CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The present organizational culture around the world takes into account a proper combination
of leadership and management. Success of an organization is dependant on effective means
of leadership. The interdependence of leadership and management in an organization forms
the primary footstep for the successful running of an organization. Thus it can be implied
that ineffective leadership behaviors may result in managerial inaccuracies. A successful
leader adapts motivational approaches and guides his subordinates to put their 100% and
for achieving the ultimate objectives of the organization. The famous leader Napoleon
expressed his feelings about leadership in his remark that he would rather have an army
of rabbits led by a lion than an army of lions led by a rabbit .
Whenever leadership behavior has been studied in a business perspective it has been
linked with employee job satisfaction. Effective leadership behaviors is often seen to yield
high levels of job satisfaction. Various studies by researchers reported that the supervisor’s
favorable attitude towards the employees has contributed to satisfaction of employees. The
great - man theories
led
to the
search for traits of leadership
and theories of
traits.(Bass, 1981; Stodgill, 1974).As the previous researchers failed to come up with
universal traits of leader behavior that are effective in all situations , they continued
with their research on situational factors that affect leadership effectiveness. As there
is no specific leader behavior which works in all kinds of situations
the managers
needs to apply the most suitable kind of behavior in a particular situation. This kind
of situational theories of leadership had the influence of situational variables on the
relationship between leader behavior and the end result variable.
Robert House (1974), further enhanced the findings of Martin Evans and has proposed
a situational theory of leadership (SLM) - Path Goal Theory. This theory was quite
different from Fiedler’s contingency Theory which was based on Least Preferred Coworkers (LPC ), whereas Path Goal Theory focused on the situations under which leader
behaviors are the most effective . The theory hypothesized that leadership effectiveness
is a function of the leader , the subordinate and the situation. The Path Goal Theory not
only specifies the leader behaviors that are effective in a given situation it also
provides an explanation of why those behaviors are effective .
My study will concentrate on a specific holding company namely Coal India Ltd.
(CIL) which is wholly owned by the Government of India through the Department of Coal
1
and Ministry of Mines and Minerals . CIL is responsible for 88 % coal output in India.
India is the 3 rd largest coal producing country in the world . In terms of hard coal
production Coal India Ltd. , is the single largest company in the world employing
436,000 manpower
with its head quarters in Kolkata. Coal India
has 471 mines
among which 273 are underground, 163 opencast and 35 mixed mines. CIL further
operates 17 coal washers. CIL aims towards
being the domestic leader and a leading
global player in the energy sector by adopting best practices from mine to market. Coal
India Ltd has been conferred Navaratna ( Navaratna was the title given originally to
nine Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) identified by the Government of India in 1997 as
"public sector companies that have comparative advantages", giving them greater autonomy
to compete in the global market so as to "support them in their drive to become global
giants) for speedy project implementation.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the present corporate world, it is confusing for managers to decide which leadership
style yields the greatest outcomes . There is a lack of empirical research conducted on the
Path Goal Theory in the business related filed ( in India ). Thus this study is aimed at
exploring the applications of the Path Goal Theory to a Public Sector firm in India
namely Coal India Limited
1.3 RATIONALE FOR USING PATH GOAL THEORY
The Path Goal Theory
forms the most important model of job motivation which
organizes and summarizes data on a large number of relationships between variables.
The reasons for this particular theory stem mainly from the disadvantages of other
theories mentioned in Chapter 2. This theory not only points out the leader behaviors
that are the most effective in a given situation but this theory also provides us an
with an insight about why those behaviors are effective in a given situation .
In India
there has been several researches and studies conducted to find out the
application of other behavioral and contingency theories of leadership, but very few
researchers have done so with the Path Goal Theory . It is expected that this study will
give a more adequate explanation of leadership styles that are appropriate in the Indian
context.
2
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study
aims to address the questions posed by the Path Goal Theory . The
questions are as follows :a)Is there any relationship between the leader behaviors and employee job satisfaction
in Coal India Ltd. under dissimilar environmental factors?
b) Does employee job satisfaction in Coal India Ltd . vary according to subordinate
characteristics and environmental factors ?
c) What styles of leadership are matched well with employee job satisfaction in Coal
India Ltd?
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study are as follows
1) To examine how leadership styles affects the employees job satisfaction as per the
Path Goal Theory.
2) To examine the effectiveness of certain leadership behaviors in certain specific
situations .
1.6 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
The variables which can be controlled and manipulated according to individuals wish
are Independent Variables. Behavior , strategies and leadership skills are examples of
independent variables .In this study the independent variables are the leadership styles as
identified in House’s path goal theory. The Independent Variables
comprises
of
a) Directive b) Supportive c) Participative d) Achievement - Oriented
Intervening Variables moderates the
relationship between the independent variables
(leadership style) and dependent variables( outcomes). The intervening variables in this
study are environmental factors and subordinate
factors comprises of
characteristics .The environmental
a)Task structure b)Formal authority system c)Work
Group. The
subordinate factors includes a)Locus of control b)Experience c) Perceived Ability
Dependent Variables are the outputs which reflects the achievement of an organization.
The dependent variable measured in this study is employee job satisfaction as measured
by a questionnaire which was developed for the purpose of this study .
3
The target respondents in this
research are
Indian nationals
who are employees of
Coal India Ltd. The area of the research is the headquarters of Coal India Ltd. Located
in Kolkata ( Apeejay House ).
1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
The results of this research would be beneficial for the Public Sector Undertaking (PSU)
firm namely Coal India Ltd.. These study will justify the importance of leadership in the
government organizations of India in order to achieve a effective coordination among
employees and maintain a improvised work culture. This study will also help the
further researchers on this field to come up with more effective ideas of leadership
applicable in a country like India .This study will itself help the above mentioned PSU
firm to have a overview of their present work culture and ways to improve it.
1.8 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
In terms of providing a quick reference to the reader, the most important terms related
to the study are identified and defined .
The leader behaviors which forms a part of
Path Goal Theory
are explained as
follows :
a) Directive Leader Behavior :- Directive leader behaviors are those
which a leader
behaviors
utilizes in order to guide its subordinates , they maintain
performance standards , schedule works . A directive leader lets subordinate
know what is being expected of them .
b) Supportive Leader Behavior :- Supportive leaders are friendly, approachable and
they are concerned about the well being and the needs of the subordinates
.This kind of behavior considers all the subordinates as equals .
c) Achievement oriented Leader Behavior :- In this kind of behaviors the leader
sets challenging goals for the subordinates. An achievement oriented leader
expects their subordinates to perform at their highest levels , continuously
seeking improvement in the subordinate performance and demonstrates a high
level of confidence .
d) Participative
Leader
Behavior :- Participative
leaders
consult
with their
subordinates about the work related matters and also consider their opinions .
Some more terms related to the study are defined below
4
1) Locus of Control:- Locus of control is a term which refers to a person's belief about
what causes the good or bad results in his life.
2) Task Structure :- House and Dessler (1974) defined task structure as the degree
to which a task ,job , work assignment ,execution of rules and or procedures is
simple, repetitive and unambiguous .
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview on the related theories relating
to leadership .This chapter brings into context the theories which have been
propounded on leadership.
2.1 LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Over the past years several considerable theoretical and empirical work has
been
conducted on leadership .In the modern organizational scenario the question of
appropriate leadership paradigms and behaviors has received considerable attention from
both researchers and managers. Leadership forms the key element in the present running
of an organization. Leadership is one of the key element in the functioning of any
organization . Both
success or failure
of an organization is often attributed by the
quality of leadership .
There have been many ways to approach the study of leadership as evidenced by
research of (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989; House, 1971; Fiedler, 1967) .In order to better
understand House’s Path Goal Theory and its implication we have to look behind at
the previous propounded theories . In order to get a clear picture of leadership we will
also have to take a look on the contributions of the Great Man and Trait theories, the
behavioral theories , the contingency theories, the situational theories ,attribution theories,
charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, transaction
theory, and
servant
leadership .
In this chapter , leadership theories will be categorized into 4 broad parameters :a) Great Man and Trait theories
b) Behavioral Theories
c) Contingency Theories
d) Situational Theories
6
2.2 GREAT MAN and TRAIT THEORIES
The preliminary stages of explaining and directing leadership started with Great Man
and Trait Theories , this was popular in the earlier years of the 19 th century.
Generally the researchers during this period believed that
great man
had born
leadership skills, leaders are born not made (Stodgill, 1974).
2.2.1 The Great-Man Theories
Based on the belief that leaders are exceptional people, born with innate qualities, destined to
lead. Stodgill (1974 )stated that the great man theories of leadership
explained
leadership on the basis of inheritance It was believed that history was based upon
leadership of great man (Bass, 1990). Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle declared, “The
history of the world is but the biography of great men.” Carlyle argued that heroes shape
history through the vision of their intellect, the beauty of their art, the prowess of their
leadership, and, most important, their divinity . According to James, the history of the
world is influenced by the effort of great men since they created and achieved what
the masses could not .
Bass (1990) has given some examples of great man based on the great man theory.
Moses, because he led the Jews out of Egypt . Martin Luther King, who inspired the
civil rights movements among the African Americans. Many consider Pope John Paul
II, leader of Roman Catholic Church , a “great man ”.
The researchers began to search for a set of common personality traits among leaders
which led to establishment of the trait leadership theories .
2.2.2 The Trait Theories
Nearly similar to the great-man theory ,the trait theories proclaimed that certain inborn
qualities make a person a leader . They accounted for the point that if researchers
could develop a way to identify and measure those inborn leadership qualities, the
organizations would be able to distinguish between leaders and non leaders (Hersey and
Blanchard, 1988). The lists of traits or qualities associated with leadership exist in abundance
and continue to be produced. They draw on virtually all the adjectives in the dictionary which
describe some positive or virtuous human attribute, from ambition to zest for life. It was
believed that through this approach critical leadership traits could be isolated and that people
with such traits could then be recruited, selected, and installed into leadership positions.
7
Although there was little consistency in the results of the various trait studies, some traits did
appear more frequently than others, including: technical skill, friendliness, task motivation,
application to task, group task supportiveness, social skill, emotional control, administrative
skill, general charisma, and intelligence.
Table 2.1 ,
The table lists the main leadership traits and skills identified by Stogdill in 1974.
TRAITS
SKILLS
- Adaptable to situations
Clever (intelligent)
- Alert to social environment
- Conceptually skilled
- Ambitious and achievement-orientated
- Creative
- Assertive
- Diplomatic and tactful
- Cooperative
- Fluent in speaking
- Decisive
- Knowledgeable about group task
- Dependable
- Organised (administrative ability)
- Dominant (desire to influence others)
- Persuasive
- Energetic (high activity level)
- Socially skilled
- Persistent
- Self-confident
- Tolerant of stress
- Willing to assume responsibility
Source :
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/trait_theory.html, 12th May 2011
2.3 BEHAVIORAL THEORIES
As the results of the trait theories were not accurate, researchers tried to look for
something more concrete . Unlike the trait theory which said that leaders are born and
not made , the behavioral theories said that Leadership behaviors can be taught .The
major theories which were of high significance were the Ohio State Studies , the
Michigan Studies , the Managerial grid and Mc Gregor’s Theory X and Theory Y.
8
2.3.1 The Ohio State Studies
In 1945 , Shartle with the Bureau of Business Research
at Ohio State University
(Bowers and Seashore, 1966) organized the Ohio State Leadership Studies . This study
was made to study the behavior of leaders as opposed to traits .In order to collect
relevant data to leaders 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 aspects of leadership that describe how
leaders carry out their role.
Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared.
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. Relating to this two separate dimensions of
leadership(initiating structure
and
consideration)
was
plotted by
the
Ohio State
University Researchers on a two dimensional grid . The grid had four quadrants
reflecting low and high measures (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988 )
Fig 2.1 Ohio Model
9
The researchers hypothesized that the most effective leadership style was both high in
consideration and high in initiating structure .However because of inconsistent findings,
Hunt and Leibscher (1973) concluded that there were a number of expectations to the
hypothesis that a high consideration and high initiating structure leadership style is the
best. They theorized that the appropriate leadership style may be a function of the
individual and the situation .
2.3.2 The Michigan Studies
The Michigan leadership studies were conducted at the same time with the Ohio study. It
was directed by Rensis Likert, the Michigan studies focused on determining the principles
and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies had an
outcome of 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.
Fig 2.2 : Michigan Studies
Source: http://e2entity.tripod.com, 13th May 2011
Two styles of leader behavior were brought into context by The University of Michigan
studies (Rensis Likert) .
a)
Production centered behavior: when a leader pays close attention to the work of subordinates, explains work procedures, and is keenly interested in performance.
10
b)
Employee centered behavior: when the leader is interested in developing a cohesive
work group and in ensuring employees are satisfied with their jobs.
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
2.3.3 The Managerial Grid
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed the Managerial Grid and it focused on task
(production) and employee (people) orientations of managers, as well as combinations of
concerns between the two extremes. A grid with concern for production on the horizontal
axis and concern for people on the vertical axis and plots five basic leadership styles. The
researchers hypothesized that a leaders basic orientation would be one of the five basic
styles (Barrow, 1977). These included : Impoverished(low task and relationship behaviors),
Country Club(low task and high relationship behaviors),Middle of the Road (medium task
and relationship behaviors ) and TEAM (high task and relationship behaviors). Blake and
Mouton hypothesized that the Team approach was the most effective leadership style
(Schriesheim and Neider, 1988) .
Fig 2.3 : The Managerial Grid
Source : http://www.coachingcosmos.com/ , 16th May 2011
11
2.4 Contingency Theory ( Fiedler’s Contingency Model Of Leader Effectiveness)
The first and the most useful contingency theory was developed by Fred Fiedler (1967).
The models designed by him was effective in determining the exact conditions under
which different leadership traits or leadership behaviors would be effective (Jago, 1982).
Fiedler came up with two distinctive leadership styles in his research which are task
oriented and relationship oriented .Fiedler believed that effective organizational outcomes
are determined by situation .Fiedler’s contingency model stated that an individuals
personality and his/her leadership style is fixed (Fiedler, 1967) and therefore a leader’s
basic orientation is either task or relationship .
Within the framework of contingency theory, leadership styles are described as
task motivated or relationship motivated . Task motivated leaders are concerned primarily
with reaching a goal ,whereas relationship motivated leaders are concerned with developing
close interpersonal relationships . To measure leader styles ,Fiedler developed the Least
Preferred Co worker (LPC) scale .Leaders who score high on this scale are described as
relationship oriented and the leaders who score low on this scale are described as task
oriented .
A measurement process called Assumed Similarity Opposites (ASO) was designed by
Fiedler in order to determine one’s basic leadership style .This process was later
termed as Least Preferred Coworkers(LPC) . A leader having a high LPC score
( described co workers in favorable terms ) tended to be relationship oriented , a leader
having low LPC score ( described co workers in unfavorable terms ) tended to be task
oriented . Contingency theory has many applications in the organizational world . It can
be used to answer a series of questions about leadership of individuals in various types of
organization. For example, it can be used to explain why a person is ineffective in a
particular position even thought the person is a conscientious , loyal and hard working
manager . Furthermore ,contingency theories can point to changes that upper management
might like to make in a lower level position in order to guarantee a good fit between an
existing manager and a particular work context.
Fiedler looked at three situations that could define the condition of a managerial task:
1. Leader member relations: How well do the manager and the employees get along?
2. Task structure: Is the job highly structured, fairly unstructured, or somewhere in
between?
3. Position power: How much authority does the manager possess?
12
Fiedler’s research found that in situations of very favorable or unfavorable for the
leader ,the task oriented leadership style was most effective whereas in situations of
intermediate favorableness, the relationship related leadership was the most perfect. The
figure of this relationship is shown below .
Fig 2.4 :FIEDLERS CONTINGENCY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP
Source: http://leadershipcenter.tistory.com , 21st May 2011
2.5 SITUATIONAL THEORIES
This theories emphasizes on the situational views of leadership ( Hersey and Blanchard,
1988). The models under these theories assumes that effective leadership is moderated
by the situation . These theories tried to resolve some of the contradictions
inconsistencies of
and
behavioral theories . Some of the situational leadership models
are explained below .
2.5.1 Vroom and Yetton’s Leadership -Participation Model
Vroom and Yetton hypothesized that effective decision are functions of (1) the quality
or the rational nature of the decision , (2)the acceptance of the decision on the part of
the employees to implement the decision effectively, (3) the time required to make the
decision .Vroom and Yetton assume that managers can vary their style from situation
to situation.
13
Fig 2.5 : Vroom and Yetton’s Model Of Leadership
Leader’s trait
or
predisposition
Choice of
behavior
Outcomes
Situation 1
Situation 2
Source: Buchanan and Huczynski (1977)
Vroom and Jago (1988) has reviewed the model for the past few years and the research
on this model was mostly supportive .However
better than the others . Two
some decision rules were supported
main weaknesses about the model
concerns only a part of leadership
are just that it
and it has a very simplified decision making
process . The above model has also been criticized for its assumption that
many
leaders have the competencies to use the specified decision making procedures ( Crouch
and Yetton , 1987 ; Yukl, 1989).
2.5.2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model
The Hersey-Blanchard Leadership Model also takes a situational perspective of leadership.
According to this model, the developmental levels of a leader's subordinates plays an
important role to determine which leadership styles (leader behaviors) are most appropriate.
Their theory is based on the amount of direction (task behavior) and socio-emotional support
(relationship behavior) a leader must provide given the situation and the "level of maturity"
of the followers.
• Task behavior is the extent to which the leader directs the duties and responsibilities to an
individual or group. This behavior includes telling people what to do, how to do it, when to
do it, where to do it, and who's to do it. The leader engages in one way communication.
14
• Relationship behavior is the extent to which the leader engages in two-way or multi-way
communications. This includes listening, facilitating, and supportive behaviors. In
relationship behavior the leader engages in two-way communication by providing socioemotional support.
• Maturity is the willingness and ability of a person to take responsibility for directing his or
her own behavior. People tend to have varying degrees of maturity, depending on the
specific task, function, or objective that a leader is attempting to accomplish through their
efforts.
Fig 2.6 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model
Source : http://dhtw.tce.rmit.edu.au/MPMwebs/Lachlan/BIBLIOG.htm , 21st May 2011
2.5.3 ROBERT HOUSE’S PATH –GOAL THEORY
Robert House developed a popular situational theory named Path-Goal theory and
this theory explained how the behavior of a leader influences the satisfaction and
performance of subordinates. This theory has been later refined by various writers
( Evans, 1974; Fulk and Wendler, 1982; House and Dessler, 1974; House and Mitchell,
1974; Stintson and Johnson, 1975) According to House’s path-goal theory, a leader’s
effectiveness depends on several employee and environmental contingent factors and certain
leadership styles.
15
Leadership Styles
The four leadership styles are:

Directive: Here the leader provides guidelines, lets subordinates know what is
expected of them, sets performance standards for them, and controls behavior when
performance standards are not met. He/she makes judicious use of rewards and
disciplinary action. The style is the same as task-oriented one.

Supportive: The leader is friendly towards subordinates and displays personal
concern for their needs, welfare, and well-being. This style is the same as peopleoriented leadership.

Participative: The leader believes in group decision-making and shares information
with subordinates. He/she consults his/her subordinates on important decisions related
to work, task goals, and paths to resolve goals.

Achievement-oriented: The leader sets challenging goals and encourages employees
to reach their peak performance. The leader believes that employees are responsible
enough to accomplish challenging goals. This is the same as goal-setting theory.
Fig 2.7 : ROBERT HOUSE’S PATH-GOAL MODEL
Source : http://gmx.xmu.edu.cn/ews/business/management/chapter17.htm, 23rd May 2011
The Path Goal Model
The above mentioned model is based on the assumption that the leader behaviors
influence subordinate performance and satisfaction, but that the
effects of the
leader behavior are moderated by the subordinate and task characteristics Leadership
effectiveness is a function of the leader , the subordinate and the situation.
16
Previously in the initial version of this theory only two leader behaviors existed,
supportive leadership and directive leadership. Two other were added in the version
by House and Mitchell (1974) .
The situational
variables ( intervening variables ) form an important concern of
this study which are 1) environmental factors, such as task structure , formal
authority system and work groups norms and relations 2) Subordinate characteristics
such as
ability and skills ,locus of control and
needs and motivation . The
importance of these factors is that they determine which leader behavior will be
effective under a specific situation and which behavior will not .
Environmental Contingency Factors
As a contingency theory Path-Goal theory states that the four leadership styles will be
effective in the same situation but not in the others . The environmental factors which
forms the intervening variables are as follows :
a) Task Structure :- The evaluation of task structure involves the analyzing of the
elements and identifying the nature of the task an employee is responsible for. The
employer must look for any possible difficulties this task poses for the employee as
well as the nature of what the task calls for. The employer then reconfigures the task
to best suit the employee's strengths. This serves to both motivate the employee and
actualize his potential.
b) Formal Authority System :- This environmental force concerns matters such as
emphasis on rules, regulation and policies ,situations of high stress and situation of
high uncertainty. Previous researches suggests that directive and the supportive
leadership serves as the best in stressful situation
whereas in situation of high
uncertainty a participatory leadership style is more applicable .
c) Work Group :- The features of the work groups can influence the subordinates
acceptance of
a particular leadership style . Cohesive teams with performance
oriented norms act as a substitute for most leader interventions . High team
cohesiveness substitutes for supportive leadership , whereas performance oriented
team norms substitute for directive or achievement oriented leadership. Thus when
cohesiveness is low leaders should use supportive style.
17
Subordinate Contingency Factors
The subordinate factors also forms the intervening variables in the Path goal model
of leadership. The three subordinate characteristics are as follows
a) Locus Of Control :- The locus of control is defined as the way the employee sees
his/her responsibility towards his activities. People with internal locus of control
believe that they have control over the work environment and therefore these
people prefer participative and achievement- oriented leadership styles . On the other
hand people with external locus of control feels that their performance is due more to
luck and fate , so they tend to be more specified with directive and supportive
leadership.
b) Perceived
Ability :- One
of
the most important
personal characteristic of
subordinates is their perception to perform a particular task . People who feels that
they have low task ability appreciates directive leadership , whereas the subordinates
who feel that that they are capable of performing their own task considers
directive leadership as unnecessary .
c) Experience :- A combination of directive and supportive leadership is the best for
the
employees who
perceives themselves to be less experienced . Directive
leadership informs subordinates about of the accomplishment of the task ,whereas
supportive helps them cope with the uncertainties of unfamiliar work situation.
Studies and previous research on Path Goal Theory :
Although the Path Goal Theory is a recent study on leadership a large number of
research efforts have been made with respect to supportive , directive , participative
and
achievement- oriented
determining the
relationship
leadership . The
previous
between directive and
research concentrated on
supportive
leadership
and
subordinate behavior for variety of tasks . The outcome says that directive leader
behavior is more effective than supportive behavior for subordinates working on
unstructured tasks and supportive leadership behavior results in high employee
satisfaction when subordinate are performing structured tasks . Many researches have
been conducted to judge the Path Goal Theory and they have yielded various results .
Evans (1986) came to the conclusion that few studies support some aspects of the
theory . In the majority of the studies it was found that the directive leader behavior
18
increases subordinate satisfaction for unstructured tasks and not for structured tasks.
The hypothesis which stated that supportive behavior increases role clarity and
performance for unstructured tasks but not for structured tasks was also supported .
There are not enough studies conducted to
test the hypothesis about participative
leadership and achievement oriented leadership. Path Goal Theory is useful for
demonstrating two points . Firstly ,as noted by Yuki (1989) , “ Path goal theory has
already made a contribution to the study of leadership by providing a conceptual
framework to guide the researchers in identifying potentially relevant situational
moderator variables” (p. 257). Secondly it also demonstrates that as model becomes
more complicated they
may be more useful to researchers and less
appealing to
practitioners. Since 1960 , the path goal theory has stimulated numerous empirical field
studies , among these studies most of them concentrates on the moderators of the
effect of leader structuring and consideration . A few studies have tested the theory’s
predictions concerning the moderators of participative leader e.g. Schuler (1976). The
attractive features of the theory are (1) it builds on a well established and widely
accepted model of job motivation (expectancy theory), (2)it provides a way to organize
data on a large number of relationships between variable
19
Table 2.2 : Effective Leadership Styles under certain conditions
Sample
Situational Directive
Supportive
Achievement Participative
characteristics
TASK
Structured
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unstructured
Yes
No
Yes
No
Clear Goals
No
Yes
No
Yes
Ambiguous Goals
Yes
No
Yes
No
Skilled in task
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unskilled in task
Yes
No
Yes
No
High achievement needs
No
No
Yes
No
High social needs
No
Yes
No
Yes
Extensive
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Strong social network
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Experienced in collaboration
No
No
No
Yes
Supports participation
No
No
No
Yes
Achievement oriented
No
No
Yes
No
SUBORDINATES
FORMAL AUTHORITY
WORK GROUP
ORGANIZATIONALCULTURE
Source : Northcraft and Neale, 1994.
20
Comparison Of Situational Leadership Models
Table 2.3: Comparison of Major Situational Leadership Model
Model
Leader Behaviors
Situational
Outcomes
Level
Variables
Empirical
Support
Fiedler’s
Task
Contingency
LPC)
oriented
(low Leader-member
Performance
Mixed
relations
Model
Relationship Oriented Task structure
(high LPC)
Position power
Path
Goal Directive Supportive Task
Theory
Participative
Subordinate
Motivation
Achievement oriented
characteristics
Performance
Hersey-
Concern for
Blanchard
Concern for task
Vroom
Structure Satisfaction
people Subordinate
Good
Effectiveness
Limited
maturity
–
Quality
Yetton
of Good
decision
Acceptance
of
decision
by
subordinates
Vertical Dyad Differential treatment Subordinate
Satisfaction
Linkage
competence
Performance
Subordinate
Turnover
of subordinates
Good
loyalty
Source: Vecchio, 1995
The major situational models of leadership have many similarities and differences as
mentioned in Table 2.2. The similarities takes into account a general focus on leader
behavior as
being primarily oriented toward either task accomplishment or
social
supportiveness. Although the models categorize that leaders are different in their behavior
and that a leader can make a difference in unit of outcomes, the situational theories of
21
of
leadership provide a base on which leadership behaviors as moderated by the situational
variables generate greater organizational outcomes The situational approach of leadership
will be treated as one of the most important in the direction of future leadership
research .
2.6 JOB PERFORMANCE
Performance is defined as “ the record of outcomes produced on a specified job function or
activity during a specified time period. Performance on the job as a whole would be equal to
the sum (or average) of the performance on the critical or essential job functions” . Job
performance is such a measurement which helps in determining an individual’s attributes
such as ability and experience . There are a wide range of terms used to express
performance as output relating to accountabilities , key result areas ,duties ,tasks and
activities , objectives , goals , target. Performance concerns those behaviors which are
directed towards the organization’s mission and goals , or the products and services resulting
from those behaviors . Performance is
different
from effectiveness
and involves in
making judgments about the adequacy of the behavior with respect to some specific
criteria such as work group or organizational goals . Effectiveness is more concerned with
the result of the performance and it depends not only on employee’s ability ,knowledge &
willingness to perform but also on the resources available to the employee & the co
operation of the others in the organization .
According to Wright and Noe (1995) job performance is defined as , “ behaviors that are
relevant to the organization’s goals and can be measured in terms of individual’s proficiency
or level of contribution ” (p . 199) .This definition concludes that performance describes
what people do or their behaviors but not the results of those actions . Job performance
can be mentioned as the quantity of task accomplishments by an individual or group at
work . It is the cornerstone of productivity and it should contribute to the accomplishment
of organizational objectives. Job performance is also defined as the extent to which an
organizational member contributes in achieving the goal of the organization (Gary, 1983).
22
2.6.1 Relationship of Leadership Style & Job Performance
House (1971) symbolized that a leader’s job in
assisting subordinates in attaining their
goals is through the application of four leadership styles. The most effective styles are
accepted by the subordinates and are matched with the contingency variables ,which are
environment and subordinate characteristics .
According to Evans (1996), leaders might use 360 degree feedback system for developing
performance . Participative system is used to develop input from work associates to
supervisors ,accountability for judgments by comparison with others ,consensus scored with
intelligence to remove obviously invalid responses, coaching emphasized by supervisor,
private performance judgments , emphasis on both individual and group performance,
standardized , uniform evaluation, safeguard for fairness and equity, efficient time and
resource requirements .
Evans (1996) also found leaders of the best – performing employees defined their jobs in
terms of identifying and constantly communicating commonly held values ,shaping such
values to enhance performance ,thus ensuring the capability of people around them .
2.6.2 Factors Affecting Job Performance
Belcher (1974) stated that almost all organizations require different performance on same
jobs , very few organizations require the same performance on all jobs . Therefore it can be
assumed that differential performance should be rewarded
separately from the job
assignment . In order to sustain employee satisfaction in the work place ,the organization
must set the performance standards for certain jobs which include two major factors , firstly
organization and employees both should know what kind of performance is required during
jobs and secondly the organization must be able to distinguish between job related and
personal contributions .
According to Lussier (1990), the way of using leadership styles can affect the performance
of the employees . He opined that there are different styles of leadership and the styles
affecting the leader behavior and hence such behavior will influence the people at the work
place . A supervisor can improve the employees performance by focusing attention on the
achievement of assigned duties relating the findings and future needs of the organization.
23
Although leadership is arbitrated by intervening variables, it has a causal impact on the
performance .Though it is difficult to state the direct relationship between performance and
leadership because of the number of variables . From many studies it can be identified that
leadership can make a difference in performance and cause both a positive and negative
impact on other’s performance . Sherman et al (1992) stated that there are some relationship
between an individual personal characteristics and performance such as marital problem,
family problem ,financial constraints and lack of family support . However performance
cannot only rely upon the analysis of one’s personal characteristics , it is rather on an
interplay between the person’s quality and traits .These statements can be supported by
(Graham, 1998) who states that the best way to have motivated employees is by
employing motivated people.
Szilagyi and Wallace (1980) stated that the reward system serves to motivate the
performance, reduce absenteeism. They have described how the reward system influences
the employees within an organization, reward system will provide individual satisfaction,
then satisfaction can influence a person to be motivated which will in turn cause a certain
individual behavior & finally the behavior will create the performance outcome that will
result in a person’s reward through the performance .
2.7 JOB SATISFACTION
Job satisfaction is defined as employee’s affective orientation towards his or her work
(Price, 2001). In other words it is an affective reaction to a job that results from the
comparison of perceived outcomes with those that are desired. Job satisfaction describes the
feelings, attitudes or preferences of individuals regarding work. It can also be explained as
the degree to which employees enjoy their jobs . And also, it is possible to see a number of
theories developed to understand its nature in literature. According to Vroom (1964) job
satisfaction is negatively related to the discrepancy between individual needs and the extent
to which the job supplies these needs. On the other hand, Porter and Lawler (1968) collected
the influences on job satisfaction in two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors.
According to them, internal satisfactory factors are related to the work itself (such as feeling
of independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling of control
and other similar feeling obtained from work), whereas external satisfactory factors are not
directly related to work itself (such as good relationships with colleagues, high salary, good
24
welfare and utilities). So, the influences on job satisfaction can be also divided into workrelated and employee-related factors .
House and Filley (1971) has empirically tested the contingency theory of leadership based
on the prior research findings of Evans (1970) who mentioned that the effective leader
motivates employee to achieve the goal through reward and making clear employee’s path to
the organization’s objectives which increase both employee satisfaction and organization’s
productivity. Among determinants of job satisfaction, leadership is viewed as an important
predictor and plays a central role. In many of the previous studies
it is clearly portrayed
that leadership behavior is positively related to employee job. In many other studies it was
concluded that there is an existence of negative relationship between leadership behavior
and job satisfaction .
2.8 PREVIOUS STUDIES
The relationship between leadership style and job performance in Man A Frozen foods
company : An application of Path- goal theory by Dangsurisri ( 2003)
This research aimed at studying the relationship between Leadership styles and Job
performance of employees in Man A Frozen Foods company . The research studied the
extent to which leadership styles , situational characteristics and subordinate demographic
profiles are related to work performance . The study surveyed all 221 staffs in Man A
Frozen Foods Company. The instrument
questionnaire . The findings
used to gather data for the
study was a
of this study showed that directive style of leadership was
ranked the highest according to the perception of respondents followed by the achievement
oriented . In terms of the situational characteristics, the respondents perceived that the most
important was the task structure .
The findings also indicated that although the nature of the tasks was routine , the leadership
style employed most often was directive . The leaders in the firm wanted their subordinates to
reach high levels of performance . The findings in this study also explained the high average
rates of turnover in the firm during the past three years . The study has recommended
higher levels of participative and supportive leadership styles
and more emphasis was
recommended to match the levels of work complexity with the subordinate characteristics.
25
The relationship between the perceived leadership styles and employee job satisfaction
in Thai manufacturing companies : an application of the Path - goal theory
by
Techawichian (2000)
This study was aimed at examining the effect of leadership styles on employees job
satisfaction under different situations according to the House’s Path- Goal Theory and also
to investigate why certain behaviors were more effective than others .This research was
conducted in 4 Thai manufacturing companies . The sample size for the study was 400 .
The research instrument used for the study was a questionnaire. The surveys asked the
employees about their superior’s leadership style, the environmental factors (task structure,
authority system and work group) and their demographic data .
The findings of the study concluded that the employees had a high level of job satisfaction
with the directive leadership style. The study also found that the each leadership style were
not mutually exclusive. This suggested that the managers have to adopt their leadership styles
according to the different situations. This findings of this study portrayed that the satisfaction
of the co workers was the first priority followed by the work itself, supervisor and pay . In
each test of the hypotheses , the coefficient correlation was used at a significant level of 95
percent . This study concluded that there was a significant relation between perceived
leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction.
The study of Leadership Style in relation to employees job performance : A study of
industrial chemical companies in Bangkok by Rojkhajonnaphalai (1999).
The objective of the thesis was to serve as a guide in the implementation of management in
relation to the leadership style and employee job performance in the industrial trading
companies in Thailand . This research was aimed at examining the relationship between
leadership style and employee job performance . The sample size for this study was 394
and the research instrument used for the survey was a questionnaire . The research
emphasized on the quality of the work ; accepting responsibilities and initiating actions
were the two elements that were highly acknowledged as means or the representation of
their effective job performance . Achievement oriented style was related to the educational
attainment and job performance .
26
Relation oriented and the supportive style underpinned the quantitative aspect of the job
performance as both the styles were positively correlated with the increasing quantity of
work . Task oriented styles was also correlated with the organizational policies , planning
and procedure . Achievement oriented
was found to be correlated with all elements
constituting job performance, except for increasing quantity of work .
A test of Path- Goal leadership theory in Taiwan by Silverthorne (2011)
The objective of this study to examine the applicability of the Path-Goal theory in a
non-western culture . The researcher used the data collected in Taiwan . The sample
size used for this research was 450 and the research instrument used in this research was
the standardized questionnaires for the Path- Goal study . Three aspects of leadership
namely instrumental, supportive and participative were measured.
The findings of this research indicated that the leaders reported that they used each style
of leadership at a statistically significantly higher level than their peers believed. Two
dimensions of motivation were also considered; efforts that lead to performance and efforts
that lead to rewards. Overall, the results provide some support for the path-goal theory of
leadership. The theory was supported for the relationship between managers and subordinates
but not supported for the relationship between managers and peers.
2.9 SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter describes the foundation for the theoretical framework for the present study . At first
several leadership theories were presented . Secondly House’s Path – Goal Theory was focused
and various kinds of leadership styles and employees job satisfaction were defined, and also the
impact of leadership styles and employees job satisfaction was described . Thirdly , the literature on
the dependent variable and the intervening variables were reviewed and finally the previous
studies relating to the leadership were reviewed.
2.10 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
As this study aims at investigating the relationship between the leadership behaviors and Job
satisfaction taking into account the
environmental factors and the sub ordinate factors, the
conceptual model of this study has certain variables. The research framework has been developed
based on the House’s Path Goal Theory of leadership model which consists of the above
stated dependant, independent and intervening variables .Four hypotheses have been proposed
27
based on the research framework to examine the relationship between the leadership behaviors
and job satisfaction under various situational factors. The situations will remain as the important
factor for the leader to determine which leader style is appropriate for a specific situation. The
situational factors thus determines the effectiveness of leader
behaviors at a specific point .
The research framework shown below based on Path Goal Theory is the function of the
leader, the subordinate and the situation
Fig 2.8 Research Framework
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCY
FACTORS
 TASK STRUCTURE
 FORMAL AUTHORITY SYSTEM
 WORK GROUP
INTERVENING
VARIABLES
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
JOB SATISFACTION
- PERFORMANCE
LEADER BEHAVIOR
 DIRECTIVE
 SUPPORTIVE
 PARTICIPATIVE
 ACHIEVEMENT
ORIENTED
INTERVENING
VARIABLES
-
SUBORDINATE CONTINGENCY FACTORS
 AGE
 GENDER
 EDUCATION
 EXPERIENCE
 POSITION
 INCOME
 MARITAL STATUS
28
SATISFACTION
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
ES
As a situational theory , path goal theory states that
the effect of the leader behavior on
subordinate satisfaction depends on situation including environmental factors and subordinates
characteristics . Situational variables influences subordinate preferences for a particular pattern of
leadership behavior.
2.11 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES
HYPOTHESIS 1
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between leadership
behaviors and employee job
satisfaction.
Ha1: There is a significant
relationship between
leadership behaviors and employee job
satisfaction.
HYPOTHESIS 2
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between environmental factors and employee job
satisfaction.
Ha2: There is a significant relationship between environmental factors and employee job
satisfaction.
HYPOTHESIS 3
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between subordinate characteristics and employee job
satisfaction.
Ha3: There is a significant relationship between subordinate characteristics and employee job
satisfaction.
HYPOTHESIS 4
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between leadership
behaviors and
employee job
satisfaction under dissimilar environmental factors
Ha4: There is a
significant
relationship between leadership
behaviors and employee job
satisfaction under dissimilar environmental factors.
2.11.1 Assumption of Hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of leadership styles on employee job satisfaction
according to the different situations of the House’s Path Goal Theory . In this study we have tried
to find out a relationship between 3 variables dependent , independent and intervening variables.
The first hypothesis examines the relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership
styles . The second hypothesis is aimed at testing the relationship between environmental factors and
employee job satisfaction . The third hypothesis aims at deriving a relationship between the
subordinate characteristics and employee job satisfaction. The
29
fourth hypothesis tests
the
relationship between employee job satisfaction and the leader behavior under the different
subordinate characteristics and dissimilar environmental factors. For example the statement “ On the
whole, I really like my job ,although a couple of aspects could stand some improvement” , this
indicates the nature of overall satisfaction. In the fourth hypothesis ,the researcher aims at testing the
relationship between leadership behaviors and job satisfaction under dissimilar environmental
factors.
2.12 Concepts and Variables Operationalization
This part describes the measures that were used to operationalize the variables in this study ,which is
the dependent variable (employee job satisfaction), the independent variable (the four leadership
styles), and the intervening variables (employee characteristics and environmental factors)
Dependent Variables:The outcome of the leader effectiveness is employee job satisfaction .The previous researches
suggests that the most relevant attitudes toward jobs are contained in a rather small group of facets :
the work itself, promotions, pays, recognition benefits working conditions, supervisors, co –workers
and organizational policy ( Locke , 1976). In this study job satisfaction is categorized into five
categories according to Smith ,et al (1969). The five categories are (A) work on present job,
(B)present pay, (C) opportunities for promotion ,(D) supervision and (E) co-workers .
Independent Variables
In this study the independent variables are leadership styles/ behavior, which are Directive,
Supportive, Achievement- oriented and Participative leadership styles. The leadership styles were
measured using various items. The respondents were asked to indicate their leadership
styles/behaviors by using the Likert Scale .
(A) Directive Leadership
To measure whether the leader displays directive leader behavior , five items were used :
1)letting subordinates know what they are expected to do ; 2) providing specific guidance as to what
should be done and how ; 3)making leader’s part in the group understood ; 4) scheduling work to be
done and 5)maintain definite standards of performance.
(B) Supportive Leadership
To figure out whether the leader has a supportive behavior , five items were used 1)letting
subordinates know what they are expected to do ; 2) providing specific guidance as to what should be
done and how ; 3) making leader’s part in the group understood ; 4)scheduling work to be done ; 5)
definite standards of performance.
30
(C) Achievement – oriented Leadership
To measure whether the leader displays achievement- oriented behavior , four items were used :
1)Setting challenging goals ; 2) expecting subordinates to perform art the highest level; 3) showing a
high degree of confidence in subordinates and 4) constantly emphasizing excellence in performance .
(D) Participative Leadership
The three items which were used to measure whether the leader displays participative behavior
are 1) Consulting with subordinates ; 2) soliciting subordinates suggestions and 3) taking subordinate
suggestion seriously
Intervening Variables
In the House’s path goal theory , the intervening variables are important to the theory because they
can moderate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables . The intervening
variables which
are identified in this
study are
environmental factors and subordinate
characteristics . The three items which were used to study the environmental factors were (1) Task
Structure ( 2) Formal Authority System (3) Work Group . The six items that were used to study the
subordinate characteristics are (1) Age (2) Gender (3) Education (4) Experience (5) Position ,(6)
Income and (7) Marital Status.
31
Table 2.4 Concept and Variable Operationalization
Variables
Dependent
Variables
Employee
Satisfaction
Conceptual Definition
A variable to determine
Job whether employees are
happy and contented
and fulfilling their
desires and needs at
work
Independent
Variables
1)Directive
Leadership Styles
2)Supportive
Leadership Styles
3)Achievementoriented
Leadership Styles
Operational Measures
Level Of Measurement
a)Work on present job
b)Present pay
c)Opportunities
for promotion
d)Supervision
e)Co - Workers
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
a)Letting subordinates
know what they are
The
expected to do
directive leader tells the b)Providing
specific
subordinate what to do, guidance to what has to
and how to do it.
be done and how
c)Making leader’s part
in the group understood
d)Scheduling work to
be done
e)Maintaining definite
standards
of
performance
Likert Scale
This style is directed
towards the satisfaction
of subordinates needs
and preferences
Likert Scale
This style refers to
situations where the
leader sets challenging
goals for followers
a)Showing concern for
status and well being of
the subordinates
b)Doing little things to
make
work
more
pleasant.
c)Treating members as
equals.
d)Being friendly and
approachable.
e)Creating a friendly
climate in work unit.
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
Likert Scale
a) Setting challenging Likert Scale
goals.
b)Expecting
Likert Scale
subordinates to perform
at their highest level.
32
Table 2.4 Concept and Variable Operationalization (contd.)
Variables
Conceptual Definition Operational Meausures
Level
Of
Measurement
c)Showing a high degree Likert Scale
of
confidence
in
subordinates.
d)Constantly emphasizing Likert Scale
excellencene
in
performance.
4)Participative
This
style consults a)Consulting
Leadership Styles
with
followers
asks
for
suggestions
with Likert Scale
and Subordinates.
their
before b)Soliciting
making a decision
subordinate Likert Scale
suggestions.
c)Taking
subordinate Likert Scale
suggestion seriously.
Intervening Variables
a)Task structure
Likert Scale
1)Environmental Factors These factors acts as b)Formal authority system Likert Scale
a moderating variable c)Work group
Likert Scale
.
a)Age
Ordinal Scale
b)Gender
Nominal Scale
2)Subordinate
Demographic
Characteristics
characteristics of the c)Education
subordinates.
d)Experience
e)Position
f)Income
g)Marital Status
33
Ordinal Scale
CHAPTER 3
3.1 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with an overview about the research
methodologies which are being used for this study .This chapter puts focus on areas such as
research methods, samples, research instruments, data
collection
procedures and
statistical
treatment.
3.2 SAMPLE
The respondents for this study includes the employees(subordinates ) of Coal India Limited.
Zikmund (2003) defines a respondent as a person who answers an interviewers question or provides
answers to written questions on a self-administered questionnaire. This study which is based on
the path goal model , all the data has been collected from a public sector undertaking firm in
India
namely Coal India Limited , having a total employee size of 383, 470. As the
organization has huge employee strength, this study is limited to the headquarters of Coal
India Limited .
3.3 RESEARCH METHOD
In respect of the study to be conducted a descriptive method was used in this research .This
kind of method helps in explaining more than one independent variables In this research, the
survey technique was used to collect data. According to Zikmund (2000), survey technique is used
for gathering information from a sample of people by use of a questionnaire or interview; a method
of data collection based on communication with a representative sample of individuals “who, what,
when, where and how” of a situation but not what caused it.
3.4 DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Survey method is selected as the technique for data collection because the main advantage of
survey technique is that it provides quick , inexpensive ,efficient and
accurate
means of
assessing information about the population .
The primary data was collected through Self administered questionnaires
because the
respondents belongs to a renowned organization and were willing to help in the research
work .The researcher personally approached the respondents and requested them to fill up the
34
questionnaires.
The
secondary data is the type of data which has been previously collected for some
purpose other than the one at hand (Zikmund, 2003).Therefore
secondary data was collected
from other sources such as journals , newspapers, articles , text books and websites .
3.5 SAMPLE SIZE
In this study the researcher has used the non probability sampling because the units of sample
were selected on the basis of personal judgment. To determine the sample size the researcher
applied the formula
n =(Z2pq)/E2
where
n= number of items in the sample
Z2= Square of the confidence interval in standard error units .
p= estimated proportion of successes.
q= (1-p). estimated proportion of failures .
E2= Square of the maximum allowance for error between the true proportion and sample
proportion .
The sample size
was thus accordingly calculated by the above formula with 95 percent
confidence interval and the allowable error was considered up to 0.05. It is to be estimated
that 50% are
estimated proportion of success and 50 % are estimated proportion of failures .
Therefore
N =(( 1.96)2* p*q)/ .0025
=(( 3.8416) *.5*.5)/.0025
= .9604/.0025
= 384.16
400 samples
3.6 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT / QUESTIONNAIRE
In terms of checking the four hypothesis ,the leader behavior , environmental factors ,
subordinate characteristics and employee job satisfaction , data are to be collected through the
use of survey instrument .The researcher will use questionnaires to gather information from
the samples .An English version of the questionnaire was thus constructed .
35
The questionnaires to be used was divided into four specific parts which are as follows:
PART 1 :- The questionnaires of this part has been adapted from the work of (J.Indvik, 1985) and
(House and Dessler, 1974) .This part measures the subordinates perception on what kind of
leadership style is being practiced within the organization . The questions which were
structured in this part has to be rated on the basis of Likert scale ( 5= strongly agree.4=
agree,3= neutral 2=disagree ,1=strongly disagree). Some examples of the statements in the
questionnaire are a) your leader schedules work to be done .b) your leader treats members as
equals c)your leader constantly emphasizes on performance . This types of statements are
required to be a rated on a 5 point Likert scale as mentioned earlier.
PART 2 :- The questionnaires of this part has been adapted from the work of
(Robert House, 1971) This part measures the environmental factors in the organization . The
questions which were structured in this part has to be rated on the basis of Likert scale ( 5=
strongly agree.4= agree,3= neutral 2=disagree ,1=strongly disagree). Some examples of the
statements in the questionnaire are a)your work is routine task b) the rules in your
organization interfere with your performance c)each department in your organization can work
good with relationship and coordination . This types of statements are required to be a rated
on a 5 point Likert scale as mentioned earlier.
PART 3 :- The questionnaires of this part has been adapted from the work of (Rizzo, House, and
Lirtzman, 1970) This part measures the employee job satisfaction in the organization . The
questions which were structured in this part has to be rated on the basis of Likert scale ( 5=
strongly agree.4= agree,3= neutral 2=disagree ,1=strongly disagree). Some examples of statements
which were structured are as follows a) you are satisfied with your work .b) your income
provide luxuries c) the opportunities for your promotion are limited d) your co workers are
responsible . This types of statements are required to be a rated on a 5 point Likert scale as
mentioned earlier.
PART 4:- This part gives us information about the subordinate characteristics which forms a
part
of
the
intervening
variables . It
mainly has
question
relating
to
demographics like , age , marital status , experience , education , designation etc
36
sub ordinate
3.7 STATISTICAL TREATMENT
The survey instruments were checked for completeness and acceptability when the researcher
received the information .The data were entered and analyzed on a personal computer using the
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software .
The Survey instrument
was analyzed in regarding to the independent variables , directive,
supportive, achievement- oriented and participative leadership styles intervening variables that was
environmental factors and subordinate characteristics and dependent variables as listed in the null
hypotheses , job satisfaction
The hypothesis proposed for this study
were tested by Pearson’s correlation coefficient ,
multiple regression and Spearman’s Rho to determine the relationship between the dependent
,independent and intervening variables . The level of significance for this study was at 95
percent significant level.
37
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Analysis
The survey instruments were checked for completeness and acceptability when the researcher
received the information. The responses were entered and analyzed on a personal computer using the
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software package . The survey instrument was
analyzed relating to the independent variables i.e. directive, supportive , achievement- oriented
and participative
leadership styles
and
also
the
intervening
variables that comprises of
environmental factors and subordinate characteristics and also the dependent variable which are
performance and job satisfaction
4.2 Pretesting
This forms a very important part of the study because it enables to judge the effectiveness
of the questionnaires .This is because in this kind of study about 30 samples are selected
and the questionnaires are being tested on them in order to determine the reliability of the
questionnaires i.e. whether the respondent are being able to understand the questionnaires. This
also becomes an effective means of judging the quality of the questionnaire .
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a score from a measurement scale (Davis,
1995). According to Zikmund (1994), the minimum standards, based on how the measure is being
used by the researcher for the coefficient of reliability for internal consistency is 0.70 or greater.
38
TABLE 4.1 Pretesting ( 30 samples)
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
Directive leadership
.716
5
Supportive leadership
.775
5
Achievement-oriented leadership
.703
4
Participative leadership
.802
4
Task structure
.766
9
Formal authority system
.739
6
Work group
.740
4
Work itself
.745
6
Pay
.921
6
Promotion
.702
3
Co-worker
.701
5
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
Table 4.2 Respondent’s Gender
Frequency Percent
Male
291
72.8
Female
109
27.3
Total
400
100.0
From Table 4.2 shows that the highest percentage of respondents’ gender was 72.8% (291) of male,
and others were 27.3% (109) of female, respectively.
Table 4.3 Respondent’s Age
Frequency Percent
20 - 30 years old
8
2.0
31 - 40 years old
36
9.0
41 - 50 years old
171
42.8
51 - 60 years old
185
46.3
Total
400
100.0
39
Table 4.3 shows that the highest percentage of respondents’ age was 46.3% (185) of the 51 - 60 years
old, and others were 42.8% (171) of 41 - 50 years old, 9% (36) of 31 - 40 years old, 14% (28) of 35
to 44, and 2% (8) of 20 - 30 years old, respectively.
Table 4.4 Respondent’s Highest Education
Frequency Percent
Primary school
2
.5
High school
28
7.0
Commerce
14
3.5
Polytechnic school
9
2.3
Bachelor degree
143
35.8
Master degree
164
41.0
Doctoral degree
30
7.5
Others
10
2.5
Total
400
100.0
Table 4.4 shows that the highest percentage of respondents’ highest education was 41% (164) on
Master degree, and others were 35.8% (143) on Bachelor degree, 7.5% (30) on Doctoral degree, 7%
(28) on High school, 3.5% (14) on Commerce, 2.5% (10) on others, 2.3% (9) on Polytechnic school,
and 0.5% (2) on Primary school, respectively.
Table 4.5 Respondent’s Income
Frequency Percent
RS 10,001 - RS 20,000
14
3.5
RS 20,001 - RS 30,000
81
20.3
RS 30,001 - RS 40,000
70
17.5
RS 40,001 - RS 50,000
67
16.8
Above RS 50,000
168
42.0
Total
400
100.0
Table 4.5 shows that the highest percentage of respondents’ income was 42% (267) on above Rupees
50,000 and others were 20.3% (81) on Rupees 20,001 - RS 30,000, 17.5% (70) on Rupees 30,001 Rupees 40,000, 16.8% (67) on Rupees 40,001 - Rupees 50,000, and 3.5% (14) on Rupees 10,001 40
Rupees 20,000, respectively.
Table 4.6 Respondent’s Experience in Position
Frequency Percent
Less than 6 months
2
.5
6 months to less than 1 year
12
3.0
1 year to less than 5 years
66
16.5
5 years to less than 10 years
161
40.3
10 years to less than 15 years
94
23.5
15 years to less than 20 years
37
9.3
More than 20 years
28
7.0
Total
400
100.0
Table 4.6 shows that the highest percentage of respondents’ experience in position was 40.3% (161)
on 5 years to less than 10 years and others were 23.5% (94) on 10 years to less than 15 years, 16.5%
(66) on 1 year to less than 5 years, 9.3% (37) on 15 years to less than 20 years, 7% (28) on more than
20 years, 3% (12) on 6 months to less than 1 year, and 0.5% (2) on less than 6 months, respectively.
Table 4.7 Number of Years for which Respondent is working under the current boss
Frequency Percent
Less than 6 months
6
1.5
6 months to less than 1 year
21
5.3
1 year to less than 5 years
155
38.8
5 years to less than 10 years
163
40.8
10 years to less than 15 years
33
8.3
15 years to less than 20 years
8
2.0
More than 20 years
14
3.5
Total
400
100.0
Table 4.7 shows that the highest percentage of respondent’s number of year supervised by the
current boss as 40.8% (163) on 5 years to less than 10 years and others were 38.8% (155) on 1 year
to less than 5 years, 8.3% (33) on 10 years to less than 15 years, 5.3% (21) on 6 months to less than 1
41
year, 3.5% (14) on more than 20 years, 2% (8) on more than 20 years, and 1.5% (2) on less than 6
months, respectively.
Table 4.8 Mean Score of Directive Leadership
Mean
S.D.
Your leader lets subordinates know what they are expected to do
4.05
0.70
Your leader provides specific guidance as to what should be done and how
4.04
0.75
Your leader is the part of the group
4.14
0.85
Your leader schedules work to be done
4.14
0.76
Your leader maintains definite standards of performance
4.17
0.82
Table 4.8, shows the mean score of directive leadership explains that the highest mean score, 4.17 is
obtained for the statement “Your leader maintains definite standards of performance”, while the
lowest mean score, 4.04 is for the statement on “Your leader provides specific guidance as to what
should be done and how”.
Table 4 .9 Mean Score of Supportive leadership
Mean
S.D.
Your leader shows concern for status and well being of subordinates
4.07
0.88
Your leader does little things to make work more pleasant
3.98
1.09
Your leader treats members as equals
4.13
0.92
Your leader is friendly and approachable
4.29
0.86
Your leader create friendly atmosphere in the work unit
4.15
0.98
From Table 4.9, shows the mean score of supportive leadership explains that the highest mean score,
4.29 is obtained for the statement “Your leader is friendly and approachable”, while the lowest mean
score, 3.98 is for the statement on “Your leader does little things to make work more pleasant”.
42
Table 4.10 Mean Score of Achievement-oriented leadership
Mean
S.D.
Your leader sets challenging goals
4.06
0.98
Your leader expects sub ordinates to perform at their highest level
4.23
0.84
Your leader shows a high degree of confidence in subordinates
4.21
0.83
Your leader constantly emphasizes excellence in performance
4.19
0.89
From Table 4.10, it shows that the mean score of achievement-oriented leadership explains
that the highest mean score, 4.23 is obtained for the statement “Your leader expects sub ordinates to
perform at their highest level”, while the lowest mean score, 4.06 is for the statement on “Your leader
sets challenging goals”.
Table 4.11 Mean Score of Participative leadership
Mean
S.D.
Your leader consults with subordinates
4.17
0.93
Your leader solicits subordinate suggestions
4.13
0.96
Your leader takes subordinate’s suggestions seriously
4.13
1.00
You are satisfied with your leader
4.39
0.79
Table 4.11 shows the mean score of participative leadership explains that the highest mean score,
4.39 is obtained for the statement “You are satisfied with your leader”, while the lowest mean score,
4.13 is for the statement on “Your leader solicits subordinate suggestions” and “Your leader takes
subordinate’s suggestions seriously” .
43
Table 4.12 Mean Score of Task structure
Mean
S.D.
Your work has high productivity
4.24
0.79
There is a known procedure for accomplishing the tasks
3.80
0.91
Your work is specific
3.93
0.81
Your work is easily understood
4.01
0.81
Your work is clear and simple
3.96
0.79
Your work is routine task
3.83
1.02
You can learn the opposite skills quickly without extensive training 3.70
1.05
and direction by leader
You can break the job down into smaller subtasks that can be more 3.71
0.91
highly structured
You can schedule the work and decide the procedures used in 3.91
0.84
accomplishing it
Table 4.12 shows the mean score of task structure explains that the highest mean score, 4.24 is
obtained for the statement “Your work has high productivity”, while the lowest mean score, 3.70 is
for the statement on “You can learn the opposite skills quickly without extensive training and
direction by leader”.
Table 4.13 Mean Score of Formal authority system
Mean
S.D.
3.82
0.83
Your company has strong policies and rules to control your 3.89
0.89
Your leader has legitimate power over you
behavior
There are evaluations in every step of performance
3.72
0.93
The promotion mainly depends on each persons performance
3.60
1.13
You can completely present your idea to your leader
3.93
0.82
From Table 4.13, shows the mean score of formal authority system explains that the highest mean
score, 3.93 is obtained for the statement “You can completely present your idea to your leader”,
while the lowest mean score, 3.60 is for the statement on “The promotion mainly depends on each
persons performance”.
44
Table 4.14 Mean Score of Work group
Mean
S.D.
3.89
1.03
Leaders and subordinates in your organization can work together 4.13
0.74
Most decisions in your organization are made in group
with friendly atmosphere
Each department in your organization can work with good 4.11
0.73
relationship and coordination
The performance of each department can help another departments 4.21
0.74
task
From Table 4.14, shows the mean score of work group explains that the highest mean score, 4.21
which is obtained for the statement “The performance of each department can help another
departments task”, while the lowest mean score, 3.89 is for the statement on “Most decisions in your
organization are made in group”.
Table 4.15 Mean Score of Work itself
Mean
S.D.
Your work is acceptable
4.41
0.75
Your work is waste of time
4.71
0.70
Your work is enjoyable
3.95
0.65
You feel pleasant with your work
4.07
0.70
You feel happy with your current work
4.06
0.73
You are satisfied with your work
4.11
0.79
From Table 4.15 shows the mean score of work itself explains that the highest mean score, 4.41 is
obtained for the statement “Your work is acceptable”, while the lowest mean score, 1.29 is for the
statement on “Your work is waste of time”.
45
Table 4.16 Mean Score of Pay
Mean
S.D.
Your income is adequate for normal expense
4.05
0.97
Your income provides luxuries
2.82
1.20
Your income is considered high
2.68
1.13
Your income is fair
3.19
1.02
You are satisfied with your income
3.20
1.04
Your income is suitable for your responsibilities
3.30
0.97
Table 4.16 shows the mean score of pay explains that the highest mean score, 4.05 is obtained for the
statement “Your income is adequate for normal expense”, while the lowest mean score, 2.68 is for
the statement on “Your income is considered high”.
Table 4.17 Mean Score of Promotion
Mean
S.D.
The opportunities for your promotion are limited
2.63
1.38
Your organization has an unfair promotional policy
2.06
1.25
Table 4.17 shows the mean score of promotion explains that the highest mean score, 2.63 is obtained
for the statement “The opportunities for your promotion are limited”, while the lowest mean score,
2.06 is for the statement on “Your organization has an unfair promotional policy”
Table 4.18 Mean Score of Co-worker
Mean
S.D.
Your co workers are helpful
4.01
0.52
Your co workers are stimulating
3.86
0.73
Your co workers are responsible
4.18
0.73
You are satisfied with your coworkers
4.48
0.69
Table 4.18, shows the mean score of co-worker explains that the highest mean score, 4.48 is obtained
for the statement “You are satisfied with your coworkers”, while the lowest mean score, 3.86 is for
the statement on “Your co workers are stimulating”.
46
Table 4.19 The Overall Mean Score of Leadership Styles
Mean
S.D.
Directive leadership
4.11
0.62
Supportive leadership
4.12
0.72
Achievement-oriented leadership
4.17
0.72
Participative leadership
4.21
0.80
Table 4.19 shows the mean score of leadership styles explains that the highest mean score, 4.21 is
participative leadership, while the lowest mean score, 4.11 is directive leadership.
Table 4.20 The Overall Mean Score of Environmental Factors
Mean
S.D.
Task structure
3.90
0.52
Formal authority system
3.50
0.55
Work group
4.08
0.63
Table 4.20 shows the mean score of environmental factors explains that the highest mean score, 4.08
is work group, while the lowest mean score, 3.50 is formal authority system.
Table 4.21 The Overall Mean Score of Employee Job Satisfaction
Mean
S.D.
Work itself
3.65
0.52
Pay
3.21
0.83
Promotion
2.43
0.81
Co-worker
3.58
0.41
Table 4.21 shows the mean score of employee job satisfaction explains that the highest mean score,
3.65 is work itself, while the lowest mean score, 2.43 is promotion.
4.3 Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between leadership behaviors and employee job
47
satisfaction.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between leadership behaviors and employee job
satisfaction.
Table 4.22 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Leadership
Behavior
Work
Directive leadership
Co-
Job
itself
Pay
Promotion
worker
satisfaction
r-value
.585**
.232**
-.162**
.422**
.455**
p-
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
r-value
.380**
.121*
-.316**
.589**
.299**
p-
.000
.016
.000
.000
.000
value
Supportive leadership
value
Achievement-oriented
r-value
.568**
.243**
-.254**
.424**
.428**
leadership
p-
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
r-value
.535**
.198**
-.301**
.448**
.377**
p-
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
value
Participative leadership
value
The Table 4.26 explained correlation coefficient of the relationship between employee job
satisfaction and leadership behaviors by using Pearson Correlation Coefficient.
The results indicated that that there is a significant positive relationship between all of the
leadership styles and overall employee job satisfaction as indicated by the p-values of less than .05
significant level. However, only promotion has negative relationship with the environmental factors.
In terms of directive leadership, work itself has strongest positive relationship (.585) then
followed up by co-worker (.422), and pay (.232), respectively, while promotion has negative
relationship (-.162).
In terms of supportive leadership, co-worker has the strongest positive relationship (.589)
followed by work itself (.380), and pay (.121), respectively, while promotion has negative
relationship (-.316).
In terms of achievement-oriented leadership, work itself has the strongest
positive relationship (.568) followed by co-worker (.424), and pay (.243), respectively, while
48
promotion has negative relationship (-.254). In term of participative leadership, work itself has
strongest positive relationship (.535) followed by co-worker (.448), and pay (.198), respectively,
while promotion has negative relationship (-.301).
Table 4.23 The Analysis of Relationship between Employee Job Satisfaction and Leadership
Behaviors by Using Multiple Regression
R Square
Beta
t
Sig.
.220
.294
3.799
.000
Supportive leadership
-.001
-.014
.989
Achievement-oriented
.155
1.939
.053
.055
.690
.490
Directive leadership
leadership
Participative leadership
From the Table 4.23, multiple regression used to present the hypothesis, the 22 percent of the
variance (R Square) explained the impact of leadership styles toward employee job satisfaction. The
standardized coefficients’ results explained that the p-value of directive leadership is less than .05
(.000 < .05); therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It means that only directive leadership
positively impacts the employees’ job satisfaction. However, supportive leadership, achievementoriented, and participative leadership has significant level more than .05, which means that null
hypotheses of the supportive , achievement-oriented and participative leadership was failed to
reject. There is no relationship in employee job satisfaction when predicted by supportive leadership,
achievement-oriented, and participative leadership.
Hypothesis 2
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between environmental factors and
employee job
satisfaction .
Ha2: There is a significant relationship between environmental factors and employee job
satisfaction .
49
Table 4.24 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Environmental Factors
Work
Task structure
Co-
Job
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
r-value
.476**
.108*
-.193**
.481**
.336**
p-value
.000
.031
.000
.000
.000
.444**
.238**
-.326**
.341**
.329**
Formal
authority r-value
system
p-value
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Work group
r-value
.387**
.092
-.476**
.439**
.193**
p-value
.000
.067
.000
.000
.000
From the Table 4.24 explained correlation coefficient of the relationship between employee
job satisfaction and environmental factor by using Pearson Correlation Coefficient.
Table 4.24 has explained the results indicated that that there is a significant positive
relationship among all the environmental factors and overall employee job satisfaction as indicated
by the p-values of less than .05 significant level. However, only promotion has negative relationship
with all of leadership behaviors.
In terms of task structure, co-worker has strongest positive relationship (.481) followed by
work itself (.476), and pay (.108), respectively, while promotion has negative relationship (-.193).
In terms of formal authority system, work itself has strongest positive relationship (.444)
followed by co-worker (.341), and pay (.238), respectively, while promotion has negative
relationship (-.326).
In terms of work group, co-worker has strongest positive relationship (.439) then followed up
by work itself (.387), respectively, while promotion has negative relationship (-.476). Otherwise,
workgroup has no relationship with pay which the significant is more than .05.
Table 4.25 The Analysis of Relationship between Employee Job Satisfaction and
Environmental Factors by Using Multiple Regression
R
Square
Beta
T
Sig.
.145
.242
4.115
.000
Formal authority system
.244
3.831
.000
Work group
-.084
-1.377
.169
Task structure
From the Table 4.25, multiple regression used to present the hypothesis, the 14.5 percent of the
50
variance (R Square) explained the impact of environmental factors toward employee job satisfaction.
The standardized coefficients’ results explain that the p-value of task structure and formal authority
system are less than .05 (.000 < .05); therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It means that task
structure and formal authority system are positively impacted to the employee job satisfaction.
However, work group has significant level more than .05 which means that null hypotheses of work
group was failed to reject. There is no relationship between environmental factors and employee
job satisfaction when predicted by work group.
Hypothesis 3
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between subordinate characteristics and employee job
satisfaction .
Ha3: There is a significant relationship between subordinate characteristics and employee job
satisfaction
Table 4.26 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Subordinate
Characteristics
Work
Co-
Job
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
r-value
-.057
.100*
.128*
-.046
.090
p-value
.253
.046
.010
.354
.071
r-value
.139**
.338**
-.200**
.318**
.249**
p-value
.005
.000
.000
.000
.000
r-value
.011
.388**
-.142**
.185**
.254**
p-value
.832
.000
.004
.000
.000
in r-value
.087
.213**
-.145**
.031
.139**
p-value
.083
.000
.004
.535
.005
Number of years r-value
.082
.088
-.222**
.081
.042
supervised
.101
.078
.000
.106
.397
Age
Education
Income
Experience
position
by p-value
current boss
Table 4.26 explained correlation coefficient of the relationship between employee job satisfaction
and subordinate characteristic by using Spearman’s Rho.
Table 4.26 has explained the results indicated that that there is a significant positive relationship
between subordinate characteristic in term of education, income, experience in position, and overall
employee job satisfaction as indicated by the p-values of less than .05 significant level. However, age
51
and number of years supervised by boss has significant level more than .05 is mean null hypotheses
of those was failed to reject. There is no relationship in employee job satisfaction when determined
by age and number of years supervised by current boss. In terms of age, promotion has strongest
positive relationship (.128) followed by pay (.100), respectively, while age has no relationship
toward work itself and co-worker pay which the significant is more than .05.
In terms of highest education, pay has strongest positive relationship (.338) then followed up by coworker (.318), and work itself (.139), respectively, while promotion has negative relationship (-.200).
In terms of income, pay has strongest positive relationship (.388) followed by co-worker (.185),
respectively, while promotion has negative relationship (-.142). However, income has no relationship
toward work itself which the significant is more than .05.
In terms of experience in position, pay has strongest positive relationship (.213) while promotion has
negative relationship (-.145). However, experience in position has no relationship toward work itself
and co-worker which the significant is more than .05. In terms of number of years supervised by
boss, promotion has negative relationship (-.222). However, number of years supervised by boss has
no relationship toward work itself, pay, and co-worker which the significant is more than .05.
Hypothesis 4
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership
behaviors under dissimilar environmental factors
.Ha4: There is a significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership
behaviors under dissimilar environmental factors.
Table 4.27 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Leadership
Behaviors under Dissimilar Environmental Factors – Task Structure
N = 10
Work
Structured task
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
r-value
.727*
.210
.912**
-.283
.628
p-value
.017
.560
.000
.429
.052
r-value
-.600
-.840**
-.220
.971**
-.517
p-value
.067
.002
.541
.000
.126
Achievement-oriented
r-value
.696*
.138
.813**
-.340
.507
leadership
p-value
.025
.705
.004
.336
.135
Participative
r-value
.514
-.032
.649*
-.317
.265
leadership
p-value
.128
.931
.042
.372
.459
Directive leadership
Supportive leadership
Co-
52
Job
N = 390
Work
Unstructured task
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
r-value
.423**
.156**
-.237**
.358**
.290**
p-value
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
r-value
.268**
.085
-.334**
.496**
.185**
p-value
.000
.095
.000
.000
.000
Achievement-oriented
r-value
.394**
.172**
-.343**
.353**
.253**
leadership
p-value
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
Participative
r-value
.391**
.131**
-.359**
.381**
.225**
leadership
p-value
.000
.010
.000
.000
.000
Directive leadership
Supportive leadership
Co-
Job
As the research applied five point scale questionnaires therefore the cut off point to the task
structure group is 2.50 . Scores below 2.5 are considered as structured task and scores above 2.5 are
considered as unstructured task .
Table 4.27 shows the correlation matrix between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors
under dissimilar environmental factors. In terms of structured task, there is no relationship between
employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors where the significant level is more than .05.
However, in unstructured task side there is a relationship between employee job satisfaction and
leadership behaviors where all of significant level is less than .05.
Table 4.28 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Leadership Behaviors
under Dissimilar Environmental Factors – Authority System
N = 22
Limited
authority
Work
Co-
Job
system
itself
Pay
Promotion
worker
satisfaction
Directive leadership r-value
.406
.652**
-.033
.171
.753**
p-value
.061
.001
.884
.446
.000
Supportive
r-value
.156
.131
.246
.722**
.517*
leadership
p-value
.489
.562
.270
.000
.014
Achievement-
r-value
.687**
.514*
.386
.235
.962**
oriented leadership
p-value
.000
.014
.076
.293
.000
Participative
r-value
.823**
.374
.244
.114
.856**
leadership
p-value
.000
.087
.273
.613
.000
53
N = 378Extensive
Work
authority system
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
Directive leadership r-value
.477**
.089
-.039
.444**
.334**
p-value
.000
.086
.446
.000
.000
Supportive
r-value
.290**
.059
-.312**
.549**
.192**
leadership
p-value
.000
.256
.000
.000
.000
Achievement-
r-value
.366**
.129*
-.250**
.435**
.253**
oriented leadership
p-value
.000
.012
.000
.000
.000
Participative
r-value
.320**
.100
-.278**
.472**
.219**
leadership
p-value
.000
.053
.000
.000
.000
Co-
Job
satisfaction
As the research applied five point scale questionnaires therefore the cut off point to the authority
system is 2.50 . Scores below 2.5 are considered as limited authority system and scores above 2.5
are considered as extensive authority system.
From the Table 4.28, it shows that the correlation matrix between employee job satisfaction and
leadership behaviors under dissimilar environmental factors. In term of limited authority system,
there is a relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors under limited
authority system which all of significant level is less than .05.
In extensive authority system side there is a relationship between employee job satisfaction and
leadership behaviors where all of significant level is less than .05
54
Table 4.29 Correlation Matrix between Employee Job Satisfaction and Leadership Behaviors
under Dissimilar Environmental Factors – Work Group
N = 12
With experience in
Work
Co-
Job
collaboration
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
Directive
r-value
.542
-.175
.232
.123
.318
leadership
p-value
.069
.586
.469
.703
.314
Supportive
r-value
.282
-.394
.611*
.672*
.449
leadership
p-value
.374
.205
.035
.017
.144
Achievement-
r-value
.508
-.011
.384
.321
.655*
oriented leadership
p-value
.092
.973
.218
.310
.021
Participative
r-value
.532
-.283
.381
.207
.318
leadership
p-value
.075
.373
.222
.519
.314
Co-
Job
N = 388
With no experience
Work
in collaboration
itself
Pay
Promotion worker
satisfaction
Directive
r-value
.542**
.274**
-.120*
.411**
.455**
leadership
p-value
.000
.000
.018
.000
.000
Supportive
r-value
.346**
.156**
-.342**
.565**
.277**
leadership
p-value
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
Achievement-
r-value
.526**
.277**
-.246**
.395**
.409**
oriented leadership
p-value
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Participative
r-value
.483**
.238**
-.288**
.434**
.365**
leadership
p-value
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
As the research applied five point scale questionnaires therefore the cut off point to the work
group is 2.50 . Scores below 2.5 are considered as experience in collaboration with work group and
55
scores above 2.5 are considered as no experience in collaboration with work group. From the Table
4.29, shows the correlation matrix between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors under
dissimilar environmental factors. In term of respondents with experience in collaboration, there is no
relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors under experience in
collaboration which all of significant level is more than .05. Only achievement-oriented leadership
has a relationship toward employee job satisfaction where the significant level is less than .05.
However, in respondents with no experience in collaboration there is a relationship between
employee job satisfaction and all of leadership behaviors with no experience in collaboration where
all the significant levels is less than .05.
56
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS and RECCOMENDATION
The findings of this research project are summarized in this chapter and conclusions are drawn
regarding the three research questions addressed in Chapter 1. Furthermore the recommendations are
made for the company and for the future researchers .
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to address the statement of problem in Chapter 1, namely the lack of
empirical research conducted on Path Goal Theory in business related fields in India. The sample
size of the research was 400 and the questionnaire used for this survey comprised of the questions to
measure the employee’s perception of a manager’s leadership style, the environmental factors,
subordinate characteristics and employee job satisfaction .
The reliability test for the questionnaires were conducted on 30 samples and all the values were
more than 0.6
for all the variables, thus it could be concluded that the scale which was used to
measure the variables had a high internal consistency.
After the reliability analysis a thorough descriptive analysis was conducted. The highest percent for
respondent’s gender was male (72.8%). In terms of the respondent’s age the age group of 51-60
had the highest percentage of 46.3%. 66.8% of the respondents were found to be married. In terms
of
respondent’s highest education 41% had a master degree. The majority of the respondent’s
income group were above Rupees 50,000 which formed 42% of the total sample size. The
maximum number of respondents were found to have a experience of 5years – 10 years in the
present position, which formed 40.3 % of the total sample size. 40.8% of the respondents were found
to be supervised by their current boss for 5years -10 years.
The mean score of the directive leadership was found to be 4.11, the mean score of supportive
leadership was 4.12, the mean score for achievement-oriented leadership was 4.17 and the mean
score for participative leadership was found to be 4.21. Thus this study found that all the mean
scores of the leadership styles did not show any outstanding difference between the leadership
styles used . In terms of the environmental factors the work group had the highest mean score of
4.08 and formal authority system has the lowest mean score of 3.50. Relating to the job satisfaction
the facet namely the work itself has the highest mean score of 3.65 and promotion has the lowest
mean score of 2.43.
All the proposed hypotheses were tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Spearman’s Rho
and multiple regression.
The first hypothesis was tested by Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient and multiple regression . The
57
findings concluded that there was a positive relationship between the overall job satisfaction and
the leadership styles because all the p values for overall job satisfaction was found to have a value
lower than .05 significant level . However only promotion showed a negative relationship with all
the leader behaviors. As the overall job satisfaction was found to have relationship with all the
leadership behaviors, therefore multiple regression was used to accept or reject the null hypothesis .
22% of the variance explained the impact of leadership styles over job satisfaction. It was
concluded from the findings that only directive leadership style has a positive impact over the job
satisfaction because the p-value for the directive leadership style was less than .05 and thus null
hypothesis was rejected . However for the achievement-oriented, supportive and participative
leadership style, the null hypothesis was failed to reject because all the significant values were
more than .05.
The second hypothesis was tested by Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient and multiple regression. The
findings concluded that there was a positive correlation between all the environmental factors and
overall employee job satisfaction as indicated by the p values of less that .05. Only promotion was
found to have a negative correlation with all the environmental factors. As the overall job
satisfaction was found to have relationship with all the environmental factors , therefore multiple
regression was used to determine whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis.14% of the variance
explained that the environmental factors have a impact over the overall job satisfaction. As the
significant value of task structure and formal authority system was found to be less than .05
therefore the null hypothesis for these two were rejected . However in case of work group which has
significant value more than 0.5, the null hypothesis was failed to reject. Thus it can be concluded that
employee job satisfaction has a relationship with the environmental factors in terms of task structure
and formal authority system
The third hypothesis was tested using Spearman’s Rho because the subordinate characteristics was
measured in scale which was not normally distributed . The findings concluded that there is a
significant positive relationship between subordinate characteristic in terms of education, income,
experience in position, and overall employee job satisfaction because significant values of these was
found to have a value of less than .05. However, age and number of years supervised by current boss
has significant level more than .05 and thus null hypotheses of these were failed to reject.
Therefore it can be concluded that there is a relationship between subordinate characteristics and
overall employee job satisfaction in terms of terms of education, income, experience in position.
The fourth hypothesis was tested using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient . The point to be noted is
that the in order to distinguish among the dissimilar environmental factors the cut point of the
58
environmental factors was 2.5, which was derived from the five point scale of the survey . In task
structure the respondents having the average scores between 1.00 - 2.50 would be treated as
“structured task” while the average scores above 2.51 would be treated as “unstructured task”.
Similarly, in authority system the average scores between 1.00 – 2.50 would be treated as “ limited
authority system” and the average scores above 2.5 would be treated as “ extensive authority
system”. In work group the average scores between 1.00 – 2.50 would be treated as “ experience in
collaboration ”
and the average scores above 2.5 would be treated as “no experience in
collaboration”. From the findings it can be concluded that in term of structured task, there is no
relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors because all significant
values are higher than 0.5. However, in unstructured task side there is a relationship between
employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors because all the p-values has a significant level is
less than .05. Similarly in terms of limited authority system there is a relationship there is a
relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors as
because all the
significant level was less than 0.5 and thus the null hypothesis was rejected, whereas in extensive
authority system there is also a relationship between the employee job satisfaction and leadership
behaviors because the significant level was less than 0.5 and therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. In term of respondents with experience in collaboration, there is no relationship between
employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors significant level is more than .05 and thus null
hypothesis in this case was failed to reject. Only achievement-oriented leadership has a relationship
with employee job satisfaction which has a significant level less than .05. However, in respondents
with no experience in collaboration there is a relationship between employee job satisfaction because
all the significant values is less than .05 and therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.
5.2 CONCLUSION
The Path-Goal Theory says that the effect of leadership styles on subordinate satisfaction depends on
the situation including the environmental factors and subordinate characteristics. The three research
questions of this study has tested the relationship among the dependent, independent and the
intervening variables of the study . Conclusion for each question are drawn as follows .
Research Question 1
Is there any relationship between the leader behaviors and employee job satisfaction in Coal
India Ltd. under dissimilar environmental factors?
This research question can be answered by Hypothesis 4 in chapter 4 . This study found that there
was a positive relationship between the employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors in terms
59
of unstructured task , limited and extensive authority system and no experience in collaboration but
on the other hand there is no relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership
behaviors in terms of structured task and experience in collaboration. Therefore we can say that
in Coal India Limited the employee job satisfaction is affected by the leader behaviors when we
take into account the environmental factors like unstructured task , limited and extensive authority
system and work group with no experience in collaboration , but employee job satisfaction is not
affected by the leader behaviors when we take into account the environmental factors like structured
task and work group with experience in collaboration.
Research Question 2
Does employee job satisfaction in Coal India Ltd . vary according to subordinate characteristics
and environmental factors ?
This research question can be answered by using Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 in chapter 4. In this
study the environmental factors comprise of task structure, authority system and work group. The
employees job satisfaction in Coal India Limited varies according to the various environmental
factors .Hypothesis 2
stated that there is a positive relationship between
the employee job
satisfaction and the environmental factors namely task structure and formal authority system but
there was no relationship found between the employee job satisfaction and the environmental
factor namely work group. In this study the subordinate characteristics were measured by education,
income, experience in position, age and number of years supervised by current boss. Hypothesis 3
tested that there is a significant relationship between employee job satisfaction and subordinate
characteristics. The employee’s job satisfaction in Coal India Limited
varies according to the
subordinate characteristics. This study found that there is a significant positive relationship between
the employee job satisfaction and subordinate characteristics namely education, income, experience
in position. This research found no relationship between
employee job satisfaction and other
subordinate characteristics namely age and number of years supervised by the current boss.
Research Question 3
What styles of leadership are matched well with employee job satisfaction in Coal India Ltd.
This question can be best answered by the application of Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that
there is a positive correlation between all the variables of employee job satisfaction and
leadership behaviors except promotion . The hypothesis also stated that there is only a strong
relationship between the employee job satisfaction and directive leadership style. The study did
60
not find any relationship between employee job satisfaction and the other three leadership styles
namely supportive, achievement oriented and participative leadership styles . Therefore it can be
concluded that directive leadership style is the most well matched with the employee job
satisfaction .
5.3 RECCOMENDATIONS
The findings of the study contributed to the knowledge of the company named Coal India Limited
in order to maximize the organizational effectiveness by making proper application of the
leadership styles so as to maximize the employee job satisfaction. As the directive leadership
style was found to have a positive relation with the employee job satisfaction, thus the company
should focus more on this particular leadership style. The company should also consider the
environmental factors and should also use the most effective leadership style in the required
situation . The company should concentrate more on the environmental factor namely work group
because there was no significant relationship between the employee job satisfaction and work
group. Moreover the company should make the proper use of the findings from this study so
that they can have a proper relationship in every aspect between the employee job satisfaction
and the leadership behaviors when matched with the subordinate and the environmental factors.
This study will also contribute to the other PSU (Public Sector Enterprise) companies in India to
best fit the leadership styles in certain situations to maximize the organizational effectiveness .
5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH
Prior research studies have indicated that among the leadership theories, the situational leadership is
one of the most important and widely accepted theories of leadership practiced today. Despite of this
fact most empirical studies have found little or only partial support for the Path-Goal Theory. The
present research raises additional issues for the future research. Future studies should investigate
these relationships using different types of organization, units of analysis methodologies and research
designs . Future studies should concentrate more on having a more concrete conceptual framework
rather than a theoretical framework. In the present study only one performance criterion was used and
it is defined as the effectiveness in supervising subordinates other criterions such as subordinate’s
acceptance and subordinate’s motivation should be used in the future study. This study did not use
other subordinate characteristics such as ability and skill, locus of control and needs, so replication
of this types of research should add the above variables.
61
5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
The findings of this study is limited for a certain time period, 4 th February 2011 – 21st April
2011 and this study is only limited to the company named Coal India Limited hence the
findings cannot be generalized to other companies. The findings may vary or change the next
following year , as the respondents might have a different point of view about their leaders
.As the respondents have to evaluate the styles of their immediate supervisors, there might have
been a tendency to provide socially acceptable answers rather than those based on their
perception .
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

B. M. Bass, (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York,
Free Press.

Blake and Jane S. Mouton (1991). The Leadership Grid Figure For Leadership
Dilemmas, Houseton, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Blake, R.R., and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf
Publishing

Buchanan, David and Huczynski, Andrzeg (1997). Organizational Behavior: An
introductory Text . Prentice Hall.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of leadership effectiveness. New York. McGraw-Hill.

Fulk, J., and Wendler, E. R. (1982) Dimensionality of leader-subordinate
interactions: A Path-Goal Investigation. Organizational Behavior and
Human
Performance ,30 , 241-264.

Hersey, P., and Blanchard ,K.(1933, 1988, 1982) . Management of organizational
behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Likert , R., and Likert, J. G. (1976) New ways of managing conflict. New York
McGraw Hill.

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of management. New York .McGraw Hill.

Locke, E. A. (1976) The nature and causes of Job Satisfaction. In
Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook
M. D.
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago:
Rand McNally .

Lussier, Robert N. (1990) Human Resources in Organization: A skill- Building
Approach, IRWIN.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise . New York : McGraw Hill.

Morrow, A. J., Bowers, D. G., and Seashore, S. E. (1967) Management by
Participation. New York : Harper and Row.

Poter and Lawler’s (1982) Understanding Personnel Management. New York, ( BS
College Publishing) .

R. M. Stodgill (1975) Handbook of Leadership, Glencoe, III : Free Press .

R. M. Stodgill (1975) Handbook of Leadership. New York : Free Press .
63

Robert P . Vecchio (1995). Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.) Dryden Press, Harcourt
Brace College Publishers. Pg 377.

Schriesheim and Neider (1988)
Power
and Influence in Organizations,
New
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives .

Shartle, C. L. (1950) Studies in naval leadership. In H Guetzkow(Ed.), Groups,
leadership and men . Pittsburgh, PA : Carnegie Press .

Szilagyi, Jr. Andrew D. and Wallace, JR., Marc J. (1980). Organizational Behavior
and Performance : Gaclyear Publishing .

Vroom, V. H.
and Jago, A. G. (1988) The new leadership management in
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall .

Vroom, V. H. and Yetton,P. W. (1973) Leadership and decision- making. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

William G. Zikmund (1994) Business Research Methods. Fourth Edition. The Dryden
Press.

Wright, P. M. and Noe (1995). Management of organizations. USA: Richard D.
Irwin, a Times Higher Education Group, Inc. Company .

Yukl, G. (1989) Leadership in Organizations(2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall

Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Business Research Methods. USA: South- Western.
64
Journals and Others

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1982) Theory and research for developing a science
of leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science . 18(3), Pp 275-291

Bowers, D. G., and Seashore, S. E. (1966) Predicting organizational effectiveness
with a four factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly , 11 ,
Pp 238 – 263.

Crouch, A., Yetton, P (1987) Manager behavior, leadership style, and subordinate
performance: An Empirical extension of the Vroom- Yetton Conflict rule.
Organizational Behavior and Human decision Processes, 39 , Pp 384 - 396

Fleishman, E. A.(1953) The description of supervisory behavior . Journal of Applied
Psychology, 37, Pp1-6

Fleishman, E. A.(1951) Leadership Climate and Supervisory Behavior, Personnel
Research Board, Columbus: Ohio State University

Halpin, A. W., and Winer, B. J. (1957) A study of the leader behavior descriptions,
In R. M. Stodgill and A. E. Coons (Eds), Leadership behavior: Its description and
measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Monograph No88

Techawichian (2000) The relationship between Perceived Leadership Style and
Employee Job Satisfaction in Thai Manufacturing Companies : An Application of the
Path Goal Theory.

J. Indvik (1985) A Path-Goal Theory Investigation of Superior Subordinate
Relationships, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Schriesheim C. A. and Neider L. L. (1996). “ Path Goal Leadership Theory: The
tong and the winding Road” Leadership Quarterly , Pp. 317 – 321

Dangsurisri (2003) The relationship between leadership style and job performance in
Man A Frozen foods company : An application of Path- goal theory .
65
Websites

Coal India Ltd :- http://www.coalindia.in/

Performance :- http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/9364/1/ahmad.pdf

Job Satisfaction :- http://eab.ege.edu.tr/pdf/9_2/C9-S2-M4.pdf

PathGoal:-http://www.ehow.com/about_6632941_task-structure-path_goalleadership-theory

Formal Authority System :- http://books.google.com

Path Goal Theory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%E2%80%93goal_theory
66
APPENDICES
67
QUESTIONNAIRES
PART 1
The questionnaires in this part are designed to measure the subordinate’s perception on
what kind of leadership styles are practiced in the organization . Please show your
opinion about your leader in the statements below ,where
5= Strongly agree
4=Agree
3=Neutral
2=Decide
1=Strongly disagree
STATEMENTS
1
1)Your leader lets subordinates know what they are expected to
do
2)Your leader provides specific guidance as to what should be
done and how
3)Your leader is the part of the group
4)Your leader schedules work to be done
5)Your leader maintains definite standards of performance
6)Your leader shows concern for status and well being of
subordinates
7)Your leader does little things to make work more pleasant
8)Your leader treats members as equals
9)Your leader is friendly and approachable
10)Your leader create friendly atmosphere in the work unit
11)Your leader sets challenging goals
12)Your leader expects sub ordinates to perform at their highest
level
13)Your leader shows a high degree of confidence in
subordinates
14)Your leader constantly emphasizes excellence in performance
15)Your leader consults with subordinates
16)Your leader solicits subordinate suggestions
17)Your leader takes subordinate’s suggestions seriously
18)You are satisfied with your leader
68
2
3
4
5
PART II
This part is to measure the environmental factors in the organization .Please show your
agreement on the statements below.
STATEMENTS
1
1)Your work has low multiplicity and high verifiability
2)There is a known procedure for accomplishing the tasks
3)Your work is specific
4)Your work is easily understood
5Your work is clear
6)Your work is simple
7)Your work is routine task
8)You can learn the opposite skills quickly without
extensive training and direction by leader
9)You can break the job down into smaller subtasks that
can be more highly structured
10)You can schedule the work and decide the procedures
used in accomplishing it .
11)Your leader has legitimate power over you
12)Your company has strong policies and rules to control
your behavior
13)There are evaluations in every step of performance
14)The rules in your organization interferes with your
performance
15)The
promotion mainly depends
on each persons
performance
16)You can completely present your idea to your leader
17)Most decisions in your organization are made in group
18)Leaders and subordinates in your organization can work
together with friendly atmosphere
19)Each department in your organization can work with
good relationship and coordination
20)The performance of each department can help another
departments task
69
2
3
4
5
PART III
This part measures the employee job satisfaction in the organization .Please show your
agreement or the statements below.
STATEMENTS
1
1)Your work is acceptable
2)Your work is waste of time
3)Your work is good
4)Your work is enjoyable
5)You feel pleasant with your work
6)You feel happy with your current work
7)You are satisfied with your work
8)Your income is adequate for normal expense
9)Your income provides luxuries
10)Your income is considered high
11)Your income is fair
12)You are satisfied with your income
13)Your income is suitable for your responsibilities
14)The opportunities for your promotion are limited
15)Your job is a dead end job
16)Your organization has an unfair promotional policy
17)Your co workers are helpful
18)You can get along well with your co workers
19)Your co workers are stimulating
20)Your co workers are unfriendly
21)Your co workers are responsible
22)You are satisfied with your coworkers
70
2
3
4
5
PART IV
PERSONAL DATA
…….. MALE
1)GENDER
……. FEMALE
2)AGE
………. UNDER 20 YEARS
…….. 20-30 YEARS
……… 31-4O YEARS
………. 41-50 YEARS
………51-60 YEARS
……… 61-70 YEARS
3)MARITAL STATUS
……. SINGLE
…….. MARRIED ……SEPERATED ….. DIVORCE ……WIDOWED
4)EDUCATION
……. PRIMARY SCHOOL
…….. HIGH SCHOOL
…….. COMMERCE
…….
POLYTECHNIC SCHOOL
…….. BACHELOR DEGREE
…….
MASTER DEGREE
…….. DOCTORS DEGREE
……..
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY……….)
5)INCOME
…. BELOW RS 10,000 ……… RS 10,001- RS 20,000 …….RS 20,001 – RS 30,000
……RS 30,0001- RS 400000 ……. RS 40,001- RS 50,000 ……… ABOVE RS 50,000
6)WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? PLEASE SPECIFY ……………………………….
7)HOW
MANY YEARS HAVE YOU WORKED FOR THE POSITION
AS
MENTIONED IN Q 6.?
……. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS
….. 6 MONTHS – LESS THAN 1 YEAR
……. 1YEAR – LESS THAN 5 YEARS
..…. 5 YEARS - LESS THAN 10 YEARS
……..10 YEARS – LESS THAN 15 YEARS …… 15 YEARS – LESS THAN 20 YEARS
…...... MORE THAN 20 YEARS
8)HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR YOUR PRESENT MANAGER /BOSS?
71
……. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS
….. 6 MONTHS – LESS THAN 1 YEAR
……. 1YEAR – LESS THAN 5 YEARS
..…. 5 YEARS - LESS THAN 10 YEARS
……..10 YEARS – LESS THAN 15 YEARS …… 15 YEARS – LESS THAN 20 YEAR
. …….. MORE THAN 20 YEARS
9)HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR THIS ORGANIZATION ?
……. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS
….. 6 MONTHS – LESS THAN 1 YEAR
……. 1YEAR – LESS THAN 5 YEARS
..…. 5 YEARS - LESS THAN 10 YEARS
……..10 YEARS – LESS THAN 15 YEARS …… 15 YEARS – LESS THAN 20 YEAR
. …….. MORE THAN 20 YEARS
72
Letter from Webster University to Coal India Limited
73
Approval Letter From Coal India Limited
74
75