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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Distribution of Respondents
N=104
SN Department Respondents
No. Percentage
1 Technical 82 78.8
2 Non-technical 22 21.2
Total 104 100
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Distribution of Respondents
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Distribution of Respondents
N=104
SN Span Respondents
No. Percentage
1 Up to 7 48 46.2
2 8 and above 56 53.8
Total 104 100
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher.
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
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
of Different Leadership Styles
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
of Different Leadership Styles
N=104
SN Leadership
style
Range
of
scores
LML MML TML F-
Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives
Values are calculated by researcher
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
of Different Leadership Styles
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives
Values are calculated by researcher
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-
Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
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
Values are calculated by researcher
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.
Values are calculated by researcher
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-
value Mean SD Mean SD
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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-
value Mean SD Mean SD
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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-
value Mean SD Mean SD
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Total 104 100 Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
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
F- Ratio Values of Occupational Stress
N= 104
SN STRESS
VARIABLES
Range
Of
Scores
Level F-
Ratio LML MML TML
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
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
12 Unprofitability 2-10 6.88 1.98 6.52 2.24 6.81 1.72 0.32
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
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
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*
12 Unprofitability 2-10 6.91 2.22 7.07 2.27 6.35 1.93 1.28
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.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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,
F- Ratio Values of Occupational Stress
N= 104
SN STRESS
VARIABLES
Range
of
scores
Salary (in Rs.) F-
Ratio
Up to 15000 15001- 25000 25001 &
above
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
F- Ratio Values of Occupational Stress
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
12 Unprofitability 2-10 6.60 2.11 6.75 2.09 0.33
TOTAL 46-230 118.79 18.28 124.30 21.41 1.39
* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
12 Unprofitability 2-10 6.08 1.88 6.83 2.13 1.55
TOTAL 46-230 115.16 13.78 122.63 20.86 1.64
* P< 0.05, ** P < 0.01
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Percentage is calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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
Source: Data from self reported statements of executives.
Values are calculated by researcher
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.