Power is the Truth in
Managerial Leadership
Dr. Sebastian Rupert Mampilly
Reader
School of Management Studies
Cochin University of Science and Technology
Cochin “ 682022
Kerala, India.
E-mail: srmampilly[at]cusat.ac.inPage 2

Power is the Truth in Managerial Leadership
Abstract
Historically spoken, managerial leadership has been offered varying
interpretations depending on the preference of the observer. Research expositions of the
yester-years on this ever-intriguing phenomenon are being redefined at regular intervals.
This article presents in brief the prevailing theories and the myths that are associated with
these explanations and proceeds to establish leadership Ëœpower and influenceâ„¢ as its
kernel that can be brought experiential most effectively through transactional exchanges
in a dyadic-linkage relationship. The essential proposition is that a leader who makes
astute use of his power bases and appropriate power styles would not stifle the
subordinates but instead would empower them in a process to render them self-reliant.Page 3

Power is the Truth in Managerial Leadership
Modern Organisations are not democracies with equal significance to everyone.
Reality is that some organisations are more akin to feudal states where the higher ups rule
with some Ëœdivine rightsâ„¢; pre-occupied with the characteristic legitimacy and toughness,
they oppose and rule out the usefulness of subjective, human feelings and needs. They
consider their authority to be absolute, and accept or reject others and their ideas
depending on whether others and their suggestions agree with the Ëœnormative
frameworkâ„¢; subordinates are tyrannised and the organisation is eventually slain.
Conversely, individuals rarely join an organisation to work unceasingly to realise
the stated goals; they join for their own reasons too, to fulfil their personal strivings.
There are also instances where the so called Ëœdemocratisationâ„¢ has transformed
organisational members into mere political animals with the result that organisational
interests are rendered subservient to personal interests allowing Ëœanomieâ„¢ to set in, which
snowballs into gradual disorganisation of the organisation itself.
The distressing situations portrayed in the two organisational scenarios are more
often attributed to slips in the leadership abilities of managers, and consultants repeatedly
hold that managers and administrators have to be delicately nurtured and developed in
their leadership potential and make astute use of it to make things happen in organisations
in ways they want them to happen.
Managerial leadership is a grey domain where management and leadership are
often thought of as more or less the same thing. In a more real sense, management is a
special kind of leadership demonstrated in an organisational context. In other words, an
ongoing organisation transforms a leader into a manager at a systemic level. At a
situational level, leadership is called for whenever a manager has to influence the
behaviour of a subordinate or a group regardless of the reason and context, may be for
purposes that may or may not be congruent with the organisational goals. Irrespective of
the intention, achievement of purposes through the exercise of leadership is at the core of
managerial role.
Tales on Managerial Leadership
Managerial leadership has been offered varying interpretations depending on the
preferences of the beholder. Treatises based on earlier researches have become ethereal
today for such explanations have only sub-optimal value in solving live organisational
enigmas. The prominent tales still in circulation in the academic circles are briefly
indicated here.Page 4

Tale of Traits
Early attempts to decipher leadership were rooted in the notion of the traits of
leaders and the accent was on identifying a set of distinct personal characteristics that
could differentiate effective leaders from non-effective ones. Effective and non-effective
leaders were eventually segregated on the bases of physical features, social backgrounds,
intelligence, personality, task-related and social characteristics (Stogdill, 1974). There
was also an indication that the relative value of these Ëœgiftsâ„¢ depended on the situation. A
leader with certain traits was thought to be more effective in certain situations than
others.
Managerial motivation also found its due place among the traits as a predictor of
effectiveness of leaders. Motivations like achievement, power and affiliation were
presented as important explanations by David McClelland and his associates like
Burnham, Boyatzis and others.
These trait-based explanations, though helpful in identifying certain leadership
characteristics, could not establish how a manager can perform effectively in an
organisation specific situation precisely because this perspective ignored the subordinates
and the impact a leader can bring to bear upon them. Leadership effectiveness of a
manager depends to a large extent on the situation created by the leader through his
chosen behaviours. This leads us to the second strand of tales on leadership.
Behaviouristic Tales on Leadership
The foundation of behavioural approach towards managerial leadership is that
effective leaders consciously use certain behavioural styles to lead individuals and groups
towards common goals with high productivity and morale. The two dimensions of
leadership emphasised in this approach were the importance the leader placed on getting
the job done by such actions as assigning and organising work, making decisions and
evaluating performance, referred to as ˜task“orientation™ and, the openness and
friendliness displayed by the leader coupled with his concern for the needs of
subordinates referred to as ˜employee“orientation™.
Much of the insights on leadership behaviour since 1950s has followed the
metaphors put in place by the researches of Fleishman and associates at Ohio State
University (OSU) and of the Likert inspired team at University of Michigan (UM).
Fleishman (1962) named the dimensions to be Ëœinitiating structureâ„¢ and Ëœconsiderationâ„¢,
considered the number of written grievances and voluntary turnover on the part of
subordinates as the criteria for leadership effectiveness and eventually held that beyond
certain critical levels decreasing the initiating structure or increasing consideration had no
effect on grievance or turnover rates. Likert, almost in a similar vein, independently
though, christened the style dimensions as Ëœtask-centredâ„¢ and Ëœemployee-centredâ„¢ and
concluded that effectiveness of leadership was beyond productivity measures and should
include criteria like satisfaction and morale of those led.
Blake and Mouton (1964) also came up with a similar dictionary calling the
managerial styles as Ëœtask-orientationâ„¢ and Ëœpeople-orientationâ„¢. Assuming nine levels
along each dimension, they formulated and popularised a 9*9 Managerial Grid to locatePage 5

the specific configuration of individual managers and train them up in leadership
orientations and styles.
Integration of these perspectives underlined the importance of reckoning
subordinatesâ„¢ leadership qualities as well because leadership functions spills beyond the
formal group leader and the effectiveness of a group depends on the overall quality of the
total leadership in the group than on who performs the designated leader role.
After supportive and task related behaviours, the next prominent line of leadership
discernment has been the Ëœparticipative leadershipâ„¢ that involves decision procedures
allowing the subordinates to have their say while the leader decides. Consultation, Joint
Decision Making, Power Sharing, Decentralisation and Democratic Management etc
were the other labels given to this general category of leadership thinking. Participative
leadership was construed as a distinctive behaviour separate from task and relationship
behaviours even though three categories may overlap to some extent. The canvas painted
by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) presented an Ëœautocratic-to-democraticâ„¢ pattern
showing a relationship between the degree of authority used by the manager and the
freedom available to subordinates in reaching decisions. Because the labels Ëœautocraticâ„¢
and Ëœdemocraticâ„¢ carried connotations of dictatorial and democratic regiments, many
managers were reluctant to accept that they operated in an autocratic manner; it was also
maintained that Ëœparticipativeâ„¢ would be a more appropriate description about their
behaviour than Ëœdemocraticâ„¢ while striving to achieve organisational goals.
Airiness in behaviouristic arguments on leadership have been trapped in
arguments that there is no evidence that the leaderâ„¢s style or behaviour changed
according to the situation, that factors like nature of tasks, group cohesiveness or
subordinatesâ„¢ characteristics are ignored, and that behaviouristic rhetoric did not
discriminate between leadership and authority relationships which could be easily and
naturally initiated and maintained by leaders in formal situations.
Tales of Situational Leadership
Tales on situational/contingency approaches, developed mostly in 1970s,
capitalised and extended the relevance of then prevalent task and relationship orientations
to situations and took the strand that leadership warrant varying traits and behaviours for
a manager to be effective in different realities. Aspects of a situation called Ëœmoderatorsâ„¢
enhance or diminish the effects of a trait or behaviour. A manager, before deciding to
apply a particular style, has to diagnose and evaluate the situation for moderators such as
the groupâ„¢s structure, subordinatesâ„¢ differences and maturity, nature of tasks,
organisational policies and practices. The only exception to this general prescription of
the time was the Vroom-Yetton view that the basic function of a manager is to make
effective decisions.
Fred Fiedler (1967), the first fabler in this saga, proposed that leadership
effectiveness depends on a proper match between the leaderâ„¢s style with subordinates and
the degree of control with him in the situation. He used the concept of Ëœleast preferred co-
workerâ„¢ to specify the leader as task or relationship oriented and protracted into the
aspects of Ëœleader-member relationsâ„¢, Ëœtask structureâ„¢ and Ëœposition powerâ„¢, which
together portrayed the favourableness of a situation for the leader. The degree of control
borne out by the situational favourableness predicts the match for the leaderâ„¢sPage 6

characteristic orientation with the situation. The leaderâ„¢s flexibility to adopt differentially
the two behavioural styles, contingent upon the situational favourableness, would decide
his/her effectiveness in terms of the subordinatesâ„¢ performance.
A leader can affect not only the performance of subordinates, but can prompt their
satisfaction and happiness as well, retold House (1971) as he gave out his famous Path-
Goal narration on leadership. His words glittered when he stated that the motivational
charm of a leader consisted in increasing opportunities for personal pay-off to
subordinates for work goal accomplishments and making the process of achievement
easier by clarifying the work content, reducing problems, and levelling pitfalls. Leader
becomes acceptable to subordinates to the extent that his behaviour is seen instrumental
for immediate or future satisfaction. House has obviously borrowed from Vroomâ„¢s VIE
theory on human motivation when the situational aspects were built into his postulations.
If the subordinates believe that their valued outcomes can be obtained only by making
serious efforts towards the work goals and if they are convinced that efforts will succeed
in fetching the valued outcomes, efforts will follow. The role of a leader is to create these
beliefs and perceptions.
Vroom and Yetton (1973) presented more sophisticated, densely coloured and
mathematically smeared set of eight rules for the managers to choose from while
deciding to allow the participation of subordinates in decision-making. Four of these
rules were claimed to be capable of ensuring Ëœdecision qualityâ„¢ and the other four to
ensure ˜decision acceptance™. They also talked about five decision procedures “
alternative leadership styles “ consisting two varieties of autocratic (AI & AII), two
varieties of consultative (CI & CII) and one type of joint decision (GI) styles. It was thus
essentially a decision tree incorporating eight contingencies and five alternative
leadership styles. This interpretation of leadership was claimed to have reflected the
advancements achieved in understanding leadership and that managers need to look at the
broader situation than trying to follow their favourite styles.
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) came up with another revolutionary framework on
leadership through their ËœLife Cycle Modelâ„¢ later renamed as ËœSituational Modelâ„¢. This
model portrayed leadership effectiveness as a function of the two behavioural dimensions
of Ëœtask behaviourâ„¢ and Ëœrelationship behaviourâ„¢ on the part of the leader and a situational
variable of Ëœfollower maturityâ„¢ reflecting a progressive, positive, constructive and
cumulative autonomy displayed by the subordinates in task performance. The level of
subordinatesâ„¢ maturity determines the optimal style of leader behaviour. As subordinatesâ„¢
maturity progresses from the minimum to a moderate level, leader is advised to use more
relationship behaviour and less task behaviour. As subordinatesâ„¢ maturity goes beyond
the moderate level, the leader should advisedly decrease relationship behaviour while
continuing to diminish the amount of task behaviour.
The basic plea in contingency/situational approaches requires managers to be able
to adopt different leadership styles as warranted by situations and thus be flexible. If they
were relatively inflexible, they would be effective only in such situations that best match
their styles or that can modified to match their styles. Fiedler believed that managers
were quite inflexible and was pessimistic about the possibility of training managers to use
varying styles. He suggested that either manager be matched to the situation or the
situation be changed to suit a manager. Vroom and Yetton believed that managers can be
flexible and can adopt appropriate styles. The essential question that remained wasPage 7

whether managers can diagnose the situation and are they flexible enough to adapt
themselves to the situation?
The significant moral to be drawn from the situational perspective on leadership
would be to deal with different subordinates differently and to treat any given subordinate
with variation as the situation varies. Message was also that leaders had to concern about
building up the skills and confidence of subordinates and not to discredit a subordinate
with deficiencies as a Ëœproblem employeeâ„¢ forever.
Myths so far on Leadership
Leadership is an area blessed with abundant literature, ideas and theories and, as a
result, harbours certain unfounded, yet widely held, imageries. The myths given below,
though unscientific, are significant for their popularity and seem to have more lives than
the liveliest cats. Each of these notions is shown to be ill founded for reasons obvious.
1.
Leaders are born, not made.
No one is born with a divine right to ride herd over others and no is born to be a
slave all throughout. Leadership is a gradual achievement and not a birthright or a happy
accident of heredity. Everyone has some leadership potential that can be further
developed and actualised. If subordinates have never been given opportunities and have
had no chance to spread the wings of leadership, predictably they will be followers. At
the same time, it would be erroneous to deny that heredity, environment, opportunities for
formal education, personality, social and familial background and a host of other factors
that play significant parts in the moulding of a manager-leader. Even the so-called born
leaders have to be developed. As Shakespeare has put it, Ëœeveryone is born a baby, not a
leaderâ„¢.
2.
Leaders have a charisma that followers lack.
Certain rare persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Winston
Churchill or Adolf Hitler undoubtedly had a special charisma. But this is not true for
majority of business leaders. No leader has been found to possess any truly unique and
personal characteristics or traits totally absent among others, and researches do not reveal
any consistent personality pattern that distinguishes leaders from followers. It is only a
matter of having intensified certain human abilities or of having honed oneâ„¢s skills than
of being the recipient of any special boon from a benevolent deity.
3.
Leadership connotes being nice to people.
Being considerate of others is characteristic of all well-bred people has nothing
per se to do with leadership. Striving to maintain subordinates happy is a self-deceiving
endeavour as far as a manager is concerned. The pursuit of happiness is an individual
quest and every one is a Ëœromancerâ„¢ in the larger context of life.
4.
Leadership can be a clever form of manipulation
Leadership position may be utilised by some to deceive others. In the long run
manipulation is self-defeating and manipulating others is not leadership but conmanship.Page 8

Sooner or later, others will catch on that they are being used and abused and the
confidence man will reap a mountain of resentment and subversion. In an era when the
educational level and sophistication of subordinates are ever increasing, attempt to
manipulate them would endanger the organisational interest; let alone the managerâ„¢s self
interest and his moral integrity.
5.
Leadership must be democratic.
Democracy is a political philosophy and way of life. No business organisation can
be a democracy in a real sense any more than a family can. The manager-leader who tries
always being democratic ends up in a pseudo-democracy. To state that a manager has to
be supportive and share the leadership function when appropriate is a far cry from
everyone endowed with a right to assert personal opinion about anything regardless of
his/her ignorance or exigency of the situation. A true manager initiates action not based
on an idealised picture of the role but realities on hand. In fact, persistent effort to be
democratic may actually be a subtle evasion of the responsibilities of the role of a
manager.
The process of Managerial Leadership
After a review of the trait, behavioural and contingency approaches to managerial
leadership, and having seen the myths that prevail under the rubric of these explanations,
one wonders as to what could be the quintessence of managerial leadership. As with most
of the other management related issues, the answer here also is not clear-cut; but
indications are that managersâ„¢ power is the most reliable clarification. This proposition is
better appreciated when viewed from the perspectives of ËœSocial Exchangesâ„¢ and
ËœVertical Dyad Linkagesâ„¢ that are latent in leader-follower transactions. Social Exchange
view explains the reciprocal process of influence between leaders and followers and
posits Ëœsocial interactionâ„¢ as the basis for explicating complex behaviour in groups.
Varied forms of social and psychological exchanges including material benefits,
approval, respect, esteem fear and affection and the like can occur between and among
members in a social context. Individuals engage in meaningful social exchanges right
from early childhood and develop expectations about reciprocity and equity in such
exchanges. Social Exchange view holds that a leaderâ„¢s role calls for innovation while
dealing with obstacles and problems. Risk of failure is not precluded even if a leader is
complacent and refuses to take initiative on facing serious problems. Group members
recurrently evaluate their exchange relationship with their leader and will not accord
privileges and benefits implicit in the status and position of the leader unless they feel
and believe that the group is heading towards the attainment of the commonly valid
goals.
The concept of Vertical Dyad refers to the relationship between a leader and an
individual subordinate. The perspective is rooted in the notion that leaders establish a
special kind of relationship with a smaller number of trusted subordinates, referred to as
Ëœin-groupâ„¢, of which the members are selected on the basis of personal compatibility,
subordinateâ„¢s competence and dependability, who function as confidants, advisors and
reliable assistants. The quality of this special relationship is at considerable variance withPage 9

the relationship established with the rest of the group, the Ëœout-groupâ„¢, with which there is
only a relatively low level of relationship and influence.
Thus the primary source of a leaderâ„¢s influence is the legitimate authority
supported with varying degrees of mutual bonding realised through displayed abilities as
a model and an expert on the job, behavioural tactics like exchanging, coercing, and
rewarding, moderated by his/her personal and social qualities.
Truth of Managerial Leadership
Management students are often surprised at the low regard that many practising
managers have for academic theories on management and leadership. Critics hold that it
is fine to talk of planning, organising, motivating and controlling the functions in an
organisation and the bearing that subordinates and other situational factors have on the
effective ways of materialising all these; but managerial theories have never been capable
of causing action and resolving real life problems. Analysing why certain practices click
and speculating on the best way to handle a managerâ„¢s job and subordinates are
interesting intellectual exercises. When one steps out of the ivory tower of theory into the
real world of a managerâ„¢s job, things boil down to getting someone else do something the
way one wants it done. What really counts is the effective use of power and influence.
Managerial leadership, succinctly described, is the process of influencing a
group, in a particular situation, at a given point of time, and in a specific set of
circumstances, stimulating people to strive to attain chosen objectives, giving them the
experience of having made it possible themselves. The key ideas incorporated herein can
be clarified as follows.
1.
Process of influencing.
When leaders lead, managers lead and manage. Managers have to relate to and
interact with subordinates and their leadership is not a Ëœnow-and-thenâ„¢ phenomenon that
is exercised when emergencies arise. It is a continuous effort on the part of a manager
that demands the Ëœplus factorâ„¢ than reflex responses that brings in excellence in the place
of mediocrity. Manager is a leader of the people by affecting and influencing their
thoughts, actions and behaviour. Influencing essentially is the impact that one can have
on another or a group. Influencing also implies that a manager is accepted by
subordinates, looked up to for direction, pursued by them as capable of helping them
achieve their aims. As is often the case with any opinion that have endured and grown
widespread, there is substance in the thesis that power of managers is the most significant
resource for managing effectively. But to hold that leadership alone is sufficient for
managerial effectiveness would be a partial and shortsighted position.
2.
In a particular situation, at a given point of time, and in a specific set of
circumstances.
The quest for a universally valid abstraction of leadership has been as fruitless
and frustrating as that for a universal solvent. Managerial leadership, like medicine, is
never general but always particular and specific. Despite the tendency of managers and
executives to act on the bases of habit and past experiences or successes rather than byPage 10

insight into a given reality, evidences are that a type of leadership behaviour suited to one
situation may prove inappropriate in another.
3.
Stimulate people to strive towards attaining chosen objectives.
In all organisations many of the plans and goals come down the chain of
command. Even though the manager has had no say in choosing and establishing them,
his duty is to do his utmost to get his people accept organisational aims and help them
identify these as a means for attaining their own goals. The manager always has a right to
dissent; he/she may even have the right to make the dissent known to higher authorities,
but has no right to resist the legitimate demands of superiors for such behaviour would
simply amount to disloyalty.
5. G
ive subordinates the experience of having made it possible themselves.
Managers often make the mistake of projecting their subjective attitudes about
certain jobs on to those who perform the jobs. Because managers would find some work
boring and inconsequential, they tend to think of people doing it as unimportant and dim-
witted. To some people some jobs are dull so that they should be discarded. In fact, there
are no glamorous jobs “ all involve routine, repetitive and built in irritants; in a sense,
there are only uninterested people occupying them. If employees are to feel some
identification with the undertaking and assume responsibility for its success, the
manager-leader must help them understand how their jobs contribute to an operational
end-result and must thank the employees for their contributions however unglamorous
they may be. It would be rewarding if the manager realises that he/she is the firmâ„¢s pre-
eminent public relations expert.
Managers are thus expected to extend their influence over others and make a
difference in their work effectiveness. If that were not the case, there would be no need
for the managerial role. Managers™ ability to exert influence over others “ managerial
power - is the kernel of managerial behaviour. Power of managers is a phenomenon that
should be explored and digested. It is a resource that managers have to acquire and use.
Ways in which managers exercise various types of power determine their
effectiveness in influencing subordinates. Influence over the attitudes and behaviour of
subordinates is the essence of competent managership. Despite its importance, the ways
in which managers can exert their power have not been the subject of much research
(Yukl & Taber, 1992). The few earlier attempts on the possible linkage between
managersâ„¢ power and their effectiveness were confined to one or two power bases like
expert and referent powers and showed that these were statistically correlated with
subordinatesâ„¢ performance and satisfaction. However these impressions are at odds with
recent research findings. Use of rewards to develop a transactional and exchange oriented
relationship have been found to be very potential in some situations; punishments and
coercion can also instrumental in obtaining subordinatesâ„¢ co-operation and compliance
and, exercising authority (position power) supported with a legitimate request is a fail-
free approach to influencing subordinates. Thus it is likely that an effective manager put
to use a variety of power bases at one time or the other (Mampilly, 1998).
A managerâ„¢s choice of influence behaviour, otherwise the power style, depends
on the type and extent of power he has over the target person in a given situation. To
elaborate further, a manager with substantial position power tends to prefer to use aPage 11

power style based on his/her position as compared to another manager with little of
position power. Any particular tactic or style is unlikely to be effective if that behavioural
approach needs the support of a power base, which the manager does not possess. The
leaderâ„¢s choice of influence behaviour depends also on the aspects like personality,
temperament, needs, motives and values that are relatively stable dispositions causing a
person to behave in a particular way. These are important as they affect oneâ„¢s attention to
information and events, and guide, cause and sustain behaviour.
Managersâ„¢ power profile, comprising their relative power as against that of
subordinates, consciously used power bases and power styles, is expected to affect
subordinatesâ„¢ attitudes and behaviour, and the outcome may be commitment or
compliance or resistance. As indicated already, this outcome is the indicator of the
situational competence of a manager. The reaction of the target person depends on,
besides the competence of the manager, other aspects of the situation such as the extent to
which the target shares the task objectives, relevance of the request to the task, and the
flexibility of the request. The target is more prone to respond positively to a request that
is important and feasible than to one that is perceived trivial and impractical. Elaborations
on these situational aspects and the intermediary outcomes in the target personsâ„¢
reactions, though significant, have been excluded to maintain the focus of this article.
The outcome of an influence attempt definitely has a feedback effect on the
behaviour of a manager. The manager may modify a request or proposal in response to
the concerns and suggestions given by the target person. Gradually when it becomes
obvious that the target person is making good progress in carrying out a request or an
instruction, other types of influence behaviour may occur as well.
Exercise of power by leaders can affect the targetsâ„¢ attitudes and reciprocal
behaviour. When a leader constantly resorts to coercive power, subordinates tend to
become cautious, comply with rule overtly and try to manage impressions. Alternatively,
when the leader typically uses any of his persuasive powers, subordinates are likely to be
more convinced, committed to the request and ensure that the leaderâ„¢s request is carried
out appropriately and share their bossâ„¢s sense of achievement. This was precisely what
Lao Tse circa wanted to impress, saying in 700 BC, Go with the people, live with them,
learn from them, start with what they know, and build with what they have. But of the
best leaders, when the job is done, the task accomplished, people will say, we have done
this ourselves.
References:
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964) The Managerial Grid, Houston, Gulf Publishing Co.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York, Mc Graw Hill.
Fleishman, E.A. & Harris, E.F. (1962) Patterns of Leadership Behaviour related to
Employee Grievances and Turnover, Personnel Psychology, 15, pp. 43-44.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1982) Management of Organisational Behaviour:
Utilising Human Resources, New Delhi, Prentice Hall.
House, R.J. (1971) A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, pp. 321-338.
Likert, R. (1967) The Human Organisation: Its management and Value, New York, Mc
Graw Hill.Page 12

Mampilly, S.R. (1998) Power Profile of Effective Managers: An exploration among the
Branch Managers of a Commercial Bank in Kerala, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cochin
University of Science and Technology.
McClelland, D.C. & Burnham, D. (1975, 1995) Power is the greatest motivator,
Harvard Business Review, 25, pp. 159-166.
McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982) Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management, Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, pp. 739-760.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research, New
York, Free Press.
Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. (1958) How to choose a Leadership Pattern,
Harvard Business Review, 38, pp. 95-101.
Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973) Leadership and Decision Making, Pittsburgh,
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yukl, G.A. & Taber, T. (1992) The effective use of Managerial Power, in Dale A.
Timple (Ed.) The Art and Science of Business Management, Bombay, Jaico Publishing