Research Journal of Management Sciences __________________________________________ISSN 2319–1171

Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

Significance of Influence Strategies and Leadership Styles of

Managerial Professionals
Rajasekhar T. and Vijayasree K.
School of Management Studies, LakiReddy Bali Reddy College of Engineering, Mylavaram, Krishna Dt. Andhra Pradesh, INDIA
Cum Scientist, Cognitive Science Centre,LakiReddy Bali Reddy College of Engineering, Mylavaram, Krishna Dt. Andhra Pradesh, INDIA

Available online at: www.isca.in

th th
Received 4th November 2012, revised 9 November 2012, accepted 12 November 2012
Abstract
The present investigation of the is to study the significance of influence strategies viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and
reason, personalized help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward appeal, and assertion would vary
significantly with respect to their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task, participative, bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived
by the subordinates in commonweal, service and business organizations. The sample consists of 50 middle level managers
(Superiors) and 50 their employees (subordinates) in each organization. The statistical tools were employed means, SDs and Step-
wise Multiple Regression Analysis. The results shown that there are no varied between influence strategies and leadership styles
of managers in commonweal organizations. In service organizations, culture prevails in varying significantly relations between
influence strategies and leadership styles of managers. The influence strategies vary significantly with respect to their leadership
styles of managers in business organizations.

Keywords: strategies, exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized help, coalition and manipulation, showing
dependency, upward appeal, assertion, nurturant-task and participative.

Introduction explaining the reasons for a request, giving facts and data, are
all tactics involving rationality.
The managerial professionals put into practice all policies, take
decisions, reward people and motivate employees for goal Assertiveness (A): It involves demanding, telling a person to
accomplishment through different types of strategies. Managers comply, expressing anger verbally, pointing out rules, or
at all levels behave in different ways while dealing with their becoming a nuisance.
subordinates, peers and bosses. Their strategies differ depending
on who the target is, and what the goal of influence attempt is. Ingratiation (I): It involves making the other person feel
Social influence processes are a pervasive aspect of important, inflating the importance of a request, showing a need,
organizational life. The work of organizations is carried out in a asking politely, acting friendly or humbly, or pretending that the
setting of power and influence. A manager’s job is to read these other person is really going to make the decision. It is used to
realities correctly and marshal sufficient power to influence the get one's way with the boss as well as to persuade coworkers
achievement of organizational objectives. Social influence and subordinates to act in specific ways. This influence strategy
processes are a pervasive aspect of organizational life. The work has been systematically investigated by some Indian researchers
of organizations is carried out in a setting of power and in a number of studies.
influence. A manager's job is to read these realities correctly and
marshal sufficient power to influence the achievement of Use of Sanctions (S): The use of sanctions draws upon
organizational objectives. organizational rewards and punishments. Tactics include
preventing salary increases or threatening an employee's job
The various influence strategies can be classified into three security in the case of negative sanction and increasing salary or
categories: Upward and downward Strategies: Under this promoting the person in the case of positive sanction.
downward strategies category are included ways by which
superiors influence their subordinates. For the present study Showing Expertise (E): In this strategy, the superior influences
downward influence strategies might be used which include, subordinates by showing competence and knowledge in work
domain, and expects subordinates to comply with his/her
Rationality (R): Rational persuasion or rationality involves the superior knowledge.
use of logical arguments and factual information to convince a
target that the agent's request or proposal is feasible and Personalized Relationship (P): This strategy involves
consistent with shared objectives1. Writing detailed plans, superior's warmth, support and care towards subordinates. Even,

International Science Congress Association 6

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

superior's help extends beyond the work place to subordinates' common frameworks, and then looks at popular styles of
personal matters and in exchange for this the superior expects leadership.
the subordinate to comply.
However, the managers’ influence strategies and leadership
Exchange of Benefits (B): Exchange tactics involve explicit or styles play a vital role and influence the work attitudes of their
implicit offers by an agent to provide a favor or benefit to the employees. In this perspective, whether the managerial
target in return for doing what the agent requests. influence strategies are varied or similar while influence the
organizational work and employees’ perceptions in order to
An organization that is established as an instrument or means achieve the goals of organizations.
for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as formal
organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and Sangeetha and Nachiketa2 studied that to investigate the
reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, relationship between Downward Influence Strategies and
departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this Organisational Success, which includes Job Satisfaction (JS),
work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to Effectiveness (EFF) and Intention to Quit (IQ). This study is
behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or based on a sample of 200 middle level executives of 10 public
with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and and private sector organisations. The findings indicate that less
subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Employees use of Asserting Expertise and Negative Sanction and frequent
receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure that safeguards use of Rational Rewards and Personalized Relationship would
them from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful enhance the JS, and EFF is also likely to be enhanced by the use
clients. The higher one's position in the hierarchy, the greater of Rational Rewards. Cable and Timothy3 reveals that managers
one's presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may upward influence tactics strategies depended on the leadership
arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the styles of their target (their supervisor). Managers were more
organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis likely to use consultation and inspirational appeal tactics when
for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative their supervisor was a transformational leader, but were more
subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the likely to use exchange, coalition, legitimization and pressure
authority attached to their position. tactics when their supervisor displayed a laissez-faire leadership
style. Namjae et.,al4 concluded that the media selection behavior
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative will be affected by the personal upward influence strategy and
unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal the interpersonal relationship.
organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal
organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the Rao et.al.5, studied that on the leadership or downward influence
individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may styles of American and Indian managers in the U.S. Their
not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal strategies were assessed using Kipnis and Schmidt's Profile of
organization represents an extension of the social structures that Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS) with a sample of 65
generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence managers, of which 34 were of Indian nationality and 31 were
of groups and organizations as ends in themselves. of American nationality. Our findings suggest that Indian
managers use significantly more Assertiveness and Higher
The leadership is the “process of social influence in which one Authority than American managers.
person can enlist the aid and support of others in the
accomplishment of a common task”. From Mahatma Gandhi to Sakinah et.al.6 studied that to provide an in-depth analysis of the
Winston Churchill to Martin Luther King, there are as many relationship between upward influence strategies and
leadership styles as there are leaders. Fortunately, employees’ career success. All three dimensions of upward
businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful and influence strategies i.e. soft, hard and rational tactics have
simple ways to describe the main styles of leadership, and these different effects towards career progression due to the nature of
can help aspiring leaders understand which styles they should the tactics.
use. So, whether you manage a team at work, captain a sports
team, or lead a major corporation, which approach is best? Hypotheses
Consciously, or subconsciously, you'll probably use some of the
leadership styles in this article at some point. Understanding In the light of the above mentioned views, the hypotheses are
these styles and their impact can help you develop your own, formulated for our study. i. The influence strategies viz.,
personal leadership style – and help you become a more exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized
effective leader. With this in mind, there are many different help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward
frameworks that have shaped our current understanding of appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to
leadership, and many of these have their place, just as long as their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task, participative,
they're used appropriately. This article looks at some of the most bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates
in commonweal organizations. ii. The influence strategies viz.,

International Science Congress Association 7

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized tactics involve with holding, distorting the information (sort of
help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward outright lying) or overwhelming the target with too much
appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to information.
their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task, participative,
bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates Upward Appeal: This involves bringing additional pressures
in service organizations. iii. The influence strategies viz., for conformity on the target of influence by calling a person at a
exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized higher level in the organization to help.
help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward Leadership styles:
appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to
their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task participative, Leadership is generally considered as a process of influencing
bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates the activities of a group in an effort to achieve certain
in business organizations. organizational goals. Style is a way of behaving and therefore
every person may have his own style of functioning.
Sample: The sample of the study is consisted of 50 middle level Researchers emphasized on three basic styles, i.e., authoritarian,
managers/section superintendents (superiors) and 50 employees nurturant-task, and participative leader behaviour. Later two
(subordinates) in each organization viz., commonweal, service more styles viz., bureaucratic and task orientation has been
and business organizations. The data was collected in person was added to have a more flexible approach to explain and
conducted in a region of Andhra Pradesh.. For this purpose, the understand the phenomena more comprehensively.
middle level managers and their employees were contacted
personally and were requested to fill the questionnaire comprising Nurturant-Task Style: The nurturant-task leader helps his
measure of influence strategies and leadership styles. subordinates to grow up and assume greater responsibility, gives
responsibility as much as his subordinates can handle; openly
Variables studied: Influence strategies: Power is exercised shows affection for those who work hard; if subordinates need
through the use of various behavioral strategies or methods. help he helps as much as he can; has affection for his
Both superiors and subordinates exercise their power but by subordinates and listens to their personal problems and family
using different methods, in different situations and for different matters.
reasons. There are different types of strategies used by superiors
to influence their subordinates to get the work done by them. Participative Style: The participative leader places high value
The strategies that are used are exchange and challenge, to main-taining partnership in the group and treats group
expertise and reason, personalized help, coalition and members as equals, gives total freedom to subordinates even to
manipulation, showing dependency, upward appeal and the extent that they may disagree with him; believes in joint
assertion. The research studies describe various types of decisions and interactions of seniors and subordinates, helps his
strategies like upward, downward and lateral influence in subordinates as much as he can; believes that all have more or
organizations and some of them are described below. less equal potentials, and above all he is a friendly type.

Assertiveness: This involves demanding, telling a person to Bureaucratic Style: The leader who has this style believes in
comply, expressing anger verbally, pointing out rules, or hierarchical disposition, maintains fair impersonal relationship
becoming a nuisance. Kipnis, Kipnis, et al.7, and Mowday8, in the group; follows standard rules and regulations, believes in
found a greater use of these tactics in influencing persons at all clean-out demarcation of responsibility and work, tries to
levels (superiors, coworkers and subordinates). confine himself to his own jurisdiction; and believes that if
people follow everything in writing then there will be less
Coalition: This involves such things as the use of steady probability of conflicts in the organizations.
pressure for compliance by obtaining the support of co-workers’
and/or by ‘obtaining the support of subordinates’. This Authoritarian Style: An authoritarian leader keeps important
technique is more often used to influence superiors than to information to himself, considers power and prestige important
influence subordinates or colleagues. for the control of subordinates; distinguishes considerably
between his good and bad officers, takes most decisions himself
Exchange: This strategy is used by managers with superiors, and is confident of his own decisions; feels the necessity of
peers and subordinates to get their work done. It involves such strict supervision, cannot tolerate any interference, and feels that
things as ‘offering an exchange’ or ‘offering to make personal personal loyalty to the leader is an important virtue of a good
sacrifices’. Kipnis et al.7, and Mowday8 mentioned the use of subordinate.
this strategy in organizations.
The superiors’ seven types of influence strategies were studied
Manipulations: Informing or arguing in such a way that the as independent variables and leadership styles, as perceived by
recipient is not aware of being influenced is termed the subordinates, as dependent variables for the study.
‘manipulation’8,9. Allen, et al.10, pointed out that this category of Instruments used: Influence Strategies:

International Science Congress Association 8

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

The Ansari’s1, downward influence strategy measures were 0.81 and 0.90, for bureaucratic style it is 0.72 and 0.84, and for
employed to obtain information about how the superior go about authoritarian style it is 0.65 and 0.80.
changing the opinion of his subordinates, so that they agree with
him. The scale containing 28 items was divided into seven types Results and Discussion
of strategies, viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason,
personalized help, showing dependency, coalition and The means and SDs scores of superiors influence strategies and
manipulation, upward appeal and assertion containing 5, 6, 3, 4, leadership styles as perceived by the subordinates in
4, 3 and 3 items each, respectively. The respondents have to commonweal organizations are presented in Table-1.
respond on a 5 – point scale (very often 5, often 4, sometimes 3,
seldom 2 and never 1). The maximum and minimum possible The obtained means and SDs scores of superiors’ influence
scores on exchange and challenge strategy are 25 and 5, on strategies are exchange and challenge 45.73, 12.24, expertise
expertise and reason are 30 and 6, on personalized help are 15 and reason 41.34, 12.94, personalized help 52.29, 17.78,
and 3, on coalition and manipulation are 20 and 4, on showing coalition and manipulation 44.71, 12.10 showing dependency
dependency are 20 and 4, on upward appeal are 15 and 3 and on 43.02, 10.09, upward appeal 53.10 13.51 and assertion 50.31,
assertion are 15 and 3, respectively. It is an indication that the 13.52 respectively in commonweal organizations.
strategy which gets the highest score is being used by the The obtained means and SDs scores of superiors’ leadership
superior to influence his subordinate to agree with him (highest styles as perceived by the subordinates are nurturant task (mean
score on a particular strategy clearly indicates that the same is = 51.98, SD = 8.68), participative (mean = 52.18, SD = 9.71),
used by the superiors in influencing their subordinates to agree bureaucratic (mean = 52.08, SD = 12.14) and authoritarian
with them). The values of the reliability and validity are to be (mean = 41.97, SD = 12.72) respectively in commonweal
established by test-retest method and they are exchange and organizations. It can be said that the most frequently used
challenge (0.71 and 0.84), expertise and reason (0.73 and0.85), leadership style is participative style (mean = 52.18, SD = 9.71).
personalized help (0.62 and 0.78), coalition and manipulation
(0.59 and 0.76), showing dependency (0.72 and 0.84), upward The first hypothesis is assumed that “The influence strategies
appeal (0.69 and 0.83) and assertion (0.56 and 0.74). viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized
help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward
Table-1
appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to
Means and SDs scores of Superiors’ Influence Strategies and
their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task, participative,
leadership styles as perceived by the subordinates in
bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates
commonweal organizations
in commonweal organizations”. The contribution of leadership
Sr. No Influence strategies Mean SD
styles on influence strategies in commonweal organizations is
1 Exchange and challenge 45.73 12.24 assessed using the stepwise multiple regression analysis.
2 Expertise and reason 41.34 12.94
3 Personalized help 52.29 17.78 Table 2 presents the results of step-wise multiple regression
4 Coalition and manipulation 44.71 12.10 analysis for leadership styles (predictors) as perceived by the
5 Showing dependency 43.02 10.09 subordinates and superiors’ influence strategies (criterion) in
6 Upward appeal 53.10 13.51 commonweal organizations.
7 Assertion 50.31 13.52
8 Nurturant task leadership style 51.98 08.68 The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 0.27%,
9 Participative leadership style 52.18 09.71 participative style 0.66%, bureaucratic style 0.10% and
10 Bureaucratic leadership style 52.08 12.14 authoritarian style 0.01% to the exchange and challenge strategy
11 Authoritarian leadership style 41.97 12.72 of the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.

The authoritarian style of leadership contributed 1.09%,

Leadership styles: The Ansari’s1 leadership behaviour participative style 1.34%, nurturant task style 0.04%, and
measures were used to measure the leadership styles of the bureaucratic style 0.01% to the expertise and reason strategy of
superiors as perceived by their subordinates. The scale has 26 the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.
statements divided into 4 types of leadership styles-nurturant-
task, participative, bureaucratic and authoritarian, containing 9, The bureaucratic style of leadership contributed 1.34%
8, 3 and 6 items each, respectively. The respondents are to authoritarian style 0.22%, participative style 0.07% and
respond on a 5-point scale (quite true 5, true 4, doubtful 3, false nurturant-task style 0.01% to the personalized help strategy of
2 and quite false 1). The maximum and minimum possible superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.
scores on nurturant-task style are 45 and 9, on participative style
40 and 80 on bureaucratic style 15 and 3 and on authoritarian The authoritarian style of leadership contributed 2.13%,
style 30 and 6, respectively.). The reliability and validity values participative style 1.48%, nurrturant-task style 0.03% and
are also to be established by test-retest method for leadership bureaucratic style 0.03% to the coalition and manipulation
styles nurturant-task is 0.83 and 0.91 for participative style it is strategy of superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.

International Science Congress Association 9

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

Table-2
Step-wise multiple regression analysis for the contribution of leadership style as perceived by
the subordinates on superiors Influence strategies in commonweal organizations
Leadership Styles (Predictors)
S.No. Influence Strategies (Criterion) Nurturant
Participative bureaucratic Authoritarian
task
2
IR 0.27 0.66 0.10 0.01
01 Exchange and Challenge F 0.27 0.45 0.33 0.24
Order 1 2 3 4
IR2 0.04 1.34 0.01 1.09
02 Expertise and Reason F 0.81 1.21 0.60 1.08
Order 3 2 4 1
IR2 0.01 0.07 1.34 0.22
03 Personalized help F 0.39 0.53 1.33 0.76
Order 4 3 1 2
IR2 0.03 1.48 0.03 2.13
04 Coalition and Manipulation F 1.21 1.82 0.90 2.14
Order 3 2 4 1
IR2 1.55 1.53 0.03 0.03
05 Showing Dependency F 1.14 1.34 0.89 0.67
Order 1 2 3 4
IR2 1.39 0.06 0.35 0.07
06 Upward Appeal F 1.38 0.45 0.86 0.59
Order 1 4 2 3
2
IR 3.10 0.15 0.01 0.28
07 Assertion F 3.14 1.17 0.87 1.70
Order 1 3 4 2

The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 1.55, strategies to influence their subordinates’ work. None of the
participative style 1.53%, bureaucratic style 0.03% and leadership styles have contributed significantly to the various
authoritarian style 0.03% to the showing dependency strategy of influence strategies in commonweal organizations. This may be
superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. attributed to the organizational culture that is prevalent in
commonweal organizations. No meaningful relationship is found
The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 1.39%, between leadership styles and influence strategies in
bureaucratic style 0.35%, authoritarian style 0.07% and commonweal organization.
participative style 0.06% to the upward appeal strategy of the
superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. Hence, The first hypothesis is assumed that “The influence
strategies viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason,
The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 3.10%, personalized help, coalition and manipulation, showing
authorutaruan style 0.28%, participative style 0.15% and dependency, upward appeal, and assertion would vary
buteaucratic style 0.01% to the assertion strategy of the significantly with respect to their leadership styles viz.,
superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. nurturant-task, participative, bureaucratic and authoritarian as
perceived by the subordinates in commonweal organizations” is
Discussion: In the commonweal organizations, nurturant-task not accepted as warranted.
style of superiors use a mixer of assertion, upward appeal,
showing dependency and exchange and challenge strategies to The second hypothesis is assumed that “The influence
influence their subordinates’ work. They use less frequently such strategies viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason,
strategies as personalized help, expertise and reason and coalition personalized help, coalition and manipulation, showing
and manipulation strategies. Participative styles of superiors were dependency, upward appeal, and assertion would vary
found to have shown preference for all the influence strategies. significantly with respect to their leadership styles viz.,
Bureaucratic style of superiors have reported a more frequent use nurturant-task, participative, bureaucratic and authoritarian as
of personalized help strategy than that of the other strategies, perceived by the subordinates in service organizations.
whereas the authoritarian style of superiors preferred expertise
and reason, coalition and manipulation strategies to other

International Science Congress Association 10

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

In service organizations, the obtained means and SDs scores of = 50.03, SD = 8.67), participative (mean = 53.14, SD = 11.08),
superiors’ influence strategies are exchange and challenge bureaucratic (mean = 46.64, SD = 11.80) and authoritarian
40.78, 7.88, expertise and reason 45.27, 6.53, personalized help (mean = 38.86, SD = 10.87) respectively in service
52.71, 10.46, coalition and manipulation 42.35, 6.22, showing organizations. The leadership style most frequently used is
dependency 42.54, 8.01, upward appeal 48.40, 11.63 and participative style (mean = 53.14 and SD = 11.08) .
assertion 48.51, 8.87 respectively (table.3).
Table-4 presents the results of step-wise multiple regression
Table-3 analysis for leadership styles (predictors) as perceived by the
Means and SDs scores of Superiors’ Influence Strategies and subordinates and superiors’ influence strategies (criterion) in the
leadership styles as perceived by the subordinates in service service organizations.
organizations
Sl. No Influence strategies Mean SD The participative style of leadership contributed 5.95%,
1 Exchange and challenge 40.78 07.88 authoritarian style 2.34%, nurturant-task style 2.14% and
2 Expertise and reason 45.27 06.53 bureaucratic style 0.22% to the exchange and challenge strategy
3 Personalized help 52.71 10.46 of the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are significant at 0.05 levels.
4 Coalition and manipulation 42.35 06.22 The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 2.34%,
5 Showing dependency 42.54 08.01 bureaucratic style 1.29%, authoritarian style 0.24% and
6 Upward appeal 48.40 11.63 participative style 0.24% to the expertise and reason strategy of
7 Assertion 48.51 08.87 the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.
8 Nurturant task leadership style 50.03 08.67
Bureaucratic style of leadership contributed 4.78%, authoritarian
9 Participative leadership style 53.14 11.08
style of leadership 2.60% and participative style of leadership
10 Bureaucratic leadership style 46.64 11.80
0.72% to the personalized help strategy of the superiors, all the
11 Authoritarian leadership style 38.86 10.87
‘F’ values are significant at 0.05 level but nurturant-task style of
leadership is 0.65, not significant at any level.
The obtained means and SDs scores of superiors leadership
styles as perceived by the subordinates are nurturant task (Mean
Table-4
Presents the results of step-wise multiple regression analysis for the contribution of leadership styles (predictors) as
perceived by the subordinates and superiors’ influence strategies (criterion) in the service organizations
Leadership Styles (Predictors)
S.No. Influence Strategies (Criterion) Nurturant
Participative bureaucratic Authoritarian
task
IR2 2.14 5.95 0.02 2.34
01 Exchange and Challenge F 3.73* 6.21* 2.78* 4.39*
Order 3 1 4 2
IR2 2.34 0.22 1.29 0.24
02 Expertise and Reason F 2.35 1.01 1.83 1.29
Order 1 4 2 3
IR2 0.65 0.72 4.78 2.60
03 Personalized help F 2.28 2.82* 4.92* 3.87*
Order 4 3 1 2
IR2 3.18 0.12 0.60 1.11
04 Coalition and Manipulation F 3.23 1.25 1.65 2.18
Order 1 4 3 2
IR2 2.93 0.26 0.99 0.11
05 Showing Dependency F 2.97 1.40 1.98 1.04
Order 1 3 2 4
IR2 0.01 0.47 0.25 0.14
06 Upward Appeal F 0.21 0.47 0.35 0.28
Order 4 1 2 3
IR2 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.19
07 Assertion F 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.18
Order 2 4 3 1
* Significant at 0.05 level

International Science Congress Association 11

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 3.18%, The obtained means and SDs scores of superiors’ leadership
authoritarian style 1.11%, bureaucratic style 0.60% and styles as perceived by the subordinates are nurturant- task (mean
participative style 0.12% to the coalition and manipulation = 54.17, SD = 9.19), participative (mean = 53.58, SD = 10.12),
strategy of the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. bureaucratic (mean = 59.96, SD = 13.39) and authoritarian
(mean = 33.53, SD = 8.31) respectively in business
The nurturant-task style of leadership contributed 2.93%. organizations.
bureaucratic style 0.99%, participative style 0.26% and Table-5
authoritarian style 0.11% to the showing dependency strategy of Means and SDs scores of Superiors’ Influence Strategies and
superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. Leadership Styles as Perceived by the Subordinates in
Business organizations.
The participative style of leadership contributed 0.47%, Sl. No Influence strategies Mean SD
bureaucratic style 0.25%, authoritarian style 0.14% and 1 Exchange and challenge 51.69 10.06
nurturant-task style 0.01% to the upward appeal strategy of the 2 Expertise and reason 51.36 12.30
superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant. 3 Personalized help 48.27 12.53
4 Coalition and manipulation 38.94 07.78
5 Showing dependency 37.60 07.47
The authoritarian style of leadership contributed 0.19%, 6 Upward appeal 47.74 10.88
nurturant-tasl style 0.04%, bureaucratic style 0.01% and 7 Assertion 51.08 10.01
participative style 0.01% to the assertion strategy of superiors. 8 Nurturant task leadership style 54.17 09.19
All the ‘F’ values are not significant. 9 Participative leadership style 53.58 10.12
10 Bureaucratic leadership style 59.96 13.39
Discussion: Service organizations present a different picture. A 11 Authoritarian leadership style 33.53 08.31
meaningful relationship between leadership styles and influence
strategies, is observed here. Nurturant-task style of superiors It can be said that the leadership i.e., the most frequently used is
reported to have employed exchange and challenge strategy bureaucratic style (mean = 59.96 and SD = 13.39)
which is only contributed significantly, more often, than other
strategies. Whereas the participative, bureaucratic and Table-6: step-wise multiple regression analysis for the
authoritarian leadership styles have significantly contributed, contribution of leadership style as perceived by the subordinates
have shown similarities in their subordinates. They have used on superiors influence strategies in business organizations
exchange and challenge and personalized help strategies more
frequently than the other influence strategies. It may be due to The authoritatian style of leadership contributed 1.04%
the fact that a different organizational culture prevails in the bureaucratic style 0.22%, nurturant-task style 0.05% and
service organizations. participative style 0.01% to the exchange and challenge strategy
of the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.
The second hypothesis is assumed that “The influence strategies
viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized The authoritarian style of leadership contributed 5.49%,
help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward (significant ar 0.05 level), nurturant-task style 4.42%
appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to (significant at 0.01 level), bureaucratic style 2.24% (significant
their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task, participative, at 0.01 level) and participative style 0.15% (significant at 0.05
bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates level) to expertise and reason strategy of the superiors.
in service organizations is accepted as warranted.
The authoritarian style of leadership contrubted contributed
The third hypothesis is assumed that “The influence strategies 1.49%, bureaucratic style 2.67%, participative style 0.32% and
viz., exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized nurturant-task style 0.37% to the personalized help strategy of
help, coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.
appeal, and assertion would vary significantly with respect to
their leadership styles viz., nurturant-task participative, The bureaucratic style of leadership contributed 3.92%, is
bureaucratic and authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates (significant at 0.05 level), authoritarian style 0.15% (not
in business organizations. significant), participative style 0.10% (not significant), and
nurturant-task style 0.12% (not significant), to the coalition and
In business organizations, the obtained means and SDs scores of manipulation strategy of the superiors.
superiors’ influence strategies are exchange and challenge
51.69, 10.06, expertise and reason 51.36, 12.30, personalized The participative style of leadership contributed 1.27%,
help 48.27, 12.53, coalition and manipulation 38.94, 7.78, nurturant-task style 1.24%, authoritarian style 1.23% and
showing dependency 37.60, 7.47, upward appeal 47.74, 10.88 bureaucratic style 0.44%, to the showing dependency strategy of
and assertion 51.08, 10.01 respectively. the superiors. All the ‘F’ values are not significant.

International Science Congress Association 12

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

Table-6
Presents the results of step-wise multiple regression analysis for the leadership styles (predictors) as perceived by the
subordinates and superiors’ strategies (criterion) in the business organizations
Leadership Styles (Predictors)
S.No. Influence Strategies (Criterion) Nurturant
Participative bureaucratic Authoritarian
task
2
IR 0.05 0.01 0.22 1.04
01 Exchange and Challenge F 0.43 0.32 0.62 1.03
Order 3 4 2 1
IR2 4.42 0.15 2.24 5.49
02 Expertise and Reason F 5.34** 3.33* 4.43** 5.70*
Order 2 4 3 1
IR2 0.37 0.32 2.67 1.49
03 Personalized help F 1.21 1.49 2.11 1.49
Order 4 3 2 1
IR2 0.12 0.10 3.92 0.15
04 Coalition and Manipulation F 1.07 1.40 4.00* 2.06
Order 4 3 1 2
IR2 1.24 1.27 0.44 1.23
05 Showing Dependency F 1.40 1.27 1.16 1.35
Order 2 1 4 3
IR2 0.63 4.19 0.01 2.09
06 Upward Appeal F 2.38 4.293* 1.77 3.25*
Order 3 1 4 2
IR2 0.02 3.13 2.36 5.16
07 Assertion F 2.83* 4.38* 3.82* 5.34*
Order 4 2 3 1
** Significant at 0.01 level; * Significant at 0.05 level.

The participative style of leadership contributed 4.19%, A significant finding of the study is that superiors in business
authoritarian style 2.09%, nurturant-task style 0.63% and organization have shown preference to expertise and reason and
bureaucratic style 0.01% to the upward appeal strategy of the assertion strategies to other influence strategies. In no other
superiors. The ‘F’ values of the participative and authoritarian organization, such as, commonweal and service organizations’
styles are significant at 0.05 level. Whereas, the styles of superiors have used assertion strategy to influence their
leadership ie., nurturant-task and bureaucratic ‘F’ values are not subordinates’ work. In business organizations, because the
significant. emphasis is more on the task-performance of the employees,
superiors repeatedly remind the subordinates what they should
The authoritarian style of leadership contributed 5.16%, do, they pin-point work regularly and they also expect their
participative style 3.13%, bureaucratic style 2.36% and subordinates to strictly follow the rules laid down by
nurturant-task style 0.02% to the assertion strategy of superiors. organization and there is also a high demand of work. It is
All the ‘F’ values are significant at 0.05 level. expected that superiors, in business organizations, would use
assertion strategy more often than the other influence strategies.
Discussion: Finally, in business organizations nurturant-task style The findings of the study support the prediction that the
of superiors have used expertise and reason and assertion influence influence strategies employed by the immediate superiors do
strategies which have significantly contributed more often than the significantly vary with their leadership styles.
other strategies. Participative style of superiors reported to have
used expertise and reason, upward appeal and assertion strategies The third hypotheses assumed that “The influence strategies viz.,
which have contributed significantly more often than the other exchange and challenge, expertise and reason, personalized help,
influence strategies. Bureaucratic style of superiors preferred coalition and manipulation, showing dependency, upward appeal,
expertise and reason, coalition and manipulation and assertion and assertion would vary significantly with respect to their
strategies which have significantly contributed more often than the leadership styles viz., nurturant-task participative, bureaucratic and
other influence strategies, whereas authoritarian style of superiors authoritarian as perceived by the subordinates in business
have used expertise and reason, upward appeal and assertion organizations” is accepted as warranted.
influence strategies which have significantly contributed, more
often, than the other influence strategies.

International Science Congress Association 13

Research Journal of Management Sciences _____________________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1171
Vol. 1(5), 6-14, December (2012) Res. J. Management Sci.

This finding is in line with the earlier studies of Rajasekhar11 Selection, Contemporary Management Research, 4(2),
studied that the superiors’ influence strategies have not 137-154 (2008)
influenced the job satisfaction(JS), Job involvement(JI) and
5. Rao Asha, Kim Joosung, Sarachandra Sanjay, Mirabelli,
work involvement (WI) and the superiors’ leadership styles as
Antoinette, Managing across cultures: influence strategies
perceived by subordinates, have influenced the JS, JI and WI of
of American and Indian managers, Review of Business
subordinates in business organizations. Posner and Koozes12 and
Research, 34(4), 197-205 (2007)
Ansari and Kapoor13, who also found a significant relation
between superiors influence strategies and their leadership 6. Sakinah Mat Zin, Nazlin Emieza Ngah, Norlaila Ibrahim,
styles. Upward Influence Strategies: Relationship with
Academics’ Career Advancement, World Applied
Conclusions Sciences Journal, 12, 27-31 (2011)

No one leadership style has contributed significantly to the 7. Kipnis D., Schonidt S.M. and Wilkinson I. Intra-
various influence strategies in commonweal organizations. The organizational influence tactics, Explorations in getting
different organizational culture prevails in service organizations. one’s way, Journal of applied Psychology, 65, 440-452
Which leadership style significantly contribute to the influence (1980)
strategies, depends on the situation in such organizations. The 8. R.T., The exercise of upward influence in organizations,
influence strategies vary significantly with respect to their Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-156 (1978)
leadership styles in business organizations.
9. L.W., Allen R.W. and Angle H.L., The politics of upward
influence in organizations, In B.M. staw and l.l. cumings
References (eds.). Research in Organizational Behaviour, green which,
1. Ansari M.A., Managing People at work: Leadership Styles JAI Press, 3, 103-149 (1981)
and Influence Strategies, Sage Publications, New Delhi 10. Allen et. Al (1979)
(1990)
11. T., Effect of superior-subordinate perceptions on their job
2. Tripathi Sangeetha and Tripathi Nachiketa, Influence satisfaction, job involvement, and work involvement in
strategies and Organizational success, Indian Journal of business organizations, Journal of Management and
Industrial Relations, 36(3), 283-300 (2001) Research, 3(2), 06-18 (2010)
3. D.M. and Timothy A.J., Managers’ upward influence 12. Posner and Koozes
strategies, the role of manager personality and supervisor
leadership style, Journal of Organizational behavior, 24, 13. Ansari M.A and Kapoor A. Organizational context and
197-214 (2003) upward influence tactics, Organizational behavior and
Human Decision Process, 40(1), 39-49 (1987)
4. Namjae Ch., Park K. and Jen Su Ch., Effects of the
Upward Influence Strategies on the Communication Media

International Science Congress Association 14