This document discusses leadership styles and interpersonal trust in organizational settings. It aims to study different leadership styles using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and understand their relationship with interpersonal trust among employees, as measured by an Interpersonal Trust Scale. Specifically, it seeks to understand how leadership style impacts employee trust and how choosing the right style for a given situation can increase trust within an organization.

1. Abstract
This project focuses on different leadership styles and there relationship with
interpersonal trust in organizational settings. The objective of this project is to study the
and to understand different types of leadership styles ,with the help of Multifactor
leadership Questionnaire(MLQ), and there relationship with interpersonal trust among
the employees in organizations,using Interpersonal Trust Scale developed by
Christopher,K.J.
Leadership is a very important topic for research in today's work settings. It's very
important to study the different types of leadership and to find out how and in what ways
each leadership style affects employees interpersonal trust within the work settings.
Leadership plays a significant role in increasing the trust among the employees. If the
leader is able to choose a leadership style which is appropriate for a specific situation ,
he can certainly increase the interpersonal trust among the employees of the organization
.Employees also trust their leader when they find their leader competent enough to make
appropriate decisions for them and for the organization as a whole.
This project basically focuses on the importance of different leadership styles. The main
objective of this project is to understand and explain the relationship between leadership

2. styles and interpersonal trust.
This project will help the managers and leaders understand the importance of different
leadership styles in different situations and also it will help them understand the
correlation between leadership and interpersonal trust. This project will help the leaders
select the right leadership style in order to increase interpersonal trust among the
employees of the organization. This,in turn,will increase the team spirit and
organizational trust in the employees.
About the organization
National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC) is India's largest power company. It was
set up in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. It is emerging as an ‘Integrated
Power Major’, with a significant presence in the entire value chain of power generation
business.
NTPC ranked 341st in the ‘2010, Forbes Global 2000’ ranking of the World’s biggest
companies.
Human resources at NTPC
People before PLF (Plant Load Factor) is the guiding philosophy behind the entire
gamut of HR policies at NTPC. The human resources department at NTPC is strongly

3. committed to the development and growth of all the employees as individuals and not
just as employees. It currently employs approximately 26,000 people at NTPC.
Competence building, Commitment building, Culture building and Systems building are
the four building blocks on which it's HR systems are based.
NTPC has a well established talent management system in place, to ensure that it
delivers on it's promise of meaningful growth and relevant challenges for it's employees.
The talent management system comprises PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,
CAREER PATHS and LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.
Introduction
The concept of leadership
Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others
toward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition
of leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process.
Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadership
elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance
separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally,
leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort

4. of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of
leadership in the workplace.
Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences.
Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on
leadership have been written in academic books and journals, business-oriented
publications, and general-interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature of
leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction,
commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in his
book Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much
of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept."
Leadership should be distinguished from management. Management involves planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performs
these functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or
office. Leadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or may
not be an effective leader. A leader's ability to influence others may be based on a
variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position.
In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time
is briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.

5. Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Trait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different than
those of nonleaders.
Behavioral 1940s and The behaviors of effective leaders are different than the
Theories 1950s behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of
leader behavior are task-oriented behavior and
relationship-oriented behavior.
Contingency 1960s and Factors unique to each situation determine whether
Theories 1970s specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be
effective.
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Leader-Member 1970s Leaders from high-quality relationships with some
Exchange subordinates but not others. The quality of leader-
subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace
outcomes.
Charismatic 1970s and Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit
Leadership 1980s themselves to goals by communicating a vision,
displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful
personal example.
Substitutes foe 1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, and
Leadership subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of

6. leadership behaviors.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different
points in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioral
approach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and
1970s).
Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can
enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective
and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This
definition is similar to Northouse's (2007, p3) definition — Leadership is a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.
Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. This is
called Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we have traits that can
influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982), in that it was once
common to believe that leaders were born rather than made. These two leadership types

7. are shown in the chart below (Northouse, 2007, p5):
While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be
influenced by his or hers attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.
Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other
attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.
Skills, knowledge, and attributes make the Leader, which is one of the:
Four Factors of Leadership

8. Leader
You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you
can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines
if the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then
they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not
yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
Followers
Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires
more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation
requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know
your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human
nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your
employees' be, know, and do attributes.
Communication
You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when
you “set the example,” that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to
perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate
either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.

9. Situation
All situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in
another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the
leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an
employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too
harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.
Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or
her traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of
time, they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why a
number of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate
than the Trait Theory of Leadership.
Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship
with your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your
organization, and how your organization is organized.
Bass' Theory of Leadership
Bass' theory of leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how people
become leaders (Stogdill, 1989; Bass, 1990). The first two explain the leadership
development for a small number of people. These theories are:

10. • Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the
Trait Theory.
• A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which
brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the
Great Events Theory.
• People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is
the Transformational or Process Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted
theory today and the premise on which this guide is based.
Total Leadership
What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they
respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A
sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.
When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about your
attributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are.
She uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self-
serving person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self-serving
leaders are not as effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them.
They succeed in many areas because they present a good image to their seniors at the
expense of their workers.

11. Be Know Do
The basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to your
organization. In your employees' eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effects
the organization's objectives and their well-being. Respected leaders concentrate on
(U.S. Army, 1983):
• what they are [be] (such as beliefs and character)
• what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature)
• what they do (such as implementing, motivating, and providing direction).
What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they
respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A
sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.
The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership
According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75
key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that:
• Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of
employee satisfaction in an organization.
• Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to
winning organizational trust and confidence:
1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.

12. 2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key
business objectives.
3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and
how an employee's own division is doing — relative to strategic business
objectives.
Principles of Leadership
To help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army,
1983). The later chapters in this Leadership guide expand on these principles and
provide tools for implementing them:
1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you
have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement
means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished
through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.
2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid
familiarity with your employees' tasks.
3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways
to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they

13. always do sooner or later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take
corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.
4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making,
and planning tools.
5. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only
hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we
want to see - Mahatma Gandhi
6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and
the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them,
but also seniors and other key people.
8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good
character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished -
Communication is the key to this responsibility.
10.Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization,
department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of
people doing their jobs.
11.Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you
will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest
capabilities.

14. Attributes of Leadership
If you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you.
To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you:
BE KNOW DO
BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take
personal responsibility.
BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence,
candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.
KNOW the four factors of leadership — follower, leader, communication, situation.
KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and
skills.
KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to
stress.
KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.
KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who
the unofficial leaders are.
DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making,
planning.

15. DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.
DO motivate. Examples: develop morale and esprit de corps in the organization, train,
coach, counsel.
Environment
Every organization has a particular work environment, which dictates to a considerable
degree how its leaders respond to problems and opportunities. This is brought about by
its heritage of past leaders and its present leaders.
Goals, Values, and Concepts
Leaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions:
1. The goals and performance standards they establish.
2. The values they establish for the organization.
3. The business and people concepts they establish.
Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire
spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations,
productivity, quality, and reliability.
Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors,
vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business
will be conducted.

16. Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods
and processes for conducting business.
These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's personality or how the
organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the
roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.
Roles and Relationships
Roles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any
job incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be
spelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to include
money being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, and
a sense of accomplishment or challenge.
Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone,
most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-
holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the
greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent
interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with,
and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and
friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role
are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of
the present role-holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by

17. that role-holder or a prior role-holder.
Culture and Climate
There are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture and
climate.
Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders,
past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size (Newstrom, Davis,
1993). This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the “way we do things.” These rites
impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs
the appropriate behavior for each circumstance.
The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and
attitudes of the organization's members (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007).
While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-
held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-term
phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the
“feel of the organization” by its members. This individual perception of the “feel of the
organization” comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the
organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and
satisfaction, such as:
• How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What

18. is expected of us?
• What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization?
• How competent are the leaders?
• Are leaders free to make decisions?
• What will happen if I make a mistake?
Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the
leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the
leader. Compare this to “ethical climate” — the feel of the organization about the
activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that
constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things
right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior
(character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.
On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the
shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create
tradition or the “way we do things here.” Things are done differently in every
organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a
reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because
culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate
by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do
as a leader will affect the climate of the organization.

19. For information on culture, see Long-Term Short-Term Orientation
The Process of Great Leadership
The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful
leaders:
• Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be
improved the most.
• Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood
by your followers.
• Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.
• Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells
others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done.
• Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping
the pains within your own.
Theories of leadership
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may
or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories
involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,

20. [3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow:
somebody who guides or directs others.
Early western history
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.
History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have
explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying
this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption
that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea
that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of
leadership".
The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most
notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have
prompted decades of research.[4] In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified
the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's
Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful
men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving
from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was
inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works
lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the
leader.

21. Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these
studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[5] Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to
take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the
extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a
number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one
situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership
was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches
(see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in
certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership
theory and research for the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory
TRAIT APPROACH
The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders.
The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus
the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Many
leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s,

22. 1940s, and 1950s.
Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of
individuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between
individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height,
mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all
subjects of empirical research.
The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits
that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an important
review of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that the
existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.
Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant
findings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little was
known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits.
As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same
construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the trait
studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers.
Early trait research was largely non theoretical, offering no explanations for the
proposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.
Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might
moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As

23. a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership
effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that
would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of
leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research
design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as
leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical
advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could
quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This
advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership
research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new
methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
• intelligence
• adjustment
• extraversion
• conscientiousness
• openness to experience
• general self-efficacy

24. While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence
has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual
frameworks.
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to
the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and
problem-solving skills;
2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;
3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable
over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;
4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity
necessary for effective leadership.
Attribute pattern approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have
begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader
attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute
pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual
characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated
totality rather than a summation of individual variables.
In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated

25. constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial
variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by
single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.
Behavioral and style theories
LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH
Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that
occurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away
from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the
behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or
emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio
State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. These
studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.
The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),
administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies,
college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-
analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The
conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how
leaders carry out their role.
Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared.

26. Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, involves planning,
organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing
concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates' accomplishments,
and providing for subordinates' welfare.
The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio
State. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies
was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and
job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations:
an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee
orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production
orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.
The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general
instead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four
"systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (the
participative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as
resulting in the most positive outcomes.
One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was
the Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The
grid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five
alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither
production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person

27. emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a
"country-club" manager.
Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention
to the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balance
concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road"
manager.
Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for
production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management."
According to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership
approach. The Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a
considerable amount of leadership training in the corporate world.
The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors
that would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not
demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not
consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness.
Managerial grid model
response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research

28. leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders,
determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David
McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-
developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful,
perhaps even essential.
Illustration 1: A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the
influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the
performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In
each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making,

29. praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project
management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was
developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different
leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal
achievement.
Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of
positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is
presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the
future.The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a
business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This
employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee
decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually
shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often
because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a
positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the

30. behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders
to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-
Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement
to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that
reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many
reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher
performance for lower costs.
CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACH
Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work
group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be
effective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Four of
the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency theory, path-goal
theory, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, and the situational
leadership theory. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the
paragraphs that follow.
Introduced in 1967, Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational
factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The

31. theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of
task- and person-oriented leader behavior.
Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader;
(2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance
measured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. The situation is
most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured,
and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.
Fiedler's research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the
situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-oriented
leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The
theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to
different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more
effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.
Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological
grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions
of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership
effectiveness.
Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971Administrative Science Quarterly article
by Robert House. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and
characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more

32. effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of
control, work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmental
characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority
system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader
behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative
leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.
According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal
attainment, strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead
to valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for
subordinates. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish
these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.
Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the
contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical
model, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's
propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model was introduced by Victor Vroom and
Phillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. The theory focuses
primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different
situations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader.
There are five types of leader decision-making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII,

33. and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G).
According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight
diagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of
decision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enough
information to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitment
to the decision.
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumption
that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring
the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical research
has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.
The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by
Hersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting
leaders' choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates.
Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept
responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors
into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. The
major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and
relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates.
Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological
grounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of
leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability

34. and leadership style.
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social
scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as
Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce
the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations
call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal
psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual
actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of
the situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon
the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of
leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations
each style works better in.
The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails
to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic
leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally,
the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but
as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or
thorny organizational problems.
Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is

35. sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear
more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision
model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler
called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and
situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types of
leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the
group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out
the task itself (task-oriented).[31] According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader.
Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership
orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly
structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable
situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely
favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best
in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)and later with Arthur Jago
(1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a
normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational
variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach
was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different
group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This

36. model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was
based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence of
the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that
complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for
deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit
performance".
The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive,
participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower
characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states
that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four
depending on what the situation demands.
The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the
circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the
reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four
leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model
posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-
development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the
characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.

37. Functional theory
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute
to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to
see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said
to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and
cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,
1986).
While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on
functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and
Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,
Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when
promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental
monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates,
motivating others, and intervening actively in the group's work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial
work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates

38. perceived their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as
consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in
fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing
concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating
structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment.
This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding
subordinates accountable to those standards.
Transactional and transformational theories
Eric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of
transactional analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and
reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to
lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined
goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct,
and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward
effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by
Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional
leadership.

39. Emotions and leadership
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions
entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leader's mood has
some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:
1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a
positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with
leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group
members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be
one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence
followers.
2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or
homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an
aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood
at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more
positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public
expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people
experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their
goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example,

40. expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward
goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and
behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the
leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other
findings.
Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and
negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to
emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their
employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective
events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since
employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is
imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.
Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the
self and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.

41. Neo-emergent theory
The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses
that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other
stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the
reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by
the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own
versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he
would receive a true hero's welcome.
In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader,
which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a
payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be
contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their
true leadership qualities at all.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the
understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely
satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s,
several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been

42. advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory,
transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the
philosophy of servant leadership.
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage
theory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s
and has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic
(i.e., one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of
the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.
The theory's focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships that
promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and
subordinates will be able to develop high-quality relationships.
According to LMX theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, but
establish close relationships with some (the in-group) while remaining aloof from others
(the out-group). Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked
by trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities and
decisions. Conversely, those in the out-group are excluded from important activities and
decisions.
LMX theory suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad

43. will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Empirical research supports many of the
proposed relationships.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Beginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the
importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this class
of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership, Bass's transformational
leadership theory, and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory.
These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain how
leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a
failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success
against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring
subordinates' admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a
clear and compelling vision.
Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the
transformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirements
and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, transformational leadership
focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and
setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group.

44. Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership,
which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader
who exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the
long-term interest of the organization ahead of their own short-term interest, according
to the theory. Empirical research has supported many of the theory's propositions.
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORY
Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theory's
focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical
support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates'
satisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that
characteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for or
negate the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leader
behaviors and important organizational outcomes.
Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task-oriented or relationship-
oriented unnecessary. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute for
leadership include formalization, group cohesiveness, inflexible rules, and
organizational rewards not under the control of the leader. Characteristics of the task that
may substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that are
satisfying. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership include
ability, experience, training, and job-related knowledge.

45. The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest
because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts
subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical
propositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical
research.
SERVANT LEADERSHIP
This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It
suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the
community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics of
servant leaders include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal,
professional, and spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not been
subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among
both leadership scholars and practitioners.
Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences.
Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues of
research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century.
Leadership Styles
Leadership style refers to a leader's behavior. It is the result of the philosophy,
personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed

46. models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,Philippe-Joseph
Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination).
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is
little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has
significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic
leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team
with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be
more effective.
The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the
group while balancing the interests of its individual members.
Autocratic or authoritarian style
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the
leader, as with dictators.
Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic
management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It
permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and
keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of

47. the group.
In an autocratic leadership style, the person in charge has total authority and control over
decision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not only
control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion –often under close
scrutiny
This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our historical
movement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, but in some
situations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of course, doesn’t mean a
blank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate.
When is it used?
The autocratic leadership style is best used in situations where control is necessary, often
where there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangerous, rigid rules can
keep people out of harm’s way. Many times, the subordinate staff is inexperienced or
unfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is necessary.
Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternalistic, and
in highly-professional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resentment and strained
morale.
Good fits for Autocratic Leadership:
• Military

48. • Manufacturing
• Construction
How to be effective with this position
It’s easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise to get
the job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be and doing their
job, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly.
In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empires. It’s
very intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when.
It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too much direct
scrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy handed will
squelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means being very
intentional about when and how demands are made of the team.
Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as an autocratic
leader:
• Respect your Subordinates: It’s easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are
trying to enforce. It’s important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone
brings something to the table, even if they don’t call the shots. Making
subordinates realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every

49. functional team is built on a foundation of mutual respect.
• Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it helps
them do a better job if they know why.
• Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you have to
make sure you do so consistently and fairly. It’s easy to respect someone
objective, but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar
circumstances.
• Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up
front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset
prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings.
• Listen, even if you don’t change: We all want to feel like our opinions are
appreciated, even if they aren’t going to lead to immediate change and being a
leader means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. It’s
important to be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome.
Participative or democratic style
The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making
abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by
practicing social equality.

50. A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other
people in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and other
stakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control
to his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team.
The question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the manager's
preferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the table
below.
< Not participative Highly participative >
Leader
Team
proposes Joint Full
proposes
Autocratic decision, decision with delegation of
decision,
decision by listens to team as decision to
leader has
leader feedback, equals team
final decision
then decides
There are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells the
idea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the 'what' of objectives or
goals and let the team or individuals decide the 'how' of the process by which the 'how'

51. will be achieved (this is often called 'Management by Objectives').
The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made.
Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisions
during subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.
There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in the
assumptions, above.
This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision-making,
democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.
Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignore
them. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.
Laissez-faire or free rein style
A person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the
group to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies
and methods.
The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in
1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The
laissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the

52. leader provides little or no direction to the followers.
The characteristics of the laissez faire style include:
• Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the
completion of their work or ask questions of the leader
• The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their
goals and answers the follower's questions
In this type of leadership style,the leader totally trusts their employees/team to perform
the job themselves. He just concentrates on the intellectual/rational aspect of his work
and does not focus on the management aspect of his work.
The team/employees are welcomed to share their views and provide suggestions which
are best for organizational interests. This leadership style works only when the
employees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.
Narcissistic leadership
Various academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified
narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.
Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthy
or destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic

53. leadership (preferably destructive) is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption,
and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."
here are four basic types of leader with narcissists most commonly in type 3 although
they may be in type 1:
1. authoritarian with task orientated decision making
2. democratic with task orientated decision making
3. authoritarian with emotional decision making
4. democratic with emotional decision making
Toxic leadership
A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an
organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or
organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.
The phrase was coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 and is linked with a number of
dysfunctional leadership styles.Other names include the little Hitler, manager from hell
and boss from hell.

54. Basic traits of toxic leadership
The basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/or
insular,intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corrupt or
aggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.
These may occur as either:
• Oppositional behaviour. • Poor self-control and or restraint.
• Plays corporate power politics. • Physical and/or psychological
• An overcompetitive attitude to other bullying.
employees. • Procedural inflexibility.
• Perfectionistic attitudes. • Discriminatory attitudes (sexism,
• Abuse of the disciplinary system etc.).
(such as to remove a workplace rival). • Causes workplace division instead of
• A condescending/glib attitude. harmony.
• Use "divide and rule" tactics on their
employees.

55. The concept of interpersonal trust
On the basis of their review, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) conceptually defined
trust as “a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on
the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party.”
Interpersonal Trust is the perception you have that other person will not do anything
that harm your interest.
Interpersonal trust - a willingness to accept vulnerability or risk based on expectations
regarding another person’s behavior – is a vitally important concept for human behavior,
affecting our interactions both with adversaries and competitors as well as with allies
and friends. Indeed, interpersonal trust could be said to be responsible in part for
nudging competitors towards becoming allies, or – if betrayed – leading friends to
become adversaries.
IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL TRUST
Interpersonal trust is very important in organizational settings. It leads to:
• Team Spirit
• Cordial Environment
• Target Fulfillment
• Less Turnover Rate

56. • Enthusiasm Among Employees
• Sound Relationships
• Better Communication
• Delegation Of Authority And Responsibility
• Defensiveness
Effects of Interpersonal Trust
Cooperation
Cooperation is frequently associated with trust – particularly when cooperation puts
one at risk of being taken advantage of by a partner (Mayer et al., 1995). I propose that
trust will positively effect two components of cooperation: coordination and helping.
The ability to harmoniously combine actions (i.e., be coordinated) is likely to be
contingent upon the extent to which individuals can depend upon their partners and can
predict their partners' behaviors. Dependability and predictability are constituent
elements of trust. Helping behavior should also be greater in high-trust groups, as
individuals anticipate that their partners will not take advantage of their assistance.
Instead, in high-trust groups, individuals may expect their partner to respond in kind, as
they know their partners are taking their interests into account. Individuals in low-trust
groups would not tend to hold these expectations.

57. Group decision-making processes
Group members could be expected to be more likely to diagnose (critique) performance
of the group, express ideas for improving it, and commit to a plan if they feel that their
partners are taking the group’s interests into account and will be dependable. For
example, if an individual suspects that her partners will betray her by not carrying out
their ends of the bargain, she will be unlikely to agree to the plan. Hence, groups with
low levels of trust will be likely to experience less diagnosis of performance, fewer ideas
expressed, and fewer commitments to a decision.
Effort
Expectancy theory can be used to make predictions about the intensity of effort, as
related to trust, in cases where individuals are highly interdependent (e.g., see Sheppard,
1993). Using the latter assumption, when an individual thinks her group members are
undependable (i.e., she has low trust), she may perceive her effort as unrelated to group
performance – because the poor performance of her partners will limit the performance
of the group and make her efforts futile. In this case, the logic of expectancy theory
would predict that she put forth a low level of effort. Put differently, trust influences a
group member’s expectations about the extent to which her effort can be converted into
group performance.

58. Trust may also have a main effect on the direction of effort. In groups with high levels
of trust, individuals can feel comfortable directing their effort toward the group task,
because they are not afraid that their partners will take advantage of them or will be
undependable. If they are concerned about being taken advantage of by their partners, or
if they think that their partners are undependable, they may be more likely to direct their
efforts toward goals where they do not have to rely on the behavior of others.
Proposition
The relationship between interpersonal trust and work group performance will be
mediated by three group processes: cooperation (coordination, helping), decision-
making processes (diagnosing performance, expressing ideas, committing to a decision),
and effort (intensity, direction).
Interpersonal Trust as a Moderator
As indicated earlier, much of the research in organizational behavior appears to position
trust as a variable that has direct effects on work group process and performance. Trust
could, however, operate on group performance indirectly through a moderating role.
While this idea has been relatively unexamined in empirical research, it has been hinted
at in conceptual work.

59. For example, Hackman and Morris (1975) stated that team-building (e.g., trust-building)
activities are intended to “remove some of the emotional and interpersonal obstacles to
effective group functioning and thereby permit group members to devote a greater
proportion of their energies toward actual task work” (p. 48). In recent work, Yeatts and
Hyden (1998, p. 102) present a similar argument. Lastly, Hwang and Burger (1997)
proposed that trust is an important “condition” for cooperation.
In sum, the language used by these researchers suggests that trust operates by facilitating
the effects of other variable s on group process and performance.
This idea is theoretically appealing. Instead of thinking of trust as a variable that drives
behavior and performance (e.g., increasing trust leads to an increase in cooperation and
performance), trust may be better conceived of as a variable that influences how the
team members direct their energy (which is provided by the driver).
To be more specific about this model, theories of task motivation (e.g., Kanfer,
1990) suggest that behavior, and subsequently performance, are driven by needs, goals,
or rewards – not by beliefs about co-workers.
Under this model, trust would help channel the energy towards reaching alternative
objectives (e.g., personal versus group objectives) as it provides information about the
advisability of engaging in particular courses of action (e.g., cooperating).

61. Managerial Behaviors That Promote Interpersonal
Trust
Trustworthy behavior:
1.Acting with discretion .
2.Being consistent between words and deeds.
3.Ensuring frequent and rich communication.
4. Engaging in collaborative communication.
5. Ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent .
Organizational Factors :
6. Establishing and ensuring shared vision and language.
7. Holding people accountable for trust.
Relational Factors
8. Creating personal connections.
9. Giving away something of value.
Individual Factors
10.Disclosing your expertise and limitations.

62. Leadership and trust
Little attention has been given to leadership studies on the role of trust in influencing
follower’s behavioral outcomes. Trust is the building block of social exchange and role
relationship. Leader member relationship needs trust. Leadership is considered
trustworthy based on leadership’s conduct, integrity, use of control, ability to
communicate, and ability to express interest for members. When trust is broken it can
have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance.
Research indicates that trust, most specifically leadership trust, is a necessary and viable
component of organizational success. Leadership trust is literally defined as a leader-
member relationship based on mutual respect, cooperation, commitment, reliability and
equity. Effective leadership trust is also based in exchange theory, which proposes that
leaders and members create a mutual reciprocal relationship. When followers trust
leader, they are willing to be vulnerable to the leader’s action—confident that their
rights and interests will not be abused.
Leaders have a significant responsibility to increase member involvement to breed
leadership trust. Honesty, for instance, consistently ranks at the top of most people’s list
of characteristics they admire in their leaders. It is also important that leadership trust
only exists if leadership is aligned with organizational values, demonstrates fairness with
members, and does not exploit members. Furthermore, organizations that experience
greater trust in leadership can compete more effectively in economic markets and

63. maintain organizational viability.

65. Review of literature
Empirical research has examined the main effects of trust on a variety of dependent
variables including organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., McAllister, 1995;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Robinson, 1996), effort (e.g.,
Williams & Karau, 1991), conflict (e.g., Ferrin & Shah, 1997), communication (e.g.,
Mellinger, 1959; O’Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974), decision
making (e.g., Zand, 1972), and group performance (e.g., Friedlander, 1970; Klimoski &
Karol, 1976). Is there evidence from this research that would allow us to conclude that

66. trust exerts main effects on group performance? There are three factors that lead to a
negative answer to this question.
First, the results from the research cited above could be labeled as providing mild and/or
inconsistent empirical results. For example, in the study of the effects of trust on the
performance of groups, two studies reported finding support for a main effect (Hughes,
Rosenbach, & Clover, 1983; Klimoski & Karol, 1976); one study found support for an
indirect effect (Friedlander, 1970), and one study found no effect (Kimmel et al., 1980).
Studies of trust on behavioral dependent variables, with the possible exception of
communication, have also shown relatively inconsistent and/or weak results.
Second, the results from much of the work cited above are potentially inflated due to the
designs used.
For example, many of the studies collected cross-sectional data that limits our ability to
ascertain the
direction of causality. In addition, many of the studies collected all data with self-report
surveys, thus
potentially inflating the correlations.

67. Lastly, related research on the role of interpersonal relations in effecting group
performance has shown weak results. For example, reviews of the research on group
performance and on team-building tend to suggest that better interpersonal relationships
among team members does not necessarily result in higher team performance (McGrath
& Altman, 1966; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas,
1992; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980).
In sum, given the mild support in prior research, the methodological limitations of this
work, and research in related areas, we can not yet conclude that trust exerts main
(direct) effects on group process and performance. Clearly, this proposition needs to be
subjected to further careful empirical study before we could draw such a conclusion. As
indicated in the above critiques, careful empirical study should include (a) isolating the
effects of trust on behavior and performance, (b) measuring independent and dependent
variables at different points in time, and (c) measuring independent and dependent
variables using different methods and sources.

68. Theoretical Bases
Trust has been a frequently cited determinant of group performance (Golembiewski &
McConkie, 1988). In prior research, the argument for a main effect of trust on
performance is relatively straightforward. Put simply, trust increases the ability of group
members to work together. Since work groups require that individuals work together,
trust is expected to increase the performance of the group, both in terms of effectiveness
and efficiency. Effectiveness is expected to be positively related to trust, as the latter
may improve cooperation and the motivation to work jointly (Larson & LaFasto, 1989),
that in turn may improve the group’s execution of its task. Efficiency is expected to
increase, as trust reduces the need for controls (e.g., rules, monitoring) and increases the

69. ability to confront performance problems; both of these factors facilitate the maximal
utilization of the group’s resources (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Larson & LaFasto,
1989). In making this argument, as well as others this paper, moderate to high levels of
interdependence act as a boundary condition. Lacking a moderate level of
interdependence, trust becomes less meaningful as individuals do not need to rely upon
each other to reach their goals.
In a study on Authentic Leadership, Trust and Work Engagement by Arif Hassan and
Forbis Ahmed,it was found that Interpersonal trust between leaders and members of the
work group is central to their effective functioning. Though leaders play the primary role
in establishing and developing trust, little research has examined the specific leadership
practices which engender trust towards them. There are some evidences, however, to
suggest that some leaders, such as authentic and transformational, seem to be more
effective than others in promoting a trusting relationship with their followers .
They found in their study that trust in leaders is particularly important for effective
functioning in organizations such as banks where tasks are complex and require high
levels of interdependence, cooperation, information sharing and above all trust.
Rationale/objectives of study
The rationale of this study is to-

70. 1.Identify the different types of leadership styles.
2.Understand the importance of each leadership style in specific situations.
3.Explain the concept of Interpersonal trust.
4.Identify the antecedents,consequences and importance of interpersonal trust in
organizations.
5.Understand the relationship between leadership styles and interpersonal trust.
6.Identify effective ways to adapt appropriate leadership styles (in order to increase
interpersonal trust and to improve the performance of employees).
This study will help us understand-
1. To what extent authentic leaders promote subordinates trust in them and their work
engagement?
2. How does subordinates’ trust in leaders facilitate employees work engagement?
3. How does trust mediate the relationship between leadership authenticity and
employees work engagement?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1

71. Leadership style ,adopted by the leader,affects the Interpersonal trust between leader
and employees/subordinates.
Hypothesis 2
Transformational and transactional leadership styles Positively affect the interpersonal
trust between bosses and subordinates.
Methodology
Sample
This study was done on NTPC employees. A random sample of 50 people was taken
from different departments of the organization,including human relations department,
department of information and technology etc.
This study was made irrespective of gender. Participants were asked to fill a
questionnaire which contained items measuring leadership styles of the leaders,as
perceived by the employees, and the level of interpersonal trust among the employees.
For measuring leadership styles,Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used and for
the purpose of measuring interpersonal trust,Interpersonal Trust Scale by
Christopher,K.J.was applied.

72. About the questionnaires
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire
The most widely used measure of transformational leadership is the MLQ. An earlier
version of the MLQ was originally developed by Bass (1985), based on a series of
interviews he and his associates conducted with 70 senior executives in South Africa.
These executives were asked to recall leaders within their experiences who had raised
their awareness to broader goals, moved them to higher motives, or inspired them to put
others' interests ahead of their own. The executives were then asked to describe how
these leaders behaved-what they did to effect change. From these descriptions and from
numerous other interviews with both junior and senior executives, Bass constructed the
questions that make up the MLQ. Since it was first designed, the MLQ has gone through
many revisions, and it continues to be refined to strengthen its reliability and validity
(Bass & Avolio, 1993).
The MLQ is made up of questions that measure followers' perceptions of a leader's
behavior for each of the seven factors in the transformational and transactional
leadership model (see Figure 8.2), and it also has items that measure extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction.
Based on a summary analysis of a series of studies that used the MLQ to predict how
transformational leadership relates to outcomes such as effectiveness, Bryman (1992)
and Bass and Avolio (1994) have suggested that the charisma and motivation factors on

73. the MLQ are the most likely to be related to positive effects. Individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward are the next most
important factors. Management-by-exception in its passive form has been found to be
somewhat related to outcomes, and in its active form it has been found to be negatively
related to outcomes. Generally, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be negatively
related to outcomes such as effectiveness and satisfaction in organizations.
Bass and Avolio (1992) have developed an abbreviated version of the MLQ, called the
MLQ-6S. We present it in this section so that you can assess your own transformational,
transactional, and non-transactional leadership style. At the end of the questionnaire, we
provide information you can use to interpret your scores.
These seven factors can be divided into three groups. The first group includes the scores
on Factors I through 4, which represent items that directly assess the degree to which the
leadership is transformational. Higher scores on these factors indicate more frequently
displayed transformational leadership. The second group includes scores on Factors 5
and 6. These factors represent the transactional dimensions of one's leadership. Higher
scores on these factors suggest the leader uses reward systems and/or corrective
structures in his/her leadership style. The last factor, laissez-faire leadership, assesses the
degree to which the leader employs hands-off leadership, or nonleadership. On this
factor, higher scores indicate that s/he tends to provide little structure or guidance to
subordinates.
The MLQ-6S covers a number of dimensions of leadership, or what Bass and Avolio

74. (1994) have called a full range of leadership styles.
Idealized influence _____ Factor 1
Inspirational motivation _____ Factor 2
Intellectual stimulation _____ Factor 3
Individualized consideration _____ Factor 4
Contingent reward _____ Factor 5
Management-by-exception _____ Factor 6
Laissez-faire Leadership _____ Factor 7
Score range: High = 9-12, Moderate = 5-8, Low = 0-4

75. Factor 1
Idealized influence indicates whether the leader holds subordinates' trust, maintain their
faith and respect, shows dedication to them, appeals to their hopes and dreams, and acts
as their role model.
Factor 2
Inspirational motivation measures the degree to which your leader provides a vision,
uses appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and tries to
make others feel their work is significant.
Factor 3
Intellectual stimulation shows the degree to which your leader encourages others to be
creative in looking at old problems in new ways, creates an environment that is tolerant
of seemingly extreme positions, and nurtures people to question their own values and
beliefs and those of the organization.
Factor 4
Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which your leader shows interest in
others' well-being, assigns projects individually, and pays attention to those who seem

76. less involved in the group.
Factor 5
Contingent reward shows the degree to which your leader tells others what to do in order
to be rewarded, emphasizes what s/he expects from them, and recognizes their
accomplishments.
Factor 6
Management-by-exception assesses whether your leader tells others the job
requirements, is content with standard performance, and is a believer in "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it."
Factor 7
Laissez-faire measures whether your leader requires little of others, is content to let
things ride, and lets others do their own thing.

79. Interpersonal Trust Scale
Interpersonal Trust Scale consists of 20 items which measure the level of interpersonal
trust between employees and leaders. This scale was developed by Christopher,K.J. It
includes items such as ,''In important matters I never rely on others.” or “Most people
like taking responsibility.” This is a self rater scale. The respondent requires to respond
to each statement in “true” or “false”.
Statistical Analysis
After the data was collected,it's statistical analysis was done. First the items were scored
as per the scoring keys. Then the average scores were computed. For the statistical
analysis of MLQ the scores for all the seven factors were calculated separately to assess
the seven leadership factors. The average score was found to be 10.15 for Idealized
influence, 10.36 for Inspirational motivation, 9 for Intellectual stimulation, 9.45 for
Individual consideration, 9.43 for Contingent reward, 9.61 for management by exception
and 5.02 for laissez fair leadership. According to the scoring key,the average score of
the first six factors is High (9-12) and that of the seventh factor is moderate (5-8).
After computing the average scores of each factor,the average scores of
transactional,transformational and laissez fair leadership-styles were calculated. The
average score of transformational leadership style was found to be 9.74,which,as per the

80. scoring key,is high. The average score of transactional leadership style was found to be
9.52 which is also high according to the scoring key.
Finally the average score of laissez fair leadership style was found to be 5.02
which,according to the scoring key,is moderate.
Thus it can be concluded from the average scores that the employees of the organization
perceive their leaders to be high on idealized influence that means their leaders hold
subordinates' trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to
their hopes and dreams, and act as their role model.
They believe that their leaders provide a vision, use appropriate symbols and images to
help them focus on their work, and try to make them feel their work is significant.
Employees also find their leaders as encouraging them to be creative in looking at old
problems in new ways, create an environment that is tolerant of seemingly extreme
positions, and nurture people to question their own values and beliefs and those of the
organization.
The leaders of the organization are also perceived as showing interest in others' well-
being, assigning projects individually, and paying attention to those who seem less
involved in the group. Thus they are high on individualized consideration also.
Employees also believe that their leaders tell them what to do in order to be rewarded,

81. emphasize what they expect from them, and recognize their accomplishments.
Scores also suggest that the leaders are perceived as being high on management by
exception as they tell the employees the job requirements, are content with standard
performance, and are a believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
FACTORS AVERAGE SCORES CATEGORY
Idealized influences 10.15 High
Inspirational motivation 10.36 High
Intellectual stimulation 9.00 High
Individualized consideration 9.45 High
Contingent reward 9.43 High
Management by exception 9.61 High
Laissez fair leadership-style 5.02 Moderate
LEADERSHIP STYLES AVERAGE SCORES CATEGORY
Transformational leadership 9.74 High
Transactional leadership 9.52 High
Laissez fair leadership-style 5.02 Moderate

82. Ultimately the scores suggest that the employees perceive their leader as having laissez
fair leadership style to some extent as they require little of others, are content to let
things ride, and let others do their own thing.
Thus on an average,the leaders are perceived as being high on transformational and
transactional leadership styles.
Likewise the scores on interpersonal trust scale were also allotted. 1 score was given
when the respondent ticked below the option “true” and 0 was given for ticking below
“false”. Then all the scores were summed up. Finally the average score of all the 50
respondents was computed. The average score of all the participants was 12.70.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
After data analysis, the correlation ,between the three different types of leadership
styles, namely transactional,transformational and laissez fair leadership styles, and
interpersonal trust,was computed. Pearson product moment correlation (r) was
calculated.
The correlation between transformational leadership style and interpersonal trust was
found to be 0.99989 which,according to the correlation scale,indicates strong positive
correlation. Pearson product moment correlation (r) for transactional leadership style
and interpersonal trust was found to be 1 which,again,indicates a strong correlation in
positive direction. Finally,the correlation(r) between laissez fair leadership style and

83. interpersonal trust was found to be 1. Thus the correlation between laissez fair
leadership style and interpersonal trust is positive and strong.
RANGE OF (r)
Strength of
Value of r
relationship
-1.0 to –0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5 Strong
-0.5 to –0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate
-0.3 to –0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3 Weak
–0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak
Therefore, the correlation between the three types of leadership styles is positive,that
means when there's an increase in either of the three leadership styles,it also increases
the level of interpersonal trust between leaders and subordinates.
Thus it can be concluded that by adapting any of these three leadership-styles,the level
of interpersonal trust between leaders and subordinates can be increased. And by doing
so,the leader can engender strong team spirit in the subordinates which in turn improves
the over all performance and efficiency of employees.

84. VARIABLES CORRELATION DIRECTION OF STREANGTH OF
CORRELATION CORRELATION
Transformational 0.99989 Positive Strong
leadership style and
interpersonal trust
Transactional 1.00 Positive Strong
leadership style and
interpersonal trust
Laissez fair 1.00 Positive Strong
leadership style and
interpersonal trust
FINDINGS
• Transformational leadership style is strongly positively correlated with
interpersonal trust.
• Transactional leadership style is strongly positively correlated with interpersonal
trust.
• Laissez fair leadership style is also strongly positively correlated with
interpersonal trust.

85. SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS
• These findings enhance our understanding of the relationship that exists between
leadership styles and interpersonal trust.
• This research will serve as a base for future studies.
• The present study confirms previous findings and contributes additional
evidence that suggests that employees' interpersonal trust is influenced by the
leadership style adopted by the leader.
CONCLUSION
Thus,on the basis of the results of this study, it can be conclude that
transformational,transactional and laissez fair leadership styles are positively correlated
with the interpersonal trust between employees and leader.
Therefore ,by adapting these leadership styles,the leader can definitely increase the level
of interpersonal trust among the employees. The results found in this study explicitly
indicate that,there exists a strong correlation between leadership style of the leader and
the level and strength of interpersonal trust between subordinates and leaders.

86. CONSTRANTS AND LIMITATIONS
The project was limited in several ways. First, the project used a convenience sample of
50 employees. Thus the generalizability of the result is limited. With a small sample
size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be transferable to the larger
population.
The generalizability is also limited because of the fact that all participants were
voluntary ;therefore their responses do not represent the perspectives of non
respondents.
There are many other variables which can increase the level of interpersonal trust at
workplace but these variables have not been included in this study. This study focuses
only on the relationship between leadership styles and interpersonal trust.

87. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
It should be noted that leadership is only one of many factors that are responsible for the
development of interpersonal trust. More research work can be carried out in future to
examine the effect of other variables on interpersonal trust.
In addition to it,interpersonal trust is a very broad phenomenon which can be studied
outside the work settings too. This study focuses only on the level of interpersonal trust
within the workplace. In future more researches can be carried out to study this
phenomenon in different settings such as family,peer group etc.

88. REFERENCES
• Avery, D.R., McKay, P.F., and Wilson, D.C. (2007), “Engaging the aging
workforce
The relationship between perceived age, similarity, satisfaction with coworkers,
and
employee engagement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp.1542-
1556.
• Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Transformational leadership, charisma, and
beyond”, in J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Emerging
leadership vistas. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 29-49.
• Avolio, B.J, Bass, B.M., and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72
No.4, pp. 441-462.

89. • Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Psychological
capital:
Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 60, pp.541–572.
• Avolio, B.J., and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development:
Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16
No.3, pp. 315-338.
• Avolio, B.J., Dvir, T., Eden, D., and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of
transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field
experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-744.
• Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., and May, D.R.
(2004), “Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders
impact follower attitudes and behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp.
801-823.
• Bakker, A.B., Hakenen, J.J., Dermerouti, E., and Xanthopoulou, D. (2007), “Job
resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high”,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, pp. 272-284.

90. • Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berso. "Predicting
Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership."
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 20718.
• Blank, Warren, John R. Weitzel, and Stephen G. Green. "A Test of the Situational
Leadership Theory." Personnel Psychology 43 (1990): 57997.
• Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.
• Graeff, Claude L. "The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View."
Academy of Management Review 8 (1983): 28591.
• Graen, George, and William Schiemann. "Leader-Member Agreement: A Vertical
Dyad Linkage Approach." Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 20612.
• Greenberg, Jerald, and Robert A. Baron. Behavior in Organizations:
Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 2000.
• House, Robert J. "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness." Administrative
Science Quarterly 16 (1971): 32139.
• House, Robert J., and Ram N. Aditya. "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership:
Quo Vadis?" Journal of Management 23 (1997): 40973.
• Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?"

91. Academy of Management Executive 5 (1991): 480.
• Kinicki, Angelo, and Robert Kreitner. Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006.
• Luthans, Fred. Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005.
• Podsakoff, Philip M., et al. "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for
Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier's Situational
Leadership Model." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54
(1993): 14.
• Steers, Richard M., Lyman W. Porter, and Gregory A. Bigley. Motivation and
Leadership at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
• Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the
Literature." Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 3351.
• Stogdill, Ralph M., and Bernard M. Bass. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of
Theory and Research. New York, NY: Free Press, 1974.
• Vroom, Victor H., and Phillip W. Yetton. Leadership and Decision Making.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
• Wren, Daniel A. The Evolution of Management Thought. New York, NY: Wiley,
1994.
• Yukl, Gary. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

92. 1994.
• Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Culture”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17
No. 3&4, pp. 541-554.
• Bracey, H. (2002), Building trust. How to get it. How to keep it, Taylorsville, GA:
HB Artworks, Inc.
• Britt, T.W., Dickinson, J.M., Greene-Shortidge, T.M., and McKibben, E. (2007),
“Self engagement at work”, in C. L. Cooper & D. Nelson (Eds.), Positive
organizational behavior, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 143- 158.
• Brower, H.H., Schoorman, F.D., and Tan, H.H. (2000), “A model of relational
leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 227-250.
• Byrne, B.M. (2005). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,
applications and programming, London: LEA Publishers.
• Chughtai, Amir Ali, Buckley and Finian. (2008), “Work Engagement and its
Relationship with State and Trait Trust: A Conceptual Analysis”, Journal of

93. Behavioral and Applied Management. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5335/is_200809/ai_n29493978/?t
ag=content;col1
• Cooper, D.R., and Schindler, P.S. (2008), Business Research Methods (12th Ed),
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Csorba, L.T. (2004), Trust. The one thing that makes or breaks a leader,
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
• Cummings, L.L., and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The organizational trust inventory
(OTI)”, in Kramer, R.K., Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of
Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.302-30.
• Dirks, K.T., and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings
and implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
87 No. 4, pp. 611-628.
• Doney, P., Cannon, J., and Mullen, M. (1998), “Understanding the influence of
national culture on the development of trust”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 601-620.
• Eagly, A.H. (2005), “Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender

94. matter?”, The leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 459- 474.
• Erickson, R.J. (1995), “The importance of authenticity for self and society”,
Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 121-144.
• Galford, R., and Drapeau, A.S. (2002), The trusted leader. Bringing out the best in
your people and your company, New York: The Free Press.
• Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., and Walumbwa, F.O. Eds. (2005), Authentic
leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development, Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science.
• Gardner, W. L., Chan, A., Hughes, L., and Bailey A. (2006, August 15), “Leader
exemplification and ethical conduct: Effects on perceived authenticity, trusts, and
organizational advocacy”, Paper presented at Academy of Management Meeting,
Atlanta.
• George, B. (2003), Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating
lasting value, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, J.B., and Anderson, R.E., (2010), Multivariate
Data Analysis. (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

95. • Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-79.
• Hosmer, L.T. (1995), “Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory
and philosophical ethics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.
393-403.
• Hughes, L.W. (2005), Transparency, translucence or opacity? An experimental
study of the impact of a leader’s relational transparency and style of humor
delivery on follower creative performance.
• Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska.
• Ilies, R., Morgeson, F.P., and Nahrgang, J.D. (2005), “Authentic leadership and
eudemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 373-394.
• Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp.
692–724.

96. • Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be fully there: Psychological presence at work”, Human
Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 321-349.
• Kouzes, J.M., and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The leadership challenge (3rd ed.), San
Francisco, CA.
• Jossey-Bass Levering, R. (2000). A great place to work: What makes some
employers so good- and most so bad? CA: Great Place to Work Institute.
• Luthans, F. (2004), “Organizational Behaviour”, McGraw Hill Higher Education.
• Luthans, F., and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership development”, in K.
S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Pp. 241-261
• Luthans, F., and Peterson S.J. (2002), “Employee engagement and manager self
efficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development”, The
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 5/6, pp. 376-387.
• Luthans, F., and Youssef, C.M. (2004), “Human, Social, and Now Positive
Psychological Capital Management: Investing in People for Competitive
Advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 143-160.
• Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W., Hodgetts, R.M., and Luthans, B.C. (2001), “Positive
approach to leadership (PAL): Implications for today’s organizations”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 3-20.

97. • Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J., and Avey, J.B. (2008), “The mediating
role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate - employee
performance relationship”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 219–
238.
• Macey, W., and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology”, Perspectives on Science and Practice,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
• Maslach, C., and Leiter, M.P. (1997), The Truth about Burnout, San Fransisco:
Jossey Bass.
• Mayer, R.C., and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The Effect of the Performance Appraisal
System on Trust in Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 123-136.
• Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An Integration Model of
Organizational Trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-729.
• McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
• McKnight, H.D., Choudhury, V., and Kacmar, C. (2002), “Developing and
Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology”,
Information System Research, Vo. 13 No. 3, pp. 334-359.
• Michie, S., and Gooty, J. (2005), “Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the

98. real leader please stand up?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 441-457.
• Mishra, A.K. (1993), “Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of
Trust”, in Kramer, R. M. & Thomas T. (eds.) Trust In Organizations, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. (1996), pp. 261-287.
• Morgan, D.E., and Zeffane, R. (2003), “Employee involvement, organizational
change and trust in management”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
• Morrow, J., Hansen, M., and Pearson, A. (2004), “The cognitive and affective
antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations”, Journal of
Management Issues, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 48-64.
• Norman, S.M. (2006), The role of trust: Implications for psychological capital
and authentic leadership, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Nebraska.
• Ponnu, C.H., and Tennakoon, G. (2009), “The Association between Ethical
Leadership and Employee Outcomes – the Malaysian Case”, Electronic Journal of
Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No.1, pp. 21-32.
• Reina, D.S., and Reina, M.L. (1999), Trust and betrayal in the workplace.
Building effective relationships in your organization, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
• Rothbard, N.P (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in
work and family roles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 655-

99. 684.
• Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 393-404.
• Rusaw, C.A. (2000), “The ethics of leadership trust”, International Journal of
Organizational Theory and Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 3-4, pp. 547- 569.
• Schaufeli, S.W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V., and Bakker, A.B. (2002),
“The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
• Schaufeli, W.B., and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
• Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Work engagement: An emerging
psychological concept and its implications for organizations”, in Gilliland, S.W.,
Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds), Research in social issues in management,
Information Age Publishers, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 135-177.
• Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.), San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization.

100. • Spreitzer, G.M., and Mishra, A.K. (2002), “To stay or to go: voluntary survivor
turnover following an organizational downsizing”, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 23, pp. 707-729.
• Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., and Werner, J.M. (1998),
“Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for
understanding managerial trustworthy behavior”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.
• Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., and Wernsing, T. (2006),
“Development of a scale of authenticity”, Current Working Paper.
• Bass, Bernard (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning
to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (3), Winter, 1990, 19-31.
• Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M. (2007). Organizational Behavior and
Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
• Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management
Science, 28(3), 315-336.
• Kouzes, James M. & Posner, Barry Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lamb, L. F., McKee, K. B. (2004). Applied Public Relations: Cases in
Stakeholder Management. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Routledge.
• Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and Assessment . New York: Wiley.

101. • Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at
Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak,
London, New Delhe, Sage Publications, Inc.
• Rowe, W. G. (2007). Cases in Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
• Stogdill, R. M.(1989). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory
and Research. Bass, B. (ed.) New York: Free Press.
• U.S. Army. (October 1983). Military Leadership (FM 22-100). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
• http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlq.htm
• http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=mlq&cp=5&gs_id=x&xhr=t&q=
MLQ+questionnaire&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-
ab&oq=MLQ+q&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4c135c
0d0fdf9c0a&biw=1366&bih=584
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
• http://www.slideshare.net/shruti27bhatia/interpersonal-trust-presentation
• http://works.bepress.com/randy_borum/48/
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=research+on+interpersonal+trust&ie=utf-
8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-
a&channel=fflb
• http://www.leadership-toolbox.com/autocratic-leadership.html

102. • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
• http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/participative_leadership.ht
m
• http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html
• http://www.enotes.com/leadership-theories-studies-reference/leadership-theories-
studies