao Henry S. R. et al. (Eds.), Managementand cultural values: The indenisation of organizations in Asia. Thousand Oaks New Delhi: Sage,London.

Sperry, R. W. (1968). Hemispheric deconnection and unity in conscious awareness. AmericanPsychologist, 23, 723-833.

Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1993). Left brain, right brain (Ed 4th). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Suresh, V., & Rajendran, K. (1995). Relationship of locus of control and risk taking with decisionmaking. Psychological Studies, 40, 33-38.

Suresh, V., & Rajendran, K. (1995). Executive’s self-esteem as a decision maker and Styles of decisionmaking. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 84-86.

Taggart, W., Robey, D., & Taggart, B. (1982). Decision styles education: An innovative approachexchange: The organizational Behaviour Teaching Journal, 7, 17-24.

Taggart, W., & Torrance, P. E. (1984). Human information processing survey; administrator Manual.Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Taggart, W., Robey, D., & Kroeck, G.K. (1985). Managerial decision styles and cerebral dominance:An empirical study (1). Journal of Management Studies, 22, 175-192.

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implication of controversy research for management. Journal of Management,11, 21-37.

Torrance, E. P., & Reynold, C. R. (1978). Images of the future of gifted adolescents: Effects ofalienation and specialized cerebral functioning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 40-54.

Tosi, H. L. (1970). A re-examination of personality ad a determinant of the effect of participation.Personal Psychology, 23, 91-99.


34

Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2007

Velayudham, A. (1993). Psychological factors influencing the success of small scale entrepreneurs.Unpublished PH.D. Dissertation, Department of psychology, University of Madras, Chennai.

Vroom, V., & Mann, L. (1960). Leader authoritarianism and employee attitudes. Personal Psychology,13, 125-140.

Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh Pa: University ofPittsburg Press.

Wallach, M. S., & Kagan, J. (Ed). (1967). Creativity and the expression of possibilities: In creativityand learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Yang, C. Y. (1977). Management styles: American vs. Japanese. Columbia Journal of Work Business,12, 23-31.


RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP STYLES, CEREBRAL DOMINANCE AND TYPE-A PERSONALITY...

Documents

Transcript of RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP STYLES, CEREBRAL DOMINANCE AND TYPE-A PERSONALITY...