International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research

ISSN: 2455-4588
Impact Factor: RJIF 5.12
www.educationjournal.in
Volume 2; Issue 6; November 2017; Page No. 10-12

A study on leadership preferences among post graduate students of Kashmir University

Irshad Ahmad Najar, Wahid Ahmad Dar
Research Scholars, Kashmir University, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Abstract
A descriptive study was conducted among post graduate students of Kashmir University using Leadership preference scale (L.I.
Bhushan, 1995). This scale has been developed in 1995. This scale was administered to a sample of 250 post graduate students,
randomly drawn from Kashmir University. The study aimed at understanding gender differences in leadership style preferences;
the influence of residential background on leadership style preference and the differences in leadership style preference among
students from joint and nuclear families. It was seen that more preference is for authoritarian leadership. Females were found more
authoritative than males. Students from nuclear families were found more authoritative than students belonging to joint families.
The students from rural and urban areas don’t show any differences in their leadership preferences.

Keywords: post graduate students, leadership

Introduction (Sharma, 1990) [15]. Culture also has influence on leadership

In modern days the importance of leaders in enhancing the styles (Jogulu, 2010) [4]
performance and reputation of an organization is widely There has been a lot of research supporting the view that
acknowledged (Barchiesi et al.). The concept of leaders and genes have more influence on leadership role occupancy than
followers has for centuries been a central tenet of human environment (Avolio and Gibbons 1988) [1]. While others
society. Numerous definitions of leadership have been claim that environment can also have a moderating role to
proposed, but most conclude that leadership is a process, play in shaping the leadership behavior of an individual
entails influence, occurs within a group setting and involves (Zhang, & Arvey, 2009) [17]. Yet the accumulated research
shared goals or visions (Northouse, 2017) [5]. The concept of clearly suggests that genetics accounts for only some 30% of
leadership “style” emerged through classical studies the variance in leadership ratings and leadership role
conducted by (Lewin et al. 1939) [7]. They identified occupancy. Another 10–15% of the variance appears to be
authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership, attributable to work and broader life events, whereas the
and demonstrated that leadership style had a profound effect remaining 50% is as yet undiscovered (Arvey, et al. 2007) [2].
on group productivity and interactions with other group family background cam have significant influence on future
members and the leader. Some scholars argue that democratic leadership development as noted by Standford-Blair &
leadership is, on balance, less productive but more satisfying Dickmann (2005) [16] that individuals identified their parents
than autocratic leadership (Bass, 1990) [1]. and other family members as being very influential for their
Empirical research on the problem of gender and leadership ascendance into leadership roles and their values and styles of
styles yields a pattern of findings that is more complex than leadership. It was also found that leaders evaluated as more
that generally acknowledged by social scientists or writers of transformational by their followers independently described
popular books on management (Eagly & Johannesen‐Schmidt, their parents as being very challenging and supportive, in a
2001) [6]. Deji and Makinde (2006) [12] after analysis of various balanced way (Avolio & Gibbons 1988) [1]. We will here study
demographic variables like age, education levels, and gender, the leadership styles preferences among university students in
found that women leaders had a higher level of external relation to their Gender, family type and residential
orientation and leadership skill than men. Women tended to background.
adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less
autocratic or directive style than did men (Eagly & Objectives
Johannesen 2001; Eagly, et al. 1992) [6, 11]. Gibson (1995) The objectives of the present study are:
found that males emphasize the goal setting dimension, while 1. To study the leadership preferences of post-graduate
females emphasize the interaction facilitation dimension in students of Kashmir valley
their leadership behaviors. Gender contrast effect may exists 2. To compare the leadership preference of male and female
in that, autocratic female managers were perceived to be students
higher performers than autocratic male managers (Luther, 3. To compare the leadership preference of rural and urban
1996). Women managers possessing certain distinct feminine students
talents and characteristics may be better prepared to cope with 4. To compare the leadership preference of students from
the challenges of the future than many traditional males nuclear and joint families

10
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research

Hypothesis Table 3 shows the difference between the mean scores of

H01 : There is no significant difference between leadership leadership preferences of university students with respect to
preference of male and female students their family status. As is evident from the table, the calculated
H02 : There is no significant difference between leadership value t=2.23 is significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, our null
preferences of rural and urban students hypothesis (H03) which states there is no difference in
H03 : There is no significant difference between leadership of leadership preferences of university students with respect to
students from nuclear and joint families family status stands rejected.

Methods Table 4: showing comparison of mean scores of leadership

A descriptive and cross-sectional method was used for the preferences of sample group with respect to residential background:
present study. The sample for the present study was drawn Residence N Mean SD t-value
randomly from university of Kashmir. The population for the Rural 124 70.66 10.91
present study are the post graduate students of Kashmir .75NS
Urban 126 69.60 11.55
University, Kashmir. Leadership preference scale (L.I. ** = significant at 0.01 level, * =significant at 0.05 level,
Bhushan, 1995). This scale has been developed in 1995. It NS = Not significant
aims at measuring ones degree of preference for authoritarian
or democratic style. It consists of 30 items which are to be Table 4 shows the difference between the mean scores of
answered in terms of strongly agree, agree, undecided, leadership preferences of university students with respect to
disagree and strongly disagree. The scoring is very simple, their residence. As is evident from the table, the calculated
with positive items being scored as 54321 for strongly agree, value is insignificant both at 0.05 and 0.01 levels. Therefore,
and agree and so on. For negative items the scoring is the null hypothesis (H02) which states “there is no significant
reversed. Higher score indicates preference for democratic difference in leadership preferences of university students
leadership. Various statistical techniques were used for the with respect to residence” stands accepted.
present study like mean, SD, T test using IBM SPSS software
package. Conclusion
1. 94.8% of student prefers authoritarian leadership style
Interpretation and Analysis and mere 5.2% prefer democratic leadership style. Thus
Table 1: shows frequency distribution and percentage of leadership more preference is for authoritarian leadership
preferences among university students 2. The male and female university show significant
Leadership Dimension Number Percentage differences in their leadership preference level. Females
Authoritarian 237 94.8 were found more authoritative than males.
Democratic 13 5.2 3. The university students from nuclear families differ
significantly in their leadership preference. Students from
The above table indicates that 94.8% (237/250) of sample nuclear families were found more authoritative than
group preferred authoritarian leadership and only 5.2 % (13 students belonging to joint families.
out of 250) preferred democratic leadership. 4. The students from rural and urban areas don’t show any
differences in their leadership preferences.
Table 2: showing comparison of mean scores of leadership
preferences of sample with respect to gender References
Gender N Mean SD t-value 1. Avolio BJ, Gibbons TC. Developing transformational
Male 89 72.71 12.69 leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger & R. N.
2.74**
Female 161 68.70 10.09 Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive
** = significant at 0.01 level, * =significant at 0.05 level, factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco:
NS = Not significant Jossey-Bass, 1988, 276-309.
2. Arvey RD, Zhang Z, Avolio BJ, Krueger RF.
Table 2 shows the difference between the mean scores of Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership
leadership preferences of university students with respect to role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied
their gender. As is evident from the table, the calculated value Psychology. 2007; 92(3):693.
(t=2.74) is highly significant at 0.01 level. Therefore, the null 3. Barchiesi MA, La Bella A. Leadership Styles of World's
hypothesis (H01) which states that “male and female university most Admired Companies A Holistic Approach to
students don’t differ significantly in leadership preferences” Measuring Leadership Effectiveness, International
stands rejected. Conference on Management Science & Engineering,
2007.
Table 3: showing comparison of mean scores of sample with 4. Jogulu UD. Culturally-linked leadership styles.
leadership preferences with respect to family status: Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2010;
Family status N Mean SD t-value 31(8):705-719.
Nuclear 193 69.27 11.30 5. Northouse PG. Introduction to leadership: Concepts and
2.23*
Joint 57 73.01 10.57 practice. Sage Publications, 2017.
** = significant at 0.01 level, * =significant at 0.05 level, 6. Eagly AH, Johannesen‐Schmidt MC. The leadership
NS = Not significant styles of women and men. Journal of social. 2001;

11
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Education and Research

57(4):781-797.
7. Lewin K. Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates, Journal of Social
Psychology
8. Loden M. Feminine leadership, or, how to succeed in
business without being one of the boys. Crown Pub, 1985.
9. Luthar HK. Gender differences in evaluation of
performance and leadership ability: Autocratic vs.
democratic managers. Sex Roles. 1996; 35(5):337-361.
10. Eagly AH, Johnson BT. Gender and leadership style: A
meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin. 1990; 108(2):233.
11. Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Johnson BT. Gender and leadership
style among school principals: A meta-analysis.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 1992; 28(1):76-
102.
12. Deji OF, Makinde OT. Comparative study of the
influence of demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of men and women leaders on their
leadership styles and patterns in the rural areas of Nigeria.
Journal of Comparative Social Welfare. 2006; 22(1):49-
62.
13. Prasitthipab S. Family Communication Patterns: Can
They Impact Leadership Styles?. Masters Theses, 2008,
16.
14. Plomin R, et al. Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic
era, American Psychological Association, Washington,
2003, 3-15
15. Sharma S. Psychology of Women in Management: A
Distinct Feminine Leadership. Equal Opportunities
International. 1990; 9(2):13-18,
16. Standford-Blair N, Dickmann MH. Leading coherently:
Reflection from leaders around the world. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
17. Zhang Z, Ilies R, Arvey RD. Beyond genetic explanations
for leadership: The moderating role of the social
environment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 2009; 110(2):118-128.

12