Mapping perception discrepancy towards supervisors’ leadership style and subordinates’ performance: A case study on psychometric assessment of Public and Private Bank in India

 

Ms Sakshi Sharma¹, Dr Manju Nair²

¹Research scholar, Department of Management, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan, India

²Professor, IIIM, Mahaveer Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

 

ABSTRACT:

The banking industry is an indispensable part of economy, where global challenges have increased the complexity of banks leader. As, its leader who plays influential role in inspiring, and retaining workers undergoing with changes and expand the organizational opportunities by focusing on high-performance of subordinates. Managers gets the opportunity to lead, not because of their designation, but because they are anticipated and acknowledged as the leader by their subordinates (Boseman, 2008). Extensive researches had projected that leaders and followers perceived differently about the value of their relationships (Campbell and Johnson, 2003; Xin, 2004). At this point, leader’s awareness towards the differences in perception of their leading style, and what their followers perceive is a critical matter. A huge disagreement exposes the lack of leader’s self-knowledge and poor style which leads to an adverse organisational milieu. This case would aid leaders to nurture themselves, once they develop awareness about the style, they demonstrate to followers in diverse work surroundings. The purpose of this case is to compare the leadership styles of managers from superior’s perception through self-rating and their follower’s perception through followers rating in public and private banks. The identified leadership styles in this case is based on behavioural taxonomy (Bass, 1998, MLQ), and data was contained from 102 immediate supervisors and 422 subordinates. After measuring through statistical t-tests, the outcome, shows the significant differences among responses of leaders and subordinates in private banks for transformational and transactional style in comparison to public banks. Future studies on leadership styles and their factors could be more consistently measured with two perceptions, which could carry out optimistic performance from both employees and organization.

 

 

 

1.       INTRODUCTION:

Leadership is a course where leader determine the goal, and build a path which could motivate every individual to syndicate their effort keenly for attaining those goal. An effective leader is devoted towards the right means and distinction for growth, while keeping group harmony at priority all over the time, J. Scouller, (2011). In Organizations, leader's styles have a particular consequence on their individual follower's work conduct, styles of leadership are not only determining factors for every organization's success, but it could promote the failure also if not suited. A leader's behavioural angle must induce and promote by motivating and guiding to its followers, R. Ojokuku., T, A. Odetayo, and A. Sajuyigbe, (2012). Employee performance is not limited to an individual appearance, altogether it embraces group and organizational scopes, which contain the right structure of inputs, processes, and outputs to operate consistently with the individual level, Shields (2007).

 

Managers have prospect to lead, not because of their work profile, but because they are expected and accredited as the leader by their dependents (Boseman, 2008). Past researches have verified that managers and their subordinates professed inversely about the value of their relationships (Campbell and Johnson, 2003; Xin, 2004). Managers knowledge towards their own leading style and how that style is perceived by their follower is a critical matter. There must acknowledge the perception of their followers also which relates positively and negatively to their followers. Banking organizations has major influence in Indian economy, which has transformed economy from agricultural to industrial economy. Leadership style has an imperative impact on follower’s performance, their relation must be acknowledged identically which cannot be possible without once approach, (Brodbeck et al., 2000; Ardichvili and Kuchinke, 2002) Several times, leader is responsible for their follower’s behaviour in the organization, so leader should take efforts to understand follower view on their own performance and follower’s perception regarding their leader style, as past studies have only focused on leader’s perception, which counter as a biased and limited. Previous relative leadership researches have been characterised mostly as quantitative method, which has intensively focus on insights of managers, showing comparatively one-sided records and interpreted and allocate individuals across diverse realms to generally appropriate leadership style, Jung and Avolio, (1999).

 

1.1. Background:

This case would aid leaders to nurture themselves, once they develop awareness about the style, they demonstrate to followers in diverse work surroundings. Kaur (2014), several aspects are researched to know the difference in public and private bank, most of the studies came to comparable conclusions, as few concluded the significant difference and few signified similarities in Both Sector. Sharma, J.P. and Bajpai, N. (2010), It has been noticed that, employees of these different bank sector perform the same tasks and managers deal with the similar problems, even with similarities there could be numerus difference in the leaders and employees’ behaviour. Because all organizations, irrespective of their industry, have diverse policies and cultures that had shaped different leaders and employees, Kajal, M. Sharma, (2011).

 

1.2 Problem Statement:

This case study endeavoured for empirically examine the relationship of leadership factors with employee’s performance behaviour according to the bank supervisor’s perception and subordinate’s perception. As, no such research work has been examined the effect of Indian bank branch managers transformational and transactional leadership styles. This attempt, consequently, could be considered novel and of substantial value in considering the relations among the several leadership constructs and employees off-role performance in the Indian setting.

 

1.2 Research Gap:

Though, earlier studies had identified constructive result from leadership styles on additional role behaviours from leader’s perception (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). So far, very few researches have explored the difference in leaders and follower’s perception regarding supervisor’s leadership style and follower’s performance (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Abortive rareness of cases on perception difference can be ascribed to a slight and imperfect meaning of leadership style and employee’s performance as it is limited to only leaders’ perception. In this current case those parameters are also measured which are not directly mentioned in employees job profile including counter-productive behaviour (Podsakoff ed al., 1996, Borman and Motowidlo, 1993).

 

2. METHODOLOGY:

This case methodology is based on comparative research design as quantifiable technique. Data was collected through adapted questionnaire, where the same form was distributed for two types of sample Perception. One for bank reporting managers who denoted as leader with the sample size of 53 from public bank and 56 from private bank. Other form was for bank subordinates who are denoted as followers with the sample size of 210 from public bank and 212 from private bank in India. Multi-stage sampling techniques were used to collect data from India based on the highest number of bank branches. In this case study, the questionnaires were based on two verified tools i.e., Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ (Bass 1999) for measuring leadership style of supervisors. Subordinates performance was measured based on individual work performance questionnaire (IWPQ) scale (Koopman et al., 2014). SSPS 18.0.1 version was run for data analysis, where T-test was applied for evaluating the differences among bank supervisor’s perception as compared with the subordinates’ perceptions about the supervisor leadership style in public and private bank.

 

2.1 Case Objectives:

1.       To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Public Bank.

2.       To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Private Bank.

3.       To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about parameter of follower performance in Public Bank.

4.       To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about parameter of follower performance in Private Bank.

 

2.3 Case Hypothesis:

1.       There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Public Bank.

2.       There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Private Bank.

3.       There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about parameter of follower performance in Public Bank.

4.       There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about parameter of follower performance in Private Bank.

 

3. EVALUATION OF THE CASE:

3.1 Objective: 1 To compare the difference in leader’s perception ‘s and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Public Bank

 

Table: 1 Comparison of Leaders and Followers perception on Leadership Style in Public Bank

Variables	Group	N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean	t-test for Equality of Means
						t	df	P value
Idealized Influence Attributes / IA	Leaders	53	3.49	1.089	0.150	0.438	261	0.662
	Followers	210	3.43	0.894	0.062
Idealized Influence Behaviours / IB	Leaders	53	3.45	1.044	0.143	-0.639	261	0.524
	Followers	210	3.55	0.840	0.058
Individual Consideration /IC	Leaders	53	3.43	1.078	0.148	1.900	261	0.059
	Followers	210	3.17	0.868	0.060
Inspirational Motivation / IM	Leaders	53	3.44	1.075	0.148	-0.546	261	0.585
	Followers	210	3.53	0.799	0.055
Intellectual Stimulation / IS	Leaders	53	3.45	1.070	0.147	0.602	261	0.548
	Followers	210	3.37	0.832	0.057
Contingent Reward / CR	Leaders	53	3.40	1.095	0.150	-0.899	261	0.369
	Followers	210	3.53	0.898	0.062
Management-by-exception Active / MBEA	Leaders	53	3.45	1.068	0.147	0.061	261	0.951
	Followers	210	3.44	0.845	0.058
Management-by-exception Passive / MBEP	Leaders	53	3.44	1.072	0.147	4.284	261	0.000
	Followers	210	2.82	0.914	0.063
Non-Leadership	Leaders	53	3.45	1.070	0.147	5.681	261	0.000
	Followers	210	2.51	1.074	0.074

 

Interpretation:

In the above table 1, researcher compared, whether public bank supervisors and subordinate’s perception carry a significant difference regarding their supervisor’s leadership. By applying “Independent-Samples T-Test’ at significance level α= 0.05 and researcher found that (IIA, IIB, IC, IS, IM, CR, MBEA) p-value found more than 0.05 which stated “no significant difference” in their opinion. Except MBEP, NL, where p value was less than 0.05, which stated that both the respondent (supervisor and subordinates) in public bank have similar approach and opinion about their bank managers leadership style.

 

3.2 Objective: 2 To compare the difference in leader’s perception ‘s and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Private Bank

 

Table: 2 Comparison of Leaders and Followers perception on Leadership Style in Private Bank

Variables	Group	N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean	t-test for Equality of Means
						t	df	P value
Idealized Influence Attributes / IA	Leaders	56	3.73	0.980	0.131	2.234	266	0.026
	Followers	212	3.43	0.869	0.060
Idealized Influence Behaviours / IB	Leaders	56	3.78	0.895	0.120	2.375	266	0.018
	Followers	212	3.44	0.847	0.058
Individual Consideration /IC	Leaders	56	3.75	0.949	0.127	3.995	266	0.000
	Followers	212	3.20	0.890	0.061
Inspirational Motivation / IM	Leaders	56	3.73	0.946	0.126	1.890	266	0.050
	Followers	212	3.50	0.847	0.058
Intellectual Stimulation / IS	Leaders	56	3.70	0.942	0.126	2.780	266	0.006
	Followers	212	3.41	0.755	0.052
Contingent Reward / CR	Leaders	56	3.76	0.964	0.129	1.565	266	0.019
	Followers	212	3.54	0.903	0.062
Management-by-exception Active / MBEA	Leaders	56	3.60	0.933	0.125	3.674	266	0.000
	Followers	212	3.31	0.748	0.051
Management-by-exception Passive / MBEP	Leaders	56	3.65	0.941	0.126	8.014	266	0.000
	Followers	212	2.72	0.822	0.056
Non-Leadership	Leaders	56	3.55	0.941	0.126	8.966	266	0.000
	Followers	212	2.35	1.059	0.073

 

Interpretation:

In the above Table 2, researcher compared, whether private bank supervisors and subordinate’s perception carry a significant difference regarding their leadership style. By applying “Independent-Samples T-Test’ at significance level α= 0.05 and researcher found that (IIA, IIB, IC, IS, IM, CR, MBEA, MBEP and NL) p-value found less than 0.05 which stated “significant difference” in their perception. This stated that both the respondent supervisor (self-rating) and subordinates (follower rating) in private bank have different opinion about their bank supervisor’s leadership style.

 

3.3 Objective: 3 To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about follower’s performance in Public Bank

 

 

Table: 3 Comparison of Leaders and Followers perception on follower’s performance in Public Bank

Public Bank
Variables	Group	N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean	t-test for Equality of Means
						t	df	P value
Followers performance	Leaders	53	3.45	1.070	0.147	-3.003	261	0.003
	Followers	210	3.80	0.674	0.046

 

Table: 4 Comparison of Leaders and Followers perception on follower’s performance in Private Bank

Private Bank
Variables	Group	N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean	t-test for Equality of Means
						t	df	P value
Followers performance	Leaders	56	3.24	0.941	0.126	10.677	266	0.049
	Followers	212	3.82	0.707	0.049

 

Interpretation:

In the above table 3, researcher compared, whether private bank supervisors and subordinate’s perception carry a significant difference regarding follower’s performance. By applying “Independent-Samples T-Test’ at significance level α= 0.05 and researcher found that followers performance p-value found less than 0.05 which stated “significant difference” in their perception.

 

3.4 Objective: 4 To compare the difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about follower’s performance in Private Bank.

 

Interpretation:

In the above table 4, researcher compared, whether private bank supervisors and subordinate’s perception carry a significant difference regarding follower’s performance. T-Test’ at significance level α= 0.05 depicts that followers performance p-value found less than 0.05 which stated “significant difference” in their perception. This stated that both the respondent supervisor (self-rating) and subordinates (follower rating) in public and private bank have different perception for follower’s performance.

 

4         FINDINGS: TESTING OF HYPOTHESES:

4.1: 1^st Hypothesis:

After analysis of the data, researcher test the 1^st hypothesis, and results from table 1 exhibits that sig value of all factors i.e. (IIA -0.662, IIB-0.524, IC-0.059, IM-0.585, IS-0.548, CR-0.369, MBEA-0.951) is more than p value - 0.5. At 5% significance level of two-tailed tests has also found with no notable variance in leadership factors among supervisor (self-rating) and subordinates (follower rating) in public bank. This has accepted the null-hypothesis that H₀₁: “There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about factors of leadership style in Public Bank” However, the result displayed the differences in the mean score of few factors of bank managers leadership style in bank.

 

4.2    : 2^nd Hypothesis:

After analysis of the data, researcher test the 2^nd hypothesis, and results from table 2, exhibits that sig value of all factors i.e. (IIA -0.026, IIB-0.018, IC-0.000, IM-0.050, IS-0.006, CR-0.019, MBEA-0.000, MBEP-0.000 and NP-0.00) is more than p value - 0.5. At 5% significance level of two-tailed tests has also found with no notable variance in leadership factors among supervisor (self-rating) and subordinates (follower rating) in private sector bank. This has rejected the null-hypothesis that H₀₂: “There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception factors of leadership style in Private Bank” However, the result displayed the differences in the mean score in factors of leadership style in bank managers of private bank.

 

4.3: 3^rd and 4^th Hypothesis:

After analysis of the data, researcher test the 3^rd and 4^th hypothesis, and results from 3 and 4 table, exhibits that sig value of follower performance (0.003) in public bank and (0.049) in private bank is less than p value-0.5. At 5% significance level of two-tailed tests has found with notable variance in followers’ performance among supervisor (self-rating) and subordinates (follower rating) in public and private sector bank. Result has rejected the null-hypothesis that H₀₃: “There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about follower’s performance in Public Bank”. Result also rejected the null-hypothesis that H₀₄: “There is no significant difference in leader’s perception and follower’s perception about follower’s performance in Private Bank”. Finding displayed the significant differences in the mean score of follower’s performances in public and private bank.

 

5. PROPOSED SOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION:

Banking sector largely allocate responsibilities to managers in the role of leader who endorsed the influence on their subordinates. This case on public and private bank stated that in some factors, the supervisor and the subordinate graphs signify completely contradictory state, whereas in others its touching in the identical direction. In public bank, no distinct discrepancy found in subordinate opinion with the supervisor’s self-perception about their leadership style. Although, the highest mean score was given to inspirational motivation of transformational leadership style as per leader’s perception while subordinates perceived that Idealized Influence Behaviours of transformational leadership style of supervisor has highest score. In public bank, significant difference was found among supervisor and subordinates’ perception regarding level of subordinates’ performance with shows acceptable mean score. Leaders over supposed themselves more as transformational leader, which found identical with followers’ opinion in public bank, and depicts leader supported their followers by entrusting them and showing pride along with individual team consideration. In private bank, strong difference found in subordinate and supervisor’s perception about their leadership style. The highest mean was given to Idealized Influence Behaviours of transformational leadership style as per leader’s perception while subordinates perceived that inspirational motivation of transformational leadership style and Contingent Reward of transactional leadership style of supervisor has highest score. Significant difference found among supervisor and subordinates’ perception regarding level of subordinates’ performance with depicts satisfactory mean score.

 

This current case on public and private bank basically indicate that the bank managers follow more of transformational style followed by transactional and then laissze fair style in public and private bank. Followers performance also found at moderate level from the perception of both respondent in public and private bank, but private bank leader perceived their follower’s performance comparative less than what follower’s self-perception depicts about their performance. In private bank massive dissimilarity exposes the lack of leader’s self-knowledge and poor style which leads to an adverse organisational milieu in comparison to public bank. Perception difference on follower performance in public and private bank depicts in this case that somewhere there is lack of interactive relation and understanding in subordinates and supervisor. Consequently, bank leader must think about their behavioural approach that how their behaviour reflects their follower’s psychology which ultimately influence their work performance. Leader and follower must understand their inter-personal approach, and collectively must gather efforts for identical and collaborative strategies through additional communication, consideration and compassion for long term growth and high performance.

 

6. IMPLICATIONS:

Bank leaders are required to display their knowledge and alertness of executing diverse tactics to leadership style and which further ensure constructive outcomes from every stakeholder, along with the skill to judgmentally reflect their style of leadership on performance. Supervisors are required to improve their familiarity with their leadership pattern which they are practicing. This could make ultimate connection towards attainment of organization's vision along with their subordinate’s welfare.

 

7. REFERENCES:

1.        Akhtar Tanvir and Butt Marayam Raza (2002) ‘‘Leadership styles in public and private sector Banks of Rawalpindi and Islamabad’’ Pakistan Journal of psychological research, vol.17, No.3-4.

2.        Ardichvili, A. and Kuchinke, K.P. (2002), ‘Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany and the US’, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5(1), pp. 99-117

3.        Bass B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics (Winter): 19-31

4.        Bass B.M. and Avolio B.J. 2000. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood, C.A. Mingarden Inc.

5.        Belias D. and Koustelios A. 2014. Transformational leadership and job satisfaction in the banking sector: A review. International Review of Management and Marketing. Volume 4, Issue 3. p. 187-200.

6.        Bennett, T., 2009. “The relationship between the subordinate’s perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the subordinate’s perceptions of manager’s ability to inspire extra effort, to be effective, and to enhance satisfaction with management”, Academy of Strategic Management, Vol. 8, No.1

7.        Bhandarker, A. and Rai, S. (2015), “Positive transformational leadership: case study of an Indian public sector bank”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 34-55.

8.        Bichango O. evans and Dr. Akash S.B (2012) ‘Training and Development practices in some selected public and private banks on Karnataka – An empirical Study’, Indian Business Scenario and jobless Growth- concerns and solutions, first edition, 2012, Himalaya publishing house

9.        Borman, W., and Motowidlo, S. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327043hup1002_3.

10.      Boseman, G., 2008. “Effective leadership in a changing world, Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Vol. 62, No 3, pp.36-38.

11.      Bristow, M. and Clarke, M. (n.d.). Similarities and Differences between Leadership Development in the Private and Public Sectors? General Management Development Group, Cranfield School of Management retrieved from http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic.

12.      Brodbeck, F. C. et al. (2000), ‘Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73(1), pp. 1-29

13.      Campbell JP. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: M.D. Dunnette, and L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol.1 (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.; 1990, pp. 687-732.

14.      Faud N Shaikh (1988), Managerial Leadership Style in the Private sector in Jordan, Dept of Mgt Studies, Glasgow Business school, University of Glasgow.

15.      Jung, D. I. and Avolio, B. J. (1999), ‘Effects of leadership styles and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42(2), pp. 208-218

16.      Kajal, M. Sharma. (2011) "Performance of Indian public and Private sector banks: A comparative study." International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, june2011: 249-256

17.      Kaur (2014) Leadership Behaviour in Public and Private Sector Banks In Chandigarh 2Region, E-Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1 (Jan-Mar 2014) Issn 2250-348x, India.

18.      Koopmans, L. (2014). Measuring individual work performance. Amsterdam: Department of Public and Occupational Health Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center

19.      Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., and Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A Meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.385-425.

20.      Mehta, and Mahajan (2012) ‘‘Leadership styles of managers (Comparative study of public and private sector banks).’’ Zenith International Journal of Business Economics and Management Research, Volume: 2, Issue: 9: 64-84.

21.      Muhammad Iqbal (July-2005), A Comparative Study of Organizational Structure, Leadership Style and Physical Facilities of Public and Private Secondary Schools in Punjab and their Effect on School Effectiveness, University of Punjab, Lahore

22.      Piccolo, R. F., and Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49(2), 327-340.

23.      Pulapa Subba Rao, Ponnusamy Manohar Albert C. Mellam (Jan-2008), Leadership Styles and their Contribution to Performance and Satisfaction of Leaders and Followers in State and Private Enterprises in Papua New Guinea, Delhi Business Review, Vol.9, No.1.

24.      Raemah Abdullah Hashim Rosli Mahamood (2007), The Relationship between Transformational Leadership Style and the Commitment to Service Quality among Academic Staffs in Selected Six Public and Private Malaysian Universities.

25.      Sharma, J.P. and Bajpai, N. (2010). Effective Leadership and its Linear Dependence on Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Study in Public and Private Organization in India. Research Journal of International Studies, 16 (9), 73-83

 

Accepted on 01.05.2020           ©AandV Publications All right reserved