Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp.

51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
RELATION OF MANAGERIAL EFFIIEN! AN"
LEA"ER#$I% #T!LE# & EM%IRIAL #T'"! IN
HRVATSKA ELEKTROPRIVREDA D.D.
Damir Skansi
*
Received: 10. 09. 2000. riginal scientific paper
!ccepted: 22. 11. 2000. "D#: $%&.%: $21.'1 ()9*.%+
The relation of the managerial efficiency and leadership styles are analysed in this
paper. We conducted an empirical study in a Croatian power supply company
(H!". The dominant leadership style in H! is consultational# which the
organi$ation# according to postulates of this research# %rings closer to the top
glo%al companies# considering that the tendencies in leadership styles point to the
need for a new generation of leaders which will %e essentially different from the
traditional manager. We have determined that there is a significant
interdependence %etween leadership styles of H!&s managers (measured using
'ikert&s method" and the degree of management work efficiency (measured using
the ad(usted )ott&s techni*ue"+ the closer the leadership style is to System ,# that
is participational# the higher the managerial efficiency is. -lso# we have found that
there is no significant difference %etween lower and middle management in H!#
concerning the relation %etween leadership styles and efficiency. This means that
%oth levels get %etter grades for its efficiency if they %elong to a consultational
and participational leadership style.
1. %RO(LEM
,eadershipis a management function -hich is mostly directed to-ards
people and social interaction. as -ell as the process of influencing people so
that they -ould achieve the goals of the organi/ation or the common goals.
0ithout 1uality leadership and initiation of the mem2ers3 activities. stimulation
of high motivation and engagement of people. there is no successful
organi/ation nor successful company. 45perience has sho-n that managerial
efficiency differs depending on the managers3 leadership style. 6his has
*
Damir Skansi. 7Sc. 7anagement 2oard consultant. 8Dalekovod9 :agre2. ;rada <ukovara '*.
10000 :agre2. #roatia. =a5. '&% 1 $1*0 )%0. 4>mail: damir.skansi?dalekovod.hr
%1
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
stimulated numerous researches -hich have tried to ans-er the 1uestion of
-hich leadership style is the 2est.
@n search of the ans-er. important leadership theories arose 2eginning
from the personality theory. through 2ehaviorist and contingency theories. to the
theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Scientific research. up
to no-. of -hich most significant are the -orks of 7c;regor. !rgyris. ,ikert.
Alake and 7ounton. =iedler. Bouse. to-ards the more current research of
6affinder. #ros2y and Daft have sho-n that leadership styles influence the
efficiency of the company on one hand. and performance and satisfaction of the
su2ordinates on the other.
,eadership styles have a significant influence upon operational efficiency.
especially if -e o2serve them in a contingency conte5t. !lthough some authors
(for e5ample: Ball 19**. Arady and Belmich 19&). Bouse and Singh 19&*. and
others+ hold that leadership styles of management do not have a decisive
influence upon -ork efficiency and corporate performance > such a standpoint.
at least according to the data availa2le to us is not the standpoint of the
maCority. !lthough there still is no uniform ans-er to the 1uestion of -hich
leadership style is the most efficient. the research so far has sho-n that the
leadership style is the cause. and not the conse1uence of the company3s
performance. and that there are significant differences in leadership. monitoring.
interpersonal relationships. application of methods. communication and other
management components 2et-een successful and unsuccessful managers. that is
2et-een organi/ational units -hich they are at the head.
6he e5ploration of the relationship 2et-een leadership styles and
performance and -ork efficiency starts from ,ikert. -ho -as the first to stress
the importance of different leadership styles for performance and -ork
efficiency. and -ho has. 2ased on his empirical research. reached the conclusion
that all leadership styles are the cause. and not the conse1uence of -ork
efficiency.
!ccording to simple. early theoretical models. kno-n as 8personality
theories9. it -as considered that management efficiency depends primarily upon
the personal characteristics of a leader. Bo-ever. personality theories could not
identify the personality characteristics -hich -ould guarantee managerial
efficiency (Stodgill. 19*)+. 6he fact that contemporary research has sho-n the
e5istence of relationships 2et-een personalities and managers3 2ehavior on one
hand. and managerial efficiency and corporate performance on the other. direct
our attention further to-ards some aspects of the personality theory (Dukl.
%2
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
19&9+. ! 1uestion in -hich -ay a manager3s 2ehavior influences efficiency -as
posed. 6hese theories have e5plored the 2ehavior of certain managers and their
influence upon the follo-ers and managerial efficiency. Bo-ever. neither of
these theories. among -hich the research of ,ikert. Alake and 7outon. and
=leshman are the most -idely kno-n. identified managerial 2ehaviors -hich
-ould. in all circumstances. lead to efficiency.
0e have to point out the results of 7ott. Reddin. Dukl and =iedler. -hich
have sho-n that leadership 1uality and leadership style are e5tremely important
factors of corporate performance. -hich directly influence corporate
performance on one hand. and indirectly employee satisfaction on the other. 6he
research has sho-n that managerial efficiency largely depends on the
circumstances in -hich leadership is conducted. 6heories have 2een developed
-hich 2elieved that an efficient leader has to 2e fle5i2le enough to notice and
accept the differences in relation to the employees and different circumstances
in -hich leadership is conducted. 6he most famous situational theories.
=ielder3s (19$*" Contingency model and Bouse3s (19*1+ !ath . goal model. say
that 2y using personality characteristics and manager3s 2ehavior. their -ork
efficiency can 2e predicted. 6hese theories have overemphasised the situational
aspects and ignored the personality characteristics and manager3s 2ehavior
(Stodgill. 19*)+. Stodgill 2elieves that managerial efficiency and entire
corporate performance are e1ually influenced 2y situational factors. personality
characteristics and manager3s 2ehavior.
!lthough most theoreticians point out the importance of leadership and
leadership styles for operational efficiency. some theoreticians (Aro-n. 19&2.
7eindl. 4rtich E Dukerich. 19&%. Ffeffer. 19**+ hold that corporate success can
depend upon different e5ternal factors -hich are not under the influence of a
leader.
@n spite of many. studies conducted up to no-. -ithin the frame-ork of the
afore presented theories and significant improvements in understanding the
relationship 2et-een leadership varia2les and managerial efficiency. there still
is no scientific theory -hich -ould give a more concise identification of
managerial efficiency. and interdependence of leadership styles and efficiency.
Bo-ever. e5isting scientific leadership theories have given a great contri2ution
to the understanding of the leadership process itself. and pointed to the
comple5ity of a leader3s 2ehavior. 7oreover. many theories have sho-n that
managerial efficiency is the result of various factors and their interaction. of
-hich not all are connected -ith the leader3s personality. #ontemporary
theoreticians. -here the most significant -orks are those of Dukl 19&9G 0estley.
%'
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
7int/e2erg 19&9G Bart 199'. hold that the interaction 2et-een the leader and
the follo-ers (management and the employees+ is conducted in 2oth directions.
and that the follo-ers and communicational process 2et-een the leader and the
follo-ers give a significant contri2ution to managerial efficiency. as -ell as the
entire corporate performance.
6his paper is 2ased on a particular research pro2lem: relation of managerial
efficiency and leadership styles among management levels in a #roatian state>
o-ned company for generation. transmission and distri2ution of electrical
energy 8Brvatska elektroprivreda d.d.9 (B4F+. B4F is undou2tedly a specific
kind of organi/ation -ith a specific social role and the position of a monopoly
in a typical transition country as #roatia is. @t is especially interesting to
e5amine the management pro2lems of state>o-ned companies. -here the
efficiency indicators are a 2it different from those in profit. that is private
companies.
6he aim of our efforts is to e5plore managers3 leadership styles in B4F and
e5plore the e5istence or non>e5istence of the interdependence of leadership
styles and the managerial efficiency of -ork in the B4FG to ena2le: a definition
of possi2le patterns in the relationship 2et-een leadership styles and the
efficiency of -ork and to identify dominant leadership styles.
@n our study. -e have tried to determine the connection 2et-een the
efficiency of -ork and leadership styles. to ans-er -hich is the direction and
the intensity of connection 2et-een the varia2les. as -ell as. -hat is the causal
relationship 2et-een them. @n fulfilling the mission of the paper. -e have tried
to determine leadership styles of the top. middle and lo- management in B4F.
0e investigated -hat leadership styles are used 2y managers. -hich leadership
styles are the most fre1uent. are leadership styles connected to the efficiency.
and if so ho-. -hich are the most efficient leadership styles. is there a
difference 2et-een leadership styles and the efficiency 2et-een the managers
-ith different levels of education. and ho- the leadership styles and the
efficiency are connected to the varia2le of education. and others.
0e set t-o propositions in our study:
Bypothesis 1: There is a significant interdependence %etween leadership styles
of H!&s managers (measured using 'ikert&s method" and the
degree of management work efficiency (measured using the
ad(usted )ott&s techni*ue"/ the closer the leadership style is to
%)
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
System ,# that is participational# the higher the managerial
efficiency is.
Bypothesis 2: There is no significant difference %etween lower and middle
management in H!# concerning the relation %etween
leadership styles and efficiency.
2. RE#EAR$ MET$O"OLOG!
=or the purposes of this paper. -e carried out an empirical study in -hich
-e attempted to confirm the hypothesis. 6he study -as conducted during the
first half of 1999.
@n our research. -e used ,ikert3s model. -hich is a satisfactory frame-ork
for the creation of scientific models for empirical research. ,et us remem2er
that in his research. ,ikert has t-o main starting points: there are significant
differences in leadership. monitoring. interpersonal relations and other
components of management 2et-een successful and unsuccessful managers.
that is 2et-een organi/ational units -hich they are headed 2y. and management
style -hich is the cause. not the conse1uence of organi/ational efficiency.
,ikert sees a successful manager as a person strongly oriented to-ards the
su2ordinates. -ho relies on communication in maintaining a harmonious
functioning of all parts. !ll group mem2ers. including the manager or a leader.
adopt a supportive attitude -here2y they participate in the common values.
aspirations. goals and e5pectations. Be stresses that a participational leadership
system is the most efficient. a system -hich is 2ased on high goals and
re1uirements -hich activate individuals. develop their a2ilities through Coint
decision>making. decentrali/ation of decision>making upon those levels at
-hich there is more kno-ledge and information for 1uality decisions. and thus
the greatest interest for decision>making. 6herefore. in this paper. leadership
styles are determined using ,ikert3s model of leadership systems. 6he
respondents. B4F3s managers. have given ans-ers to the follo-ing si5 varia2les
-hich. according to ,ikert. determine leadership styles: leadership. motivation.
communication. decision making. goals and control.
4fficiency -as measured using the adCusted 7ott3s model. 7ott. measuring
organi/ational efficiency using a multicriterial model. defines organi/ational
efficiency as an a2ility of a company to perform its activities. adapt to the
changes from the corporate environment. and to successfully ans-er to those
changes. 7ott3s criteria for measuring efficiency are: productivity the
measure of 1uality and 1uantity of output. and the production efficiency (using
%%
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
as little means as possi2le for achieving 2etter output+. adapta2ility a2ility to
foresee a pro2lem. to give alternative solutions to a pro2lem. constant
e5ploration and application of ne- techni1ues and technologies relevant for the
activity of a company. and the possi2ility of adopting ne- solutions and
fle5i2ility. !ccording to 7ott. successful organi/ations can produce more
efficiently. can 1uickly adapt to changes. and are thus more fle5i2le -hen crisis
situations occur.
@n our research. -e have used the adCusted 7ott3s model of managerial
efficiency. -here the efficiency assessment -as done on the 2asis of the
1uestionnaire -ith nine 1uestions. #onsidering the particularity of B4F. as a
state>o-ned company. -ith strong and decisive politics of the 7anagement
Aoard. the efficiency evaluation of all managers -as given Cointly 2y mem2ers
of B4F3s 7anagement Aoard. 6he evaluation of the mem2ers of the
7anagement Aoard -as o2tained through Coint evaluation of the president of
the 7anagement Aoard and the president of the Supervisory Aoard. -here the
efficiency evaluation of the president of the 7anagement Aoard -as Cointly
given 2y the president of the Supervisory Aoard and all mem2ers of the
7anagement Aoard.
6he pro2lem. in the research. -as determining the criteria and measures for
evaluating -ork efficiency of managers at higher levels of the hierarchy. that is.
the comple5ity of evaluating the efficiency of the 7anagement Aoard. nly the
authors of this paper have an insight to the complete evaluations. for -hich it
-as necessary to create special confidential conditions of filling out the
1uestionnaries. and grading the highest management level. !s far as evaluating
middle and lo-er management levels is concerned. the Aoard mem2ers in
charge of certain functional fields have evaluated their direct and indirect
su2ordinates. @n 1* cases. it -as necessary to organi/e group evaluation of t-oG
in seven cases of threeG and in t-o cases. of four mem2ers of the Aoard due to
particularity of -ork tasks (of matri5 structure+ of certain managers.
!t lo-er management. levels it is easier to 1uantify the measures of
managerial efficiency. and that -as done on the 2asis of managers3 positions
(-hether it -as directly in generation. in technical structures or accompanying+.
and the usage of one or more indicators -hich are significant as success
resultants. Bere. the criteria distri2uted in nine 1uestions of the 1uestionnaire
-as considered so that the o2tained grade is a comple5 value of the usage of
multiple criteria. 0e stress that the parallel. for e5ample. the productivity
evaluation. the output 1uality. the 1uality of control functions and other factors.
is possi2le only through unification of efficiency measures in the entire
%$
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
organi/ation and that is possi2le through direct evaluation -hich is only
indirectly 2ased on the actual indicators of B4F3s performance. from technical
to economical. =or e5ample. the comparison of efficiency of the director of the
=inance Sector and the manager of B4F3s thermal po-er plant in Sisak. is only
possi2le if -ithin a model the efficiency indicators are 2rought do-n to the
common denominator (ordinal scale+. and if the evaluation is ascri2ed 2y truly
relevant evaluators. 0e 2elieve that -e have achieved to perform the task
consistently.
n the 2asis of the o2tained ans-ers. the managers are classified in five
groups of managerial efficiency: (1+ managers -hose efficiency is not
satisfactory. (2+ managers -hose efficiency is 2elo- average. ('+ managers
-hose efficiency is average. ()+ managers -hose efficiency is a2ove average.
(%+ managers -ith special. e5traordinary 1ualities concerning operational
efficiency.
@n the group of managers -ith lo- efficiency. classified are all the
managers -ith the average grade from the 1uestionnaire 2eing 2elo- 1.%. @n the
group of managers -ith efficiency 2elo- average. classified are all the
managers -ith the average grade from the 1uestionnaire 2eing a2ove 1.% and
2elo- 2.%. @n the group of managers -ith the average efficiency. classified are
all the managers -ith the average grade from the 1uestionnaire 2eing a2ove 2.%
and 2elo- '.%. @n the group of managers -hose efficiency is a2ove average.
classified are all the managers -ith the average grade from the 1uestionnaire
2eing a2ove '.% and 2elo- ).%. @n the group of managers -ith e5traordinary
efficiency classified are all the managers -ith average grade from the
1uestionnaire 2eing a2ove ).%.
). RE#'LT# OF T$E #T'"!
6he correlation 2et-een the efficiency of certain managerial groups and
the evaluation of leadership style is analy/ed using the model of linear
regression. 6he analysis -as made for all managers of all three levels together
and for managers of top. middle and line levels (-ork term: top. middle and line
management+ independently.
6he evaluations of managerial efficiency (independent varia2le+ go from 1
to %. -hile dependent ,ikert3s varia2le takes the values from 1 to ). !s
there -ere no ans-ers concerning the value of ,ikert3s varia2le 1. that is. as its
fre1uency -as 0. value 1 -as left out in the 6a2les that follo-.
%*
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
!s can 2e o2served from 6a2le 1.. %.'H of all B4F3s managers have
especially good. e5cellent efficiency according to the evaluations of top
management. '9.1H have efficiency a2ove average. ''.1H have average
efficiency. 1).&H have efficiency 2elo- average. -hile *.*H of the managers
do not satisfy even the 2asic efficiency criteria according to the adopted
research model.
@t is indicative that all higher management structures are mostly satisfied
-ith their lo-er managerial staff (appro5imately *2H+. ho-ever. a certain. still
significant num2er of managers (closely to 2&H+ is not in the function of
attaining the set corporate goals that the 7anagement Aoard has set to the
organi/ation.
Ta%le 0. fficiency and management level
E**+,+en,-
g.a/e
Top
management
M+//le
management
L+ne
management
Total 0
1 0 (0.00H+ % (2.9$H+ & ().*'H+ 1' *.$9H
2 0 (0.00H+ 11 ($.%1H+ 1) (&.2&H+ 2% 1).*9H
) 1 (0.%9H+ 1$ (9.)*H+ '9 (2'.0&H+ %$ ''.1)H
1 ' (1.*&H+ '0 (1*.*%H+ '' (19.%'H+ $$ '9.0%H
5 1 (0.%9H+ ' (1.*&H+ % (2.9$H+ 9 %.''H
#2m % $% 99 1$9 100.00H
0 2.9$H '&.)$H %&.%&H 100.00H
@n our research. the key hypothesis -as connected to the e5ploration of the
leadership styles and mangerial efficiency. 6he results have sho-n ho- B4F3s
managers use ,ikert3s three leadership systems. -here most of them use System
'. 0ould it 2e possi2le to determine a relevant relationship 2et-een leadership
styles and mangerial efficiencyI
0e tried to ans-er that 1uestion on the 2asis of the crossed ta2le of
leadership styles and the determined managerial efficiency. !s can 2e seen
from 6a2le 2. it is possi2le to sho- that there is a significant relationship
2et-een the efficiency level of managers and 2elonging to a certain leadership
system.
%&
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
Ta%le 1. 'ikert&s styles (sytems" vs. efficiency (all managers in H!"
E**+,+en,-
g.a/e
#-3tem 1 #-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1 #2m 0
1 0 (0.00H+ $ ('.%%H+ * ().1)H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1' *.$9H
2 0 (0.00H+ ' (1.*&H+ 21 (12.)'H+ 1 (0.%9H+ 2% 1).*9H
' 0 (0.00H+ 2 (1.1&H+ %2 ('0.**H+ 2 (1.1&H+ %$ ''.1)H
) 0 (0.00H+ 1 (0.%9H+ $' ('*.2&H+ 2 (1.1&H+ $$ '9.0%H
% 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 2 (1.1&H+ * ().1)H+ 9 %.''H
Sum 0 12 1)% 12 1$9 100.00H
H 0.00H *.10H &%.&0H *.10H 100.00H
Jamely. the highest efficiency grade have seven managers -hose
leadership system is System ) (of more than %9H of them+. and t-o managers
-hose leadership system is System '. Jo manager -hose leadership system is
System ) -as evaluated as a manager -ith insufficient efficiency. -hile si5 of
them -hose leadership system is System 2 (%0H of managers in the system+.
and seven managers. -hose leadership system is System ' (appro5imately %H
of managers in the system+. -ere evaluated as inefficient.
=or the data presented in the ne5t ta2le. a determination coefficient -as
calculated in the amount of 0.20'0*). as -ell as a linear correlation coefficient
of 0.)%0$'*. -hich usually does not determine a close connection. Bo-ever. if
the characteristics of 2oth varia2les are taken into consideration. that impression
does not have to 2e correct. Jamely. 2oth varia2les have a very small num2er of
modalities in common. five for independent. and only three for the dependent
varia2le.
Ta%le 2. 3elation %etween efficiency and 'iker&s styles (all H! managers"
E**+,+en,- g.a/e
Val2e o* L+4e.t53 6a.+a7le
Total
2 ) 1
1 $ * 0 1'
2 ' 21 1 2%
) 2 %2 2 %$
1 1 $' 2 $$
5 0 2 * 9
Total 12 1)% 12 1$9
%9
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
Jumerically. an e1ual grade of respondents3 leadership style actually
presents a simplification -hich is necessary in a sociological research 2ecause it
ena2les 1uantification of differences in opinionG the span in reality e5ceeds the
span 2et-een the highest and the lo-est value of ,ikert3s varia2le. ! more
detailed nuancing of respondents3 ans-ers is not possi2le in that case. @n that
conte5t. the value of the calculated correlation coefficient is e5tremely
satisfactory.
Ta%le ,. 4asic descriptive statistics . 'ikert&s styles
#-3tem 1 #-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1
A.+t8met+, mean o* e**+,+en,- g.a/e > 1.&' '.22 ).1
#tan/a./ e..o. o* e**+,+en,- g.a/e > 0.29*29) 0.0*'%)% 0')&010
#tan/a./ /e6+at+on o* e**. g.a/e > 1.029&%* 0.&&%$02 0.100%0%
Me/+an o* e**+,+en,- g.a/e > 1.% '.0 ).%
Mo/ o* e**+,+en,- g.a/e > 1.0 ).0 %.0
Geomet.+, mean o* e**. g.a/e > 1.$0 '.0$ '.9)
8a.mon+, mean o* e**. g.a/e > 1.)2 2.&) '.*%
250 pe.,ent+le > 1 ' '
750 pe.,ent+le > 2 ) %
!ll elements of the 2asic descriptive statistics speak in favor of the set
hypothesis of the research: the closer the system is to participational. managers
in B4F get on average higher efficiency grades 2y the 7anagement Aoard.
!ll forms of environments do not depart from that fact.
0e can even notice a more significant difference 2et-een managers -ith a
2enevolent>authoritative system. on one hand. and managers -ith a
consultational and participational leadership system. on the other.
=rom 6a2le %.. sho-ing the correlation of managers3 efficiency according
to ,ikert3s leadership styles. it is clearly visi2le that there is no strong
correlation -hich -ould e5plain the identical evaluation for all styles.
Ta%le 5. Correlation among 'ikert&s styles (p67.75"
#-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1
#-3tem 2 1.00000 0.1''1%) 0.'990)9
#-3tem ) 0.1''1%) 1.000000 0.0*$9%)
#-3tem 1 0.'990)9 0.0*$9%) 1.000000
6hus. it is clear that -e can support Bypothesis 1. @n the research. -e have
determined that there is a significant interdependence 2et-een leadership styles
$0
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
of B4F3s managers (measured using ,ikert3s method+ and the degree of
management -ork efficiency (measured using the adCusted 7ott3s techni1ue+:
the closer a leadership style is to System ). that is participational. the higher the
managerial efficiency.
Ta%le 8. Top management
E**+,+en,-
g.a/e
#-3tem 1 #-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1 #2m 0
1 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 0.00H
2 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 0.00H
) 0 (0.00H+ 1 (20.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1 20.00H
1 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ ' ($0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ ' $0.00H
5 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1 (20.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1 20.00H
0 1 ) 0 % 100.00H
0 0.00H 20.00H &0.00H 0.00H 100.00H

,et us look at the position of the three management levels concerning their
efficiency. B4F3s top management. e5cept in one case. has consultational
leadership style. 4fficiency of all mem2ers of the 7anagement Aoard -ho do
not have such a leadership style is a2ove average. in one case e5cellent.
! mem2er of the 7anagement Aoard. -hose leadership system is
considered 2enevolent>authoritative. -as evaluated as having 2elo- average
efficiency on the part of his colleagues in the 7anagement Aoard.
Ta%le 9. Top management
E**+,+en,- g.a/e
Val2e o* L+4e.t53 6a.+a7le
Total
2 ) 1
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
) 1 0 0 1
1 0 ' 0 '
5 0 1 0 1
Total 1 ) 0 %
=or data in 6a2le *.. a determination coefficient of 0.$2% -as calculated
and a linear correlation coefficient of 0.*90%$9. -hich are. considering the
characteristics of the varia2les (one varia2le is of the same rank as only five
modalities. -hile ,ikert3s second varia2le is of the same rank as only three
$1
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
modalities. -hich is. for purposes of 1uantification of sociological research
treated as numerical+ very good results. sho-ing strong correlation 2et-een top
management3s efficiency grade and their evaluation of leadership style.
=or our second hypothesis. it is interesting to analy/e the relationship of
-ork efficiency and the leadership system 2et-een middle and lo-er
management.
Ta%le :. )iddle management
E**+,+en,-
g.a/e
#-3tem 1 #-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1 #2m 0
1 0 (0.00H+ 1 (1.%)H+ ) ($.1%H+ 0 (0.00H+ % *.$9H
2 0 (0.00H+ 1 (1.%)H+ 10 (1%.'&H+ 0 (0.00H+ 11 1$.92H
) 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1% (2'.0&H+ 1 (1.%)H+ 1$ 2).$2H
1 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 29 ()).$2H+ 1 (1.%)H+ '0 )$.1%H
5 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ ' ().$2H+ ' ).$2H
#2m 0 2 %& % $% 100.00H
0 0.00H '.0&H &9.2'H *.$9H 100.00H
Bere. it can 2e o2served that there is no significant difference 2et-een the
t-o groups. 0ork efficiency in 2oth groups increases as the leadership style
comes closer to participational.
Ta%le ;. )iddle management
E**+,+en,- g.a/e
Val2e o* L+4e.t53 6a.+a7le Total
2 ) 1
1 1 ) 0 %
2 1 10 0 11
) 0 1% 1 1$
1 0 29 1 '0
5 0 0 ' '
Total 2 %& % $%
6he values of determination coefficient of 0.1&1%$* and the respective
linear correlation coefficient of 0.)2$10* do not significantly clash -ith the
indicators for management as a -hole.
Ta%le 07. 'ine (lower" management
$2
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
E**+,+en,-
g.a/e
#-3tem 1 #-3tem 2 #-3tem ) #-3tem 1 #2m 0
1 0 (0.00H+ % (%.0%H+ ' ('.0'H+ 0 (0.00H+ & &.0&H
2 0 (0.00H+ 2 (2.02H+ 11 (11.11H+ 1 (1.01H+ 1) 1).1)H
) 0 (0.00H+ 1 (1.01H+ '* ('*.'*H+ 1 (1.01H+ '9 '9.'9H
1 0 (0.00H+ 1 (1.01H+ '1 ('1.'1H+ 1 (1.01H+ '' ''.''H
5 0 (0.00H+ 0 (0.00H+ 1 (1.01H+ ) ().0)H+ % %.0%H
#2m 0 9 &' * 99 100.00H
0 0.00H 9.09H &'.&)H *.0*H 100.00H
0e can conclude the follo-ing: -e support the hypothesis -hich said that
there is no significant difference 2et-een lo-er and middle management in
B4F concerning leadership styles and efficiency. 6his means that 2oth levels
get 2etter grades for their efficiency if they 2elong to a consultational and
participational leadership style.
Ta%le 00. 'ine (lower" management
E**+,+en,- g.a/e
Val2e o* L+4e.t53 6a.+a7le
Total
2 ) 1
1 % ' 0 &
2 2 11 1 1)
) 1 '* 1 '9
1 1 '1 1 ''
5 0 1 ) %
Total 9 &' * 99
!ccording to the results calculated for a group of line managers. the
determination coefficient of 0.2'&9$1 and the linear correlation coefficient of
0.)&&&'* for the scope of a sociological research are very good.
;enerally. the correlation 2et-een managers3 efficiency measured -ith the
grades from 1 to %. and their evaluation of leadership style is positive (linear
correlation coefficient is a2ove /ero+. and is thus of significant strength. 6his
particularly refers to a group of top managers -ith a linear correlation
coefficient of more than 0.*9. ! positive. some-hat -eaker. yet still for this
kind of research a fairly significant correlation. e5ists 2et-een the evaluation of
line managers and their evaluation of leadership style. 6he correlation of middle
managers3 efficiency evaluated 2y the Aoard. and their leadership style
according to ,ikert is insignificantly -eaker than the calculated indicators for
$'
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
management as a -hole. and also positive so it can freely 2e said that higher
managerial efficiency goes -ith their commitment to a more contemporary.
consultational. even participational leadership style.

1. ONL'#ION
ur study. in -hich -e have analy/ed the relation among leadership styles
and managerial efficiency in B4F has produced indicative results. n the 2asis
of the conducted research. -e got the follo-ing results:
0e can support Bypothesis 1. @n the research -e have determined that
there is a significant interdependence 2et-een leadership styles of B4F3s
managers (measured using ,ikert3s method+ and the degree of management
-ork efficiency (measured using the adCusted 7ott3s techni1ue+: the closer the
leadership style is to System ). that is participational. the higher the managerial
efficiency is.
0e can support the Bypothesis 2. -hich said that there is no significant
difference 2et-een lo-er and middle management in B4F. concerning the
relation 2et-een leadership styles and efficiency. 6his means that 2oth levels
get 2etter grades for its efficiency if they 2elong to a consultational and
participational leadership style.
@t is clear that all of these conclusions give a ne- perspective to the
relationships 2et-een leadership styles and efficiency in B4F. @t is very
interesting that the dominant leadership style in B4F is consultational. -hich
the organi/ation. according to postulates of this research. 2rings closer to the top
glo2al companies. considering that the tendencies in leadership styles point to
the need for a ne- generation of leaders -hich -ill 2e essentially different from
the traditional manager. 6he leader -ill increasingly 2e e5pected to con1uer the
conte5t in -hich the organi/ation functionsG that is. to come to terms -ith a
-himsical. tur2ulent and uncertain environment. @t is evident that the future.
-hich has already started. -ill look for such managers in B4F. -hose
leadership style is radically different from the traditional more authoritative
leadership style.
6he results of this research may. to all those -ho are studying leadership.
serve as a motivation and an argument for application of the most efficient
leadership style. so that the human potential -ould 2e used 2est 2y activating
and developing the capa2ilities of every individual. and thus increase the
fle5i2ility and adaptive capa2ilities of an organi/ation.
$)
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
REFERENE#
1. Alain. 7. ;.. (199*.+: ,eadership. 7anagement E Dou: @nnovative -ays you can
improve company3s effectiveness. Je- Dork (##@ Fu2lishing+
2. Arady. ;.. Belmich. D.. (19&).+: 45ecutive succession: 6o-ard e5cellence in
coorporate leadership. Je- Dork (Frentice Ball+
'. Aro-n R. (19&2.+. 8,eadership models9. 4S! proCects. "S!
). Au2le. 7.. (199'.+: 7anagement. Split (4konomski fakultet+
%. Aurns. K.. (1990.+: ,eadership. Je- Dork (7c;ra->Bill Aook #ompany+
$. #art-right. Dor-in (19$%.+. L@nfluence. ,eadership. #ontrolL. u LBand2ook of
rgani/ationsL. ur. 7arch Kames ;.. Rand 7cJally. #hicago. "S!
*. #ole. = (1990.+. 8#rucial pro2lems in ,eadership9. !mercan Soc. Revie-. $$. "S!
&. #ros2y. F.. (199*.+: 6he a2solutes of leadership. San =rancisco (Kossey>Aass
Fu2lishers+
9. Daft. R.. (199'.+: 7anagement. =orth 0orth (6he Dryden Fress+
10. Dahl. Ro2ert !. (19%*.+. L6he #oncept of Fo-erL. Aehavioral Science. <ol. 2. Kuly.
str. 201>21&. "S!
11. 4t/ioni ;. (19&).+. 86-o styles of leaderhip9. 0. ,. Kournal. "S!
12. 4vans ,. i Aergman S. (29&*.+. 86he role set of the leader9. 4S!. 0ashington. '
1'. =iedler. =. 4.. (19$*.+: ! 6heory of ,eadership 4ffectiveness. Je- Dork (7c;ra->
Bill Aook #ompany+
1). =iedler. =. 4.. (19&*.+: Je- approaches to effective leadership. Je- Dork (Kohn
0iley E Sons. @nc.+
1%. ;i2son. K.. @vancevich. K.. Donnelly. K.. (19&2.+: rgani/ations: Aehavior. Structure.
Frocesses. ;eorgeto-n (Ausiness Fu2lications. @nc.+
1$. Ball. K.. (19&&.+: 6he competence connection. 6he 0oodlands (0oodstead Fress+
1*. Barsey. F.. Alanchard. M.. (19**.+: 7anagement of rgani/ational Aehavior. Je-
Kersey (Frentice Ball+
1&. Bart. ;. (19&'.+. 8,eadership paradigms9. 0iley. "S!
19. Bersey. Faul i Alanchard. Menneth B. (19&&+. L7anagement of rgani/ational
AehaviorL. Frentice>Ball. 4ngle-ood #liffs. Je- Kersey. "S!
20. Bouse l.. Singh S. (19&*.. 86he leader9. 0et pu2lishing #o. "S!+
21. @vancevich. Kohn 7. i 7atteson. 7ichael 6. (1990+. Lrgani/ational Aehavior and
7anagementL. @r-in @nc.. Second 4dition. Aoston. "S!
22. Meith. Davis i Je-strom. Kohn 0. (19&9.+. LBuman Aehavior at 0ork >
rgani/ational AehaviorL. 4ighth 4dition. 7c;ra->Bill Aook #o.. Je- Dork.
"S!
2'. Mon/es. K. 7.. Fosner. A. :.. (19&*.+: 6he leadership challenge. Je- Dork (Kossey>
Aass @nc.+
2). Motter. K. F.. (19&&.+: 6he leadership factor. Je- Dork (=ree Fress+
2%. Motter. Kohn F. (19**.+. LFo-er. Depedence and 4ffective 7anagementL. Barvard
Ausiness Revie-. Kuly>!ugust. "S
2$. Motter. Kohn F. (19*9.+. LFo-er in 7anagementL. !7!#7. Je- Dork. "S!
$%
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in
Hrvatska...
2*. ,e-in. M. (19'%.+. LDynamic 6heory of FersonalityL. 7c;ra->Bill. str. 11)>1*0.
"S!
2&. ,ikert. R. ,.. (19$*.+: Je- Fatterns of 7anagement. Je- Dork (7c;ra->Bill
Aook #ompany+
29. ,ikert. R. ,.. (19$*.+: 6he Buman rgani/ations. Je- Dork (7c;ra->Bill Aook
#ompany+
'0. ,uce. D..(199$.+: 6ime>ut ,eadership. Je- Dork (6homas Jelson+
'1. 7c=arland. ,..Senn. ,.. #hildress. K.. (199).+: 21 st #entury ,eadership. ,os
!ngeles (6he ,eadership Fress+
'2. 7eindl. K. R.. 4rlich. S. A.. Dukerich. K. 7.. (19&%.+: 6he romance of leadership.
!dministrative Science Nuarterly. pp. '0
''. 7int/2erg. Benry (19&'.+. LFo-er @n and !round rganisationsL. Frentice>Ball.
4ngle-ood #liffs. Je- Kersey. "S!
'). 7ontana. F.. #harnov. A.. (199'.+: 7anagement. Je- Dork (Aarron s 4ducational
Series. @nc.+
'%. 7oorhead. ;regory i ;riffin. Ricky 0. (19&9.+. Lrgani/ational AehaviorL. Second
4dition. Boughton 7ifflin #ompany. Aoston. "S!
'$. 7orse. K.. 0agner. =.. (19*&.+: 7easuring the Frocess of 7anagerial 4ffectiveness.
!cademy of 7anagement Kournal 21
'*. 7ott. F. 4.. (19*2.+: 6he #haracteristics of 4ffective rgani/ations. Je- Dork
(Barper and Ro-+
'&. tt. Steven K. (19&9.+. L#lassic Readings in rgani/ational AehaviorL. ur..
ArooksO#ole Fu2lishing #o.. #alifornia. "S!
'9. Reddin. 0. K.. (19*0.+: 7anagerial effectiveness. Je- Dork (7c;ra->Bill Aook
#ompany+
)0. Ro22ins. Stephen F. (19&9.+. Lrgani/ational AehaviorL. =ourth 4dition. Frentice>
Ball. 4ngle-ood #liffs. Je- Kersey. "S!
)1. Sayles. R. ,.. (19&9.+: ,eadership 7anaging in Real rgani/ation. Je- Dork
(7c;ra->Bill Aook #ompany+
)2. Shafrit/. K.7. i tt. K.S. (19&*.+. L#lassics of rgani/ation 6heoryL. ur.. Second
edition. 6he Dorsey Fress. #hicago. "S!
)'. Steers. R.. (19**.+: rgani/ational effectiveness. ,os !ngeles (;oodyear
Fu2lishing #ompany+
)). Stodgill. R. 7.. (19*).+: Band2ook of ,eadership: ! Survey of the ,iterature. Je-
Dork (=ree Fress+
)%. 6affinder. F.. (199%.+: 6he ne- leaders. ,ondon (Mogan Fage ,td.+
)$. 0eihrich. B.. Moont/. B.. (199$.+: 7anagement (10
th
edition+. :agre2 (7ate+
)*. 0ren. D.. (19*2.+: 6he evolution of management thought. Je- Dork (6he Ronald
Fress #ompany+
)&. Dukl. ;ary ! (19&9.+: ,eadership in rgani/ations. Je- Dork (Frentice Ball+
)9. Dukl. ;ary !. (19&1.+. L,eadership in rgani/ationL. Frentice> Ball. 4ngle-ood
#liffs. Je- Kersey. "S!
%0. Dukl. ;ary !. i 0e5ley. D. (19&%.+. Lrgani/ational AehaviorL. ,7! @nstitute.
Do- Kones>@r-in. "S!
$$
Management, Vol. 5, 2000, 2, pp. 51-67
D. Skansi: Relation of managerial efficiency and leadership styles empirical study in Hrvatska...
ME9'OVI#NO#T MANAGER#:E EFI:A#NO#T I #TILA VO9EN;A
& EM%IRI;#:O I#TRA<IVAN;E ' HRVATSKOJ ELEKTROPRIVEDI, d.d.
#a=eta4
" Planku se ra/matra odnos managerske efikasnosti i stilova vodstva. Frovedeno Ce
istraQivanCe na u/orku managementa i/ 8Brvatske elektroprivrede9. d.d. (B4F+.
Dominantni stil vodstva u B4F>u Ce kon/ultativni. "tvrReno Ce kako postoCi /naPaCna
meRuovisnost i/meRu stilova vodstva B4F>ovih managera (mCereno ,ikertovom
tehnikom+ i stupnCa managerske efikasnosti (mCereno 7ottovom tehnikom+: Sto Ce stil
vodstva 2liQi ,ikertovom sustavu ). to Ce veTa managerska efikasnost. 6akoRer.
poka/ano Ce kako nema /naPaCne ra/like i/meRu niQeg i srednCeg sloCa managementa. u
odnosu na odnos stilova vodstva i efikasnosti. 6o /naPi da o2Ce managerske ra/ine imaCu
2olCu efikasnost ako imaCu kon/ultativni ili participativni stil vodstva.
$*