\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Cognitive Style a Predicator of Managerial Effectiveness: Study of Public and Private Sector Bank Managers in India},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2012-01-01 (revised: 01 January 2012)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2012-01-01}
\title{Cognitive Style a Predicator of Managerial Effectiveness: Study of Public and Private Sector Bank Managers in India}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr.  Rishipal}

             \author[2]{Dr.  Rishipal}

             \author[3]{Dr.  Rishipal}

             \affil[1]{  Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 24 November 2011 Accepted: 18 December 2011 Published: 1 January 2012}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study was conducted to investigate the relationships between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness among different managerial levels of various public and private sector bank?s of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India. Datawas collected by using Cognitive Style test for Field-dependence and Fieldindependence developed by Witkin (1959) and Index of Managerial Effectiveness test devised by Walter W. Hudson(1993). A sample of 300 bank managers of senior, middle and junior level positions from three public and three private sector banks of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of Indiawas taken for the study."Both the public and private sector bank managers exhibit higher tendency of field-dependence among the senior managers in comparison to the middle level managers who have relatively greater inclination towards field-independence. Junior level managers of both the public and private sector banks are the highly inclined towards field-independence tendency in comparison to middle and senior level managers. As F-ratio was found significant so Duncan?s multiple comparison of means test was used to examine significant differences among cognitive style means of different groups. The comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance. The results of Duncan?s multiple comparison of cognitive style means of public bank managers revealed that junior managers and middle level managers differ significantly in their means from senior managers but junior managers did not differ significantly from middle level managers. In case of private sector managers the entire three groups differ significantly in their cognitive style means. Both the public and private sector bank managers exhibit poor tendency of managerial effectiveness among the senior managers in comparison to the middle level managers who have relatively higher degree of effectiveness in management in comparison to senior managers. Junior level managers of both the publ

\end{abstract}


\keywords{Cognitive style, Managerial Effectiveness, Field-dependence and Field-independence.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{INTRODUCTION}]{INTRODUCTION}\par
a) Cognitive style ognitive style is described as the way individuals imagine, perceive, distinguish, recognize, think and remember information. It is a persisting habitual pattern of perceptual and intellectual activity. With the help of cognitive styles an individual acquires knowledge (cognition) and processes information (conceptualization) \hyperref[b16]{(Kirton, M.J., 2003)}. Cognitive styles are linked to mental behaviors, habitually applied by an individual for problem solving, and generally to the way that information is obtained, sorted and utilized. Cognitive style being the recurring perceptual and intellectual pattern of personality can influences attitudes, values and social interaction. Social and cultural system provides people with a range of cognitive styles that are appropriate for different cognitive tasks in different contexts(Riding, R.J., and Cheema, 1991). The styles of individuals and of groups can be placed on a continuum between a global style and an articulated style. People who use a global style tend to view the world holistically; they see first a collection of relationships and only later the fragments and parts that are related. They are said to be field dependent. By contrast, people who use an articulated style tend to break up the world into smaller and smaller pieces, which can then be organized into larger chunks. They also tend to see a sharp boundary between their own bodies and the outside world. People using an articulated style are said to be field independent(Witkin, H.A.,Moor, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., and Cox, P.W., 1977). The preferred cognitive style of an individual often varies from task to task and from context to context. People who use articulated styles for some tasks also use global styles for other tasks. In fact, they may bring a range of different styles to bear on a single task. 
\section[{b) Managerial effectiveness}]{b) Managerial effectiveness}\par
Managerial effectiveness is manager's ability to achieve desired results. How well managers apply their knowledge, skills and abilities in working with, guiding and directing others determines whether they can meet relationships between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness among different managerial levels of various public and private sector bank's of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India. Data was collected by using Cognitive Style test for Field-dependence and Fieldindependence developed by  {\ref Witkin (1959)} and Index of Managerial Effectiveness test devised by Walter W.  {\ref Hudson(1993)}. A sample of 300 bank managers of senior, middle and junior level positions from three public and three private sector banks of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India was taken for the study." Both the public and private sector bank managers exhibit higher tendency of field-dependence among the senior managers in comparison to the middle level managers who have relatively greater inclination towards field-independence. Junior level managers of both the public and private sector banks are the highly inclined towards field-independence tendency in comparison to middle and senior level managers. As F-ratio was found significant so Duncan's multiple comparison of means test was used to examine significant differences among cognitive style means of different groups. The comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance. The results of Duncan's multiple comparison of cognitive style means of public bank managers revealed that junior managers and middle level managers differ significantly in their means from senior managers but junior managers did not differ significantly from middle level managers. In case of private sector managers the entire three groups differ significantly in their cognitive style means. Both the public and private sector bank managers exhibit poor tendency of managerial effectiveness among the senior managers in comparison to the middle level managers who have relatively higher degree of effectiveness in management in comparison to senior managers. Junior level managers of both the public and private sector banks are very much effective in managerial efficacy in comparison to middle and senior level managers. F-ratio was found significant, so Duncan's multiple comparison of means test was used to examine significant differences among managerial effectiveness means of different groups. The comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance. The results of Duncan's multiple comparison of mean revealed that all the different categories of manager's i.e. junior managers, middle level managers and senior managers differ significantly in their managerial effectiveness means.\par
those results effectively, if they can, their achievements are poised to help the organization gain a competitive edge against competing organizations heading into the future \hyperref[b25]{(Robbins SP, 1988)}.\par
A manager should have a combination of technical, interpersonal and conceptual skills that can make him an effective manager, according to theoretical models of management, technical skills include specialized training, skilled performance of specific tasks, expertise in a specific field or industry and the ability to apply specialized knowledge to tasks and objectives \hyperref[b27]{(Shermon G. 1999}). Interpersonal skills include the ability to work well with others, motivate workers, resolve conflicts, delegate roles and communicate objectives clearly (Howell JP, DE Bowen, PW Dorfman and S Kerr, 1997). Conceptual skills are broader and more self-actualized. They include the ability to see the organization in the context of its industry, the ability to understand how each part of the organization functions as a whole, the ability to visualize, imagine, think, remember and process information for future course of action based on current organizational and industry trends, the ability to analyze and diagnose complex situations and the ability to understand the interrelationships at work in the organization (Zhang, L.F., \& Sternberg, R.J., 2006). Middle and senior management is responsible for identifying the core competencies of the organization and making sure those competencies are complemented by its managers and its overall workforce. It is up to senior management to strategically place a manager in the department where the skills and competencies will reflect the current and future needs of the organization in order to effectively achieve results that benefit the organization in the short-and long-run. In the long run, managerial effectiveness has the potential of creating efficiencies that create a sustainable competitive advantage against competing organizations and increase opportunities for future enterprise. It also fosters individual growth in the manager, followers and generates shareholder value for the organization.\par
Managerial effectiveness is gauged by the results a manager achieves. Results are generally believed to be influenced by the factors like how individuals imagine, perceive, distinguish, recognize, think and remember information (which is considered as cognitive style). A good manager must make workteams of like minded people having common working styles so that team members may feel more comfortable while working with one another in order to achieve positive results and organizational goals.\par
If we compare all these factors of managerial effectiveness such as ability to work well with others, motivate workers, resolve conflicts, delegate roles communicate objectives clearly, ability to see the organization in the context of its industry, the ability to understand how each part of the organization functions as a whole, the ability to visualize, imagine, think, remember and process information for future course of action based on current organizational and industry trends etc. with the elements of cognitive style such as the way individuals imagine, perceive, distinguish, recognize, think and remember information there seems to be lot of similarities. 
\section[{c) Need for Study}]{c) Need for Study}\par
Cognitive style is a key concept in the areas of psychology, education and management. If a student has a cognitive style which is similar to that of his/her teacher, the chances that the student will have a more positive learning experience. Likewise, team members with similar cognitive styles likely feel more positive about their participation with the team (Kirton, M, J., 1976). While matching cognitive styles may make participants feel more comfortable when working with one another. Working together in a team with positivity and comfort are the key factor for maximization of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Because of such an importance of cognitive style as a predictor of critical managerial and organizational work outcomes, it has always been a variable of interest.\par
Cognitive style has been extensively studied as a function of many antecedents. But it has not been covered as an antecedent with managerial effectiveness especially among managers of banking sector of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India. There has not been sufficient research to investigate the relative importance of different facets of cognitive style in predicting managerial effectiveness. So far, little has been done about whether there is a genuine relationship between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness among different managerial levels of bank managers working in various public and private sector banks of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India.\par
The banking sector in India is facing the transition phase in current globalization and localization environment. The restructuring and blending of certain services in the banking sector have affected the efficiency and mindset of managers working with these banks. Managers in the banks may be having different cognitive style and respective managerial effectiveness. So in such a transitional state of banking sector working Managerial Effectiveness depends on a number of factors like individual's perception, personality, superior subordinate relation, working style, trust facilitation, way of thinking \& processing information and surrounding organizational climate (Sternberg, R.J., \& Zhang, L.F., 2001). Most of these factors of managerial effectiveness are element of cognitive style also, so there might exists a relationship between Managerial Effectiveness and cognitive style which should be investigated and understood. and restructuring there is need to find out the relationship between the cognitive style and managerial effectiveness of managers working at different levels and the difference between the identified relationships. To fill the above stated voids in knowledge, the main objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness among different managerial levels of bank managers working in various public and private sector banks of National Capital Region (Delhi) and Haryana state of India. The study also aimed at investigating and comparing the differences of the identified relationships between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness among different managerial levels of bank managers working in various public and private sector banks of National Capital Region  {\ref (Delhi)}   A sample of 300 executives from both the public and private sector banks (150 executive from public sector and 150 executive from private sector) working at various positions of junior level (50 executive), middle level (50 executive) and senior level (50 executive) of management was taken on the basis of availability of executives working in the above stated banks as a non randomized sample. Group-wise details of sample size are already given in the research design.\par
IV. 
\section[{METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION}]{METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION}\par
For data collection all the 300 subjects involved in the study as sample were tested for personality dimension of cognitive style by using Witkin V. Presentation of the scores in ascending order of all the three categories of both the public sector and private sector bank managers clearly illustrate that cognitive style scores are low to high from senior to middle and junior level respectively. Among both the public and private sector bank managers these scores exhibit higher tendency of field-dependence among the senior managers in comparison to the middle level managers who have relatively greater inclination towards field-independence in comparison to senior managers. Junior level managers of both the public and private sector banks are the highly inclined towards fieldindependence tendency in comparison to middle and senior level managers. F-ratio between the groups of public sector banks to be 7.046 which were significant at 0.05 level of significance. Since F-ratio was found significant, it means there exists a major difference between mean cognitive style scores of at least two groups, hence, Duncan's multiple comparison of means test was used to examine significant differences among means of different groups. The comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance. 
\section[{RESULTS AND FINDINGS}]{RESULTS AND FINDINGS}\par
The results of Duncan's multiple comparison of mean revealed that mean cognitive style scores in ascending order were of junior managers, middle level managers and senior managers. Table \hyperref[b0]{(1)} presents that junior managers and middle level managers differ significantly in their means from senior managers but junior managers did not differ significantly from middle level managers.\par
F-ratio between the groups of private sector banks to be 8.096 which were significant at 0.05 level of significance. As F-ratio was found significant, it means there exists a significant difference between mean cognitive style scores of at least two groups, hence, Duncan's multiple comparison of means test was used to examine significant differences among means of different groups. The comparisons were made at 0.05 level of significance.\par
The results of Duncan's multiple comparison of mean discovered that mean cognitive style scores in ascending order were of junior managers, middle level managers and senior managers from private sector bank. Table \hyperref[b0]{(1)} presents that junior managers and middle level managers differ significantly in their means from senior managers but junior managers did not differ significantly from middle level managers.  Junior level managers of both the public and private sector banks are highly field independent and have a high degree of managerial effectiveness, where as the middle level managers of both the public and private sector banks are field independent and have a managerial effectiveness. Senior level manager are fielddependent as well as have low degree managerial effectiveness. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS}]{LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS}\par
Because of limited resources, sample size taken for the study was very small, if a larger size sample can be managed more exact finding can be deduced.\par
Only two dimensions of relationship between cognitive style and managerial effectiveness are studied, other objectives may be developed and finding can accordingly be worked out.\par
Present study is limited to the two states of Indian banks only, a comparative study may be conducted on international level and finding can be worked out and analyzed to control the cognitive style among managers and ultimately improving the managerial effectiveness.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5463448275862068\textwidth}P{0.05744827586206896\textwidth}P{0.05510344827586206\textwidth}P{0.00703448275862069\textwidth}P{0.0316551724137931\textwidth}P{0.05510344827586206\textwidth}P{0.05627586206896552\textwidth}P{0.009379310344827585\textwidth}P{0.0316551724137931\textwidth}}
Banks\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Public sector banks}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Private sector banks}\\
Groups\tabcellsep Junior level\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Middle level}\tabcellsep Senior level\tabcellsep Junior level\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Middle level}\tabcellsep Senior level\\
\tabcellsep manager\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{manager}\tabcellsep manager\tabcellsep manager\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{manager}\tabcellsep manager\\
Group No.\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{5}\tabcellsep 6\\
N\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{50}\tabcellsep 50\\
Means\tabcellsep 130.05\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{109.54}\tabcellsep 98.47\tabcellsep 126.33\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{104.14}\tabcellsep 92.17\\
F Value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{F (4, 170) = 7.046; P}\tabcellsep < 0.05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{F (4, 170) = 8.096;}\tabcellsep P < 0.05\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Table (1) Shows that mean cognitive style}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{scores of junior, middle and senior level managers of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{public sector banks are 130.05, 109.54 and 98.47}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{respectively and mean cognitive style scores of junior,}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{middle and senior level managers of private sector}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{banks are 126.33, 104.14 and 92.17 respectively. Higher}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{the cognitive style scores greater the tendency of field-}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{dependence and lower the scores greater the tendency}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of field-independence.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.10223367697594501\textwidth}P{0.0993127147766323\textwidth}P{0.12560137457044673\textwidth}P{0.17525773195876287\textwidth}P{0.17233676975945017\textwidth}P{0.17525773195876287\textwidth}}
Bank\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Public sector banks}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Private sector banks}\\
Group\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Variable cognitive style}\tabcellsep managerial\tabcellsep cognitive style\tabcellsep managerial\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep effectiveness\tabcellsep \tabcellsep effectiveness\\
Junior\tabcellsep level\tabcellsep Highly Field-\tabcellsep High degree of\tabcellsep Highly Field-\tabcellsep High degree of\\
manager\tabcellsep \tabcellsep independent\tabcellsep managerial\tabcellsep independent\tabcellsep managerial\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep effectiveness\tabcellsep \tabcellsep effectiveness\\
Middle\tabcellsep level\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
manager\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XII Issue II Version I © 2012 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Bartol and Martin ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{},  		 			K Bartol 		,  		 			Martin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management}  		1991. McGraw-Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Friedman ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘A Short Rating Scale as a Potential Measure of Pattern A Behavior’.  		 			Rosenman Friedman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Chronic Diseases}  		1966. 22 p. .  	 	 (Qustionnaire on Type A and Type B. In RW Bortner) 
\bibitem[Bortner ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘A Short Rating Scale as a Potential Measure of Pattern a Behaviour’.  		 			R W Bortner 		.  	 	 		\textit{In Fred Luthans, Organisational Behavior}  		1985. McGraw-Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Kirton ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Adaptation and innovation in the context of diversity and change Routledge},  		 			M J Kirton 		.  		2003. London. p. 392.  	 
\bibitem[Kirton ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure’.  		 			M Kirton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1976. 61  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Riding and Cheema ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Cognitive styles -An overview and integration’.  		 			R J Riding 		,  		 			I Cheema 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Psychology}  		1991. 11 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Beiri ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behaviour},  		 			J Beiri 		.  		1961. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.  	 
\bibitem[Das ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Conflict Management Styles of Efficient Branch Managers: as Perceived by Others’.  		 			G S Das 		.  	 	 		\textit{ASCI Journal of Management}  		1987. 17  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Herbert ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Dimensions of Organisational Behavior},  		 			T T Herbert 		.  		1976. Macmillan Publishing Co Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Peterson and Deary ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Examining wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing’.  		 			E R Peterson 		,  		 			I J Deary 		.  	 	 		\textit{Personality and Individual Differences}  		2006. 41 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kirton ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Field Dependence and Adaptation Innovation Theories’.  		 			M J Kirton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Perceptual and Motor Skills}  		1978. 47 p. 1245.  	 
\bibitem[Witkin et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications’.  		 			H A Witkin 		,  		 			C A Moore 		,  		 			D R Goodenough 		,  		 			P W Cox 		.  	 	 		\textit{Review of Educational Research}  		1977. 47  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Richard and Steers ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Introduction to Organisational Behavior, 2e},  		 			M Richard 		,  		 			Steers 		.  		1984. Scott, Foresman, Glenview. p. 518.  	 
\bibitem[Srivastava and Kumar ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Junior and Middle Level Central},  		 			S K Srivastava 		,  		 			Kumar 		.  		1984.  	 
\bibitem[Gupta ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Managerial Effectiveness: Conceptual Framework and Scale Development’.  		 			S Gupta 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations}  		1996. 31  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sen and Saxena ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Managerial Effectiveness: Managing with a Difference’.  		 			S Sen 		,  		 			Saxena 		.  	 	 		\textit{Personnel Today}  		1999. 20  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Robbins ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{Organisational Behavior: Concept, Controversies and Applications},  		 			S P Robbins 		.  		1988. Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.  	 
\bibitem[Chakrabarti and Kundu ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Personality Profiles of Management Personnel’.  		 			P K Chakrabarti 		,  		 			Kundu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological Studies}  		1984. p. 29.  	 
\bibitem[Shermon ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		 			G Shermon 		.  		 \url{http://www.jbims.edu/publications.htm}  		\textit{Managerial Effectiveness: The Difficult Question},  				1999.  	 
\bibitem[Sternberg and Zhang ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		 			R J Sternberg 		,  		 			L F Zhang 		.  		\textit{Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles},  				 (Mahwah, NJ)  		2001. Lawrence Erlbaum.  	 
\bibitem[Pask ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Styles and Strategies of Learning’.  		 			G Pask 		.  	 	 		\textit{British Journal of Educational Psychology}  		1976. II. 46 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Howell et al.]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Substitutes for Leadership: Effectiveness Alternatives to Ineffective Leadership’.  		 			J P Howell 		,  		 			P W Bowen 		,  		 			S Dorfman 		,  		 			Kerr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence an Organisations},  				 			R P Veccho 		 (ed.)  		University of Notredame Press.  	 
\bibitem[Allinson and Hayes (1996)]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organisational research’.  		 			C W Allinson 		,  		 			J Hayes 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management Studies}  		January 1996. 33  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mary ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{The Effective Manager: Semi-Tough},  		 			Miles Mary 		.  		1992. McGraw Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Carey ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{The issue of cognitive style in MIS/DSS research},  		 			J Carey 		.  		1991.  	 
\bibitem[Bobic et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘The Kirton adaptation-innovation inventory’.  		 			M Bobic 		,  		 			E Davis 		,  		 			R Cunningham 		.  	 	 		\textit{Review of Public Personnel Administration}  		1999. 19  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Misumi and Peterson ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘The Performance Maintenance Theory of Leadership: Review of a Japanese Research Program’.  		 			J Misumi 		,  		 			Peterson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Administrative Science Quarterly}  		1985. 30 p. .  	 
\bibitem[England and Lee ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘The Relationship Between Managerial Values and Managerial Success in the United States’.  		 			G W England 		,  		 			Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		1974. 59  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Riding and Sadler-Smith ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Type of instructional material, cognitive style and learning performance’.  		 			R J Riding 		,  		 			E Sadler-Smith 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Studies}  		1992. 18  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mullany ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Using cognitive style measurements to forecast user resistance’.  		 			M J Mullany 		.  	 	 		\textit{14th Annual conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications},  				 (Napier, New Zealand)  		2001. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Van Velsor and Brittain Leslie (1995)]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Why Executives Derail: Perspective across Time and Cultures},  		 			Ellen Van Velsor 		,  		 			Jean Brittain Leslie 		.  		1995. November. Academy of Management Executive. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zhang and Sternberg ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		 			L F Zhang 		,  		 			R J Sternberg 		.  		\textit{The nature of intellectual styles},  				 (Mahwah, NJ)  		2006. Lawrence Erlbaum.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
