MANAGERIAL STYLES AS A MEANS OF IMPROVING AN
ORGANIZATION: THE TURKISH ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY CASE * Turgay ERGUN - Oğuz ONARAN **;
In our courses, we encounter questions such as what is the
best way of managing people, and how does one become a good
manager. And when we say that there are no definite answers to
these questions, our words are understood to mean that we do
not know this subject. Ho\v can a «great Management Professor})
not know what a good manager should be like? Ho\vever, we now
know that there are many variables which influence amanager's
actİons, and that behaving in this or that way in each situation
and job does not lead to success. For example, McGregor (1960)
enumerates in connection with these variables (1) the charac­
teristics of the manager, (2) the attitudes, needs, and the other
personal characteristics of the subordinates, (3) the characteris­
tics of the organization such as its structure and the work done,
and (4) the social, economic, and political environment. Bass
and Barrett, in their textbook on organizational psychology (1972),
enumerate large groups of variables such as the manager's
characteristics, the characteristics of the subordinates, the
characteristics of the external environment, the characteristics
of the organizational elimate (within the organization and outside
the immediate workgroup), and the demands of the work, and
then they place every conceivable factor in these groups.
* This
** İs originally a paper submitted to the Second National Symposium
on Organizational Psychology held on 16-19 November 1981 in the Ins­
titute of Public Administration for Turkeyand the Middle East, An­
kara.
Dr. Turgay Ergun İs assodate professor İn the Institute of Public
Admİnİstrıation for Turkeyand the Middle East. Dr. Oğuz Onaran is
associate professor at Ankara University's Faculty of Political
Science.
46
Researches on managerial styles usually dwell upon three
forms of managerial behavior: work-oriented behavior, employee­
oriented behavior, and the participation of the suıbordinates in
the decision-making process. These researches ask the question of
«how should the manager behave in order to be successful?» and
they try to reach at some conclusions. The view· which was held
at the beginning of the human-relations movement argued that
managers who gave attention to their suihordinates, who showed
understanding to them, and who at the same time tried to let
them participate in the decisions they took thus created a more
relaxed group atmosphere conducive to collaboration, and hence
assured increased success in the completion of the work through
providing job satisfaction for the workgroup.But it did not take
long to understand that this 'view was wrong. After the realization
of this, many researches began to be made to discover the effects
of each of the variables enumerated ahove. For example,a research
(Peız, 1960) reached at the conclusion that for the suıbordinates
of managers to develop positive attitudes, the managers themsel­
ves need to be influential upon their own superiors. Another
research (Osborn, Hunt 1975) studied the relationship betw,een
task-oriented and subordinates-oriented dimensions of behavior
and the size of the organization, and another research
(Matsui, Osawa, Terai, 1975) studied how themotivation of
subordinates, measured according to the hypothesis of the
superiors' expectations, influenced the perception of the subor­
dinates of these two dimensions. Apart from these, House (1971)
dwelled upon the questİon of how «functional» managers are in
meeting the needs of subordinates and developed a model which
clarifies the goals-means relations of managers. Fiedler, who
argued that managers , actions are detennined by the situations
theyare in (1967, Fiedler, ehemers, 1974) came to the conclusion
that task·oriented managers are successful in very favorahle and
very unfavorable situations and that worker-oriented mana­
gers are successful in situations in between these two extremes.
As is seen, variables ,vhich can influence the task-oriented
and worker-oriented behavior of the managers have heen investi­
gated in several researches, and models have been developed. The
same is true also fex «participation.» Researches have been
47
condueted on under what eonditions managers should take the
decisions by themselves and under what eonditions their eonsul­
tation with their subordinates or taking the decisions together
with them willlead to ınore suecessful results. For example, Vroom
and Yetton (1973) developed a model concerning when and how
decisions should be made by taking into aceount element s such
as the nature of the decisions and their aeceptanee by the
subordinates, and the time al10tted to decision-making. And the
validity of this model has been investigated in another researeh
(Vroom, Jago, 1978). A more eomplex model was developed later
on by the addition of elements such as specialization, intragroup
conflict and nature of groups (Stumpf, Zand, Freedman, 1979).
The Model of Manager Profile
The research we conducted at the Turkish Electricity Authority *
is based upon the research by Bass and Valenzi (Bass, 1976). This
researeh is also somewhat different from the model s mentioned
above:
" .rather than start by building from a set of assumptions
and deductions as Vroom and Yetton did (1973) or from a
particular methodology (LPC analyses) as Fiedler (1967) has
done or from general propositions about motivation (path-goal)
as House (1971) has done, w'e hegan with a review of the
empirical literature of the past 25 years on the subject and
proeeeded to build a model of 31 faetors that adequately
describes leader-situational interaetions (Bass 1967, 217).
it is thus c1ear that this model with thirty-one factors and
ealled «manager profile» was not deveIoped by setting out from
one assumption or a set of assumptions, but it was designed to
subsume as manyas possible variables which are assumed to be
effective in this area. Furthermorc, the model was eonceived of
as a system showing the mu tual relations an10ng the important
factofs. What is thus being devcloped is a system of th2 manager
and the subordinates immediately under him. *~':
* As a power monopoly Turkish Electricity Authority (Türkiye Elektrik
Kurumu - TEK) İs a state economic
personneL.
** For an example of such a manager
Profile» see, Bass, 1976.
enterprise
employing 15.000
profile namely
«Bass-Va1enzi
48
Before we begin to discuss the factors, let us note that the
term «system» is used in two senses in this modeL. First, the
smaIl group con1prising the manager and his sabordinates imme­
diately under him has been thought of as a system and the ele­
ments which might influence the behavior of this group has been
studied. The word «system» used in the names of groups of
factors (such as «system inputs,» «system outputs,» etc.) is system
in this sense. The other meaning of system is that, the model was
conceived of and developed as a system; feedback as well as the
mutual relations among factors is included in it.
System inputs subsume the variables related to the organi­
zation, task, workgroup, and attitudes of the workers and they
are assumed to influence the "vithin system relations between the
manager and his subordinates. The within system relations sub­
sume the power and information the manager and his subordinates
have with respect to each other. In addition to these, whether the
manager's objectives are short-term or long-term and whether his
relations with his subordinates are strict or relaxed have also been
included in the group of within system reIations.
Various styles of manageınent arise from the combinations
of the system inputs and within system relations. Five styles of
management, called «dir,ective,» «negotiative,» «consu1tative,»
«participative,» and «delegative,» have been identified and studied.
it is quite usual for a manager to be perceived by his subordinates
as, say, «negotiative» and «participative.» According to Bass (1976),
a manager might even be perceived as quite «directive» at the
same time that he is perceived as quite «delegative,» although
this is not a typical situation.
A1though system outputs are the results of these enumerated
factors, they also serve as feedback on acount of being the results
of the workgroup's behavior and influence in turn these factors.
Organizational effectiveness (the realization of the workgroup's
objectives connected with the organization), job satisfaction, and
supervisory satisfaction have been included among the system
outputs.
The Method
The questionnaire (the questionnaire was deveIoped by Bass
and Valenzi; \ve only translated the questions into Turkish) was
given in July 1981 to the un11 heads İn the Turkish Electricity Aut­
49
hority. * The two researchers saw each of the thirty one depart­
n1ent heads and gaye them one copy of a questionnaire which
they themselves were to fill and ten copies of another ques­
tionnaire whkh their subordinates were to filI. Although the same
questions were found in the questionnaİres given to unit heads
and to their subordinates, different expressions were used to suit
supervisors and subordinates.
The purpose of the research was explained to the unit heads.
They were told they must give the ten copies of the questionnaire
to subordinates they frequently work with and that the number
of ıhe subordinates can be le ss than ten. They were also told that
the filled questionnaires should be put in envelopes and sealed.
The unit heads wrote their names on the questionnaires but the
subordinates did not. Nevertheless, because each unit head has a
separate code number, only the researchers know the names
written down.
The questionnaire was given to thirty-one unit heads. Res·
ponses were received from the members of sixteen units and
fourteen unit heads. 107 persons responded to the 114 copies of
the questionnaire distributed by the unit heads. We thus have a
sample of 121 persons, consisting of 14 supervisors and 107
subordinates.
The data gathered will ıbe used for two purposes: ( 1) this
information will be given to the supervisors so that they can
change and improve their behavior, thus improving the organi­
zation. (2) On the other hand, a study of a theoretical kind will
also be made by investigating the relations among the variables.
Organizational Development: the Feedback Process
The questionnaires were coded separately for each unit. The
computer was not used for this; the calculations were done
manually. Because the gathered data will be sent also to the real
owners of the research (Bass and Valenzi), the answers which
have been received on a scale of five have been recomputed on a
* The researchers are gratefuI to professor Bernard Bass for giving
permıssıon to use the questionnaire and for the supplementary infor­
mation he provided on theİr research.
50
scale of nine to achieve uniformity, and they have been calculated
for each unit. For each variable, first the unit head's score and
the average score of the subordinates is written in this list. After
this, the lowest and the highest scores given by the subordinates
to the questions concerning that variable have been written under
the tiile of «Mean Range». A «profile» has thus been developed for
each supervisor. It is possible to compare from such a profile the
supervisor's view and the subordinates' views for each variable.
Furthermore, it is also possible to see the degree of agreement
among the subordinates concerning each variable or to see whet­
her or not there is an inconsistency İn the responses.
After this comes the process of giving these data to the
supervisors. A meeting with the department heads was organized
for this purpose. In this meeting which was called the «profile­
feedback meeting,» first the benefits of such a feedback for imp­
roving the organization were told. Because when this method is
used, each supervisor receives direct information from his subor­
dinates concerning his managerial style. And then, the «profile»
was explained in detaH and the scores were given. The subject
that is emphasized at this poiııt is that the variables which were
cal1ed «system outputs» can be influenced by factors from various
sources, and that managerial style s as well as organizational
variables, the attitudes of the members of the group and the
personal relations between supervisors and subordinates can be
among these sources.
After this, a form was distributed. In this form, the thirty­
one variables are briefly defined. Furthermore, there are numbers
from 1 to 9 under each variable. Each supervisor indicated his
own score in a square, the average score of his subordinates in
a circle, and the lowest and highest scores of his subordinates in
square brackets. For example, a supervisor's own score is 4, his
subordinates' average is 6, lowest score is 5 and highest score
is 8 :
1: 2: 3: [4J: [5:
(6): 7: 8]: 9
The manager will thus have in his hands an easily-usable
summary of the data concerning this variable. While marking
these points, ieach supervisor will have observed the inconsistency
between his perception and the perceptions of his subordinates.
51
After this, especial1y the following subjects were discussed:
which results pleased the supervisor and which results embarrassed
him? In which areas is there too much ıdiscrepancy between the
supervisor and his subordinates? In the light of these results,
what does the supervisor think concerning his managerial style
and the effectiveness of his workgroup? Do these results indicate
that the supervisor's subordinates are trying to teıı him certain
things? When these results are taken into account, are there some
things that the supervisor wants to change? Would he consider
changing his own behavior? In what way will he make this change?
As is seen, the purpose of this meeting was to give the
opportunity to each supervisor to ascertain the problems and thus
to help him see in what ,vay he \vould have to change his behavior
in the future.
Interviews wiıı again be held four to six months after this
meeting both with the superiors and with the subordinates
who had been included in this research to investigate the effects
of the research and whether or not it had any influence. An
attempt was made to discover in these meetings whether or not
the managers had put into effect the changes they had comtemp­
lated, and what the subordinates were thinking about these
changes. These meetings were to cause the use of the managerial
profile obtained in the research as a means of improving the
organization.
The impressions we got from the first feedback meeting are as
follows:
In most caSeS, the point span of subordinates who gave
the highest and lowest scores is wide, for example it is in the
form of 1-9. The supervisors attribute the wideness of the span
(in other words the evaluation of a supervisor very low or v.ery
high from the point of view of a certaİn system input or output)
to the differences among the personne!.
- The wi thin system relations generally received low scores.
According to the supervisors, there are two groups of subordinates
without job satisfaction: first, those who get no job satisfaction
because they think theyare being wasted; and second, those who
get no .lab satisfaction for various reasons although they do not
think theyare being wasted. Under these circumstances, being a
52
supervisor becomes impossible and the view holding that «there
is no manager here» becomes prevalent. And the higher
administration the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
do es not leave any freedom of decision to the departments. The
unİt heads are left without any
authority under the resultant
eonditions., Th;; department heads are reduced to the position of
persons who only assign and complete tasks; theyare not able
to use incentives like giving rewards. Frequent business trips ,
coordination meetings, and having to work on files prevent the
supervisors from showing interest in the members of the orga­
nization.
- The higher administrators store information in their minds
and they do not relay it to anybody. And when they themselves
ne ed information, they look for a brain. Because information is
stored in brains. if a department head is unable to produce some
information when it is demanded, he loses his job. (At the time
the feedback meeting ,vas held, that is, in the four months after
the research had begun, two department heads had lost their
jobs.)
- The inadequacy of the wage system has an adverse effect
on productivity and morale. The suboI1dinates are continuously
looking for other jobs or are filling time before going into mili­
tary service. Inexperienced personnel is being used. New per­
sonnel is appointed without informing the department heads,
and this increases disorder and discontent within the organizaM
tion.
-
The personnel is being prevented from improving itself.
- Attendance is being checked, but the amount and quality
of the work done is not being taken into consideration.
- Conclusion: the subordinates want more power. They do
not want directive supervisors, but consultative or participative
supervisors. However, the supervisors feel ther,e İs no possibiHty
for this.
Situations Fitting the Managerlal Styles
it was noted above that besides giving the gathered data to
the supervisors to improve their behavior and hence to improve
the organization, it would also be possible to draw some the­
53
oretical conclusions from this research. What we will analyze now
is the relationship between sorne managerial styles and various
organizationaL, task and workgroup factorso As it was also nuted
at the beginning, because varİous managerial styles emerge as a
result of many factors, it will be helpful to know - at least within
the context of the organization which was the subject of this
research which variables are related to which managerial styles.
To investigate this, the correlation of each variable in the series
of «system inputs» and «within system relations» variables with
the managerial style of each department head as perceived by the
informants has been calculated. And then, the stepwise multiple
regression method of analysis was used in an effort to discover
the extent to which (within five percent level of significance) each
variable helped to explain the perceived managerial styles.
The tendeney for the directiye style of management appears
mostly in managers in situations where the organization al order
must be obeyed (existing constraints) but tasks are not planned and
organized (existing order), in workgroups in which the members
are dependent upon each other v/hile doing their tasks and in
wh:çh there is a high commitınent to the group, and whose
subordinates have introspective and equalitarian tendendes
(R == .57). The tendeney for the negotiative style of management
appears mostly in managers in situations with complex tasks,
again in groups with high interdependence among members and
where high commitment to the group exists, and whose subor­
dinates have equalitarian and conformist attitudes. (R == .54).
Furthermore, we can add to these variables the supervisor's access
to information he needs to make dedsions which influence the
subordinates (boss information) and his having long-term
objectives (R == .53). When these results are taken into consi­
deration, it can be said that interdependence of tasks, commit­
ment to the group, and an equalitarian attitude on the part of
the subordinates are necessary for these two styles of management.
The contrary conclusion has 'been reached at in Bass's research
(1976). According to the findings of that research, it is managers
who have subordinates with authoritarian tendendes who mostly
evince these two styles. Without claiming to be certain, the
following explanation might be offered for this contradiction:
perhaps the directiye and negotiative styles of management are
54
regarded as the natural styles in our country. if this is so, they
wiII not be perceived as connected with the existence of an
authoritarian atmosphere in the organization, but, as the proper
managerial behavior.
it is natural for complexity to be correlated with the nego­
tiative style. To the extent that tasks become complex, the
manager wiII have to do more unless the subordinates are
specia1ists in their Helds. Bass's research (1976) als o reached at
this conclusion. The correlation between the variable that we
call «constraints» and the directive manager is also to be expected
and the same conCıusion has been reached at in Bass's research.
Ho\vever, İn Bass's research, order İs also correlated with the
directive style. But we arrived at the contrary result in our
research. it may be possible to explain this by saying that
management in our country is generally unplanned, so that as the
planning of the activities goes down, the directive style is used
more.
The consultative, participative and delegative styles of mana­
gement are more «democratic» styles. To summarize, the consul­
tative manager decides after consulting, the participative manager
allows his subordinates to join in the decision-making process,
and the delegative manager leaves the decision-making to his
suborıdinates. All of these three styles are largely correlated, on
the one hand, with the subordinates having clear objectives
related to their performance and their ability to use their own
discretion while do ing their duties, and, on the other hand, with
the lack of warmth and trust between the management and the
subordinates (for the consultative manager, R = .49; for the
participative n1anager, R = .51; and for the delegative manager,
R
.49). In addition, these styles are characterized further by
both the subordinates and the superiors having the requisite
information to make decisions and by the superiors not being
strong in decision-making (for the consultative, R
.40; for the
participative, R = .43; for the delegative, R
.49). As for
personal characteristics, these three managerial styles are
encountered more among managers whose subordinates believe
that most people behave just1y and that they are also being
treated justIy.
=
=
55
Furthermore, order also helps explain the consultative
managerial style. The participative managerial style is explained
to the same extent by the interdependence of tasks in the work~
group and by the non-existence of order or the lack of routine
procedures. In Bass's research (1976), all of these three mana­
gerial styles have been found to be correlated largely with,
routine, long-term objectives and warmth. it was only natural to
discover in our research that all of these three managerial style s
are correlated with clear objectives and discretionary opportunity.
However, the lack of a warm and trustful organizational climate
is a surprising result which we are unaible to explain. What is more,
in Bass's research boss information has been found to be
correlated only with the consultative style. In this situation, the
manager consults his subordinates assured that no problems will
arise. And subordinate information has been found to be correlated
only with the participative n1anagerial style. The conclusion which
was reached at in our research is more conducive to a theoretical
explanation. Indeed, both the superiors and the sabordinates
must have the information requisite for decision-making of more
democratic managerial styles are to be practiced. it must also be
noted that a more consistent result has been achieved in Bass's
research for the delegative ınanagerial style: it was concluded
there that the delegative n1anagerial style is encountered in highly
structured organizations where the subordinates have complex
tasks.
After this, the medians of the answers given for each variable
were calculated and the correlations for each group below and
ahove the median were calculated separately. The conclusions
given above were further clarified by using the data obtained
from these correlations. The point that must be made immediately
{S
this: the distdbution of many variables is not a linear
distribution; the distributions of the two groups above and below
the median show different characterİstics. The managerial styles
with which these two groups are separately correlated are
İndicated in the TABLE ı. As will be seen from the table although
the correlations are small, theyare within five percent level of
significance.
TABLE 1
The Correlations of the Groups Above and Below the Median
with the Managerial Styles
Above the Median
Below the Median
Constraints - directiye (.25)
Clarity - consultative (.27)
Warmth - partidpative (-.20)
delegative (-.22)
supervisory satisfaction
(-.37), job satisfaction
(-.36 )
Order - directiye (-.34)
consultative (-.21)
effectiveness (-.24)
supervisory satisfaction
- Job satisfaction (.21)
No correlation
»
»
1
delegative (-.23)
(-.41 )
- job satisfaction (-.20)
External influences - directiye
(-.26 )
- deIegative (.22)
Intragroup conflict - supervi­
sory satisfaction (-.25)
Interdependence - no
correlation
Commitment to the group­
no correIation
CIear objectives - delegative
(.25)
Routineness - no correIation
Discretionary opportunity ­
delegative (.25)
Complexity - no correlation
No correlation
»
»
directiye (.28), negotiative
(.19), consultative (.22) ,
partidpative (.24)
No correlation
»
»
»
»
»
)
»
57
I\1anagerial activity - directive
(.23)
Fairness - consu1tative (.27),
participative (.22),
delegative (.20)
Assertiveness - .lob satisfaction
(-.26 )
Equalitarianism - supervisory
satisfaction (-.21), job
satisfaction (-.27)
»
-
negotiative (.34)
effectiveness (.50)
-
directive (.41), negotiative
(.43), consultative (.28).
participative (.30), dele­
gative (.26)
effectiveness (.57)
-
Introspectiveness - directive
( .24), consuItative (.23),
supervisory satisfaction
( -.25)
Boss power - negotiative (.21),
consuItative (-.44),
participative (-.44)
delegative (-.44)
supervisory satisfaction
(-.47), job satisfaction
(-.46 )
Subordinate power - no
carrelatian
effectiveness (.63)
job satisfaction (.24)
directive (.29), consu1ta tive
( .22), participative (.25) ,
delegative (.32)
-
-
Bass information - negotiative
(.26)
directive (.26 J, negotiative
(.34)
effectiveness (.47)
directive (.43), negotiative
(.49), consuItative (.30),
participative (.35)
-
effectiveness (.41)
supervisory satisfactiorı
(.24)
directive (.32), ııegoı::1atıve
(.27), delegative (.27)
effectiveness (.44)
supervisory satistaction
(.39), .lob satisfaction
(.36)
negotiative (.28), delegative
(.24)
58
supervisory satisfaction
( -.29)
Subordinate information negotiative (.44)
Long-term objectives - ne!;",
tiative (.33), consultative
(-.22) delegative (-.22)
-
supervisory satisfaction
(-.38), job satisfaction
(-.33 )
-
effectiveness (.46)
supervisory satisfaction
(.4 ı ), job satisfaction
(.39)
directiye (.31), negotiative
(.36), consultative (.27),
participative (.30), dele­
gative (.29)
- effectiveness (.46)
- supervisory satisfaction
(.46), job satisfaction
',.37)
dırective (.27), negotiative
(.44), consultative (.26) i
participative (.3 ı), dele­
gative (.32)
-
Structure - effectiveness (-.24)
-
effectiveness (.33)
supervisory satisfaction
(.34), job satisfaction
(.33)
directiye (-.32), negotiative
(.30)
effectiveness (.45)
supervisory satisfaction
(.44), job satisfaction
(.36)
Now we can discuss one by one the variables which explain
the managerial styles. it is observed that the variable of order
which is one of the variables which explain the directiye style
correlates with this style only in the group above the median. To
put it in another way, as the planning and organization of the
activities increases, the workers do not perceive their superiors'
style as directiye, but as order decreases the carrelatian with
the directiye style also disappears. Consequently, the planning and
organization of the activities hınction as a variable which prevents
the directiye style, but the decrease of order has no carrelatian
59
with this style. On the other hand, as is seen in this table, a
decrease in the planning of the activities (or, to put it more
correctIy, the workers' perceiving the situation thus) is capable
of creating a medium restrictive to the delegative style. The result
stated above thus becomes modified to a certain extent from the
point of view of the variable of order.
The same situation holds from the point of vİew of the
variable of eonstraints. Looked at from the opposite point of
view, when it is perceived that the variable of interdependency
decreases the correlation with the directiye style appears and this
correlation disappears from above the median.
We will not dwell upon each variable in the table because it
would take ton much space. We can put forward as a general
conclusion that the responses given to the variables do not show
a linear distribution but that the median divides the subjects into
two groups different from each other. When an increase (or a
decrease) in a variable shows a correlation with a managerial
style, a decrease (or an increase) in the same variable destroys
this correlation. To put it İn another way, the effect that a variable
has is not seen when that variable begins to increase or decrease.
Although this situation may be attributed to the smallness of the
correlations, it would be useful to keep in mind this characteristic
of the changes in the variable s in such researches.
Effectiveness and Managerial Styles
In general, there is a small correlation between effectiveness
and managerial styles: directiye (.26), negotiative (.14), consul­
tatiye (.20), partidpative (.26), delegative (.19). In order to
discover how the var:ous states of the variables affect the
correlation between the managerial styles and effectiveness, we
calcu12.ted the manage~ial styles-effectiveness correlation for the
answers given for each variable below and above the median.
These correlations are shown in TABLE 2.
As is seen in this table, the directiye style is perceived most
strongly in situations w'here the organizational constraints are
open and clear, where the duties of the workers are interdepen~
o-
TABLE 2
Effectiveness and Managerlal Styles
DirectlveEffectlveness
Correlatlon
BM
Constraints
Clarity
Warmth
Order
External Influences
Intragroup Harmony
Interdependence
Commitment to the Group
Clear Objectives
Routineness
Discretionary Opportunity
Complexity
Managerial Activity
Fairness
Assertiveness
Equalitarianism
Introspec ti veness
Boss Power
Subordinate Power
Boss Information
Subordinate Information
Long-Term Objectives
Structure
.33+
.13
.24+
.39+
.37+
.29+
.14
.35+
.24+
.24+
.39+
.41+
.31+
.29+
.42+
.30+
.34+
.33+
.31+
.33+
.34+
.33+
.42+
BM: below the Median
+
AM
NegotlatlveEffectlveness
Correlaüon
BM
.09
.13
.09
.42+
.18
.26+
.08
.40+
.03
.31+
.17
.30+
.13
.42+
.14
.23+
.27+ -.09
.28+ -.14
-.07
.22+
.04
.33+
.19
.13
.17
.25+
.07
.35+
.21+
.46+
.11
.36+
.15
.30+
.10
.33+
.12
.22+
.04
.08
.09
.19
-.04
.24+
within 5
0/0
AM
.15
.18
.10
-.21+
-.08
-.15
.16
.16
.32+
.38+
-.06
-.10
.05
-.08
.07
-.16
-.13
-.02
-.25+
-.06
.14
-.02
-.04
o
ConsuItaüveEffecüveness
CorreIaüon
BM
.19.
.22+
.31+
.39+
.37+
.30+
.05
.21
-.01
.08
.29+
.34+
.26+
.09
.30+
.30+
.35+
.28+
.32+
.27+
.13
.22+
.21
AM
.20
.18
.08
-.06
-.05
-.03
.39+
.17
.32+
.31+
-.02
.02
.11
.29+
.09
.08
.03
.07
-.04
.06
.22+
.17
.15
ParüclpaüveEffectlveness
Correlatlon
BM
AM
Delegaüve
Etlectlveness
Correlaüon
AM
.06
.28+
BM
.24+
.25+
.15
.20+
.35+
.17
.35+
.34+
.01
.36+
.45+
.33+
.44+ -.03
.00
.30+
.38+
.13
.39+ -.01
.14
.21+
.31+
.00
.40+ -.07
.07
.12
.38+
-.01
.35
.30+
.07
.33+
.40+
.18
.35+
.31+
.10
.20
.28+
.08
.27+
.41+
.14
.27+
.35+
.06
.25+
.41+
.08
.25+
.39+
.27+
.38+ -.02
.22
.08
.35+
.13
.24+
.22+
.12
.22+
.36+
.19
.21
.27+
significance AM: above the Median
.18
-.02
-.02
-.04
-.03
.41+
.19
.24+
.29+
-.12
-.01
-.00
.26+
.12
.08
.10
.09
-.12
-.08
.19
.12
.14
61
dent, where the relations between superiors and subordinates are
not rigidly organized, where the tasks have little complexity, and
where the subordinates are not able to use many discretionary
opportunities and are not able to take any risks. To summarize,
the employees perceive the directive style as an effident mana·
gerial style in situations where tasks are not complex and duties
are interdependent, where the organization al constraints are
open and clear but there is not much order in the organization,
where the organization al constraints need not be obeyed very
strictly, where the tasks are not affected much by external fac­
tors, and where the within system relations are at a low leveL.
This situatİon has the nature of a structure which is «bureauc­
ratic» in a pejorative sense.
The situations which affect strongest the negotiative-effective­
ness correlation are again the low level of order in the organization
and the personnel having authoritarian tendendes. A conclusion
reached above was that employees with democratic tendendes
were more inclined towards the negotiative style. But it seems
that these employees also do not think that this style is an
effective one.
Those who are below the median have a much stronger
tendeney to see a correlation between effectiveness and the consul·
tative, partidpative, and delegative styles from the points of view
of the variables of order, external influences discretionary
opportunityı complexity, introspectiveness, equalitarianism ı
and
assertiveness (except for the delegative). Those who are above
the median have a stronger tendency to perceive this correlation
more from the points of view of the variables of interdependence,
clear objectives ı and routineness. Apart from these, we have
aIready noted that both the subordinates and the superiors having
the information requisite for taking effective dedsions were
assodated more with these three managerial styles. However, as
is seen from the table, those who perceived that the superiors have
comparatively less of the requisite information considered these
three managerial style s more effective whereas those who perceived
that the superiors have comparatively more of the requisite infor­
mation did not assodate these three managerial styles with
effectiveness.
i
62
A conclusion which concerns the variables and which must
be stated here is this: those who are below the median from the
points of view of the variables of order, external influences,
discretionary opportunity, complexity, introspectiveness, and
assertiveness (except for the delegative), and those who are above
the median from the points of view of the variables of interdepen­
deney, dear objectives, and routineness consider aıı of these five
managerial styles more effective.
Another interesting finding is that as intragroup harmony
diminishes, the correlation between these three managerial styles
and effectiveness increases. As the same is true for intragroup
warmth and trust, it can be concluded that in the organization
we studied in this research these three managerial styles are
based upan discontent among individuals within the organization.
Satisfaction and Managerial Styles
The expected results were obtained from the point of view
of satisfaction. The employees get the highest satisfaction from
the participative (supervisory satisfaction .42, job satisfaction
.44) and the delegative (supervisory satisfaction .44, job satisfac­
tion .37) styles, and these are foııowed by the consultative
(supervisory satisfaction .37, job satisfaction .36) and the directiye
(supervisory satisfaction .32, job satisfaction .25) styles. The
negotiative style (supervisory satisfaction .10, job satisfaction .ll)
does not have any strong connection with satisfaction. There is
a correlation (.64) between the two types of satisfaction. In addition,
there is a correlation between effectiveness and job satisfaction
(.51), and between effectiveness and supervisory satisfaction (.49).
As is known, the correlations between managerial styles and
effectiveness are smaIl; but it can be said that there is an indination
to consider the participative style both as the most effective style
and the one which gives the highest satisfaction. On the other
hand, the delegative style which is considered satisfying is not
considered very effective, and the directiye style which is con­
sidered effective is not considered very satisfying.
We will use the analysis of the groups above and below the
median to find the situations which affect the correlations. it was
observed while analyzing effectiveness that those who were be10w
63
the median (or above it) in the answers they gave to some of
the variables increased the tendeney to see all the managerial
styles as effective. We encounter with asimilar situation here too
As amatter of fact, interdependence influences the relationship
between the managerial styles and satisfaction in a manner
SilTIilar to its influence on the carrelatian between the mana­
gerial styles and effectiveness. Those who were above the median
from the point of view of this variable found all of the mana­
gerial style s except the negotiative one more highly correlated
with both the supervisory satisfaction and the job satisfaction. A
similar tendeney is observed with respect to the variables of clear
objectives and routineness.
When those below the median are studied, it is observed that
the variables which influence the carrelatian between the mana­
geri al styles and effectiveness again exert similar influences.
Those who hold the view that there is less order in the organi­
zation show the inclination to see a closer relationship between
the managerial styles and satisfaction. Such an influence is
observed on job satisfaction from the point of view of external
influenees, but on the other hand, an increase in external influences
increases supervisory satisfaction in the directive style. When we
eome to the variables of diseretionary opportunity and managerial
activity, those who are below the median for the consultative, par­
ticipative and delegative styles show a stronger tendeney to attribute
satisfaetion to these styles. In eonnection with the variable of comp­
lexity which those below the n1edian regard as a variable that
increases the effectiveness of the managerial styles, this situation is
observed in the direetive style , but then this tendeney is reversed
in the consultative, participative and delegative styles.
The same situation haıcıs also for the variables related to
attitudes. Just as those who are helow the median from the point
of introspeetiveness and assertiveness saw a higher carrelatian
between all of the managerial styles and effectiveness, so they saw a
higher carrelatian between all of the managerial styles and
satisfaction. Only, those who are above the median from the point
of view of the variable of assertiveness saw a closer relationship
beıween the delegative style and supervisory satisfact:on. it
is
alsa interesting that those who have authoritarian tendencies more
TABLE 3
Supervisory Satisfaction and Managerial Styles
DIrectlveSupervlsory
Satlsfactlon
Correlation
------AM
BM
Constraints
Clarity
Warmth
Order
External Influences
Intragroup Harmony
Interdependence
Commitment to the Group
Clear Objectives
Routineness
Discretİonary Opportunity
Complexity
Managedal Activity
Fairness
Assertiveness
Equalitari-anism
In trospectiveness
Boss Power
Subordinate Power
Boss Information
Subordinate Information
Long-Term Objectives
Structure
BM: below the Median
.36+
.29+
.34+
.39+
.28+
.38+
.16
.34+
.30+
.19
.32+
.38+
.34+
.32+
.45+
.39+
.48+
.39+
.43+
.42+
.41+
.46+
.53+
NegotlatlveSupervisory
Satisfactfon
CorreIation
BM
.07
.33+
.07
.40+
.18
.29+
.24+
.32+
.12
.43+
.21
.23+
.10
.53+
.10
.32+
.05
.36+
.46+ -.13
.12
.30+
.22+
.23+
.11
.36+
.ıs
.27+
.25+
.24+
.34+
.31+
.14
.16
.24+
.31+
.07
.20+
.19
.19
.15
.04
.15
.25+
.15
.14
+ within
ConsultativeSuperv1sory
Satisfaction
Correlatlon
--------
AM
BM
.14
.17
.04
-.02
.12
-.02
.35+
.43+
.44+
.38+
.36+
.34+
.19
.38+
.23+
.30+
.38+
.34+
.38+
.42+
.42+
.41+
.48+ .32+
.41+
.33+
.26+
.29+
.34+
.11
.10
.18
.29+
.07
-.10
.09
-.05
.03
.11
.00
-.00
-.02
-.09
.ıı
-.10
.07
AM
.41+
.34+
.29+
.34+
.41+
.35+
.61+
.37+
.41+
.44+
.30+ .41+
.38+
.27+
.36+
.36+
.27+
.43+
.26+
.36+
.46+
.46+
.42+
~
PartlcipatlveSupervisory
Satisfaction
Correlatlon
BM
.38+
.47+
.46+
.45+
.46+
.43+ .24+
.45+
.31+
.35+
.47+
.37+
.39+
.44+
.48+
.49+
.54+
.41+
.46+
.36+
.33+
.39+
.34+
AM
.50+
.37+
.36+
.38+
.40+
.32+
.63+
.41+
.45+
.50+
.24+
.49+
.47+
.35+
.37+
.41+
.30+
.42
.31+
.43+
.50+
.47+
.59+
5 010 significance AM: above the Median
DelegatlveSupervisory
Satlsfactlon
CorreIatlon
BM
.41+
.37+
.58+
.42+
.44+
.45+
.21+
.39+
.37+
.43+
.47+
.33+
.47+
.41+
.38+
.45+
.49+
.39+
.43+
.26+
.26+
.30+
.33+
AM
.49+
.52+
.28+
.46+
.45+ .32+
.70+
.48+
.43+
.46+ .31+
.59+
.41+
.43+
.50+
.45+ .39+
.48+
.36+
.56+
.64+
.58+
.54+
65
than demoeratic tendendes associate more c10sely the managerial
styles with satisfaetion.
To summarize, we observe that although the partidpative
and delegative styles are more c10sely associated with satisfaetion,
it is sonıe variables rather than managerial styles which are
important from the point of view of effeetiveness and satisfaetion.
When a task is sueeessfully eompleted, routine pieces of work
eonnected with each other influence both effectiveness and satisfac­
tion when this successful completion is c1early perceivable (c1ear
objectives). On the other hand, the low level of order in the orga­
nization, the low level of external influences, the lo\v level of
discretionary opportunities for the employees while the task is being
done, and the comparative simpleness of the duties inerease both
effectiveness and general satisfaetion. In addition, it is an interesting
finding that the deerease of warmth and trust in the organization
increases botheffectiveness and saticfaetion in the consultative,
participative and delegative styles.
From the point of vİew of attitudes as well, .employees who do
not show too much initiative and courage, whose tendendes are
more authoritarian than demoeratic, and who are not interested
too much in understanding the reasons behind actions have an
indination to perceive more strongly both effectiveness and general
satisfaction.
o-
TABLE 4
Job Satisfaction and Managerial Styles
Dlrective-job
Satisfaction
correlatlon
BM
Constraints
Clarity
Warmth
Order
External Influences
Intragroup Harmony
Interdependence
Commitment to the Group
Clear Objectives
Routinencss
Discretionary Opportunity
Complexity
Managerial Activity
Fairness
Assertiveness
Equalitarianism
Introspectiveness
Bass Power
Subordinate Power
Boss Information
Subordinate Information
J.ong-Term Objectives
Structure
BM: below the
AM
Negotiath'e-lob
Satlafactlon
corrrelation
BM
.13
.09
.40+
.02
.25+
.27+
.20
.21
.27+
.45+ -.00
.35+
.11
.36+
.23+
.08
.26+
.35+
.06
.12
.46+
.03
.23+
.32+
.11
.38+ -.00
.12
.41+ -.12
.14
.22+
.30+
.17
.11
.35+
.29+
.23+
.23+
.08
.09
.33+
.20
.19
.31+
.29+
.23+
.38+
.13
.35+
.26+
.08
.38+
.34+
.22+
.45+ -.20
.12
.23
.33+
.04
.32+ -.01
.08
.36+
.24+
.02
.17
.42+
Median
+
within 5 0At
AM
.14
.21
.38+
-.06
.07
-.01
.19
.18
.27+
.35+
-.08
-.00
-.04
.03
.05
-.04
-.03
-.16
-.04
-.15
.07
-.09
.02
eonsuıtative·job
Sat1sfacdon
correlation
BM
.35+
.36+
.43+
.44+
.47+
.37+
.17
.31+
.18
.27+
.47+
.28+
.49+
.21
.44+
.52+
.47+
.42+
.41+
.29+
.26+
.33+
.38+
AM
.39+
.38+
.26+
.26+
.26+
.23+
.62+
.38+
.41+
.46+
.09
.43+
.21+
.43+
.29+
.22+
.26+
.30+
.26+
.35+
.41+
.39+
.33+
o­
P8rticipatlve-.Job
Satlsfaction
correlation
BM
.47+
.49+
.50+
.52+
.54+
.46+
.29+
.42+
.32+
.41+
.57+
.35+
.53+
.36+
.54+
.59+
.51+
.53+
.42+
.37+
.38+
.48+
.44+
AM
.42+
.38+
.23+
.34+
.34+
.32+
.61+
.43+
.45+
.46+
.11
.52+
.34+
.45+
.35+
.30+
.37+
.34+
.45+
.42+
.43+
.40+
.43+
s1gnificance AM: above the Median
DelegatJve·job
Satlsfactlon
correlatlon
BM
.44+
.32+
.44+
.43+
.40+
.39+
.20+
.22+
.22+
.30+
.44+
.25+
.46+
.28+
.36+
.49+
.39+
.46+
.31+
.22
.22+
.32+
.40+
AM
.30+
.42+
.23+
.31+
.36+
.23+
.57+
.45+
.42+
.44+
.14
.48+
.25+
.40+
.38+
.25+
.35+
.28+
.42+
.44+
.51+
.41+
.34+
67
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M., A systems survey research feedback for manegement and
organizational development,» Journal of AppIied Behavioral Science
12, 1976, 215-222.
Bass, B. M., G. V. Barrett, Man, work and organization: An introduction
to industrial and organizational psychology. Boston: AIlyn and Ba­
con, 1972.
Fiedler, F. E., A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw­
Hill, 1967.
Fiedler, F. E., M. M. Chemers, Leadership and effective management. Scott,
Foresman and Co., 1974.
House, R. J., «A path goal theory of leader effectiveness,» Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, 1971, 321-338.
McGregor, D.. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960. (Örgütün insan ilişkileri, trans. into Turkish by D. Energin,
Middle East Technical University, 1970.)
Matsw, T., T. Osawa, T. Terai, «Relatlons between supervisory motivation
and the consideration and structure aspects of supervisory behevior»,
Journal of Applied PsychOlogy, 60, 1975, 451454.
Osborn, R. N., J. G. Htmt, «Relations between Icadership, size, and subor­
dinate s·atisfaction in a voluntary organization,» Journal of AppIied
Psychology, 60, 1975, 730-735.
Pelz, D., «Leadership within a hierarchical organization,» A. H. Rubenstein,
C. 1. Haberstroh, eds., Some Theorles of Organization. lrwin-Dorsey,
1960, 203-209.
Stumpf, S. A., D. E. Zand, R. D. Frecdman, «Designing groups for judg.
mental decisions,» Academy of Management Review, 4, 1979, 589-600.
Vroom, V. H., P. \"1. Yetton, Leadership and decision-maklng. University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
Vroom, V. H., A. G. J·ago, «On the validity of the Vroom.Yettol1 model»
Journal of AppIied Psychology, 63, 1978, 151-162.