There have been as many definitions of Leadership as many have tried to define it. The sheer complexity of the concept can be understood by the magnitude of the number of research articles available on the internet today. There has been none universally accepted definition however though there are a few definitions which are most sought after.
According to Bass (1990), ‘Leadership is an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves as structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the members…Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of the other in the group. Any member of the group can exhibit some amount of leadership (pp. 19-20)’.
Pfinffner and Preshtus define leadership as ‘a kind of moral spirit and responsibility in the leader, which is led to unifying the efforts of the employees in order to achieve goals which exceed personal interests’ (Hamadat, 2006: 16).
Leadership can be explained as the ability of an individual to have power that focuses on how to establish directions by adapting forces (Go et al., 1996).
From an organisational perspective, Schermerhorn (1999) believed that leading is a process used to motivate and to influence others to work hard in order to realize and support organisational goals, while Hersey et al. (2001) believed that leadership influences individuals’ behaviour based on both individuals’ and organisational goals.
Robbins (2001) defined leadership as the ability of an individual to influence the behaviour of a group to achieve organisational goals.
Most, if not all definitions are circumferenced around two aspects of Leadership, one being the traits that the leaders elicit and other happens to be the organisational or group goals as the situation may be which clearly exemplifies the fact that leadership has a significant influence on the results achieved by the group or the organisation. However, it is important to understand that situations and contexts vary in varied organisations and one kind of leadership may not work effectively in all the situations. Hence, it is important for organisations and the Leaders themselves to understand the expectations of the subordinates and then try to accommodate the same in their style of Leadership. Before we delve deeper into the relationship of Subordinate Performance and Leadership Styles, it is important to understand the different kinds of Leadership styles.
One of the early work done by Kurt Lewin in 1939 along with a group of researchers identified three types of Leadership Styles ‘ Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez ‘fair. Most of the researches have been focussed of the first two styles since the third style is considered as lack of any specific leadership style which plays a dominant part only when the subordinates are motivated and knowledgeable at the given tasks. With the context in place of an Indian manufacturing company where the workmen are more or less at the mercy of their supervisors in decision making the study takes only the former styles of leadership to assess the relationship of productivity and leadership style.
2.1.1 Authoritarian or Autocratic Leadership
There has been lot of discussion about Hitler regarding their leading style which necessarily involved a lot of close supervision, maintaining legitimate power (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy). Hitler projected a personalized charismatic leadership, a style that is ‘exploitative, non-egalitarian, and self-aggrandizing’ (Choi). He was extremely focused on his personal control, insisting that the ‘ultimate authority rested with him and extended downward’ (BBC). Hitler was known for heavily critiquing those who reported to him and became angry and frustrated with mistakes. He did not trust others, particularly the generals who reported to him during the Second World War. Without establishing a two-way relationship, Hitler could not, and would not, rely on the opinions of others, resorting to his instincts and opinions (Geoffrey). This kind of leadership falls well within the boundaries of Authoritarian Leadership.
Autocratic leadership has four major characteristics:
‘ The leader makes all important decisions
‘ The leader is primarily concerned with task accomplishment and not the subordinates satisfaction or well being
‘ The leader maintains a considerable social distance from the subordinates
‘ The leader employs punishment as a means of motivation rather than rewards
Looking at the psychological perspectives of the above mentioned style of leadership tests reveal that Autocratic Leaders score high on Abasement, Aggression and Achievement. However they score low on Intraception, Nurturance and Social Values.
With respect to the organisational perspective, it is imperative to understand that there is no certain answer to which leadership style will produce the best results in an organisation. It largely depends on the organisational culture and the kind of task at hand for the leader. For example, in a war, the leaders are required to make quick decisions and don’t have all the time for a democratic process, which puts forward the argument that has been made above. Autocratic leadership can bring about exceptional results by more accurate decision making when the leader has good subject expertise and can improve the productivity, however only when the leader is around. It is also suitable in situations where the workforce is new and untrained or where economies of scale is being tried to be achieved which leaves little time for a democratic process to be followed in decision making.
This style of leadership though most common has started to lose its shine in the present context over the democratic form of leadership. However, many still have bat in favour of this kind of leadership citing that it is the context which determines which kind of leadership will be effective and not the absolute style per se.
2.1.2 Democratic Leadership
Kurt Lewin and his colleagues presented what has become the classic formulation of democratic leadership (Lewin & Lippitt, 1938; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; White & Lippitt, 1960). They distinguished democratic leadership from autocratic and laissez-faire styles, arguing that democratic leaders relied upon group decision making, active member involvement, honest praise and criticism, and a degree of comradeship. By contrast, leaders using the other styles were either domineering or uninvolved. Unfortunately. Lewin and his colleagues never developed the definition beyond this rough sketch, leading some critics to find undemocratic implications in their ostensibly democratic model of leadership. Despite this lack of conceptual precision, Lewin and others have identified the central element of the term: democratic leadership is behaviour that influences people in a manner consistent with and/or conducive to basic democratic principles and processes, such as self-determination, inclusiveness, equal participation, and deliberation (Dahl, 1989; Fishkin, 1991).
Democratic leadership has three major characteristics:
‘ Distributing responsibility within the subordinates ‘ According to Krech et al. (1962) ‘The democratic leader seeks to evoke maximum involvement and the participation of every member in the group activities and in the determination of objectives.” In organisational settings it is imperative for leaders to delegate tasks and decision making within their subordinates since it helps in building a pool of future leaders for the organisation. Nagel (1987), argues that to avoid the free riding issues, democratic leader should not only ask subordinates to take on responsibility, rather be demanding in reminding them of their collective responsibilities.
‘ Empowering the members ‘ Democratic leadership can augment members’ skills by setting high but reasonable standards and asking members to challenge themselves (Tead, 1935). Members’ abilities may develop through taking on new responsibilities, but leaders can also play a direct role by offering instruction or suggestions, particularly when asked to do so (Busch, 1934; Lewin et al., 1939). Good leaders “can expand their ranks by becoming ‘role models’ to change novices from ‘followers’ to leaders” (Baker, 1982, p. 325). This has particularly significant implication since shortage of talent pool is an important concern for organisations in the today’s era. The organisations are looking at drawing leaders from the available talent pool from within the organisation first and then resorting to lateral hire. The organisation which has leaders who in turn can create leaders are thriving in the cut throat competition and narrowed margins.
‘ Aiding the subordinates in their deliberations ‘ Its’ not enough for a leader to only delegate and empower subordinates but has to take the relationship to the next level through appropriate deliberation methodology. Democratic leaders must distribute responsibility appropriately and empower other group members, but they must devote the bulk of their time and energy to ensuring productive and democratic decision making. Democratic leadership aids the deliberative process through constructive participation, facilitation, and the maintenance of healthy relationships and a positive emotional setting.
Having talked about the facets of democratic leadership, it has be borne in mind that the style of leadership cannot by any means be categorized as the better of the two leadership styles i.e. Autocratic and Democratic. Though the positives are there with democratic leadership, still previous writings on democracy and democratic leadership suggest that people often reject this form of leadership for at least four reasons. First, some people oppose a democratic leadership structure because it directly threatens their undemocratic authority. Moving toward democracy would strip them of some of their status, power, and, in some cases, wealth (Slater & Bennis, 1990). Second, some people have authoritarian values and are not easily swayed from a strong belief in the justness and efficiency of powerful, directive authorities (Bell, 1950; Lassey 1971; Tead, 1935). Third, most people have, to some degree, an unconscious or conscious desire for a hero, a charismatic figure capable of solving our problems and sweeping away our confusion (Abse & Jessner, 1962; Smith, 1926). Finally, some reject the notion of democratic leadership for the opposite reason, having no faith whatsoever in leaders of any kind and no belief in their necessity (Nagel, 1987; Tead, 1935)
However, Lippitt (1983) identifies a number of promising trends in the 1970s and early 1980s that are probably still present today: expectations of shared power and responsibility are increasing; there is a greater degree of collaboration and communication; and people have an increasing awareness of the need for organizational openness and flexibility. With the baby boomers towards the end of the tenure and entrance of Gen Y, who thrive in responsibilities and accountabilities, into the workforce democratic leadership could be more widespread than what the present situation unveils.
Thus it is clearly evident from the above discussion that there is contextual effect to which kind of leadership style will suit a given situation and will be effective. It depends on many factors all of which hasn’t been unearthed yet, however a few common factors affecting leadership effectiveness are the organisational culture, the time frame available for decision making for the leader, the task itself, the capabilities of the subordinates and of course not to miss out the country in which the organisation operates.
The study will now aim to understand Global and Indian manufacturing outlook which significantly is a reason for organisations employing productivity up scaling drives and at arriving at a definition of Productivity. With so much available on the term today with each organisation defining productivity in its own way it becomes really important to have a clear understanding of the definition and factors involved in the term ‘Productivity’.
‘
2.2 Manufacturing Outlook ‘ Global and Indian context
The global manufacturing sector has undergone a boisterous decade: large developing economies leaped into the first tier of manufacturing nations, a severe recession choked off demand, and manufacturing employment fell at an accelerated rate in advanced economies. Still, manufacturing remains critically important to both the developing and the advanced world. In the former, it continues to provide a pathway from subsistence agriculture to rising incomes and living standards. In the latter, it remains a vital source of innovation and competitiveness, making outsized contributions to research and development, exports, and productivity growth. But the manufacturing sector has changed’bringing both opportunities and challenges’and neither business leaders nor policy makers can rely on old responses in the new manufacturing environment.
Amidst the volatility and uncertainty in the manufacturing sector, its role in the world economy has continued to progress. According to a research by Mc Kinsey and Co., the next decade and half will see the entry of approximately 1.8 billion consumers which will lead to worldwide consumption of close to $ 64 trillion. Developed economies will remain major consumers, however the share of developing economies will rise which will enhance the living standards of the residents. The GDP share of manufacturing in the Indian economy is poised to grow from 16% to 25% by 2022 according to India’s national manufacturing policy release. Globally the manufacturing output is growing at about 2.7% annually in developed economies in contrast to 7.4% in the developed economies (2002-2007).
When economies industrialize, manufacturing employment and output both rise rapidly, but once manufacturing’s share of GDP peaks at 20 to 35 percent of GDP, it falls in an inverted U pattern, along with its share of employment. The reason is that as wages rise, consumers have more money to spend on services, and that sector’s growth accelerates, making it more important than manufacturing as a source of growth and employment. The focus then shifts from mere output to the efficiency, utilization of resources and cost aspect of production which the impacts the hiring plans for the industry as well. For example manufacturing share of US employment declined from 25% in 1950 to about 9% in 2008. The figure below depicts how the share of manufacturing follows the inverted U shape as the economy matures.
Fig 1: SOURCE: McKinsey Global Institute Analysis
However, the situation in developing economies is far from the above mentioned point and can be safely assumed that the outlook of manufacturing looks positive in a global context with the developing economies leading the way.
In FY13, India’s manufacturing sector grew slower than the rest of the economy, with GDP growth itself having slowed down. Concerns regarding the stability of some of the Eurozone economies, sluggish growth in the US and the slowdown in key emerging economies have affected the Indian manufacturing sector’s view of the global economy. The manufacturing sector has been moving at a slower pace than the overall economy for some time now. As a result, the sector’s contribution to GDP has declined marginally from 16.1 to 15.2% in the five years till March 2013. Growth rate in manufacturing reduced from 9.7% in 2010-11 to 2.7% in 2011-12 and 1% in 2012-13. In FY13, only 3.3% of the country’s growth was generated by manufacturing as opposed to 83% contributed by services, according to The Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
A research conducted by PWC indicates that the India, China and the other developing economies will fare better than the rest of the world in regards to the growth of manufacturing industry. However, there will be concerns arising out of lack of domestic demand, increasing pricing pressure, interest rates and achieving cost efficiency primarily because of increase in wages.
Fig 2: SOURCE: World Economic Outlook, the IMF, PwC analysis
The global economic slowdown, slow growth rates except a few Asian countries and the persistent Euro Zone instability has continued to bother the manufacturing companies’ across the globe. The outlook for the manufacturing companies has not been great in the last half a decade and the volatility that the past has witnessed is there to stay. Along with that the increase in competition and consequently its impact on pricing strategies of the organisations have put even more pressure on the manufacturing companies to focus a lot on the output vis ‘ a ‘ vis costs. With the enhancement in technology and e ‘ commerce becoming more and more prevalent the customers have a wider range of options to choose from and with this competitive pricing becomes even more important to capture and sustain customer base. Mobile phone industry is a perfect example of the same. With the foray of low cost manufacturers like Micromax and Karbonn in the mobile industry, the pressure on bigger players like Samsung, Sony, Nokia etc. to remain competitive with their pricing grows. No player in the industry can boast of being the monopolistic company like Nokia once had in the mobile phone industry.
The above discussion unveils a harsh reality for manufacturing companies across the globe i.e. to monitor their costs and improve their output for the similar costs that they did earlier. Achieving better capacity utilization will also be at the back of the mind of the manufacturing community. The culmination of cost efficiency, capacity utilization, improving output at the same input resources and various other parameters including financial aspects collectively give rise to the term called ‘Productivity’ which the study tries to define in the manufacturing setup in the Indian context.
2.3 Productivity
Productivity has normally been defined as the ratio of output available at disposal of the organisation to the input resources that is expended. Productivity is the relationship between the quantity of output and the quantity of input used to generate that output. It is basically a measure of the effectiveness and efficiency of your organisation in generating output with the resources available.
Productivity = Output / Input
As it is evident that there are two variable involved in the determination of productivity. Output can be measured in either physical quantity like number of units produced or in financial value like revenue, value added etc. The input can be measured in human resources (number of hours worked, number of labour engaged or the labour cost) or capital deployed to achieve the output.
Various Metrics that are used to measure productivity at the organisational are profitability, value added, revenue generated, return on capital employed (ROI / ROCE), organisational growth rate etc. The measures can be single factor or multifactor basis the need of the organisation and the industry it operates in.
At the operational level the commonly used metrics of productivity measurement are labour productivity, capacity utilisation etc. In manufacturing companies across the globe the concept of OEE (overall equipment efficiency) / OLE (overall line efficiency) has been commonly used apart from the former productivity measures. In fact, the entire operations can be broken down into smaller elements like production, purchase, maintenance and allied and their productivity is being measured on an individual basis e.g. delivery lead time, production compliance, maintenance cost etc. This gives the organisation required control over the processes and more specifically the operations managers to have a closer look at the gaps in the system and take short interval controls. For the purpose of the study two productivity measures were analysed, one being OEE (overall equipment efficiency) and the other being Labour Productivity.
2.3.1 OEE (Overall equipment efficiency)
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a way to monitor and improve the efficiency of a manufacturing process. Developed in the mid 1990’s, OEE has become an accepted management tool to measure and evaluate plant floor productivity. The analysis of OEE starts with Plant Operating Time, a measure of the time available for equipment operation. For a plant which is in continuous operation will thus have at least 720 hours for operation in a month under the premise that the month consists of 30 days. For e.g. Steel making, glass making are continuous processes since the furnace cannot be shut down for any reason whatsoever as it will take long hours to reach the temperature that is required for the processing. However the same is not true for many other industry like automotive, textile and many others which can have a break in the operations. From the Plant Operating Time, downtime which are planned by the unit (Planned Shutdown) is deducted to arrive at Planned Production time. Planned Shutdown can be taken due to various reasons ‘ lack of demand of the product, strike, lockout and many others. Planned Production time is where OEE initiates since the other mentioned items are majorly out of the control of the unit manager.
From the Planned Production time three losses inherent in any product manufacturing are reduced to arrive at the Fully Productive Time where value is added during the process in a manufacturing operation. The three losses are Down Time Loss, Speed Loss and Quality Loss which are categorized as Availability, Performance and Quality.
Graphically OEE can be represented as (Illustrative): Fig 3
The table below shows the three losses and their definitions.
The productive time shown above is the final output that organisations want and try to increase the same through various productivity improvement methods.
Table 1
Parameter Definition
Availability It is the ratio of Operating Time to Planned Production Time (Operating Time is Planned Production Time less Down Time Loss)
Performance It is the ratio of Net Operating Time to Operating Time (Net Operating Time is Operating Time less Speed Loss). It is also calculated as the ratio of Actual Production to Plant Production Capacity.
Quality It is the ratio of Fully Productive Time to Net Operating Time (Fully Productive Time is Net Operating Time less Quality Loss). This is also calculated as the ratio Quality Production to Total Production
OEE is finally calculated as the product of the above factors i.e.
OEE = Availability x Performance x Quality
For example, if all three contributing factors are 90.0%, the OEE would be 72.9% where as if all the factors are at 80%, the OEE would be 51.2%. This illustration clearly shows that in individual parameters, plant may be performing well (80% is considered a good number) while when combined together in the form of OEE, the performance would be considered gloomy. Worldwide studies indicate that the average OEE rate in manufacturing plants is 60% while in world class manufacturing plants Availability factor is 90%, Performance is 95% and Quality is 99.9% thus making OEE to close to 85%.
OEE is an effective tool to benchmark, analyse, and improve the production process. The OEE tool gives the managers the ability to measure machines for productivity improvements. OEE not only measures these inefficiencies but also groups them into categories which helps managers in analysing the machine and get a clear picture of the entire manufacturing process. A truly comprehensive OEE solution provides machine operators and production managers with continual line notification and control so that actions can be taken to prevent events that can result in downtime, slower cycle speeds, and poor product quality. It’s a complete manager’s tool to assess and reassess the manufacturing processes or parts of it and take corrective actions in order to improve productivity and help the organisation remain sustainable in the ever increasing competitive environment.
2.3.2 Labour Productivity
It is one of the popularly used metric for assessing the productivity of a plant in a manufacturing company. Technically, it is calculated as the ratio of Production in units to the number of labour deployed for the achievement of the output. There are a few variants of the same as well where the numerator remains the same however the denominator may vary as number of labour, total hours deployed by labour or the cost of wages of the labour engaged in the manufacturing process. As a formula,
Labour Productivity = Quantity of Output in Units / Number of Labour deployed for the same output
Or
Labour Productivity = Quantity of Output in Units / Number of Man-hours deployed for the same output
Or
Labour Productivity = Quantity of Output in Units / Wages for the number of labour deployed for the same output
With different versions available at perusal, different companies use any or a combination of labour productivity metrics to assess their plant performance.
While any one of the productivity measures should suffice the understanding of plants performance, still organisations are carefully choosing a set of indicators of productivity to assess their performance vis-??-vis competition. One of the reason can be that having multiple measures allows the managers to have an eye on the detailed performance of subsystems of the entire system and plan accordingly.
Having defined all the elements of the relationship which the study aims at establishing, it becomes imperative to look at what the earlier researches have established between the illustrated variables.
2.4 Productivity and Leadership style
The supervisor behaviour (leadership style) is one of the key factors which impacts the performance of the frontline employees in the organisation. Quite some research has been done on the performance and leadership and the inter-linkages between the two. Numerous studies have demonstrated that such effective leadership behaviour is associated with the quality of work of subordinates in service organizations (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Deluga, 1994; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999; Podsakoffet al., 1990; Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998). Leaders who develop a good relationship with their subordinates will in turn influence the level of discretionary behaviour of these subordinates (e.g. Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). In a field experiment, Lam and Schaubroeck (2000) found that using credible and influential people as service quality leaders could enhance the positive attitudes of bank tellers towards service quality initiatives, which result in a more favourable customer rating of service. MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2001) found that transformational leaders could alter the service behaviour of frontline salespeople. Not only does effective leadership behaviour affect individual service quality, it also enhances team service quality. However, specific relationship between productivity measures of workmen and supervisor’s leadership in the Indian manufacturing context with the blue ‘ collar workmen hasn’t received the requisite attention of the academicia which this study is trying to aim at.
Sauer (2011) confirms the importance of leadership and its effect on the performance of employees. Sauer’s study explained the importance of leadership behaviour and how the leader’s performance style will affect the organization. Danish et al. (2011) discussed the effect of leadership and a manager’s style, showing that these had a significant effect on the administration and its effectiveness.
According to a research done of 511 frontline service providers in 6 service organisations by Harry et al., the leadership style of the supervisor plays a dominant role in producing better service quality, which is the output in this case, when the work environment and organisation culture are not conducive for better efficiency. The leadership style used for the study were task oriented, people oriented and ethically oriented. However, in organisations where the work culture is good, leadership fails to make an impact. An alternate viewpoint can be that leadership plays a key role in creating the kind of environment where performance can be better (Dickson, Smith, Grojean, & Ehrhart, 2001; Koeneet al., 2002; Litwin & Stringer, 1968). Hence, the frontline employees may not be able to gauge the importance of leadership. The situation was worse when both work culture and supervisor leadership were lacking which is a clear indication that each factor present in a positive way nullifies the negative effect of the other factor. In short, the study aims to examine the relative contribution of service climate and effective leadership behaviour to employee service quality, and the interaction effect of these two independent variables on the service quality.
Johannes et al., in their study of 161 pairs of supervisor-subordinate pair in 24 companies of Germany revealed that transformational leadership related more strongly and positively to innovation for subordinates low in organization-based self-esteem. When subordinates were low in self-presentation propensity, active-corrective transactional leadership was negatively, and transformational leadership was positively associated with task performance. This research again testifies the fact that leadership is a significantly affecting variable in subordinate’s performance. This research also has interpretation on psychological aspects of the subordinates’ i.e. self-esteem and self-presentation. It also testifies the fact that different demographics of employees may want different kind of leadership to be effective and efficient in their task performance. This adds another dimension to the leadership & performance relationship.
A study conducted by Heba et al. among 320 heads of instructional departments from randomly selected schools show that the principals’ leadership style has a significant impact on the teacher’s motivation to achieve the desired task goals. Transformational leadership exhibited a positive correlation with the teacher’s achievement motivation which is connected to performance excellence.
Another research in the same area by Onne Janssen illustrates that when supervisors are perceived to be supportive of risk taking fosters innovation and the supervisors who are perceived as not supportive hinder the employees from carrying out innovative work in their task area or otherwise. The survey of 170 employees in a Dutch company reveals that when employees perceive that their supervisors respond to employee innovation in a supportive and respectful manner, they feel stimulated to use their influence to persuade their subordinates and other actors to support the development and realization of their new ideas.
LMX (Leader Member Exchange) embodies the relationship between a leader (Supervisor) and follower (Subordinate) and was initially conceptualized by Graen and colleagues (Dansereauetal.1973, Graen 1976, Graen and Cashman, 1975). According to LMX theory the leader ‘ follower relation falls on a continuum where one of the ends is developed relationship i.e. high involvement and on the other end is exchange ‘ based relationship which has low involvement. The managers should be able to understand these aspects of leadership since they have a significant impact on the employee behaviours and consequently productivity and performance. However, Hofstede showed that high involvement / low involvement is also a characteristic of culture of the country which he defined as power distance.
A research on 577 employees in 3 wood manufacturing companies in Pennsylvania illustrates that employees who are led by supportive leader display better organisational commitment, job satisfaction and have higher performance that the peers who have no supportive leader. Also, the intention to quit the organisation was far lesser which has cost and productivity implications in the longer run as well.
Another study on the same lines was done by Shahabuddin et al. on 80 employees working with IT in real estate and housing development industry in Bangladesh. The study reveals that leadership indeed has a role to play in job satisfaction of the employees which in turn leads to higher productivity and performance on the job. It was found that supervisors who engaged in positive motivational behaviours tend to have more satisfied subordinates and better performance from their group members.
Through their education, training, and experience, managers develop their personal leadership style (Hersey et al., 2001). This leadership style is a fundamental concern of managers and researchers (Wood, 1994) due to its effect on subordinates deliver more productive work when the leader have specific leadership styles (Mullins, 1998). If managers adopt their subordinates’ preferred style giving employees the respect and fair treatment they deserve, then this is seen to lead to job satisfaction, which in will affect the functioning of the organisation (Spector, 1997).
Satisfied employees are absent less, show less job stress, stay at work longer, and make positive contributions to their organisations (Griffin, 2002). Furthermore, Yousef (2000) showed that leadership behaviour was positively related to job satisfaction and therefore managers needed to adopt appropriate leadership behaviour in order to improve it. Leadership style affects a range of factors such as job satisfaction, performance, turnover intention, and stress (Chen and Silverthorne, 2005) and so contribute to organisational success (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006).
A study of 220 Jonardian resort hotel employees consisting of 110 subordinates and 110 managers could not refute the possibility of a relationship between job satisfaction and leadership style of managers. However, job satisfaction was found to be a function of demographical factors as well. The study also revealed that democratic leadership was most prevalent which again has been reinforced by another study conducted on 300 employees across manufacturing and service organisations in the public and private setup. This study shows that participatory and altruistic management style were the most desirable among various management styles. Few key findings of the exploratory study are:
‘ Management styles vary from culture to culture and within the specific culture from industry to industry
‘ Participative management style is difficult to practice as sharing of power is not easy for managers
‘ Excessive altruism in business organizations may negatively affect organizational effectiveness
‘ A strong positive relationship between the management styles and the effectiveness of human resources in terms of their ‘Productivity’ and ‘Adaptability’
The various researches & studies in varied industries and countries show a definite correlation between leadership and performance and/ or job satisfaction; many a times mediated by other factors like organisational culture, work environment etc. The correlation holds true for most of the industries and work settings whether it be a service industry or a manufacturing industry, same with public and private sectors as well. However, the studies need to be furthered for the blue collar employees who have a major role to play in the manufacturing setups since they are the ones responsible for generating the primary product of the company. Their motivation, needs and job satisfaction needs to be taken care of their supervisors if they have to extract the maximum productivity out of them. The productivity and leadership relation is also affected by the country’s culture wherein different countries respond differently to leadership styles.
Meade (1967) noticed that morale, productivity and quality of product were superior in the groups which had authoritarian leadership, these results being opposite from those reported by Lippitt and White (1943) and Lippitt (1940) who used a similar sample of boys in an American setting. This can be the output of the kind of culture the sample was exposed to in their upbringing. While American children learn democratic practices at an early age, Indian are subjected to hierarchy and authority right from the beginning of their life and hence they get used to it as they grow. Another study by Meade (1967) established that Chinese college students demonstrated more group cohesion in decision making in presence of authoritarian leadership than they did to democratic leadership, while Chinese ‘ American demonstrated a balanced result to both authoritarian and democratic leadership.
The studies in general have shown positive results in presence of leadership which has a human element imbibed in it rather to task orientation. Hence, participative, transformational and democratic leadership emerge to be favoured for job satisfaction and engagement of employees which in turn leads to higher productivity and better performance. A study by Robert et al. discloses negative effects of close and punitive supervision style. The study of 24 groups of 4 females each in the age group 17-19 under controlled environment reveals substantial increase in aggressive feelings toward the supervisor and in indirect aggression toward the supervisor through lowered productivity, an insignificant increase in verbal aggression toward the supervisor, and an increase of borderline significance in aggressive feelings toward co-workers in case of close supervision. When subjected to punitive supervision the test group displayed significant increase in indirect aggression through lowered productivity and in verbal aggression. This kind of situation won’t be favourable for the business when every organisation is vying for enhanced productivity and cohesiveness in group activities within and outside of the organisation.
The study having established the fact that there is a relationship between leadership style and productivity of employees, aims to find out the most appropriate style of leadership for higher productivity of workmen in a manufacturing industry. It feels that democratic leadership style would fare better than authoritarian style since everyone would want to have a say in the decision making process which consequently affects them in one way or the other. As many manufacturing organisations these days are practicing TPM, Lean, Quality Circles, 5S and Six Sigma concepts to improve productivity all of which in some way or the other lead to added responsibilities for the workmen and more say in the technical decision making of the plant. Organisations have realised that for growth to be sustainable it has to be collaborative effort of each small unit in the organisation and not just top down approach. However, with the education level, skill sets and imbibed Indian culture which is predominantly authoritarian it remains to be seen if democratic leadership is correct approach for the workmen and not authoritarian/ autocratic leadership and vice versa