IntroductionIndia organizations and their success. Leaders determine values,

IntroductionIndia is the third largest in terms of scientific and technical manpower in the world and adequately supported by well-established institutions in most of the areas of science and technology. Over the years these institutions have contributed substantially towards the nation’s development in various fields. During the last decades, the tempo of research in various fields including agriculture is not high at the desired level. One of the reasons for the present situation is the underutilization of the scientific and technical manpower. We can attempt bringing better results from the existing research facilities without even including any additional expenditure. This can be achieved by bringing in qualitative changes in the management of research establishments at the highest levels. Research organizations are required to come out with fruitful results in order to meet the challenges of 21st century. Within this context, research managers are compelled to optimize the use of talents of their team. Leadership in research organizations plays a critical role in the progress of science and technology. Several researchers viewed leadership not as the passive occupancy of a position or as the acquisition of a role but as a process of organizing and maintaining the role structure (Bass, 1990).Leadership is often regarded as the single most critical factor in the success or failure of an institution its the art of dealing with human nature, influencing a body of people by persuasion or model to follow a line of acts. The supervisory methods seemed particularly effective in increasing output (Guzzo, 1983). Leadership is the lifeblood of any organization. Leadership has a direct cause and effect relationship between organizations and their success. Leaders determine values, culture, change tolerance and employee motivation. Leaders have an important role to play. What leaders really manage in organizations is the employees’ interpretation or understanding of what goes on in the organization. Leadership style is not how leaders think they behave in a situation but how other members of his team perceive leader’s behaviors. The leaders have a strong impact on the organizational outcome when effective infective leaders change places the performance and morale of formerly ineffective group lend to improve under effective leaders (Bas, 1990). Even performance of scientists is very high when they experience a sense of belonging to a group headed by competent leaders.Leadership style is viewed as the combination of traits, characteristics, skills, and behaviors that leaders use when interacting with their subordinates (Marturano & Gosling, 2008, Jeremy et al., 2011). Flippo & Musinger (1999) see leadership as a pattern of managerial behavior designed to integrate personal or organizational interest. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating organizational human resources. Leadership style in an organization is one of the factors that play a significant role in enhancing or retarding the interest and commitment of the individuals in the organization (Obiwuru et al., 2011).  Leadership motivation enhances the staff’s potential for growth and development. In the recent globalized economic era, the innovation-based competition, intensive and dynamic markets rivalry, and the creative destruction of existing competencies (Santora et al., 1999; Venkataraman, 1997). These are the main problems in organizational sustainability to accomplish the organizational objectives.  So. effective and facilitative leadership are the solutions to the organizations when it faces these new challenges (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). In modern leadership theories, five leadership styles have been presented, including (i) charismatic leadership, (ii) transactional leadership, (iii) transformational leadership, (iv) visionary leadership, and (v) culture-based leadership (Yukl, G 1994). The most successful trait-driven leadership style is charismatic. Charismatic leaders have a vision, as well as a personality that motivates followers to execute that vision. As a result, this leadership type has traditionally been one of the most valued. Charismatic leadership provides fertile ground for creativity and innovation and is often highly motivational. There is one significant problem that is because charismatic leaders rarely develop replacements. Their leadership is based on the strength of personality. As a result, charismatic leadership usually eliminates other competing, strong personalities. (Michael, 2010).Transactional leadership style is defined as the exchange of rewards and targets between employees and management (Howell & Avolio, 1993). The transactional leaders are always willing to give you something in return for following them. It can be any number of things including a good performance review, a raise, a promotion, new responsibilities or a desired change in duties. The problem with transactional leaders is expectations. Transformational leadership acts as a bridge between leaders and followers to develop a clear understanding of follower’s interests, values, and motivational level. Transformational leadership style focuses on the development of followers and their needs. Managers exercising transformational leadership style focus on the development of value system of employees, their motivational level and moralities with the development of their skills (Ismail et al., 2009). It basically helps followers achieve their goals working in the organizational setting; it encourages followers to be expressive and adaptive to new and improved practices and changes in the environment (Bass, 1994). Autocratic leaders are classic “do as I say” types. Typically, these leaders are inexperienced with leadership thrust upon them in the form of a new position or assignment that involves people management. Autocratic leaders retain for themselves the decision- making rights. They can damage an organization irreparably as they force their ‘followers’ to execute strategies and services in a very narrow way, based on a subjective idea of what success looks like. There is no shared vision and little motivation beyond coercion. Commitment, creativity, and innovation are typically eliminated by autocratic leadership (Michael, 2010). Bureaucratic leaders are usually strongly committed to procedures and processes instead of people, and as a result, they may appear aloof and highly change adverse. Bureaucratic leaders create and rely on upon, policy to meet organizational goals. Policies drive execution, strategy, objectives, and outcomes. Bureaucratic leaders are most comfortable relying on a stated policy in order to convince followers to get on board. The danger here is that leadership’s greatest benefits, motivating and developing people, are ignored by bureaucratic leaders (Michael, 2010). Democratic leadership consults various stakeholders and subordinates of the organization in a decentralized manner for the decision-making process. The potential for poor decision-making and weak execution is, however, significant here. The biggest problem with democratic leadership is its underlying assumption that everyone has an equal stake in an outcome as well as shared levels of expertise with regard to decisions. While democratic leadership sounds good in theory, it often is bogged down in its own slow process, and workable results usually require an enormous amount of efforts (Tannenbanum and Schmidt, 1958).Today’s academic leaders must have varieties of leadership skills to be effective in an organization (Thrash, 2009). Many works of literature done by researchers showed that there are many components of effective leadership that can take place in the educational sector including the ability be to a role model for the followers, the capability to lead a number of faculty varieties and to have a critical thinking skill (Haslam, 2004). It is important for the academic dean, deputy of dean and head of department as a leader, to adapt to the appropriate leadership style that suits him or her with the groups for which he or she is responsible for (Nunn, 2008). Academic leaders are responsible as the chief academic officers of their divisions or faculties (Wood, 2004). Nevertheless, the university’s hierarchy acts as the middle manager to play the role as the mediators between the executive level administrations, the chairpersons, and the faculty of the respective universities (Rosser, Johnsrud, & Heck, 2003). The main responsibility of the academic leaders is they must operate within the university system in which it has numbers of characteristics to deal with and therefore, academic leaders must navigate the bureaucracies of the university in order to successfully lead their divisions (Thrash, 2009). However, the leadership style of academic leaders is varied and diverse due to the no formal professional training provided who seek for this positions (McGregor, 2005) as well as no consistency in the job descriptions for academic leaders which lead to further uncertainty about their roles and accountabilities (Jackson, 2004). Hence, Gmelch (2004) agreed that academic leaders need to be taught leadership skills in order to decrease the unprofessional nature of the leadership in the ranks of administrations. Further argued by Packard (2008), indicated that one of the significant challenges faced by the many leaders today is in terms of their ability to adapt to a constant global environment changing and at the same time to maintain the internal self -motivated of the organizations. Therefore, the appropriate selection of leadership style adopted by academic leaders is important in order to play a major role in the succession of the overall organizational performance of their academic units (Del Favero, 2006).    According to NSF (National Science Foundation, USA, 2001), an effective leader in the science field is a person who is capable of developing and maintaining an enthusiastic, energetic, and creative group of scientists and of administering the laboratory. Further, the leadership of scientists deals with several problems that are different from those found in ‘nonscience’ situations. The first problem is that scientists are people whose purpose of work is to generate new knowledge and ideas, and in comparison with other formally organized activities, is hard to predict, unwieldy to measure, and difficult to judge. They need to wait years to achieve the final results (that can or can’t be fully successful) and until that time keep the motivation level high to be able to work. Because of these characteristics, much of the conventional knowledge of administration, such as engineering-based planning and control, may not be directly applicable to planning, managing, and evaluating the work of scientists. The second problem is that science education and training result in groups of people who have conceptual frameworks, vocabularies and discipline cultures that are very different from one another. A related difficulty is that scientists are essentially trained to be ‘solo-contributors’. Moreover, multidisciplinary teamwork, cross-functional communication, and collaboration are not easily realized. And the final difficulty is the scientists have moods, biases, and warts like the rest of people. Striking the right balance between the freedom, ambiguity, and challenge necessary to foster creativity, and from the other site constraints necessary for producing results within time are fraught with problems. Unfortunately, research organizations not providing importance in scientific- humanistic leadership concerns. The question of a leader’s effectiveness has become a central issue in organizational research. Therefore, identification and study of a leader’s prevalent personal style is an important element in the development of leadership. In addition, organizational leadership is usually expressed in terms of the effect on people’s motivation to perform tasks over time, while maximizing the means of motivation and with minimal use of coercive measures (Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. 2006). Research investigation is needed to assess the leadership style in scientific organizations and to analyze the relationship between the leadership styles of research administrator and the job performance of the scientists working in scientific organizations