Int. J. Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 5, No.

1, 2005 57

Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation: a study

on Indian public sector

Biswajeet Pattanayak* and Phalgu Niranjana

IBAT School of Management,
Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Deemed University,
Bhubaneswar 751024, India
E-mail: director@IBAT.ac.in
*Corresponding author

Somdatta Ganguly
CA 27, Salt Lake,
Kolkata 700 064, India
E-mail: drsomdattaganguly@hotmail.com

Abstract: The objectives were to find out the effect of age of organization and
level/hierarchical positions of employees on ingratiation and the differential
perception of employees with regard to bases of power, leadership styles and
ingratiation, to make a network analysis of these three variables and explain
their inter-relationships. It was 2 (age of organisation) x2 (level of employees)
factorial design with 400 samples from old and new public sector
organizations. Three standardized questionnaires were used. Findings revealed
that inter-group difference exist with regard to all three variables. Executives of
new public sector use more reward and expert power and, authoritarian,
task-oriented styles of leadership whereas in old public sector they use more
referent power and nurturant, bureaucratic styles of leadership. Executives of
old public sectors indulge in more ingratiatory behaviour comparative to
supervisors. An integrated analysis shows that leadership is a power function
and contributes to influence strategies of ingratiation.

Keywords: power dynamics; leadership; ingratiation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Pattanayak, B.,

Niranjana, P. and Ganguly, S. (2005) ‘Power dynamics, leadership and
ingratiation: a study on Indian public sector’, Int. J. Human Resources
Development and Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.57–68.

Biographical notes: Biswajeet Pattanayak is the Director of Institute of

Business Administration & training (IBAT), Bhubaneswar, India. Before
joining IBAT, he was the Director of Indian Institute of Bank Management
(IIBM), Guwahati. Pattanayak was Professor and Area Chairperson of Human
Resource Management in Indian Institute of Management, Indore. He is a PhD
and DLitt (Post Doctorate) in the area of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology and Fellow of All India Management Association (AIMA),
New Delhi, with 15 years of experience both in Industry and Academia. He has
authored 15 books and 70 research papers published in referred journals. He
has done a number of consultancy assignments with various leading
organisations including World Bank–Danida CMA HRD Project, Washington
(DC). His research interests have focussed on HRD climate, corporate
excellence, performing organisation, stress, organisational citizenship

Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

58 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

behaviour, learned optimism & organisational effectiveness. He is an Affiliate

member of American Psychological Association (APA) and member of
International Council of Psychologist (ICP), USA.

Phalgu Niranjana is a Faculty in the area of Organizational Behaviour. Prior to

joining IBAT, she has worked as Research Associate in Indian Institute of
Management, Indore and Indian Institute of Bank Management, Guwahati. She
is MA and MPhil in Psychology and PhD in Management in Utkal University.
She has 16 national and international publications to her credit. Of late, her
research work is being published in the internationally reputed Pfeiffer Annuals
on Corporate Excellence. She is a coauthor of the book ‘Creating Performing
Organisations: International Perspective for Indian Management’ published by
Response Books, Sage Publications, and ‘Intelligent Organisation: A Raodmap
to Success’ by Excel Books, New Delhi. Her specific areas of interest are
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, Learned Optimism, Stress Management.

Somdutta Ganguly is MA, PhD in Psychology. She has just completed her
Doctoral from Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, India.

1 Introduction

The economy of any nation in the world is governed by a number of internal as well as
external forces, including the organisational environment. Though most of the external
forces are uncontrollable, internal forces are manageable and to a great extent
controllable and hence, could be changed.
India has proved to the world that despite its chaotic political scenario, imbalanced
wealth distribution, redundant bureaucracy, past baggage of Nehruvian socialism and
sundry other problems, it can implement sustainable economic restructuring in the
world’s most populous democracy. It has the potential, but the strong economic
performance of recent years requires continuing efforts to deepen it and make it work.
The impact of the reforms has been noticeable more at the central government level, in
certain Public Sector Units (PSUs) and also in the private sector. However, the reform
movement at the state government (provincial government) and the delivery of its
benefits at the grassroots remains woefully inadequate. The performance of most of the
Indian public sectors has gone down drastically because of government interference and
the bureaucracy involved in the management systems. In the liberalised regime,
Government of India has started disinvestments process in PSUs. For example, Videsh
Sanchar Nigam Limited’s (VSNL) major stakes have gone to the TATA group of
companies, which is a privately owned organisation; Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. also went
to a private promoter. Now the biggest challenge to all PSUs is to transform and perform.
The cutting edge of an organisation is its people. The work culture, thus, is being
redefined to bring out the best in employees. The challenges are in handling behavioural
and moral complexities that occur in the private and public sectors domestically and
globally (Lewis, 1991; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). To begin with, complacency has to
give way to a new dynamism to meet the challenges of competition.
Ingratiation, leadership and power dynamics in any organisation could be functionally
related to the nature and value of management ethics in that organisation. Ingratiation is
deeply rooted in the value system of the individual as well as in his/her interpersonal
 Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation 59

relationship and power dynamics in the organisation. Power, authority and influence are
all related to leadership. The ethical values can also play a vital role in influencing
leadership processes and power dynamics in the organisation.
Based on some case studies of public enterprises from developing as well as
developed countries, it was observed that while defining their goals and objectives, PSUs
are influenced more by value than by economic aspects (Murthy, 1982). By economic
aspects of a strategy is meant considerations such as products, costs, markets,
competitions, cash flows as well as technological and organisational capabilities. Value
aspects, on the other hand, refer to the personal values of key decision-makers, their
desires, preferences and their conception of the ideal. For an effective enterprise, both
these aspects are to be balanced. Above all, two dimensions have emerged as vital to the
continuity of public sector organisations, leadership and power dynamics.
Moreover, there is a need to draw upon familial values in India to set up organisations
just as the Japanese have been doing. To meet the challenges of the unpredictable times,
what is needed among other initiatives is resilient leaders. Resilience calls for elasticity,
buoyancy, adaptability and strong life energy (Sinha, 2003). It has been identified that a
few socio-cultural values such as preference of aram (rest or relaxation), dependence
proneness, lack of commitment, showing off, personalised relationships and lack of team
orientation present in the Indian culture and Indian subordinates have led to the
formulation of nurturant-task (NT) leadership style. Indian subordinates tend to depend
excessively (Chattopadhyay, 1975; Sinha, 1970; Sinha, 1984) on their superior with
whom they want to cultivate a personalised (Murthy, 1982; De, 1974) rather than
contractual work relationship. They readily accept the authority of their superior
(Kakar, 1971) and yield to his or her demands. Work is not valued in itself. Yet, the
subordinates are even willing to work extra hard as part of their efforts to maintain a
personalised relationship with the superior. Given the presence of such values, the NT
style of leadership was proposed for the Indian culture (Sinha, 1980). The NT leader
cares for his subordinates, shows affection, takes personal interest in their wellbeing, and
above all, is committed to their growth. He, however, makes his nurturance contingent on
the subordinate’s task accomplishment. Thus, the NT leader is effective for those
subordinates who want to maintain dependency, a personalised relationship and a status
differential. Once the subordinates reach a reasonable level of maturity, they generate
pressure on the leader to shift to the Participative style. From this perspective, the NT
style is considered to be a forerunner of the Participative style in the reciprocal influence
processes between a leader and his or her subordinates. The only uniqueness of this style
is the priority attached to the productivity over job satisfaction; it assumes that meaningful
and lasting job satisfaction has a pre-condition, i.e., the productivity of an organisation.
In Indian public sector organisations, leaders have the capacity to exercise more
power in comparison to others. And invariably, the increase in the need for power in
these organisations is basically because of their hierarchical structure with a number of
steps. The higher ones in the hierarchy are entitled to a disproportionately larger share of
resources (Voronov and Coleman, 2003). Naturally, acquisition of resources leads to
higher status and power that further improve one’s access to more resources. All these
factors tend to create a pressing need for power in the minds of Indians.
Power is exercised through the use of various behavioural strategies. Both superiors
and subordinates exercise their power by using different methods in different situations,
and for different reasons (Hellrigel et al., 2001). In Indian organisations, ingratiation has
been widely used as an appropriate strategy. Ingratiation involves making the other
60 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

person important, inflating the importance through request, showing a need, asking
politely, acting friendly or humbly, or pretending that the other person is really going to
make the decision. It has been recorded that there is pervasive use of ingratiation in
Indian organisations (Pandey, 1981). A less powerful person ingratiates himself with a
more powerful one in order to manipulate the latter to accord him some undue favours. It
was reported in a study (Ansari, 1990) that ingratiation is the second most used strategy
for influencing one’s superiors. Providing personalised help was the next most popular
and showing dependency was the fourth most popular strategy for influencing superiors.
The most often used strategy was expertise and reason.
The age and hierarchy in the public sector has a greater role to play in determining
organisational climate. There is a significant difference between the old and new public
sector organisation in India in terms of quality of work life and organisational
effectiveness (Pattanayak and Niranjana, 2001). One cannot say that all old organisations
are better than all new organisations; rather the actual position is that some old
organisations are better than some new organisations and vice versa (Pattanayak, 2002).
In some studies, it is found out even in new organisations, some aspects of quality of
work life are poorer compared to old units (Mishra and Rath, 1988).
These observations create a necessity for making a network analysis of bases of
power, leadership styles and influence strategies in Indian public sector; since these are
undergoing a pressure to rebuild their work culture and develop a synergistic work
environment, it is imperative to study these dynamics and suggest OD interventions.

2 Objective

• to find out the effect of the age of the organisation and level or hierarchical position
of the employees on ingratiation
• to find out the differential perception of employees with regard to bases of power,
leadership styles and ingratiation in new and old public sectors
• to make a network analysis of these three variables and explain their
inter-relationships and suggest possible organisational development interventions.

3 Method of study

Two factors, namely,

• age of the organisation (new and old)
• hierarchical position in the organisation (executives and supervisors) are taken as the
independent variables.
Executives are the ones who perform managerial roles and skilled workers are
supervisors. There are three dependent variables, namely, leadership style, bases of
power and ingratiation. The study involved 2 × 2 factorial design. The sample consists of
400 employees which was drawn from four PSUs (100 from each) i.e.,
 Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation 61

• Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP, year of establishment-1959)

• Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL, year of establishment-1965)
• National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC, year of establishment-1975)
• National Aluminium Company (NALCO, year of establishment-1981) in India.
Half of the sample (N = 200) is from the old PSUs (HAL and RSP) and the other half
(N = 200) is from the new PSUs (NTPC and NALCO). In case of the old organisation,
half of these sample (N = 100) belonged to the category of executives and the other half
(N = 100) belonged to the category of supervisors. The same also applies to the new
organisation. The final data was collected after conducting a pilot study.

4 Tools

The following tools have been used to measure leadership style, bases of power and
ingratiation.
• bases of power (Singh-Sengupta, 1990)
• leadership styles (Sinha, 1983)
• ingratiation style (Ansari, 1990).

5 Procedure

The respondents were contacted individually in their work place. They were given a set
of the questionnaires at a time and filled in questionnaires were collected subsequently.

6 Findings

The findings of the present study reveal that executives of new public sector use more of
reward power and expert power whereas executives of old organisations use more of
referent power. On the other hand, executives from both old and new public sectors use
less of coercive power and legitimate power on a similar scale. They also use information
power to a great extent but do not differ in regards to its degree. This can be explained in
view of the changing workplace diversity and dynamics in the current business scenario.
As more and more educated, competent and informative people are joining the
organisations; the intellectual capital in new public sectors has increased. It is desirable to
use more expert and reward power in the organisation to manage the knowledge workers.
The finding shows a positive sign that rightly the new public sector executives are using
their expert and reward power than coercive power, which is not going to be effective
with knowledge workers. On the other hand, referent power signifies that a person has
become so attractive or virtuous that others seek out his influence, which implies that he
does not have to make efforts to influence people. Charismatic or transformational
leaders contain the essential components of referent power. In old public sectors,
executives have joined in the early phase of their career and grown over the years within
62 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

the organisation, whereas in new public sector mostly people have entered vertically
across the levels. As a result, the leaders have emerged within with higher rate of
acceptability and they could influence even without authority.
Interestingly, in the case of supervisors also the old public sectors use more of
reward, information, expert and referent powers. It indicates that in old public sector,
established work culture does exist and influence the perception of employees. There is a
common thread, which shows that irrespective of the age of the organisation, a greater
value is being attached in public sector to use reward mechanism, information, expertise
and referent power. This is a clear indicator that the coercion and legitimacy are losing
grounds, which is a positive indication towards better organisational culture. This could
be because of the crisis situation in public sector organisation, both in old and new, as
Government of India has started the divestment process. This supports the findings of a
study, which states that in crisis circumstances leaders exert more expert and referent
power than in non-crisis situation (Mulder, 1977).
There are significant differences between the executives of old and new public sector
organisations with regard to certain leadership styles. Executives of old public sectors use
more of nurturant as well as bureaucratic style, while executives of new public sectors
use more of authoritarian, task-oriented styles. Moreover, there is no significant
difference in terms of participative and NT leadership style. This implicates, the work
culture in Indian public sectors has a preference for participation and nurturant task
orientation irrespective of the age of the organisation. The old public sectors are created
mostly for the employment generation with high degree of job security. Moreover,
because of the hierarchical structure, large manpower and high power-distance culture, in
due course of time bureaucracy has gone into the process. It supports the findings of the
study of Sinha (1973). The benefits attached to each position mostly based on the
hierarchy rather than performance. This is probably the reason that the executives in old
public sectors use nurturant and bureaucratic style to manage people. The focus in new
public sector is basically on performance and target achievement. Hence, they believe in
results at the end of the day. Also, an expert power base along with information,
knowledge and reward mechanism might be influencing the authoritarian leadership style
in new organisations. This supports the findings of a study (Kakar, 1971), which states
that emphasis on performance, efficiency, duties and obligations is indicative of secondary
authoritarianism.

Table 1 Mean differences between the executives of old pubic sector and new public sector of
power bases and leadership

Variables Mean SD T
Bases of power
Coercive power 2.03(0) 1.21 1.23
2.07(N) 1.13
Reward power 2.33(0) 1.34 2.14**
3.85(N) 1.28
Legitimate power 2.91(0) 1.24 1.73
2.88(N) 1.22
Information power 3.88(0) 1.38 1.21
3.79(N) 1.29
 Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation 63

Table 1 Mean differences between the executives of old pubic sector and new public sector of
power bases and leadership (continued)

Variables Mean SD T
Bases of power
Expert power 2.93(0) 1.20 2.38**
4.38(N) 1.18
Referent power 4.32(0) 2.22 2.34**
2.92(N) 1.84
Leadership style
Authoritarian 2.32 (0) 1.44 2.12**
4.83 (N) 1.88
Participative 2.12(0) 1.23 1.12
2.08(N) 1.21
Nurturant 4.03(0) 2.12 2.33**
2.33(N) 2.04
Task-oriented 2.38(0) 1.22 2.08**
3.97(N) 1.33
Nurturant-task 3.38(0) 1.28 1.83
3.35(N) 1.22
Bureaucratic 4.22(0) 2.22 2.38**
2.43(N) 1.98
*p < 0.01.
**p < 0.05.

Table 2 Mean differences between the supervisors of old pubic sector and new public sector
of power bases and leadership

Variables Mean SD t
Bases of power
Coercive power 2.38(0) 1.22 0.93
2.33(N) 1.19
Reward power 3.98(0) 1.91 1.98**
2.43(N) 1.58
Legitimate power 2.68(0) 1.28 1.12
2.61(N) 1.23
Information power 4.15(0) 1.93 2.33**
2.91(N) 1.86
Expert power 4.05(0) 1.28 2.03**
3.03(N) 1.25
Referent power 4.32(0) 1.58 2.21**
2.93(N) 1.44
Leadership style
Dependency 4.23(0) 2.22 2.31**
2.89(N) 1.97
Personalised relationship 4.18(0) 1.98 2.28**
2.93(N) 1.91
Status consciousness 3.04(0) 1.33 2.19**
4.53(N) 2.08
*p < 0.01.
**p < 0.05.
64 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

Findings show that employees of both old public sector use more of ‘using a third person’
as a technique of ingratiation than those of new public sector. For using this strategy, one
needs greater level of interaction in the working environment and the availability of a
third person acceptable to everybody else in the organisation. This may be because of the
employees’ longer period of service in the same organisation, which in turn leads to
better interpersonal relationship and personal intimacy over the years.
Executives from both old and new public sectors indulge in more ingratiatory
behaviour compared to supervisors. In relation to the use of ‘enhancement of self’ as a
technique of ingratiation, executives of old public sectors use it more than that of the
supervisors. This is because of the stronger power base of the executives in public
sectors, which makes them more confident to use such behaviour. On the other hand,
supervisors use more ‘disparagement of self’ technique compared to the executives. This
results in a complementary transaction. Interestingly, executives from the new
organisations use more of ‘instrumental dependency’ as a technique of ingratiation than
those of old public sectors. Possession of knowledge and information is key to create
instrumental dependency. In a new organisation, there is more emphasis on knowledge
and information based on which the power bases are defined. Hence, this is the expected
result. But executives of old public sector use more of ‘target gratification’ compared to
the supervisors as a technique of ingratiation. On the whole, it is observed that executives
in old public sectors indulge in more ingratiatory behaviour comparative to the
supervisors which is supported by the findings a study (Pandey, 1981).

Table 3 Showing F-values of the variables of ingratiation

Source A (old/new) B (executives/supervisors) A×B

Variables
V1 UTP 3.93** 1.22 1.03
V2 ES 3.94** 3.91** 3.83**
V3 DS 3.91** 3.93** 3.89**
V4 ID 3.98** 3.95** 3.96**
V5 TG 3.63** 3.78** 3.73**
Total ingratiation 4.23** 3.94** 3.92**
*p < 0.01.
**p < 0.05.
UTP = Using a third person; ES = Enhancement of self; DS = Disparagement of self;
ID = Instrumental dependency; TG = Target gratification.

Network analysis of power, leadership and ingratiation reflects that there exists a strong
relationship between ‘using a third person’ and bureaucratic style of leadership, between
‘enhancement of self’ and nurturant and NT style, between disparagement of self and
bureaucratic style, between instrumental dependency and nurturant and NT style, and
between target gratification and participative, nurturant, task-oriented and nurturant task
style for the public sector executives. The NT style seems to have stronger relationship
with all types of ingratiation.
 Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation 65

Table 4 Relationships between ingratiatory behaviours and leadership styles of executives in

public sector

Leadership styles
Ingratiation patterns A P N T NT B
Using a third person 0.28 0.31 0.13 0.48 0.43 0.62
Enhancement of self 0.53 0.52 0.63 0.38 0.64 0.24
Disparagement of self 0.22 0.33 0.23 0.41 0.46 0.55
Instrumental dependency 0.28 0.46 0.56 0.58 0.68 0.33
Target gratification 0.34 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.64 0.26
A = Authoritarian; P = Participative; N = Nurturant; T = Task; NT = Nuruturant-Task;
B = Bureaucratic.

When ingratiation is correlated with power bases, again it comes out that reward power
seems to be strongly related to enhancement of self and target gratification; cohesive
power to enhancement of self and instrumental dependency; information power to using a
third person, enhancement of self and target gratification; expert power to enhancement
of self and target gratification and referent power to enhancement of self, instrumental
dependency and target gratification. It seems that public sector executives’ power bases
influence their ingratiatory behaviour. It is also observed that legitimate power seems to
have the weakest relationship with ingratiation. Legitimate power is vested in the
authority positions and a person avails of it because he occupies a particular position. The
position may be achieved or ascribed. Maybe legitimate power is not enough to influence
another person in public sector organisations. For supervisors the relationships found are
not quite different. Using a third person has stronger relationship with legitimate power.
Enhancement of self has strong relationship with all bases of power except legitimate
power. Disparagement of self has no strong relationship with any one of the bases of
power. Instrumental dependency is strongly related to reward, expert and referent power
and target gratification has strong relationship with reward, information, expert and
referent power. It seems that both executives and supervisors share a major impact of the
mainstream work culture of the organisation, which contributes towards their experience
in relation to power perception, leadership style and ingratiatory behaviour. It could be
inferred that bases of power could emerge as a predictor of influence strategies. It could
be that the use of influence strategies would vary as a function of bases of power. A
recent study stated that ingratiation had strong relationship with reward and referent bases
of power (Ansari, 1990). The findings of the present study go beyond it that ingratiation
has strong relationship with different leadership styles and power bases.

Table 5 Relationships between ingratiatory behaviours and bases of power used by executives of
public sector

Bases of power
Ingratiation pattern CP RP LP IP EP RFP
Using a third person 0.48 0.43 0.44 0.52 0.28 0.18
Enhancement of self 0.63 0.64 0.28 0.58 0.63 0.66
Disparagement of self 0.38 0.28 0.43 0.28 0.22 0.24
Instrumental dependency 0.62 0.48 0.45 0.47 0.32 0.48
Target gratification 0.33 0.63 0.43 0.55 0.53 0.56
CP = Coercive power; RP = Reward power; LP = Legitimate power; IP = Informational
power; EP = Expert power; RFP = Referent power.
66 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

Table 6 Relationship between bases of power and ingratiation used by supervisors of public
sector organisations

Ingratiation behaviour
Bases of power UTP ES DS ID TG
CP 0.33 0.55 0.44 0.28 0.43
RP 0.32 0.62 0.28 0.57 0.56
LP 0.47 0.32 0.23 0.44 0.43
IP 0.28 0.53 0.32 0.43 0.55
EP 0.27 0.63 0.23 0.48 0.64
RFP 0.28 0.47 0.32 0.55 0.57
Ingratiation behaviour: UTP = Using a third person; ES = Enhancement of self;
DS = Disparagement of self; ID = Instrumental dependency; TG = Target gratification.
Bases of power: CP = Coercive power; RP = Reward power; LP = Legitimate power;
IP = Informational power; EP = Expert power; RFP = Referent power.

Table 7 Relationship between bases of power and leadership styles used by executives of public
sectors

Leadership styles
Bases of power A P N T NT B
CP 0.67 0.23 0.22 0.62 0.48 0.65
RP 0.58 0.28 0.63 0.55 0.62 0.20
LP 0.51 0.33 0.34 0.41 0.42 0.48
IP 0.55 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.32
EP 0.56 0.33 0.38 0.58 0.56 0.38
RFP 0.37 0.54 0.58 0.43 0.54 0.28
Leadership styles: A = Authoritarian; P = Participative; N = Nurturant; T = Task;
NT = Nuruturant-Task; B = Bureaucratic.
Bases of power: CP = Coercive power; RP = Reward power; LP = Legitimate power;
IP = Informational power; EP = Expert power; RFP = Referent power.

The new economic programme of India has opened up opportunities to a greater degree
of international participation and investments. Consequently, not only more players have
come to India, but mergers and acquisitions of a large number of Indian companies have
also taken place to avail competitive advantage. This has compelled Indian companies to
stand on the toes to face the competition to excel through re-examining their strategies
and practices. Such a shake out is indeed in stark contrast to their mindset and attitudinal
disposition in the recent past, where cornering a license mattered more than a company’s
product and competency. In this changing scenario, the findings of the present study are
not only stimulating but also throw directions to improve the public sector culture.
Initiative needs to be taken in old public sector organisations to change the culture from
bureaucratic style of management to more of a participative and nurturant task orientation
style and also to minimise the influencing strategies of ingratiation. The new public
sectors should take initiative in curving authoritarian management style to more of a
participative style, which will foster the task orientation. The fine art of ingratiation is
 Power dynamics, leadership and ingratiation 67

only effective when subtly done, and it can be targeted towards bosses or subordinates.
Ingratiation is largely influenced by the leadership style and the power dynamics in the
organisation. To keep the ingratiatory behaviour within the threshold limit where the
optimisation of performance is possible or can be ensured through developing a work
culture, which will give importance to knowledge as a power, participative as a style, task
orientation as a culture. This has been highlighted by a recent study, which states that
participative advocates should doff their doctrinaire hats and apply themselves to the
application of participative leadership in more pragmatic and in more flexible terms
(Mulder, 1977). The connection between participation and effectiveness is significant
because managers are more likely to act in a participative manner if they believe their
actions lead to better results. This can be realised through OD initiatives such as team
building, knowledge creation and management, which in turn will transform the public
sectors to be more productive and excellent.
The future research can be undertaken comparing the Indian private sector and
multinational companies to understand the micro differences, which will help the
organisations to design their OD intervention techniques.

References
Ansari, M.A. (1990) Managing People at Work, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Chattopadhyay, G.P. (1975) ‘Dependence in Indian culture: from mud-huts to company board
rooms’, Economic and Political weekly, Vol. 10, pp.30–38.
De, N.R. (1974) ‘Conditions for work culture’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 9,
pp.587–598.
Hellrigel, D., Slocum, J.W. and Woodman, R.W. (2001) Organisational Behaviour,
South-Western Thompson Learning, Singapore.
Kakar, S. (1971) ‘Authority patterns of subordinate behaviour in Indian organisations’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp.298–307.
Lewis, C.W. (1991) The Ethics Challenge in Public Service, Jossey-bass, Sanfrancisco.
Mishra, P.K. and Rath, D. (1988) Quality of Work Life in Old and New Organizations,
An unpublished dissertation, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar.
Mulder, M. (1977) ‘Power equalization through participation’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 16, pp.31–38.
Murthy, K.R.S. (1982) Strategic Management of Public Enterprises – A Framework for Analysis, A
working paper, IIM, Ahmedabad.
Osborne, J. and Gaebler, S. (1992) Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pandey, J. (1981) ‘A note about social power through ingratiation among workers’, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54, pp.65–67.
Pattanayak, B. (2002) ‘Effects of shift work and hierarchical position in the organization on
psychological correlates: a study on an integrated steel plant’, Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.7–18.
Pattanayak, B. and Niranjana, P. (2001) ‘Organizational role stress and quality of work life in
public sector manufacturing industries’, Sankalpa, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.27–38.
Singh-Sengupta, S. (1990) ‘Influence strategies used on superiors’, Management & Labour Studies,
Vol. 15, pp.141–145.
Sinha, D. (1973) ‘Organizational climate and problems of management in India’, International
Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 22, pp.55–64.
68 B. Pattanayak, P. Niranjana and S. Ganguly

Sinha, D. (1980) The Nurturant-Task Leader: A Model of Effective Executive, Concept,

New Delhi.
Sinha, D. (1983) ‘Further testing of a model of leadership effectiveness’, Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, pp.143–160.
Sinha, D.P. (2003) ‘Leadership in unpredictable times’, in Bhargava, S. (Ed.): Transformational
Leadership: Value-based management for Indian organisations, Response Books, New Delhi,
pp.30–35.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1970) Development through Behaviour Modification, Allied, Bombay.
Sinha, J.B.P. (1984) ‘A model of effective leadership styles in India’, International Studies of
Management and Organization, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.765–776.
Voronov, M. and Coleman, P.T. (2003) ‘Beyond the ivory towers’, The Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.169–185.