an analysis of transformational leadership skills of marketing, sales, human resources, and

Brandman UniversityBrandman Digital Repository

Dissertations

Fall 11-15-2016

An Analysis of Transformational Leadership Skillsof Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, andInformation Technology Leaders in Relation toTheir JobRamendra Singh [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Brandman Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by anauthorized administrator of Brandman Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationSingh, Ramendra Dr., "An Analysis of Transformational Leadership Skills of Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and InformationTechnology Leaders in Relation to Their Job" (2016). Dissertations. 18.http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations/18

https://www.brandman.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://www.brandman.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations/18?utm_source=digitalcommons.brandman.edu%2Fedd_dissertations%2F18&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

An Analysis of Transformational Leadership Skills of Marketing, Sales, Human

Resources, and Information Technology Leaders in Relation to Their Job

A Dissertation by

Ramendra Singh

Brandman University

Irvine, California

School of Education

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

November 2016

Committee in Charge:

Philip Pendley, Ed.D. Committee Chair

Samuel Bresler, Ph.D.

Jalin Brooks Johnson, Ed.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved.This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number:

10242925

10242925

2016

iii



Copyright © 2016

by Ramendra Singh

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the support of my family, teachers, and committee

members towards the successful completion of this study. Throughout this journey, I

relied on this group for enriching my learning and knowledge, for motivation, and for

continued feedback. I consider myself fortunate to have the ability to lean on this group

for things that have helped me advance both personally and professionally.

v

ABSTRACT



by Ramendra Singh

Purpose: The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to identify

transformational leadership skills exhibited by executives in mid-size companies,

working in the fields of Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT. Additionally, this study also tried

to identify top domains and skills for each group, and analyze the similarities and

differences between groups.

Methodology: The study was structured around three research questions. As this was a

quantitative study, self-rating data on 10 domains and 80 skills were collected using the

Transformational Leadership Skills inventory instrument. These data were then analyzed

using multiple statistical methods.

Findings: Analysis of data produced multiple findings in relation to top, middle, and

bottom tier skills and domains for each group, thereby supporting the hypothesis that the

situational context of job function is material for transformational leadership.

Conclusions: There were six conclusions that applied to all groups, thereby providing

valuable insights in relation to similarities across job functions. Additionally, there were

multiple differences found in the use of transformational leadership skills across

Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT functions, leading to the creation of distinct

transformational leadership skill portfolio for each group.

Recommendations: There were six implications for actions that were developed from

the conclusions, ranging from hiring, to talent development, to succession planning.

Additionally, eight recommendations for future research were also presented, ranging

vi

from logical extensions of this study into different verticals, to complementary new

studies that would expand the body of knowledge, to longitudinal cross-sectional study

that can be developed over time.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

Background ......................................................................................................................... 6

Need for Transformational Leadership in Organizations ................................................ 6

Executive Failure, Underlying Factors, and Impact ........................................................ 8

Situational Leadership Approach .................................................................................. 11

Different Situational Context Set by Different Business Functions ............................. 12

Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................................. 14

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................. 16

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 16

Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 17

Definitions......................................................................................................................... 18

Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 21

Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 22

Leadership Importance...................................................................................................... 23

History of Leadership Theory ........................................................................................... 25

Early Theories ............................................................................................................... 25

The Traits Era ................................................................................................................ 26

The Behavior Era .......................................................................................................... 28

The Contingency Era ..................................................................................................... 30

Fiedler Model. ........................................................................................................... 31

House-Mitchell Path-Goal Theory ............................................................................ 32

Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model ........................................................................... 33

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Theory ....................................................................... 33

Leadership Models of Current Era ................................................................................ 35

Charismatic leadership .............................................................................................. 35

Transformational leadership ...................................................................................... 37

Context and Impact of Transformational Changes ........................................................... 40

Transformational Changes in Marketing....................................................................... 43

Transformational Changes in Sales ............................................................................... 45

Transformational Changes in IT ................................................................................... 47

Transformational Changes in HR .................................................................................. 49

Transformational Leadership in the Situational Context of Job Function ........................ 51

Implications of Missed or Mismanaged Change Leadership ............................................ 53

Research Gap .................................................................................................................... 55

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 59

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 59



Research Design................................................................................................................ 60

Population ......................................................................................................................... 62

viii

Target Population .......................................................................................................... 63

Sample............................................................................................................................... 63

Sample Selection Process .............................................................................................. 65

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 66

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 70

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 71

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 73

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS....................... 75

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 75



Research Methods and Data Collection Procedures ......................................................... 76

Population ......................................................................................................................... 77

Sample............................................................................................................................... 77

Response Data ................................................................................................................... 78

Presentation and Analysis of Data .................................................................................... 78

Definition of Data Elements .......................................................................................... 78

D1 – visionary leadership .......................................................................................... 79

D2 – communication ................................................................................................. 79

D3 – problem-solving & decision making ................................................................ 80

D4 – personal/interpersonal skills ............................................................................. 80

D5 – character/integrity ............................................................................................. 81

D6 – collaboration ..................................................................................................... 81

D7 – creativity and sustained innovation .................................................................. 82

D8 – diversity ............................................................................................................ 82

D9 – team building .................................................................................................... 83

D10 – political intelligence........................................................................................ 83

Response Groupings ...................................................................................................... 84

Self-Rating Scores and Rankings by Job Function Groupings ..................................... 84

Relationships Between Variables .................................................................................. 87

Relationship between response and predictor variables. ........................................... 87

Correlation Within Response Variables and Predictor Variables ................................. 92

Data Reduction Considerations ..................................................................................... 93

Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................. 96

Ranking and Indexing of Domains and Significant Skills ............................................ 99

Analyzing Domains and Skills Using Rank-Index Two-Dimensional Plane ............. 100

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 104

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 107

Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 107

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 107

Research Design and Instrument .................................................................................... 107

Population, Sample, and Completed Responses ............................................................. 108

Major Findings ................................................................................................................ 108

ix

Findings Related to Domains ...................................................................................... 109

Top-tier common domains....................................................................................... 109

Differences within top common domains ................................................................ 109

Low-tier domains ..................................................................................................... 110

Mid-tier domains ..................................................................................................... 111

Findings Related to Skills ........................................................................................... 112

Top-tier common skills ............................................................................................ 112

Differences within top common skills ..................................................................... 112

Top-tier non-overlapping skills ............................................................................... 113

Low-tier common skills ........................................................................................... 114

Low-tier non-overlapping skills .............................................................................. 114

Mid-tier skills with growth opportunities ................................................................ 115

Unexpected Findings ...................................................................................................... 116

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 116

General Conclusions ................................................................................................... 118

Differences Specific to Job Functions ......................................................................... 121

Marketing................................................................................................................. 121

Sales ......................................................................................................................... 122

HR ............................................................................................................................ 122

IT ............................................................................................................................. 122

Differences in Mid-Tier Skills .................................................................................... 123

Implications for Action ................................................................................................... 123

Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................................... 125

Concluding Remarks and Reflections ............................................................................. 129

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 132

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 162

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Fully Completed Responses ....................................................... 84

Table 2. Top 3 Domains & Top 5 Skills Based on Raw Data ...................................... 86

Table 3. D1 - Regressing Skill Variables S1 Through S8 ............................................ 87

Table 4. D2 - Regressing Skill Variables S9 Through S16 .......................................... 88

Table 5. D3 - Regressing Skill Variables S17 Through S24 ........................................ 88







Table 12. D10 - Regressing Skill Variables S10 Through S80 ...................................... 90

Table 13. Test of Equal Variances While Accounting for Normality of Data................ 95

Table 14. Index Computation Formula ........................................................................... 99

Table 15. Top Domains – Post Factor Analysis & Rank-Index Based ......................... 102

Table 16. Top Significant Skills – Post Factor Analysis & Rank-Index Based............ 103

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Johari Window ......................................................................................... 67

Figure 2. Impact of 360-degree feedback on the Johari Window .................................. 68

Figure 3. Scree plot generated from factor analysis of skill variables ........................... 97

Figure 4. Score plot grouped by job function ................................................................. 98

Figure 5. Matrix plot structure for analyzing domain variables and significant

skill variables, using Rank-Index combination ............................................. 100

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The world of business is changing at a rate faster than it ever has. These changes

can be attributed to multiple reasons, such as technology, which allows people to gather

information quickly from multiple sources and communicate about a product or service

almost instantly, or the changing needs of customers who demand new products and

services. Various external factors, such as policy and business environment, can create

additional reasons for change (Center for Creative Leadership 2013). Whether it’s

related to internal or external factors, or both, businesses must embrace these continuous

changes in today’s environment for their going concern or else their survival is difficult

(Richards, 2015). Such is the rate of change that Friedman (1999) considered the world

to be merely 10 years old, and explains how these changes, which travel faster, cheaper,

farther, and deeper, are putting pressure on organizations to broaden their horizon of

consideration. McCallum (2001) states that the faster the pace of change, the more

serious the consequences are for businesses that are slow to respond to changes. He

states that these changes leave no area of a business untouched, and unless they make

change management a priority, they will not be able to stay afloat. Corporate Executive

Board, which conducts periodic research studies to provide insights to executives,

identified five critical areas of change, that can disrupt businesses, and which need

attention – changing nature of work, changing needs of internal clients, changing nature

of the consumer, changing nature of business customers, and the changing impact of

information (Corporate Executive Board, 2014).

According to a study conducted by IBM Global Consulting, two out of three

global leaders indicated that their organizations would face high levels of change within

2

the next few years, requiring them to take a hard look at their people, process, content,

innovative ability, and orchestration from leaders (IBM, 2006). Managing such rapid and

voluminous changes are not just limited to chief executives; most functional leaders and

department heads deal with similar changes. Cooperstein (2012) introduces the concept

of “adaptive marketing” to manage the numerous changes that marketing leaders face,

including the growth of digital channels, proliferation of information, omni-channel

approach to providing information to customers, proving and demonstrating a Return on

Investment to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and other internal stakeholders for

budget approval, changing rollout and support processes to completely new ones,

building technology skills, and hiring new people with a working knowledge of technical

domains. Similarly, sales leaders must develop a working knowledge of operations and

supporting platforms, communicate using methods beyond just a personal interaction,

develop social media savvy, and utilize new sales processes that are not

compartmentalized (Parry 2008). Finance leaders are no different, and they face their

own series of changes. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and

the Institute of Management Accounts (IMA) (2012) jointly conducted a study to

understand how the role of the CFO has changed in the recent years, and the report

summarized that finance leaders of today are required to not only have a solid

understanding of regulations, but must also develop processes to account for regulations,

technology, analytics, risk management, relationship management, strategy, and reporting

(Association of Chartered Certified Acountants [ACCA] & Institute of Management

Accountants [IMA], 2012).

3

In order to understand how leaders of various functions must deal with change, it

is important to understand the different types of change itself. D. Anderson and

Anderson (2010d) group changes into three broad categories: (a) developmental changes,

(b) transitional changes, and (c) transformational changes. While these types of changes

are discussed in more detail in the definitions section later, it is important to note that

transformational changes are the most difficult to manage, as not only are they complex

and require support from multiple constituents and stakeholders, they require people and

cultural changes while the end state of the change is unknown (D. Anderson & Anderson,

2010b).

This environment of rapid transformational changes makes it critical for

organizations to invest in leaders who can lead these changes, instead of merely

attempting to manage them. Ravichandran and Nagabrahmam (2000) show that

managers and leaders have distinctly different domains, and leaders are characterized by

clarity of vision, a high need for achievement, and an integrative approach. Nayar (2013)

states that managers are more interested in counting value, creating a circle of power, and

managing work. This distinction, when overlaid with the transformational changes,

presents a case for looking at the defining characteristics of the person at the helm.

Good leadership characteristics not only have a profound positive impact on the

organization and its employees (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; X.-H. Wang &

Howell, 2010), but also on the process that is used to deliver changes (Korek, Felfe, &

Zaepernick-Rothe, 2010; Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010; P. Wang & Rode, 2010). Such is the

importance of good leadership that Garcia (2009) suggests a model for curriculum and

course developers of Masters of Business Administration (MBA) programs, which are

4

often the feeders for business leaders in corporations, to enhance the importance of

leadership studies within the MBA curriculum. An organization needs transformational

leaders to survive this complexity and pace of change, and its interconnectedness (Murph,

2005). In his interview, Herz (2013), who was the chairman of the Financial Accounting

Standards Board from 2002 to 2010 and who oversaw numerous transformational

changes in financial accounting, explains that leaders of today must be adept at managing

such changes through creating a vision, building support, increasing transparency, and

providing direction (as cited in Tysiac, 2013), all of which are pivotal in a

transformational change.

While transformational leadership is so important in today’s day and age, the

success of executives in leadership positions, navigating through such socio-economic,

technological, and competitive environmental changes, is a different story. There are

numerous examples of leadership failures in the recent past, attributed to an inability to

manage change (Adams, 2013; Kalb, 2012; Munarriz, 2004; Regan, 2014; Tobak, 2013).

A catastrophic failure not only impacts the leader, but also the organization, its

employees and their families, and customers, and it is the responsibility of

transformational leaders to not only provide the vision of the future but also protect the

organization and its employees from such failures (Petty, 2011).

Murph (2005) observes that organizations are witnessing such failures, because

they are unable to obtain leaders with the right skillset needed for a transformational

change. L. A. Anderson and Anderson (2010a) find that one of the contributing factors is

the leader’s inability or unwillingness to develop themselves for modeling and leading

the change. Finkelstein (2004) asserts that it is not just enough to be able to perceive the

5

change and act on it, but it is also necessary for leaders to determine how sustainable the

actions related to such changes are, and how long the underlying assumptions can remain

valid. The relevance of the skillset possessed by such leaders, and the ability to apply the

right skills based on what the situation demands (Chemers, 1997) are critical. Executives

who fail in such leadership positions also think they have all the answers, are

overconfident in their abilities, feel infallible, and may not be aware of the skill gaps that

are needed for them to do their job effectively (Chia-Feng, 2014;Finkelstein, 2004). Few

leaders realize that having transformational leadership characteristics is not enough, as

they must know how these characteristics are invoked differently under different

circumstances (Dóci & Hofmans, 2015).

The idea of looking at leadership skills in the light of specific circumstances dates

back to the 1970s when Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard introduced Situational

Leadership Theory (SLT). Since then, SLT has evolved through multiple generations,

each attempting to better connect specifically defined verticals to leadership traits

(Graeff, 1997). In an attempt to reduce leadership failures, recent studies are getting

more focused on specific domains, such as leadership skill gap in Information

Technology (IT) professionals (Gorman, 2011), sales leaders (Brewer, 1997), Finance

Executives (Balakrishnan & Prathiba, 2011), Strategy Officers (Breene, Nunes, & Shill,

2007), and Research and Development professionals (Carpenter, Fusfeld, & Gritzo,

2010). The need for transformational leadership, and the importance of connecting it to

job functions, collectively creates an opportunity for research.

6

Background

Need for Transformational Leadership in Organizations

Organizations today face a constant barrage of changes initiated by factors such as

demographic, psychographic, environmental, economic, political, or technological.

These changes vary in size, but they can be significant, and as such, organizations must

be prepared to deal with these changes, and such adaptability is critical to the survival of

the organization (Center for Creative Leadership, 2013; Calarco & Gurvis, 2006;

McCallum, 2001; Wilson, 2014).

In order to understand the scope of the change, an organization must consider if

(a) the change impacts the organization’s product, strategy, structure, operations,

systems, or technology, (b) the outcome of the change is unknown but the organization

realizes the critical need to develop a process to navigate through the change, and (c) the

underlying constituents – employees and leaders – must change their mindset and the

culture within which the organization currently operates. If two or more of these

considerations are found to be material, a transformational change is underway and it

requires attention in three major areas – content, people, and processes (D. Anderson &

Anderson, 2010a).

By the time America Online (now AOL) realized that customers’ browsing habits

had changed to require more internet bandwidth and the technology had changed along

with it, necessitating a change in content and processes, it was too late to recover for the

company, which still relied on its outdated dialup product (Munarriz, 2004). On the other

hand, when Lou Gerstner took office as the Chief Executive Officer CEO of IBM and

realized that IBM was almost running out of cash and the root cause was its culture,

7

processes, and product, he took immediate steps to navigate the company out of the

perilous situation. He prioritized a culture and mindset change, along with redefining

products to become a full service technology company rather than a hardware provider

that IBM was (DiCarlo, 2002). Similarly, looking at the conditions Starbucks was facing

and the importance of course correction, Howard Schultz led Starbucks through some

pretty significant product, process, and mindset changes, while reiterating the importance

of people (employees and supply chain partners) and how the company relied on them to

succeed (Groth, 2011).

Across all transformational leadership stories lie examples of how such leaders

manage four key components of the transformational change: (a) idealized influence, (b)

inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration

(B. M. Bass & Bass, 2009; B. M. Bass & Riggio, 2005) – also referred to as the “Four I’s

of transformational change”. The benefits of transformational leadership for businesses

have been supported by research. Morral (2012) found that this leadership style has a

positive impact on creativity, allowing people to generate solutions to new problems,

increasing the positive attitude towards the approach and the end state, and it also helps

people focus better. Transformational leadership also increases an organization’s

capability to learn, which is critical to surviving complex business conditions and winds

of change (Choudhary, Akhtar, & Zaheer, 2013). Transformational leadership behavior

also increases employee engagement, commitment, and trust (Macey & Schneider, 2008;

B. J. Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004); serves as a tool to fight cynicism of the

constituents who are participating in the change or are impacted by it (Bommer, Rich, &

Rubin, 2005), and improves the cognitive abilities of the leader as well as team members,

8

helping them course correct when needed (Petran, 2008). The changes organizations face

today are dramatic and deeply impactful (Calarco & Gurvis, 2006) and the journey

through these changes is anything but linear (D. Anderson & Anderson, 2010a), therefore

presenting a strong case for the need of transformational leaders and how they manage

change to help the organization survive and stay competitive (Wilson, 2014).

Executive Failure, Underlying Factors, and Impact

The past decade has been associated with numerous corporate failures, and this

topic has received considerable attention from journalists, analysts, as well as researchers.

While the failures were the result of multiple factors, a large number were the direct

result of lack of focus, and inattention towards very strong change drivers, and these

incidents exposed the weaknesses of the leaders at the helm at the time of such failures

(Adams, 2013; Cox, 2012; Kalb, 2012; Newman, 2010; Olanoff, 2012; Tobak, 2013;

Yarow, 2012). Such has been the impact of these failures that researchers and thought

leaders have been attempting to isolate potential factors, from multiple angles, which if

identified can be used for coaching and training purposes to improve the chances of

success (Hitch & Bennett, 2011).

There is a significant amount of empirical data around the high probability of

executive failure. The Center for Creative Leadership conducted a study that showed that

38% of executives who started in a new role or position failed outright in the first 18

months of the job, and an even larger proportion failed to deliver against the expectations

for which they were hired (as cited in Riddle, 2009). According to Bradt, Check, and

Pedraza (2011), executives fail to deliver on one or more of the most important tasks they

must do within the first 100 days of starting a new leadership level job, resulting in a

9

slippery slope that is difficult to recover from. A report published by Harvard Business

School states that in 2003 approximately 40% to 60% of all new executives failed in their

jobs (as cited in Hitch & Bennett, 2011). In the 1990s the average turnover rate for chief

executives was around 10% to 11%; since 2000, that number has jumped up to about

14% (Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008). It is also reported that it takes a minimum of six

months for a new executive to become productive in their new role (M. Moore, 2008).

Various reasons have been cited for such leadership failure. Fallon (2014) states

that to start off, few leaders have a good understanding of what they are walking into,

expecting that their existing competencies are what they need to deliver on the job, but

finding otherwise later. This also leads into the issue of lack of training in the

competencies that may be missing to deliver on the expectations of the job. Another

major failure factor is the inability or unwillingness of leaders to listen to others in

seeking out new solutions or answers. Often leaders feel that they have all the answers,

and that they know everything there is to know about delivering the results associated

with the job (Fallon, 2014; Finkelstein, 2004; Jackson, 2012; Riddle, 2009). When

executives believe that they know everything, it can often result in lack of attention to

implementation of a learning infrastructure, which further disables the organization’s

capability to develop new solutions and course correct, as a leader’s approach and style is

highly correlated with the ability of an organization to learn (Riddle, 2009; Stewart,

2013). Another factor that is instrumental in determining success or failure is the leader’s

ability to see and assess things – both the clearly visible ones, as well as the ones that

change drivers are expected to bring about including their willingness to make changes to

their own style of working. These include things such as the ability to identify blind

10

spots, manage political impediments, account for built-in biases or polarized positions,

develop skills for building allies and supporters who help influence others, manage

conflict situations, and develop skills to handle less than favorable situations and crucial

conversations (Harvey & Drolet, 2006; McKee, Boyatzis, & Johnston, 2008; Patterson,

Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2012; Thornton, 2011; White, Harvey, & Kemper, 2007).

Executive failures have pronounced impacts both in terms of “direct” expenses

and costs, as well as the “indirect” impact on the viability of the organization and its

operating efficiency. When an executive is hired, there are various costs that are

incurred, such as recruitment costs, relocation expenses, hiring/sign-on bonuses, annual

compensation, and training costs. In addition to this, there may be other associated

expenses such as equity arrangements, severance pay, guarantees etc. These direct costs

themselves can add up to two to three times the base pay. When executives leave, or are

asked to leave, this process must start all over again, resulting in delays on deliverables,

lost opportunity cost, rebuilding teams, re-establishing relationships or mending damaged

ones, frustrations of other staff members and business partners, and talent exodus. The

higher the executive level, the higher the costs. Gulamhusein (2005) states that between

2000 and 2002, over 77% of departing top level executives received an average of

separation pay of $4.9 million. Together, the direct and indirect costs of such executive

failures can add up to 24 times the base salary, which is astronomical (Wells, 2005). The

larger the market cap, the higher these costs become (Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008),

thereby further strengthening the need to assess underlying factors in an attempt to

minimize such executive failures.

11

Situational Leadership Approach

In the late 1960s, as researchers were attempting to connect leadership with

various phenomena, it started to become apparent that there was no “one size fits all”

kind of model for leadership. Moravec and Schreiner (1967) found that behavioral

concepts needed to be adjusted to fit the needs of the tasks that managers were required to

do. Around the same time, situation leadership theory started to emerge, whose basic

underpinning was that there was no one leadership style that would be considered the

best, and that in order for a leadership style to be effective, it needed to be customized to

the group of people being led, the function of the job, and the needs of the task that was

to be accomplished (Graeff, 1997; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2012).

While this research is not directly related to SLT, its premise is connected with

three main advantages of SLT, namely: (a) its use for training managers and leaders, (b)

its practical application on connecting leadership behaviors and traits to the setting in

which the leader operates, and (c) the flexibility it provides in its emphasis that operative

leadership style for effectiveness must rely on the requirements of the job and the

situation within which the leader operates (Northouse, 2012). The critical importance of

this situational context has also been emphasized in recent leadership literature due to its

connectedness with the behavior that leaders exercise in a given environment, under

different contexts, and between their respective group of followers (Dóci & Hofmans,

2015; Yukl, 2006). Additionally, advanced levels of analytics have made it possible to

study the correlations between leadership domains, behaviors, and the situational context

(B. M. Bass & Bass, 2009).

12

Different Situational Context Set by Different Business Functions

Today’s organizations are usually structured into different business functions,

such as Marketing, Sales, IT, Human Resources (HR), etc. in an attempt to have defined

focus, roles, and responsibilities for each group, so that the collective purpose of the

organization is achieved. By definition, the purpose of each of these functions is

different and, as such, the overall day-to-day operating context within which the leaders

of these functions operate can be significantly different.

Brinker (2009) explains, for instance, how marketing and IT are structurally very

different, to the extent that in many organizations they can be diametrically opposed to

each other. Marketing has traditionally been a customer facing function whose priorities

are to listen to customer needs, manage the user experience, act quickly in response to

any implicit or explicit customer behavioral changes, be disruptive, and be diversified in

implementations to support multiple segments. IT, on the other hand, has traditionally

been an internal facing function that prioritizes stability as opposed to frequent changes,

standardization, unification of implementation, and adopting a non-disruptive/stabilizing

approach to systems and processes. Similarly Marzano and Samant (2011) explain how

sales departments prioritize closing a deal, often painting very optimistic pictures of

potential benefits, while finance departments, which manage the expense side of the

organization, prioritize checks and balances in spending and may approach the same

picture from a scenario modeling perspective that may not always be as optimistic.

Saxby (2013) describes yet another such contextual difference – both sales and marketing

are primarily external facing functions, but they can differ significantly too. Sales may

prioritize offering whatever is in the company’s current inventory of products and is in

13

stock, thereby adopting an immediate approach to increasing revenue, while marketing

may prioritize looking into the future and investing into new products and services with

the goal of increasing revenue in the future.

According to situational theory, an effective leader accounts for: (a) the group of

people s/he is leading or influencing, (b) the context of what needs to be done, and (c) the

task itself that needs to be performed (B. M. Bass & Bass, 2009; Northouse, 2012; Yukl,

2006). As business functions are setup differently and they operate differently, as

discussed earlier, it makes sense to study leadership skills displayed or needed by leaders

in terms of their relevance to different business functions. Harps (2003) suggests that

Logistics, an operations function, requires leaders to work across multiple groups in the

organization and so the ability to influence others, listen to them, and be emotionally

mature, are essential skills needed. According to a report published by the Society for

Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2009), some of the top leadership skills that HR

leaders need include analytical and critical thinking, persuasiveness, building credibility,

and communicating effectively. For finance leaders, particularly in light of enhanced

regulations and scrutiny, integrity and ethical consideration rose to the top. These leaders

are also expected to display fearlessness, and they should possess a much wider range of

knowledge to be able to understand the perspective of almost every other function they

interact with, to build trusting relationships (Messmer, 2006), and their strategies should

always display a pragmatic approach (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). IT leaders may

need to pay additional attention to communication and problem solving (Grier, 2009),

while marketing leaders may need higher levels of charisma and a supportive approach.

14

The different functions may also have multiple skills that overlap, but their degree of

importance could vary as the context in different functions is different.

Statement of the Research Problem

In spite of extensive research on leadership development programs, recent

corporate trends related to executive failures and turnover suggest that there is still a

shortage of good leaders. Given the volume of changes that organizations face today,

transformational leadership skills are needed to navigate through the changes, and such

skills are critical to the organization’s viability and sustainability (Calarco & Gurvis,

2006; McCallum, 2001; Wilson, 2014); however, data suggests that such

transformational leadership skills are in short supply. A national poll suggests that in

2010, the confidence of Americans in corporate leadership had declined for three straight

years, with 68% of Americans believing that a leadership crisis situation exists, and 71%

maintaining that unless something is done about it, the nation will continue to decline on

the corporate front (McKiernan, 2010).

There are numerous examples of such failed leadership at senior executive levels.

Between 2005 and 2011, Hewlett-Packard had four CEOs at the helm – Carly Fiorina,

Mark Hurd, Leo Apotheker, and Meg Whitman (Kalb, 2012). Similarly, between 1995

and 2012, Yahoo churned through six CEOs – Tim Koogle, Terry Semel, Jerry Yang,

Carol Bartz, Scott Thompson, and Ross Levinsohn. Two Waste Management CEOs

transitioned out of the company in less than nine months ("Waste Management Chairman

Quits, the Second in 9 Months," 1997). Gregory Wolf lasted less than two years as the

CEO of Humana ("Gregory H. Wolf Resigns as Humana President and CEO," 1999).

The list of poor top level executives continues to grow (Regan, 2014; Adams, 2013;

15

Tobak, 2013; Cox, 2012), and researchers have been attempting to solve this problem by

looking at various angles, such as defining what leaders must do (Myatt, 2012), and what

contributes to such failures (Fallon, 2014; Jackson, 2012).

The Center for Creative Leadership (2013) reports that for a decade, concerns

have been reported that the skills that leaders have are not the skills that are needed on

the job. This difference in skills needed and skills possessed is referred to as the

“Leadership Gap”, and such gaps have grown over the past decade. Organizations are

also not sure if they are building the skills for the future, when it comes to development

of such leadership skills (Leslie, 2009). Early leadership models attempted to analyze

this gap by analyzing the personality traits, skills and behaviors of managers and

attempting to best fit them with job strategies such as allocating resources, maintenance,

cost reduction, market positioning, investing, finding new growth opportunities etc. Such

personality-job matching models required evaluation of personality traits, skills, and

abilities, alongside a detailed evaluation of the job requirements and activities (Szilagyi

& Schweiger, 1984). In their work, Szilagyi and Schweiger (1984) recommend further

research be conducted with an emphasis on managerial domains and requirements of the

job performed by these managers. Analyzing data from a large firm, Scott (2007)

attempted to understand leadership dimensions that were important for marketing success

in comparison to other business functions, and the role of heterogeneity in the perception

of marketing leadership in relation to employee demographic and work environment. He

recommended that future research look across organizations and CEO profiles to

determine differences in leadership skills by job functions.

16

Reduced confidence in corporate leadership, along with a fast paced economy that

is characterized by numerous transformational changes, puts pressure on leaders towards

a singular goal of delivering results (Goleman, 2000), and a study that researches this gap

– how transformational leadership skills are related to job functions –can have practical

implications for transformational leadership coaching and development.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to identify transformational

leadership skills exhibited by executives in mid-size companies, working in the fields of

Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT using the TLSi.

In addition, it was the purpose of this study to identify the top 3 domains and top

5 skills for each group, and to determine if significant differences exist in reported TLSi

ratings between the respective groups of executives.

Research Questions

1. What are the TLSi self-rating scores for business leaders in mid-size

companies in the field of Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and

Information Technology?

2. What are the top three transformational leadership domains and top five

transformational leadership skills for Marketing, Sales, Human Resources,

and Information Technology leaders?

3. Are there significant differences in the ratings of transformational leadership

skills between Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and Information

Technology leaders?

17

Significance of the Problem

Research suggests that less than 36% of executives who start in a new job perform

well. In 2003, the failure rate for executives was between 40% and 60%; in 2005, 30% of

new managers and executives failed at their new job and left the company in under 18

months – these staggering statistics (Hitch & Bennett, 2011) imply the need for better

strategies around leadership development. Programs designed to improve leadership

skills and enhance success rates must have clearly defined competencies that are not only

comprehensive, but also manageable, for the program to be effective (Gillis, 2011).

A single onboarding approach does not fit the needs of all employees in different

positions and as such, in today’s environment, implementing customized onboarding

programs that suit the needs of the job are no longer a luxury but a necessity, as it takes

about six months for an executive to start becoming productive in their new role (M.

Moore, 2008). When a new executive fails, direct costs such as separation compensation,

recruitment expenses for the new candidate, relocation costs, training expenses and time

are inevitable; however, many businesses fail to include indirect costs such as damages to

relationships, disruption of flow and continuity, and additional delays and opportunity

costs of such delays. The net of all these direct and indirect costs can be as high as 24

times the base salary (Wells, 2005).

This sets the stage for the potential significance of this research. The results of

this study will help identify significant differences, if any, in transformational leadership

skills between leaders of different business functions such as Marketing, Sales, IT, and

HR within medium size companies. These findings could be used for tailoring leadership

18

development programs to the unique leadership needs of job functions, which could

improve leadership performance and address “Leadership Gap”.

Definitions

Developmental Change. This is a simple change that does not change the nature

of the process, or the mindset associated with the process, and is usually limited to

making improvements to the current process or system, or improving existing skills of the

people involved. This change does not require creating something entirely new (D.

Anderson & Anderson, 2010a, 2010c). Some examples are building new reports,

sharpening existing skills through training etc.

Transitional Change. This change is more complex than a developmental change,

and requires an organization to let go of an existing way of operating and adopt a new

way of doing things. This change has a well-defined end state, and it can be managed as

a project using standard change management tools and processes. As the end state is

known, the impact of the change is limited and does not require an associated change to

culture or mindset (D. Anderson & Anderson, 2010a, 2010c). Some examples are

building new products, acquiring a new business unit, and implementing a new IT

system.

Transformational Change. This is the most complex type of change, and all the

examples discussed earlier fall in this category. This change does not have a clearly

defined end state, and there are numerous course corrections involved on this journey.

This change requires major culture, mindset, and behavior changes, and it does not have a

defined timeline that can be used to manage the change. In these changes, the end state is

usually significantly divergent from the current state, and as a result, leaders attempting

19

to manage these changes must be able to create a vision, sell that vision, and continually

motivate stakeholders to follow a path that is undefined. The ability to manage such

change requires constant attention, and more importantly, a conscious change leadership

approach that involves understanding change drivers, an attention to people and

processes, and significant levels of personal awareness around leadership skills (D.

Anderson & Anderson, 2010a, 2010c).

Four I’s of Transformational Change. These are the four key factors of

transformational leadership; transformational change leaders must be able to address all

four of these factors (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki, & Kepner, 2008).

Idealized Influence. One of the Four I’s of Transformational change. This term is

used to describe leaders who can serve as role models and practice what they preach. As

the name suggests, this influences their associates by building up trust, and people look

up to these leaders for good decision making as they serve as their role models.

Inspirational Motivation. One of the Four I’s of Transformational change. This

phenomenon describes how associates are motivated to commit to the vision that the

leader shares with them. Leaders who demonstrate this quality inspire others with their

vision and in a manner that gives meaning to people’s work which further builds trust.

Intellectual Stimulation. One of the Four I’s of Transformational change. Leaders

who demonstrate this quality expose assumptions and challenge the normal beliefs/status

quo, articulate the problem, and encourage new thoughts around finding solutions. They

build up critical thinking abilities in the team, thereby preparing people to handle changes

by a mindset that looks out for new solutions.

20

Individualized Consideration. One of the Four I’s of Transformational change.

These leaders act as a coach to others, and in doing so, they make the change relevant to

the constituent. By personalizing the change, and its impact through the vision of the end

state, they maximize participation in the change.

Situational Leadership. This is a broad leadership theory whose basic premise is

that there is no one particular leadership approach that works best to influence people and

lead them. According to this theory, there are multiple combinations of task oriented

behaviors and relationship oriented behaviors that determine the most appropriate fit for

the leadership opportunity at hand. There are multiple factors within this theory that

influence the effectiveness of the leader, and these factors span the leader’s personal

traits, the associates that s/he works with, the organization, time constraints for decision

making, and the job function and its demands (Hersey et al., 2012).

Executive. For the context of this study, the term “executive” is used for people

who are in a leadership position in their respective job function, and the term is not just

limited to the top management of the company. People who have a title of “Director” or

higher are covered under this definition.

Leaders. For the purpose of this study, this term is used interchangeably with

“Executives” and has the same definition.

Mid-Size/Middle-Market Companies. For this study, mid-size or middle-market

companies are terms used interchangeably to signify companies that have annual

revenues ranging form $50 million to $1billion.

21

Delimitations

This study is delimited to executives in mid-size companies, working in the fields

of Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT.

Organization of the Study

The remainder of this study is organized into four chapters, a bibliography, and

appendixes. Chapter II presents a review of literature related to the pace of changes

facing organizations today, need for transformational leadership in organizations, its

impact on leadership failure, the need to extend situational theories to cover job

functions, and a review of the association between transformational leadership skills and

job functions. Chapter III covers the research design and methodology, describing the

population, the sample, the instrument, and the process to collect data. It also described

the process for analyzing the data collected. Chapter IV describes the analysis of the data

and provides a discussion on the outcomes of data analysis. Chapter V describes the

findings and presents a summary, a conclusion, and recommendations for future research.

22

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

After almost a century of studies on various topics about leadership, there are a

few things that are now well understood regarding leadership. First, people are not

necessarily born leaders and through various leadership development initiatives, they can

become very effective leaders (Bascuas, 2015; Gentry, Deal, Stawiski, & Ruderman,

2012; Riggio, 2009). Second, leadership training is a long-term and incremental process

(Gardner, 1993; Riggio, 2009; Zenger, 2012). Third, there are certain skills that all

leaders share, but there are also skill sets that are different. Lastly, the portfolio of

leadership skills that a leader must use is determined by the situation and context that the

leader operates in, including the organization, job function, and cultural setting (Gardner,

1993; Gurdjian, Halbeisen, & Lane, 2014; Myatt, 2012; Riggio, 2009). While these

themes provide a basis for understanding leadership and improving outcomes across

organizations through development programs, there is still a growing level of

disappointment with leaders (McKiernan, 2010) and an increasingly high number of

leadership failures (Hitch & Bennett, 2011; M. Moore, 2008; Riddle, 2009). Arbaugh

(2006) concludes that due to the needs discussed above, leadership development is

currently in the state of defining its domain.

This review of literature begins with a discussion of the importance of effective

leadership, followed by a background on leadership theories, covering studies and

research related to specialization/evolution of these theories, and eventually leading into

the situation leadership context and its relevance in today’s day and age. This discussion

is followed by a detailed review of transformational leadership and its impact on the

business environment of today, where changes due to internal and external factors have

23

become quite commonplace (Calarco & Gurvis, 2006; Center for Creative Leadership,

2013; Wilson, 2014). The literature review then addresses the nature of changes in the

fields of Marketing, Sales, IT, and HR, and the importance of accepting and preparing for

these transformational changes. The discussion then progresses to the association

between transformational change and job functions. This discussion covers the topic of

how job function can be a powerful situational context in leading transformational

change. Finally, the literature discusses evidence of catastrophic failure in leadership,

and what it means for the business and the employee, thereby supporting the importance

of a research study such as this one. A synthesis matrix was developed to identify and

organize key findings from various studies, resources, and articles, to gain a thorough

understanding of the various themes that this research study covers (see Appendix A).

Leadership Importance

The amount of literature on leadership is vast, and different experts have tried to

define leadership in different ways, focusing on traits, knowledge, skills, behaviors,

culture, personality, organization, interaction, and many more. While there is no one

definition of leadership due to such differences in context, there is general consensus that

leadership is a very important consideration for the performance of teams, groups, and

organizations, with the general intent of improving outcomes as well as quality of life or

work for followers or constituents (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).

Good leadership is important for creating a sustainable structure in the

organization – one that can last and spread. Such a structure does not create an undue

depletion or degradation of human and capital resources, and creates a positive

environment for the constituents (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004). Good leadership is also

24

materially responsible for good financial performance and profitability of the

organization (Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001), as well as the performance

of its employees, regardless of how different or similar the organizations are or the

environments they operate in (Thomas, 1988). In the current global environment, more

organizations are relying on teams to complete complex tasks. In such instances where

individuals must come together and work in a collaborative manner, good leadership

becomes a necessity (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004). Good leadership

is also needed to provide direction and guidelines when an organization faces changes.

Good leaders act as the catalyst for achieving results and setting a productive culture in

times of change, thereby allowing for an organization to better endure the change journey

(Samuel, 2006).

After almost a century of leadership studies, it is evident that there is a practical

aspect (financial improvement, going concern, sustainability, value creation, and

employee motivation) as well as a noble, human aspect (job satisfaction, lowering work

stress, and the employee’s sense of accomplishment and fulfillment) of good leadership.

In the face of rapid changes, these aspects become even more important, and as such,

good leaders who can think and act in new ways, are a necessity (McKee et al., 2008). It

is this necessity and importance that requires in-depth understanding of leadership history

and its current trends, to account for the context in which leaders operate and the

environment in which leadership development occurs (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004).

25

History of Leadership Theory

Early Theories

People have known about leaders far before the term leadership was even coined

in literature as an area of study, and as such, much of the early research on leadership

involved studying leaders (Takala, 1998). This thought process served as the basic

foundation of early leadership studies, dating back to the early 1900s, where leadership

was defined in terms of what “great men” could do, what their inherent abilities were,

and what made them a hero in the eyes of their followers (Takala, 1998; Wren, 1995).

This led to the development of the “Great Man” theory of leadership, often associated

with the work of a famous historian – Thomas Carlyle. The Great Man Theory is based

on two major beliefs – first, that leaders possess some innate capabilities and are born

with leadership traits, and hence leaders cannot be created, and second, that great leaders

arise whenever there is a need for one (Cawthon, 1996; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;

Management Study Guide, 2008). This theory maintained that leaders, particularly the

ones that had some royalty lineage, had won great wars and battles, or were wealthy and

rich, or possessed exceptional, innate, powerful capabilities, which allowed them to

display great leadership, regardless of the context, environment, or social setting.

Ordinary people did not have such skills, and as such, there were not many

opportunities for ordinary people to lead socially, politically, or functionally. This early

thought process directed practically all leadership research towards finding traits that

leaders possess (Nahavandi, 2009). This theory was criticized by many researchers,

stating that it did not account for the situations in which leaders operate as well as the

differences in the followers they lead, and that this theory did not have any empirical

26

validity or scientific reasoning behind it (Cawthon, 1996; Chand, 2015). Despite the

criticism, however, this thought process prevailed for a long time and eventually shaped

the next generation of leadership research.

The Traits Era

This “era” of leadership research typically covers the period of the early 1900s

through the late 1930s and into the early 1940s. In this era, the prevailing thought for

leadership research was that leaders were born with extraordinary skills and that their

leadership success can be explained through an analysis of the traits and skills they

possess. The historical context and widespread prevailing support towards this thought

strengthened the belief in the power of personality, and as a result, leadership research in

this era is synonymous with a widespread “hunt” for leadership traits. The development

of various tools, such as the IQ test and other personality traits measurement tools, helped

with this quest for finding and measuring traits that differentiated leaders from others

(Nahavandi, 2009). Given the length of time that this theory dominated leadership

research, and the breadth of its adoption, experts observe that no other theory of

leadership has received so much prominence, or has been researched more widely, and

this further lends more credibility to the traits approach (Hunt, 1991; Northouse, 2012).

In this era of leadership research, the focus of the study was almost exclusively

the leader, and little to no attention was paid to the follower. It was believed that the

inherent qualities of the leader were fully transferrable in all contexts and all situations,

and because a leader inherently possessed these traits, the value of training individuals to

become leaders was minimal. In this era, researchers spent little effort trying to

understand whether different conditions or circumstances would require different leaders,

27

as the underlying belief was that the most crucial aspect of success was having a leader

that possessed a certain set of traits. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) state “it is

unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people” (p. 59). The general thought

was that as long as organizations found the right/gifted person, success would imminently

follow, and consequently organizations started using trait and skill assessment tools to

find leaders (Hersey et al., 2012; Nahavandi, 2009; Northouse, 2012).

In spite of extensive research which lasted almost four decades, studies provided

little evidence in support of the assertion that leaders are born with special traits, or that

critical aspects of effective leadership could be explained solely though the collection of

a set of traits, or even the belief that a fixed set of traits differentiated leaders from non-

leaders (Hersey et al., 2012; Nahavandi, 2009; R. M. Stogdill, 1948; R. M. Stogdill,

1974). In his work on this subject, Stogdill (1948) states “A person does not become a

leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits” (p. 64). This work

opened up a new line of thought process, which attempted to understand if leaders did

things differently in different situations, or if they exhibited certain behaviors that made

them different (Northouse, 2012). None-the-less, in spite of this criticism, this era

produced valuable information that identified important traits that mattered for leadership

and were correlated with effective leadership, even if they could not be used solely to

define effective leadership. Many of these traits play an important role in understanding

today’s contextual application of leadership (Hersey et al., 2012; Northouse, 2012).

Following Stogdill’s initial survey in 1948, researchers continued to isolate traits that

were important for leadership; listed below is a few of those identified traits:

28

Intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-

confidence, sociability (R. M. Stogdill, 1948).

Intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion, conservatism

(Mann, 1959).

Capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, situation (R. M.

Stogdill, 1974).

Drive, desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability,

and knowledge of business (Germain, 2012; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;

Northouse, 2012)

The Behavior Era

As discussed earlier, the traits era did not produce any conclusive evidence that

leadership success could be primarily described using traits, and as such, research focus

started to turn towards what leaders do (i.e. leader behavior) that makes them effective as

leaders. The underlying thought process had several advantages over trait based

approaches: (a) behaviors are easier to identify, as they can be observed; (b) they can be

measured with a higher degree of accuracy and certainty; and (c) behaviors can be taught,

and thereby beliefs that leaders are born and not made, could be dispelled, and the

importance of leadership development could come to the forefront. This era of defining

leaders in terms of their behavior spanned from 1940s to the early 1970s (Nahavandi,

2009; Piccolo & Buengeler, 2013).

Some of the early foundation for behavioral approaches was based on the work by

Lewin and Lippit in the late 1930s where they established broad categories of behaviors

leaders exhibited: (a) autocratic behavior where the leader made all the decisions alone,

29

(b) democratic leadership where the followers were consulted and allowed to participate,

and (c) laissez-faire leadership where the leaders were disengaged with followers and

provided little to no direction (as cited in Nahavandi, 2009). This allowed different

groups of researchers to start looking for specific behaviors in order to explain successful

leadership (Nahavandi, 2009) and research studies commonly used questionnaires to

measure the consideration of leaders and what structure they set in place to support what

they did (Yukl, 2006).

Some of the best known studies in this respect were conducted as a series of

research projects at Ohio State University, where researchers collected and analyzed

thousands of behaviors. A similar approach was taken at the University of Michigan, to

conduct a series of leadership studies (Hersey et al., 2012; Robbins, 1998). Subsequent

research led to the condensing of these behaviors into broader categories which

eventually led to the classification of behaviors into two main domains – one focused on

the jobs that leaders have to do (task-based behaviors), and the other focused on the

interpersonal aspect of leaders (relationship-based behaviors). The Michigan studies

converged on similar domains – employee-oriented leaders, who focused on

relationships, and production-oriented leaders, who focused on tasks (as cited in Robbins,

1998). Task-based behaviors were used by leaders when they were focused on

accomplishing the needs of the job, achieving goals, or setting structures to improve

oversight or supervision, while relationship-based approaches were used when it was

important to provide support to followers, show concern, increase their comfort, and

reduce stress (D. V. Day & Antonakis, 2012; Nahavandi, 2009; Northouse, 2012).

30

The various studies on such behavioral aspects asserted that expertise can be built

with a focus on behaviors (Germain, 2012). While this era provided valuable information

about behaviors, it too did not result in a strong and clear connection between behaviors

and leadership effectiveness, thereby leading into further specialization on the research

thought on leadership.

The Contingency Era

R. M. Stogdill’s (1948) work already had researchers wanting to conduct more

comprehensive studies and understand leadership in the context of situational factors,

such as the task itself, the type of work, and the people being led by the leaders. After the

behavioral studies could not identify a solid connection between behaviors and leader

success, in the early 1960s, a new line of leadership research started to gain prominence,

often referred to as the “contingency era”, where the basic underlying thought was that

there is no one type of leadership that can apply to all situations (B. M. Bass & Bass,

2009; Hersey et al., 2012; Nahavandi, 2009; Robbins, 1998).

This thought process still drives most leadership research today, and in that

respect, this era has continued from the 1960s into today; however, after the 1970s,

research became quite specific in terms of understanding different situational contexts.

The simple leadership theories started to get more complex. The differences in research

were around the factors that were being studied, thereby creating complexities in

analyzing situations, but in general, researchers agreed on the basic principle that

leadership was a very situational phenomenon, and without the context of the situation,

understanding and explaining leadership was not possible (B. M. Bass & Bass, 2009;

Nahavandi, 2009). Prominent contingency theories that eventually led into the modern

31

day thought of studying leadership in context of change/change management are

explained below.

Fiedler Model. This was the first comprehensive contingency model, which was

developed by Fiedler in 1967. It hinged on the basic phenomenon that the ability of a

leader to successfully lead a group of people depends on a good match between the

leader’s use of his/her interaction style with the degree of control that is available in that

situation. In other words, this model uses a combination of situation and personality

measures to predict the efficacy of leaders. There are three criteria that Fiedler uses to

describe a situation: (a) the relationship between the leader and followers, (b) the degree

of structure present in the task that the group is performing, and (c) the amount of

positional power that the leader possesses.

This model asserts that by manipulating the context using the above three criteria,

leadership effectiveness can be increased. This, by definition, also implies that

leadership style is constant and that leaders cannot change their styles, but they can

change the situational context by manipulating the three criteria, and thereby delivering

success in their leadership (B. M. Bass & Bass, 2009; Fiedler, 1967; Hersey et al., 2012;

Nahavandi, 2009; Northouse, 2012; Yukl, 2006). The model also uses an instrument to

assess a leader’s preference on the task/relationship orientation, and uses the combination

of this score along with the three criteria discussed above, to maximize leadership

effectiveness. The most prominent weakness of this model is that it does not explain how

the leader’s task/relationship orientation scores affect group performance, and that such a

score is fixed, thereby implying that leadership style cannot be developed or changed

32

(Yukl, 2006). None-the-less, this model led the way to the development of more

specialized models.

House-Mitchell Path-Goal Theory. R. J. House (1971) began working on the

concept that a leader’s responsibility is to clear the path for his/her followers which led to

the development of another breakthrough specialization in contingency leadership

theories. According to the Ohio State studies, successful leaders rank high on the domain

of initiating structure and consideration, thereby asserting that successful leaders

establish a relationship with their followers and put in place an infrastructure that allows

them to provide guidance and support for increasing productivity and satisfaction.

According to the Expectancy Model of Motivation, employees or followers are highly

motivated when they see the barriers between their effort, the resulting performance, and

eventual outcome, are removed or reduced. Combining these two findings, the Path-Goal

theory was established, which essentially states that by finding and eliminating situational

gaps that impair performance and outcome for the task at hand, leaders can utilize their

relationship and initiating structure to increase follower motivation and thereby deliver

success in that situation (Hersey et al., 2012; R. J. House & Mitchell, 1975; Nahavandi,

2009; Northouse, 2012; Robbins, 1998; Yukl, 2006). This theory also has some

limitations that limit its use because it relies heavily on the Expectancy Theory as its

basis for motivation, and unfortunately, the Expectancy Theory does not account for

many factors of motivation, such as emotional responses, dilemmas, distortions, and self-

concepts. Regardless of its weakness, this theory provided a framework for researchers

to explore various situational variables that may be relevant to leadership (Yukl, 2006).

33

Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model. Expanding the various lines of analyzing

situations for leadership studies, in 1973 a new model was proposed by Victor Vroom

and Phillip Yetton, analyzing situations in which leaders needed to make decisions for

their followers. The model centers on decision making as a key factor for effective

leadership, and the basis of this model is that leaders need to determine the extent to

which followers participate in decision making, and the leaders accordingly adopt

different decision making styles. It is due to its ability to make recommendations on the

adoption of leadership styles related to decision making in different situations, as such the

model is also referred to as the “normative” decision model.

The model identified four decision methods for leaders – autocratic, consultative,

group decision making, and delegation. This was a contingency model as it recognized

that under different situations, leaders must conduct an evaluation of the situation and

then choose a style that would be most appropriate in that situation. This model played a

crucial part in advancing contingency theories as it recognized that (1) leaders have the

ability to vary their leadership styles based on the situation at hand, and (2) people can be

developed to become effective leaders (Hersey et al., 2012; Nahavandi, 2009; Vroom &

Yetton, 1973).

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Theory. This is one of the most widely accepted

contingency theories. As it was proposed and then underwent its developmental

iterations in the 1980s, this theory was adopted by large Fortune 500 firms such as IBM,

Xerox, Mobil, Caterpillar and more (Robbins, 1998). This theory is also often referred to

as SLT, and it proposes that leaders must choose the right leadership style contingent on

the level of maturity of their followers.

34

The theory explains that the leader effectiveness eventually depends on the

acceptance and actions of a leader’s followers. In this respect, it is important that a

leadership style account for the context of the people being led. In addition, the

acceptance of followers depends on the extent to which they are able and willing to

follow directions and hold themselves accountable for the responsibilities with which the

leader entrusts them. This depends on two things – the job maturity, which accounts for

the follower’s knowledge and skills, and psychological maturity, which accounts for the

motivations of the followers. Using the two dimensions identified by Fiedler (1967) and

the Ohio State studies, Hersey et al. (2012) propose four leadership styles – telling,

selling, participating, and delegating – and map it to four maturity stages – M1 (people

are unable and unwilling), M2 (unable but willing), M3 (able but unwilling), and M4

(able and willing). Once these dimensions are mapped onto each other, the combination

helps determine the appropriate style for the situation, helping answer questions such as

the objective that needs to be addressed in the task, the readiness of the group for that

objective, the leader’s intervention and actions appropriate for that objective, and

associated follow-ups (Hersey et al., 2012; Robbins, 1998; Thompson & Glaso, 2015;

Yukl, 2006).

While SLT was widely adopted, one of its main issues was difficulty in validation

and the lack of empirical support (Papworth, Milne, & Boak, 2009; Thompson & Glaso,

2015). Additionally, it does not offer clarity on how direct actions of leaders can help

improve the dependent variables, such as the skill maturity of followers, or increasing

their motivation. The theory also uses very broad categorizations of leader behavior,

making it further difficult to associate it with definitive/conclusive empirical evidence

35

(Yukl, 2006). Today, SLT continues to be a source for research along those lines, as well

as the basis for further narrowing down the situations, e.g. specific job functions that

groups must perform and which have a role to play in the selection of appropriate

leadership style (Papworth et al., 2009), and these are discussed below.

Leadership Models of Current Era

As the review of literature above shows, leadership models have continually

expanded in their consideration set. The contingency era started off a new line of

divergent studies, each recognizing that leadership is a situational thing and its

explanation requires evaluation of one or more factors that are specific to the context in

which the leader operates. Additionally, there is a widespread recognition that by

studying the situational factors, people can undergo development and become effective

leaders (Araoz, 2007; Nahavandi, 2009). The situational contexts of modern day

leadership studies now cover factors like culture, diversity, and change management, and

these are discussed below in new leadership theories extending from contingency models.

Charismatic leadership. This model is characterized by a very strong

relationship between the leader and his/her followers, to the extent that followers see such

leaders as role models and are profoundly inspired by them and motivated to follow

them. These leaders can address the needs of the situation and the followers, and even

impact the underlying factors, such as follower needs, self-concepts, values, and

responses, through their charisma (Hollander & Offermann, 1990; Huang & Kao, 2014;

Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). Effective charismatic leadership depends on three things: (a)

leader characteristics, which are a combination of traits and behaviors and which can be

inherent or can be developed; (b) follower characteristics, such as dedication, admiration,

36

emulating leader’s characteristics, emotional connection, and confidence; and (c) the

need of the situation, such as a crisis, turbulence, a loss of confidence in governance, or a

profound change, where the situation requires strong leadership at the helm (Nahavandi,

2009).

In addressing the situational context and leader characteristics, the role of culture

and relationships play an important part for charismatic leadership. In her book,

Culturally Intelligent Leadership: Leading Through Intercultural Interactions, Moua

(2010) talks about the research conducted by Geert Hofstede in the 1960s and 1970s on

five value dimensions that cultures operate on. The organizational culture, on each of

these dimensions, can be significantly dependent on the mix of its employees based on

their gender, age, ethnic background, and level of education. Moua further explains that

gaining this cultural intelligence could be critical for leadership, as it can raise awareness

around cognitive dissonance which leaders must address. Due to a multitude of changes

(behavioral, environmental, and cultural), this leadership concept is currently prevalent in

the U.S. academic thought on new leadership models. This model too, however, has

some issues in terms of negative consequences, such as fewer suggestions and lower

levels of critical input from followers due to the level of awe they hold for the leader,

creation of a perception of leader infallibility, excessive confidence and denial of

problems on the part of the leader, difficulty in the creation of successors for such

leaders, and eminent weakness in undertaking large projects that require collective input

and mindset changes to be successful. None-the-less, this model is a key component in

modern day thought on leadership (Yukl, 2006).

37

Transformational leadership. The growing emphasis on charisma and vision in

leadership studies led to the evolution of a new leadership model, emanating from the

charismatic leadership model. This model accounts for (a) charisma and vision needed to

lead; (b) a recognition that both leader and followers help each other in their motivation

as they interact; and (c) large changes that go beyond just addressing a situation and

extend into attitudinal, cultural, and mindset changes required to deliver success. When

leadership is viewed in the context of leading change, which is quite prevalent in today’s

day and age, then it’s important to understand the extent and impact of the change. If the

change requires addressing the foundations – culture, attitudes, mindsets – a good

leadership model must not be just limited to leadership traits, but should also address

vision, charisma, and the ability to develop self and others at the same time, for better

organizational success (J. Antonakis, 2012; B. M. Bass & Avolio, 1994; B. M. Bass &

Riggio, 2005; Nahavandi, 2009; Northouse, 2012; Yukl, 2006).

Burns (1978) introduced this concept in his research on political leaders defining

the difference between transactional leadership and transformational leadership. His

work provided the foundation for B. M. Bass (1985) to develop the transformational

leadership model as we understand it today. His theory allowed for an assimilation of

themes from the new theories (charisma, vision etc.) as well as older theories (traits,

behaviors, requirements of the task at hand etc.), making it more relevant to today’s

environment (J. Antonakis, 2012). Change is omni-present in today’s environment, and

by introducing change management as one of the key drivers for effective use of

leadership characteristics, this model purports that transformational leaders have the

unique capability of changing the framework itself within which the followers operate,

38

thereby addressing resistance to change by changing mindsets and culture (B. J. Avolio &

Bass, 2002). Transformational Leadership has four elements, as discussed below.

The first element is individualized influence, which B. M. Bass (1985) originally

referred to as charisma. As mentioned earlier, this is a key pillar for transformational

leaders as they use their leadership characteristics and behaviors to exert a profound

influence on their followers, thereby increasing the chance of follower alignment with the

leader’s vision for change. Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan, and Switzler (2008)

maintain that such is the power of influence that it can help solve problems or manage

changes that otherwise would be considered impossible. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

theory states that the basic needs of human being are physiological and security related

(as cited in Aanstoos, 2014) and so it is normal to see personal consideration focus in any

follower. B. M. Bass (1998) states that transformational leaders use their characteristics

in such a way that they shift the focus of their followers from security and self-

consideration needs to achievement, attainment, and self-actualization. All of these are

situated higher on the pyramid of needs. In other words, by using influence, these leaders

can inherently change the followers’ mindset and move them into a place where

alignment with the mission of the leader becomes the need itself for the follower (J.

Antonakis, 2012).

The second element is intellectual stimulation. This aspect defines the ability of

the leader to encourage the followers to come up with creative solutions to the problem at

hand, by challenging them intellectually. According to Shin and Zhou (2003) internal

motivation is a key ingredient in creativity, and because transformational leaders question

existing norms and practices, and encourage their followers to participate in problem

39

solving, they provide the internal motivation needed for creativity in problem solving.

Followers are encouraged to provide multiple options. As the followers are collectively

trying to solve a problem, there is no criticism for mistakes (B. M. Bass & Riggio, 2005).

When this intellectual stimulation is provided, the followers are involved in the process,

thereby reducing the chances of failure due to lack of involvement (D. Anderson &

Anderson, 2010e).

The third element is individualized consideration, which is significantly

instrumental in connecting a follower with the change. As with any change, followers

want to know how it impacts them and what they stand to gain from navigating through

the change. In this respect, transformational leaders pay special attention to the

achievement and growth needs of each follower, thereby taking the role of their mentor

and making the change personal and relevant to them (D. Anderson & Anderson, 2010a,

2010b; J. Antonakis, 2012; B. M. Bass & Riggio, 2005). Through this individualized

consideration, transformational leaders reduce cynicism and stress related to the change

(Bommer et al., 2005). This also increases the organizational and personal context of the

change, which is essential for managing change. Context can create the degree of the

need for transformational change, and influence the degree to which the change will be

supported or opposed (Pawar, 2003). As such, it becomes important to understand the

context along with the leadership attributes to make change successful (J. D. Ford &

Ford, 2012). A transformational leader must accomplish all these in order to avoid the

common failure traps associated with transformational change (D. Anderson & Anderson,

2010c).

40

The fourth element is inspirational motivation. Transformational leaders allow

their followers to imagine about achievements that they previously may not have thought

possible. Doing so allows the creation of a team spirit towards the common goal, as well

as an alignment to the goal, which increases the enthusiasm towards navigating the

change (D. Anderson & Anderson, 2010a; B. M. Bass & Riggio, 2005). The leader

creates not only a compelling vision for the change, but by inspiring and motivating the

followers, also provides them confidence that the outcome is attainable (J. Antonakis,

2012).

Context and Impact of Transformational Changes

Organizations today are faced with a multitude of changes due to various internal

and external factors, such as technology, globalization, consolidation, customer behavior,

information proliferation and consumption, mobility, economy, new generations in the

workplace, diversity, and cultural values, to name a few. Not only are there more

changes for organizations to manage, these changes have accelerated as well, cutting

short the response time for organizations that are not forward looking and prepared.

Change planning is no longer an option and as such, leadership context should be

analyzed in the light of characteristics that account for change management (Wilson,

2014).

The Center for Creative Leadership conducts leadership studies regularly, and

according to a recent study, an organization’s success in this era of incessant changes,

many of which are big enough that they require the organization to address its entire

process, culture, norms, and people, depends on the leader’s ability to adapt to these

changes. In this study, U.S. leaders mentioned adaptability as a key factor in 55% of the

41

success stories, and European leaders mentioned it in 67% of the case studies. The

research also showed that leaders who are unable to adapt to a change are more likely to

fail than leaders who can do so (Center for Creative Leadership, 2013).

Since 2004, IBM Global Services has conducted multiple studies gathering input

from thousands of Chief Executives. This data is used for developing leadership and

business environment insights and implications from a C-Suite perspective. According to

the 2008 Global CEO study, most organizations are not able to manage change

effectively. Of the organizations that faced changes in their various initiatives and

projects, only 41% met all the objectives associated with the change; 44% missed at least

one objective related to the change, and 15% could not meet any change objectives and

aborted the initiative or project. Among these firms, the top 20% were able to manage

the change effectively 80% of the time (these were referred to as “Change Masters”),

while the bottom 20% reported successfully managing change only 8% of the time (these

were named “Change Novices”). The study also confirms that the changes are getting

more and more complex, and as such, the gap between an organization’s expectation for

change and its ability to respond to the change, is growing. In 2006, the gap between

leaders’ expectations for change, and their ability to handle these changes, was 8%; by

2008, this gap had widened to 22%, while eight out of 10 Chief Executives stated in 2008

that they expect their organization to face significant changes (IBM, 2008; Jorgensen,

Owen, & Neus, 2008).

The impact of these changes on organizations is significant, as these changes

require major shifts in culture, mindset, norms, people, and processes, and the end state in

many of these changes is unknown. The 2008 IBM Global CEO study showed a

42

breakdown of the challenges associated with these changes – 58% required changing

mindsets, 49% required changing the culture, complexity was underestimated in 35% of

the cases, 32% showed a lack of commitment from higher management, and 16%

reported lack of motivation from people who were involved with the change (Jorgensen

et al., 2008). These challenges are the basic characteristics of a transformational change

– no certainty of the end state, a need to change culture and mindset, involvement and

participation from followers, and breaking down the complexity into small manageable

parts (D. Anderson & Anderson, 2010a, 2010b, 2010d). It suffices to say that the

organizations are not just facing changes; rather, they are facing transformational

changes. As a further extension of the IBM studies, data from the 2012 CEO study

revealed that among the organizations that significantly outperform others, 73% manage

change effectively, and the changes that they handle range from culture and mindset to

creating collaborative problem solving environments, and these, by definition, are the

essence of transformational changes. This provides further support for the need for the

leaders of today to be experts at managing transformational changes (IBM, 2012).

In order to study the situational context of job function, yet keep the study within

manageable limits, four job functions were selected. These functions were selected in a

way that they span the external and internal view of the organization. Marketing and

Sales are outward facing functions, often dealing with customers and business partners;

IT is an internal facing function, interacting mostly with other departments of the

organization with infrequent or rare customer interactions, and HR is a function with an

overarching view of both sides – how the organization is viewed by potential employees

and partners from the outside, as well as how interactions and processes work internally.

43

While this is not intended to be an exhaustive list on transformational change drivers, the

sections below cover some examples of transformational changes facing the job functions

that this study covers – Marketing, Sales, IT, and HR.

Transformational Changes in Marketing

Within the last decade, the breadth of marketing responsibilities in organizations

has increased exponentially. Starting from a more traditional setup decades ago, when

marketing was generally responsible for advertising and promotions, current marketing

functions span driving revenue, managing communication across the customer lifecycle,

brand management, analytics and performance monitoring, and a general oversight across

internal processes that impact customer experience (Scott, 2013). Technological

advancements have also created a big impact on how consumers interact with product/

service providers and brands, and what they expect from them (Hamelin, 2011). Stuart-

Menteth, Wilson, and Baker (2006) propose that traditional ways of communicating

value through disjointed media and sales channels are no longer adequate, and true value

is communicated when the consumer engages in a rich, interactive dialogue using

channels of choice, thereby creating an option for a potential transaction.

These changes, fueled through expansion of responsibilities, changing consumer

needs and behaviors, and increased dependency on other functions, create powerful

change drivers that require addressing cultures, processes, skills, and mindsets. A recent

study, conducted by The Economist (2015), surveyed Chief Marketing Officers and other

top level marketing executives across the world, and found that 80% of these executives

stated that they needed to restructure the role of marketing, and 29% stated that the need

for this change was immediate. The study found that these changes spanned six major

44

areas: (1) changing the perception of marketing from a cost center to a revenue center, (2)

becoming the lead organizational function in managing the entire customer experience,

(3) driving customer engagement, with 63% of the respondents stating that engagement is

essential for retention and re-purchase, (4) combining hard areas, like operations, with

soft areas, like the overall picture and strategy, (5) heavy use of digital avenues, analytics,

and data, and (6) mobile and internet use, along with personalization needs of the

customer (Ellett, 2015; The Economist, 2015). These drivers stand to phenomenally

change marketing, and the only way to move forward successfully is to adapt to these

changes (Cooperstein, 2012).

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing marketing departments is organizational

silos. Traditional business thinking has compartmentalized the journey of a customer,

often resulting in fragmentation of messages, lack of nimbleness, and a poor experience

as the customer jumps between departments and groups (Parry, 2008); however, effective

marketing in the era of changes mentioned above, requires a consistent and seamless

experience across the entire journey (Stuart-Menteth et al., 2006). Changing a silo

approach to an integrated approach requires changes in mindset, culture, power structure,

and people, and such changes are expensive, arduous, and disruptive (D. A. Aaker,

2008a; Christensen, Firat, & Cornelissen, 2009); yet these transformational changes are

now essential for marketing departments to deliver on their goals. Elimination of silos

improves marketing outcomes by resulting in a stronger brand, higher referrals, better

products, more effective use of resources, and higher revenue (D. Aaker, 2014; D. A.

Aaker, 2008b).

45

Yet another transformational change is the need to upgrade skills and close the

gaps in skillset between what is needed and what has traditionally been acquired/retained

in marketing functions. The complexity of markets and changing customer needs is

widening this gap, which needs to be closed, thereby requiring a close evaluation of

current teams (G. S. Day, 2011), as well as competencies (Melaia, Abratt, & Bick,

2008).

Transformational Changes in Sales

Sales roles are outwardly customer facing, and in this respect, share certain

characteristics with marketing, and therefore face some change drivers that are similar.

The impact of changing customer needs, behavioral changes induced through

technological advancements, and accelerated distribution of information through an ever-

connected network, create similar drivers for transformational changes in sales

organizations (Malshe, 2009; Saxby, 2013). These change drivers were discussed above.

Additionally, there are changes that sales organizations must adapt to, in order to survive.

The role of sales departments typically has been to prioritize closing a deal (Marzano &

Samant, 2011), focusing on execution (Malshe, 2009), and moving the current inventory

of products or services, thereby resorting to a more immediate, short-term approach for

growing revenue (Saxby, 2013).

The traditional sales model, which involved account management, building

relationships through frequent meetings with customers or decision makers, continually

presenting them with products/features/benefits, whether the customer asked for it or not,

and attempting to make direct sales transactions, is quickly shrinking. Much of this

change is being induced because customers want information on their own terms and

46

convenience, and as information is available on multiple channels, particularly internet

channels, the need for direct interactions, where a customer has to make spot decisions, is

greatly reduced. In this respect, the overall sales function is transforming into an

extended term strategic relationship management and service consultation, requiring a

dependency on teams managing internet channels and business intelligence (Bureau of

National Affairs, 2011; Piercy & Lane, 2003). This transformational change can lead to

an overhaul of the traditional sales organization into one that: (a) must work more

collaboratively with other departments, (b) needs to fill gaps in skillset and build

competencies around intelligence and data, and (c) must break away from a siloed

function by evolving into a strategic customer management function (Lane & Piercy,

2004).

The complexity of these changes also presents the need to evaluate leadership

gaps in sales organizations. According to Ingram, LaForge, Locander, MacKenzie, and

Podsakoff (2005), these gaps exist in the areas of collaborating with internal stakeholders,

moving from supervision of sales personnel to a more strategic management, ability to

evaluate processes and change them as needed, a heightened focus on ethical and legal

consideration, and increasing accountability for a wider range of outcomes that the

change drivers impose.

A significant change in culture and mindset is required as sales organizations

transform from a “push” to a consultative model. Christensen et al. (2009) observe that

traditional approaches lead to tactics which encourage employees to force a transaction

with a customer, because if the customer goes to another channel, sales may not get credit

for the transaction. On the other hand, customers are no longer a passive audience

47

(Stuart-Menteth et al., 2006), and they want to move across channels, looking for an

experience that is participatory and does not appear to be forced down to them. This

requires the development of new measures for performance, moving from the traditional

return-on-investment (ROI) model to new measures, such as return-on-customer-

investment (ROCI), or return-on-touch-point-investment (ROTPI). Defining new units of

measurement is crucial, as these are connected to annual performance evaluation and

compensation (Schultz, Cole, & Bailey, 2004).

As the sales function evolves due to the transformational changes discussed

above, the processes associated with selling must change as well. A great deal of work

has been conducted on the power of appreciative inquiry, since Hammond (1998) first

introduced it, and it eventually evolved into a model that spans four phases – discovery,

dream, design, and destiny. This model can help uncover the real pain points that a

customer experiences, and can lead to a consultative sales process to address true needs

(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Skinner & Kelley, 2006). Once again, switching to this

process can be a transformational change in itself.

Transformational Changes in IT

IT is characterized as an internal facing function in most organizations, with the

overall responsibility of managing systems and technology needs to support various other

functions in performing effectively. The general priorities for IT are stability, reliability,

security, data integrity, and overall standardization, to ensure that cost efficiency is

attained. As it is evident from the above description, when disruption occurs, or internal

or external forces demand non-standard or fragmented solutions, these changes can

48

significantly challenge the IT function as they are diametrically opposite to the basis on

which IT mostly operates (Brinker, 2009).

The results of a survey, conducted by Corporate Executive Board (2010a, 2010b),

of over 200 IT and business executives shows that in the near future, corporate IT

departments will face a significant amount of restructuring, with only 25% of the current

IT headcount remaining in traditional central IT roles, and as much as 75% of the

remaining headcounts being absorbed by other departments, or moved to a separate

shared services group, or outsourced. This is due to the fact that technology has become

a part of almost all business functions, and many of those functions are looking at

independently becoming more efficient by moving away from IT standardization and

customization of technology for their own needs. Departments with similar needs can

still benefit from a shared services model as opposed to corporate IT. More and more

functions are paying for their own IT needs, further strengthening this trend and reducing

standalone IT roles (Corporate Executive Board, 2010a, 2010b).

There are quite a few transformational change drivers that are impacting IT

functions. Disruptive technologies like cloud, mobile, and Big Data analytics are

transforming business needs rapidly, to the extent that traditional IT infrastructure and

processes are no longer able to service changing business needs. Disruptive innovations

in technology are being created globally, and IT functions worldwide are adopting these

changes, even if they introduce a higher level of risk, traditionally something that IT

functions have tried to minimize (Matuszak, Hanley, & Rios, 2013). Additionally, IT

leaders must account for the skill gaps that exist due to the current setup. These skills

span competencies related to financial evaluations of investment, wider and deeper

49

knowledge of business and competition, strategic planning, matrix based management,

serving as the change agent instead of responding to changes, and the culture of the

organization (Abouelenein, 2012; Gorman, 2011; Grier, 2009; Lima, 2006).

Transformational Changes in HR

As an organizational unit, HR has been undergoing significant transformational

changes for the last three decades. It started as a lower level, administrative and

maintenance oriented function, and has now taken on a much larger role, serving as a

strategic partner to most internal business units as well as managing the organizations

image as an employer, to the outside world. With the pace of changes discussed above,

attracting, managing and retaining a talent pool is increasingly difficult because as other

business units transform, there is an increased need to fill competency gaps, which

eventually is an HR responsibility. As such, HR functions must adopt an “outside-in”

approach, where their strategies are dictated by what the external environment is

imposing, in terms of change drivers, rather than what has been done traditionally – an

“inside-out” approach (Ulrich & Dulebohn, 2015).

HR functions are also progressively being decentralized, particularly in the public

domain. Recent regulations, coupled with trends in public Human Resource

Management (HRM) functions, have resulted in decentralizing HR decision making in

favor of external agencies or shared services. Performance based pay and reward systems

are increasing, and this means that HR leaders must evaluate new processes, and

performance management metrics (Llorens & Battaglio, 2010). Additionally, HR must

understand the context of each business function it serves for leadership development, to

ensure that acquisition, development, and retention of leaders in each function addresses

50

the contextual need of that function. This calls for a widening of knowledge and

competencies for HR professionals, particularly in a rapidly changing environment

(Armstrong, 2005). Morley, Gunnigle, O'Sullivan, and Collings (2006) state that these

changes require HR to be more intricately involved in changing organizational culture

and structure.

HR must review factors that influence silo creation, power imbalance, and

employee outcomes, all of which contribute to culture and mindset. In an opinion article,

Osterhaus (2013) predicts that there are six major change drivers that HR functions must

address in the near future – (a) likelihood of outsourcing HR functions, (b) more strategic

thinking as an in-house HR focus, (c) increase focus on specialists as opposed to

generalists, (d) utilization of richer analytics, (e) process for managing remote employees,

and (f) closer association with marketing for following similar processes.

Yet another transformational change that HR leaders must account for is the

evolution in the culture, communication, process, and mindset implications of

generational and ethnic diversity in workplace today. There are more generations

working together today than ever before, and this creates challenges for the HR function.

Baby Boomers have a different expectation of the work environment and attendant

communication compared to those belonging to Generation X, and Millennials have a

different view of an ideal work environment as they demand a different work culture.

Together, this has created a complex situation for HR to manage (Amayah & Gedro,

2014; S. Moore, Grunberg, & Krause, 2015) as these differences can lead to conflict

around four areas - where and when to work, communicating with others, getting

together, and learning new things (Erickson, 2009).

51

Transformational Leadership in the Situational Context of Job Function

Earlier sections on contingency theory and SLT, in this document, have covered

the importance of establishing situational context in any leadership study or analysis.

The sections above, discussing transformational changes facing Marketing, Sales, IT, and

HR, further demonstrate how these job functions differ in terms of what is imminent for

their leaders to address. As such, it should not be a surprise that leaders must exercise

different behaviors for different needs, as the circumstances are different. In studying the

complexity of transformational changes, Dóci and Hofmans (2015) confirm that not only

do leaders differ in their default behaviors, they also use different behaviors based on the

needs of the job. Kirkbride (2006) presents a full range of leader behaviors as a “pool” in

which many behaviors are dispositional in nature, used selectively under different

situations; however, after years of research, there is still a lack of research and

understanding as to why and how this happens. B. M. Bass (1999) called out this

research gap decades ago, but leadership research has made little progress on trying to

identify the antecedents of transformational leader behavior. It is, therefore, imperative

that current and future research studies use multiple levels or dimensions of situational

analysis to understand these antecedents (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011).

In their research on change leadership, Ford and Ford (2012) analyzed much

empirical evidence on this topic, and concluded that there are multiple gaps in the study

of leadership behaviors and transformational changes. They state that if it was possible

to learn whether certain types of behaviors and activities, used by leaders, in different

circumstances, produce consistent outcomes, then such learnings would be immensely

helpful to organizations; however, they also state that this analysis requires longitudinal

52

data across organizations, and that is largely absent in current studies. This study is

designed to go longitudinally across functions (Marketing, Sales, IT, and HR) and across

organizations, in support of this observation.

Yukl (2006) observes that the study of situational variables in leadership studies

needs to be increased to better understand when charismatic or transformational

leadership can occur and how effective it will be. He states that while some progress has

been made to include more contextual variables, the overall number of studies that

employ empirical evidence using situational variables is still small. Derue, Nahrgang,

Wellman, and Humphrey (2011) observe that the fate of an organization is measured by

its functional outcomes, and these functional outcomes are associated with leadership.

This makes it furthermore important to study the function as a situational context. This

study is designed with job function as the situational variable under consideration, for

transformational change leadership, which can differ in type and scope across functions,

as discussed in earlier sections.

Studies related to understanding the situational context of job function, although

few, as discussed earlier, have found differences in leadership competencies associated

with differences in functional responsibilities. Turner, Müller, and Dulewicz (2009)

measured leadership competencies of 414 project managers and compared them to the

profiles of over 1,000 functional managers, and found significant differences in

leadership competencies, such as conscientiousness, sensitivity, critical analysis, and

communication. Fune (2013) observes, in a focused study on leadership styles and

perceptions for IT professionals and managers, that context and follower expectation may

require use of multiple leadership styles. Another study evaluated the correlation

53

between different functional roles in an education environment (e.g. principal, assistant

principal, teacher etc.) and strategic leadership characteristics (envisioning, engaging,

articulating, implementing), and found that the scores differed significantly by the job

function (Eacott, 2010).

Implications of Missed or Mismanaged Change Leadership

The introduction section of this study provided some examples of failed

leadership, summarized the impact of these failures, and presented potential reasons for

such failures. Many of these failures can be explained in terms of inability to recognize,

evaluate, or implement large changes, particularly transformational changes. No time in

the history of leadership research has the pace and frequency of change been so important

for delivering success (Calarco & Gurvis, 2006; Center for Creative Leadership, 2013;

Wilson, 2014).

The story of Kodak is perhaps one of the best known examples of the implications

of missed and mismanaged transformational changes. In his article, Kotter (2012) goes

beyond the obvious attribution of Kodak’s downfall to the digital revolution. He explains

that experts like Christensen, who introduced the theory of disruptive innovation, called

out these inevitable changes and their impact to business decades before Kodak’s

eventual downfall; however, Kodak failed to take action, even though the company’s

foundation pillars were innovation and change. The leadership at the helm in the 1990s

was plagued with complacency, lack of urgency, poor priority setting, which led to its

inability to change, before the change wiped it out (Deaux & Gara, 2013; Kotter, 2012;

Munir, 2012). The story of another corporate giant – Borders – is similar, where the

transformational change was missed and mismanaged. Various large newspaper

54

companies, such as the San Jose Mercury News, were swept away in a similar fashion, by

the forces of change as they failed to embrace the change and reorganize accordingly (D.

Johnson, 2011).

While big stories on this topic are reported out through immense media coverage,

with the focus of attention being the CEOs and the top executives, change management

leadership, particularly in respect to managing transformational changes, is a shared

responsibility of all leaders in an organization (Birkinshaw, 2013). Finkelstein (2004)

discussed how some of the smartest and most skilled executives have still not been able

to manage these changes for their organizations and units. Some of the common themes

associated with these failed executives were pushing their own vision as opposed to what

was needed, choosing delusions of a dream company over reality, not acting on vital

change signals, over reliance on their own thought process, eliminating people who differ

with them, and reliance on past experiences and what they knew.

The implications of such failures have been catastrophic, in terms of employment,

economic loss, and social impact. Crowley (2011) states that the traditional leadership

setup in organizations is no longer working, with a record number of people who are

dissatisfied and disengaged at work, and who dislike their jobs. He shares that the

Conference Board of New York, which generates data on worker satisfaction through

polling, reported that job satisfaction is at a 22 year low. In 1987, when this research was

initiated, 61% Americans expressed satisfaction with their jobs. This number has

consistently declined since, and it stood at 45% in 2009. Gallop poll results show a

similar trend.

55

Leaders of organizations and functions have been able to do little about this, and

as of 2009, only 21% of the U.S. workforce stated that they would go the extra mile for

their organizations (Crowley, 2011). Around 2010, the confidence of Americans in

corporate leadership had significantly declined, with 68% maintaining that a leadership

crisis situation existed, and 71% maintaining that addressing this was not only crucial but

urgent (McKiernan, 2010). This is particularly ironic because organizations appear to be

spending a lot on leadership development. According to DeRue and Wellman (2009),

organizations spent $56 billion on learning and development in 2006, and almost 45% of

that expense was incurred in leadership development.

Watkins (2003) reiterates and highlights the implications of successful change

management, and states that this competency must be demonstrated by any leader within

the first 90 days of their job, as an early indicator of success. Raelin and Cataldo (2011)

state that while many organizations are making an effort to get better at change

management, 75% of the initiatives they undertake fail to make an impact in what they

are trying to address, and the failure to change is the primary source of the collapse of the

organization eventually, resulting in the consequences discussed above. They also make

a strong case for expanding the responsibility of change management to middle

managers, not just top level leaders, and present a case for creating systems and

infrastructure that would allow middle manager to also become change agents, so that

these catastrophic consequences can be avoided.

Research Gap

The sections above discuss why it is important to study leadership in the context

of transformational change, and how such studies should be targeted to situational

56

variables. This discussion also elaborates a gap in research that needs to be investigated

further, namely studying the situational context of job function, in relation to

transformational leadership.

The Center for Creative Leadership (2013), which regularly conducts leadership

research in an attempt to improve leadership development, has reported that functional

leaders do not have the skills needed to perform their job in a satisfactory manner, and

this adds to the problem of leadership failure. This difference is referred to as the

“Leadership Gap”, and Center for Creative Leadership reports that this gap has widened

over the last decade (Leslie, 2009), necessitating the need to analyze this problem in the

context of the job function.

A few attempts were made in the past to study similar gaps related to the context

of job function – such as the research conducted by Szilagyi and Schweiger (1984) – to

create a personality to job matching model, evaluating traits, skills, and abilities in

relation to job profiles and job requirements. Szilagyi and Schweiger recommended that

further research should be conducted on the matching of managerial domains in relation

to the requirements of the job. Decades later, Scott (2007, 2013) pointed out the need for

such an approach in an attempt to understand the leadership dimensions that were

important for marketing function, in contrast to other job functions, further raising the

need to conduct a longitudinal analysis across organizations and job profiles. Eacott

(2010) also points out that the body of knowledge on this situational variable – functional

track – is limited. The study concludes that there is some evidence that the functional

track has a bearing in effective strategic leadership, but further testing and research needs

to be done to develop this topic more vividly. The various internal and external pressures

57

and changes that businesses face today, coupled with the increase in leadership failures,

creates an urgent need to improve leadership outcomes (Goleman, 2000), which is why

this gap in leadership research – how transformational leadership skills are related to job

functions – needs to be addressed, so that learnings can be applied to transformational

leadership coaching and development.

Summary

Leadership is a widely researched topic, and its history spans over 100 years. Due

to this extensive history, the body of knowledge on leadership is vast; however, after

years of research, there are still many gaps which prevent the existing knowledge to be

applied in a way that maximizes the chances of organizational success. The actual

confidence around organizational leadership and its outcomes, however, has been

declining. Job satisfaction has progressively deteriorated, organizational failures have

increased, worker stress has increased, and the average tenure of leaders has decreased.

This has also happened in an era where organizations have invested increasing, and

significant, amounts of resources in leadership development programs. Organizations are

also facing an increasing number of changes in their current environments, to the extent

that managing change has become one of the primary considerations in organizational

success. In looking at all these considerations, it is imperative that current leadership

studies target focused situational aspects, in light of current and relevant drivers, so that

the urgent issue of a “leadership gap” can be addressed.

Many approaches have been taken in the study of leadership – from analyzing

successful people, to traits, to behaviors, and then to various situational factors.

Integrative theories have brought together the best parts of each model in an attempt to

58

explain leadership and improve leadership development, but success has been limited. In

today’s environment, change management has created an additional, and perhaps the

most important, domain that has led the leadership thought process in the direction of

transformational leadership. As transformational leaders must address different change

situations, it is imperative that situational variables be considered in transformational

leadership studies, and this research attempts to study the situational context of job

function.

The literature review above discusses the various theories on leadership, and their

progression. It presents various thoughts on the widely used situational theory of

leadership, and how researchers are attempting to expand this domain through

longitudinal, yet more focused studies on situational variables. It also introduces, and

discusses in detail, the dimension of change which is of paramount importance for

success, so that this study can increase the body of knowledge in relevance to today’s day

and age. The literature then presents various points of view on evaluating various

situational factors, such as job function, and attempting to overlay it with the new model

of leadership – transformational leadership. Various facts and data points are discussed

to demonstrate the criticality which this research attempts to address. Chapter III

discusses the methodology used in this research. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the

data, and Chapter V reports out the findings and recommendations for future research.

59

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Overview

As the environment of business is changing at a very rapid pace, it creates internal

and external change drivers that create transformational change needs, which

organizations must address in order for them to stay competitive or even solvent. These

transformational changes must address not just processes and systems, but also people,

their mindsets, and the organizational culture. This requires transformational leaders.

When an organization fails to put the right transformational leader in the function

or domain that needs such a change to be addressed, it usually results in a catastrophic

failure that adversely impacts the organization and its employees. Situational leadership

theories and their extension models suggest that there is no “one size fits all” approach to

addressing these issues. It is important to apply the context, such as the job function,

when analyzing the connection between transformational leadership characteristics

exhibited by leaders of various groups, and the environment in which they operate. This

research attempts to understand the differences between the transformational leadership

skills used by leaders in different job functions. This chapter describes the research

questions (RQ) and the methodology, and explains how the study will be conducted,

including data gathering and the framework for analysis of the collected data.

Purpose Statement




60

In addition, it was the purpose of this study to identify the top three domains and

top five skills for each group, and to determine if significant differences exist in reported

TLSi ratings between the respective groups of executives.

Research Questions









Technology leaders?

Research Design

A good research design, which outlines the overall plan, process, and procedure

used for conducting the research, should be able to connect the purpose of the study to its

data collection, accounting for the process of such data collection, in order to answer the

RQs (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Determining the most suitable research design

should start with a well-defined conceptual and theoretical framework for the study,

which accounts for why this research is being conducted and what exactly it will attempt

to answer (Roberts, 2010). As a generic rule of thumb, when the research is trying to

explain factors, study differences, or conduct deductive analysis, a quantitative research

design is best suited for the purpose. If the research is trying to explore or discover

61

concepts or describe a situation, a qualitative design fits better. The TLSi instrument

collects rating data on 10 transformational leadership domain and 80 transformational

skills. The data is not exploratory, and is based on self-rating measurement. This data

can be analyzed in various statistical models to develop insights and findings. As such, a

quantitative research method was chosen for this study.

As the purpose of the research was to study the differences in skillsets of different

groups, there was no need to administer any treatment to the subjects participating in this

study; hence a non-experimental design was chosen (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010;

Patten, 2012). Studying differences in skillsets modeled a comparative approach where

data was collected for four groups – Marketing, Sales, IT, and HR. Survey vehicles are

commonly used to collect inquiry-based data in non-experimental situations (Patten,

2012), and depending on how a survey is setup, it can be used to collect qualitative data,

quantitative data, or both (Privitera, 2014).

The TLSi instrument collects quantitative data on 10 domains of transformational

leadership, and each of the domains contain eight skills; hence, there are eighty skills that

are measured by this instrument. Each of these skills is measured on a 5-point Likert

scale, collecting interval data (Bertram, n. d.) for each of the skills, which allows for

quantitative analysis to be conducted on this data. The RQs are answered by running

various quantitative statistical models on the TLSi data.

In describing the paradigms associated with the use of quantitative and qualitative

assessment, Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) state that the quantitative paradigm is based

on positivism, where the underlying variables are isolated to empirical indicators and

scientific methods are used to conduct empirical research, while the qualitative paradigm

62

is based on interpretivism and constructivism, which means that there could be multiple

realities based on what is personally or socially interpreted. In this study, the RQs utilize

empirical data for analysis. The findings of the study can be used for further

generalization or specification (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Lieberman, 2005; Lund,

2012; Sale et al., 2002). Based on the purpose of the research, and the RQs, a

quantitative design is an appropriate choice.

Population

Krathwohl (2004) states “The population of a study is the total group to whom a

researcher expects to be able to generalize and which is to be represented in a sample. A

population may cover any geographical area and can be of any size” (p. 689). This

research targets leaders in the functional areas of Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT. These

job functions are typically found in almost all organizations; however, due to various

reasons such as size, budgetary limitations, need for controlling capital and labor costs,

and fast turnaround times, small businesses can outsource one or more of these functions

(AllBusiness.com, 2008). Recent reports show that much of the growth in the U.S.

economy is delivered by mid-size companies, which in the 12 month period ending June

2014, delivered a revenue growth of 6.6% compared to the entire sales growth of S&P

500 at 3.4%, in the same period (Winfrey, 2014). As, such, this study focuses on mid-

size companies. Small companies were not selected for this study because many small

organizations outsource functions, such as IT, HR, and Marketing to other small or mid-

size companies, using providers like IT services companies, full-service marketing

agencies, or outsourced HR providers such as payroll services and recruiting.

63

There are various definitions of “mid-size” or “middle-market” companies, and

these definitions are relatively close to each other (Eastman, 2010; Merritt, n.d.; The

Midmarket Institute, 2015). According to National Center for the Middle Market at Ohio

State University mid-size companies have an annual revenue in the range of $10 million

to $1 billion, and there are approximately 200,000 such companies in the United States

(National Center for the Middle Market, 2014). As such, the population for this study is

200,000 mid-size companies in the United States.

Target Population

According to McMillan and Schumacher (2010), population is defined as “a

group of elements or cases, whether individuals, objects, or events, that conform to

specific criteria and to which we intend to generalize the results of the research” (p. 129).

According to U.S. Census Bureau (2015), there are 40,000 mid-size companies with

annual revenues between $50 million to $1 billion. According to GE Capital (2011),

these mid-size companies fall into 11 categories – services, wholesale, retail,

manufacturing, agriculture and forestry, construction, transportation/ communication,

financial, mining, holding companies, and other. This study focuses on services and

communication sectors only, which comprise 36.7% of the companies with revenues

ranging between $50 million to $1 billion. Together, this produces a target population of

14,500 mid-size companies in the United States, with annual revenues between $50

million and $1 billion, operating in the services and communications sectors.

Sample

In order to study a population, a researcher must draw a subset of individuals

from that target population, to collect data on them, so that the results can be generalized

64

back to the population (Patten, 2012). This subgroup is the sample. As the population

for this research consists of executives/leaders in various job functions, a representative

sample must ensure that participants: (a) meet a defined criteria for executive/leader in

the context of this study; (b) have experience working in a service or communication

company; and (c) are either currently working at, or have worked at in the last five years

at a company that has annual revenues between $50 million to $1 billion.

The U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration

maintains a national database containing occupational information (O*NET Resource

Center, 2014) on hundreds of standardized occupational specific descriptors. Numerous

job descriptions in the fields of sales, marketing, IT, and HR were reviewed. It was

found that a job title of Director or higher required the ability to lead a group of

individuals in some fashion. As such, for this research, “executive” or “leader” refers to

those professionals who have a title of Director or higher. Titles themselves are not

necessarily consistent across organizations, and so as the potential respondents were

evaluated from the sampling frame, additional diligence was done to ensure that the

experience levels and span of control of these executives was similar.

The researcher is an executive himself, and as such, he is well connected with

over 1,000 different professionals nationwide. These professionals work in multiple job

functions, such as Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT, in different industry verticals, and at

different levels in organizations. The list of these approximately 1,000 contacts served as

the sampling frame for choosing the sample using the selection criteria. The sampling

method used was convenience sampling, and the researcher analyzed each potential

respondent to ensure that only those who met the above three criteria were selected in the

65

sample. To ensure that the company met the revenue and industry criteria, tools and

listings such as LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, Hoovers, Forbes, and other publicly available

online sites, containing company profile information, were used. A review of the work

history of each executive, as listed on LinkedIn and other public sources, was conducted

to ensure that these executives either currently, or within the last five years, had held

leadership positions. This review also ensured that there was consistency, in terms of

experience and span of control, in the titles of the potential respondents.

Sample Selection Process

Using the sampling frame of approximately 1,000 contacts, a list of executives

was developed using the three sample selection criteria. This delivered a list of

approximately 250 executives all-together, who could qualify for this study. The

researcher ensured that each job function – Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT – had at least 50

prospective respondents. In reviewing the professional profile of each potential

responder, the research took additional care to minimize job function cross-over effects

by minimizing or eliminating the number of respondents who could have worked in more

than one job functions that this study covers, in the past five years. The researcher

assumed a 50% response rate or higher because he knew these executives, and this

professional and personal connection was expected to deliver a high survey completion

rate. With this assumption, there would be 25 or more full responses in each job

function, for data analysis. Researcher bias was addresses by conducting a thorough list

review by two independent reviewers to make sure that the respondents on the list met

the three sample selection criteria.

66

Once the sample was determined, each individual in the sample was provided

with a detailed description of the study (see Appendix B) as well as the consent forms

(see Appendix C) and a Participant’s Bill of Rights, as approved and provided by

Brandman University’s Institutional Review Board (BURIB). These consent forms

explained to the participants their rights to voluntarily participate in this research, to

withdraw at any time without penalties, to ask questions, and to maintain their

confidentiality. After the individual consented to participate and after informed consent

was obtained, participants were presented with the TLSi survey (see Appendix D) and

their responses were collected and stored in a secure database. The response data was

provided to the researcher through a password-protected electronic file, which was

destroyed after the analysis was conducted.

Instrumentation

The TLSi instrument was developed by Larick and White (2012) using rational

and empirical processes. This instrument was designed to capture 360-degree feedback

data on transformational leadership skills, allowing leaders to rate themselves, as well as

allow others to rate them on the same skillset. While 360-degree measurement systems

were initially adopted in corporate environments for performance evaluation purposes,

they have since evolved into serving a larger purpose of leadership development, and

complete feedback loops allow leaders to measure the level of congruency between their

own perceptions of skills they have with the views of others (Fleenor & Prince, 1997).

The most commonly used 360-degree instrument for measuring transformational

leadership skills is Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (B. M. Bass & Avolio,

1995), which measures scores on 45 traits of transformational leadership, and whose

67

validity and reliability have been studied in extensive detail using very large datasets (J.

Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The TLSi instrument extends this

measurement to 10 domains, each containing eight skills, for a total of 80

transformational leadership skills.

The TLSi instrument was developed using the framework of the Johari window

(Hersey et al., 2012). In this framework, only the leadership personality of an individual

is considered, as opposed to their complete personality. This leadership personality is

divided into four areas, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Johari Window. Adapted from “Management of Organizational

Behavior,” (10th ed.), by P. Hersey, K. H. Blanchard, and D. E. Johnson, 2012, p. 218,

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

According to the Johari model, the area that covers behaviors and attitudes known

to others but unknown to self is considered a blind spot for leaders, as this is the area

where leaders may not have any feedback. As a result, they may not know how to

address the factors in this area. In other words, their peers maintain notions about them

that they themselves are not aware of, and this is where the impact of 360-degree

68

feedback is most pertinent and visible. As illustrated in Figure 2, utilizing a 360-degree

feedback process pushes out the public area by allowing leaders to understand what

others know and maintain about them, thereby allowing them to address this in their

behaviors and attitudes. When this happens, a leader’s blind spot is greatly reduced

(Hersey et al., 2012). The 10 transformational leadership domains, each containing eight

transformational leadership skills, addresses the feedback mechanism to reduce the blind

area.

Figure 2. Impact of 360-degree feedback on the Johari Window. Adapted from

“Management of Organizational Behavior,” (10th ed.), by P. Hersey, K. H. Blanchard,

and D. E. Johnson, 2012, p. 219, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Due to the broad coverage of transformational leadership skills measured by this

instrument, the TLSi served as an appropriate instrument for this study, allowing

comparison of self-rating scores on 80 different skills. Each of the skills in the 10

domains is measured on a 5-point scale, with a score of one indicating minimal presence

of that skill, and five representing the presence of that skill to a great extent. According

69

to the authors of the instrument, this 80 skills inventory was developed based on theory

and research, accounting for transformational leadership strategies. The 10 domains are:

1. Character/Integrity: Creating trust and improving emotional intelligence so

team members understand others and have a respectful conduct.

2. Collaboration: Increase purposeful involvement for the purpose of creative

problem solving through effective conflict resolution.

3. Communication: Open communication that allows discussing of ideas,

solutions, and problems both within and outside the organization.

4. Creativity and Sustained Innovation: Divergent thinking and responsible risk

taking to leverage the potential of individuals for transforming their

organization.

5. Diversity: Integrate cultural and individual differences to create an

organization that is equitable, respectful, and morally accountable.

6. Personal/Interpersonal Skills: Approachable, likeable, possess high emotional

intelligence, and can motivate others.

7. Political Intelligence: Garner support from other stakeholders to promote the

organization’s mission and vision ethically.

8. Problem Solving/Decision Making: Enable others to contribute productively

for solving problems, and respect difference of opinions.

9. Team Building: Creating an effective team and bringing them together through

collaboration, interaction, and constructive conflict.

10. Visionary Leadership: Create an ethical vision of the future that can mobilize

stakeholders.

70

Patten (2012) explains that the reliability of the instrument is its ability to yield

consistent results, while the validity is defined as the ability of that instrument to measure

accurately what it is supposed to measure. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) explain

two key areas for understanding validity – face validity and content validity. For the

TLSi, face validity was established through review and analysis of theories on

transformational leadership, as well as an extensive search and review of literature along

with research and field experience related to the identification of the 10 domains and 80

skills; content validity was provided through consultation with experts on each of the

domains, for developing the descriptions and questions, followed by pilot testing (Larick

& White, 2012). Reliability was established by measuring the instrument on its ability to

produce consistent and comparable results. The overall reliability, determined by

conducting a Split-half test of reliability, was found to be 0.985, and measuring

correlation between domains, which fell in the moderate range, thereby indicating

stability of the instrument (Harris, 2015).

Data Collection

A pre-requisite step for data collection was to obtain approval from BUIRB. In

addition, explicit approval was obtained from Larick and White (2012), who both

developed the TLSi instrument, to use the instrument for this study (see Appendix E).

Each participant in this study was provided a description of the study, along with an

explanation of their right to voluntarily participate in the research, their right to withdraw

at any time without any penalty, and their right to request confidentiality. Once this

informed consent was acquired, the participants were administered an online survey

containing the TLSi questions.

71

In her book, The Dissertation Journey, Roberts (2010) explains that survey

vehicles are often chosen as preferred means for studies that have a quantitative or

measurable component in them, due to their ease, structure, and convenience in collecting

data. Schutt (2012) states that survey methods are gaining in popularity due to their

versatility, efficiency, and generalizability. The data collection process for this research

was entirely survey driven and conducted online. An elaborate process was employed to

ensure that potential respondents met the three qualification criteria previously described,

before they were approached for participation in this study.

Data Analysis

A combination of descriptive and inferential statistics was used to analyze the

data collected. In order to answer the RQs, the first step was to categorize the data by job

function, and this was done by using the pre-qualifier variables (G1 through G4),

embedded in the TLSi data collection process. This grouped the data into four segments,

one for each job function. Descriptive statistics on each data set provided the first level

of analysis that would be needed to answer the first three RQs.

For each group of data, these descriptive statistics included the mean, standard

deviation, standard error of the mean, first quartile, median, third quartile, minimum,

maximum, and Inter-Quartile Range for each skill. The skills for each group were then

ranked based on mean scores to study the initial raw rankings by job function, and to

understand what were similar and different domains and skills based on raw average

scores. Following this, multiple sets of regressions were run using each domain as the

dependent variable and the corresponding skills in that domain as the independent

72

variables, to understand the relationship of the skills to the domains and their statistical

significance for serving as a predictor.

This was followed by a study of correlations among the domains and among the

skills to evaluate if data reduction was necessary. This allowed for not only an

understanding of how the skills were related with each other, but also if there were any

perfect multicollinearity issues that must be addressed before some linear analyses could

be conducted. A correlation matrix for domains, and one for skills, was developed. This

analysis, along with all other methods mentioned below, were conducted at 95%

significance levels so that resulting conclusions and differences were statistically

significant (Patten, 2012; Trochim, 2006).

Various measures indicated that many of the 80 skill variables were moderately or

strongly correlated, and so it was important to reduce variables. Multiple statistical tests

were conducted – Anderson-Darling statistic to study the normality of data, Bartlet’s test

and Levene’s test to study homogeneity of variables (homoscedasticity), and Normal

Probability Plots (NPP) of standardized residuals for studying the distribution and

linearity of data.

Once these conditions were met, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted

using Principal Components Method, with a Varimax rotation of the factors, so that

variables were not only reduced to significant ones, but were also spread across the

minimum number of needed factors that met the eigenvalue cutoff. This reduced the

number of variables to half, and retained only those variables that were statistically

significant.

73

Following this analysis, the skills were re-ranked, and a relativity index was

developed for the domains as well as the skills. This index provided a second dimension

to the statistically significant variables – a measure of how that skill or domain was

penetrated in a given job function in relation to the entire sample. The rank and the

indices for each skill, grouped by job function, were placed in a four-quadrant grid, with

each grid providing a distinct insight for classification – whether the domain or skill was

focus area, a growth opportunity, a de-emphasis area, or should be left in status-quo.

This clustering was then used to extract findings and insights on similarities and

differences of skills and domains across job functions.

Limitations

There are a few standard limitations in this research that are typical for those

studies that collect data through self-administered surveys. The first limitation is related

to proper understanding and interpretation of the questions in the survey. In self-

administered surveys, the interpretation of the question, and thereby the response, lies

entirely in the hands of the respondent, and this this can sometimes create an issue with

the data (Coughlan, Cronin, & Ryan, 2009). The second limitation is the use of self-

reported data. Whenever a researcher asks survey participants to self-rate themselves,

s/he is relying on the respondent to respond honestly as opposed to responding in a

manner that promotes their self-image, and is depending on the respondent’s ability to

reflect and be introspective. People differ on such abilities. This can create an issue with

the consistency of reported data from one individual to the other, even if the responses

are standardized and controlled, such as proving the answer on a standard Likert scale

(Hoskin, 2012). “Gravitation to mean” is another limitation in surveys like TLSi that use

74

a scale that has an odd number of stops, and the respondents can choose the middle value

in an effort to hastily complete the survey (Hoskin, 2012). Another limitation of the

study is that due to time, cost, and resource constraints, the sample selected for this study

was not random, and was based on the researcher’s large professional network. This

limits the full statistical generalizability of the findings, which are likely to be treated as

directional findings until a truly random sample can be used to verify the findings.

Summary

This chapter revisits the purpose statement and the RQs and then goes into the

details of the research design that connects the purpose of this research with the questions

that the study is attempting to answer. This study utilized a quantitative research design,

which is explained in detail. Following this, the accessible population is defined and

described in detail, along with the process to identify and isolate the sample consisting of

respondents that represent the population. The chapter then discusses in detail the TLSi

instrument that was used in this study. Data collection process is described in detail,

followed by a listing of the various descriptive and inferential statistics used for

analyzing the collected data. After this, the limitations of the study are explained.

75

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS

Overview

This chapter starts by briefly revisiting the purpose statement and RQs, so that all

data transformations and analyses are directed towards finding answers to the proposed

RQs. A brief recap of the population, sample, method, and instrument is provided,

followed by a descriptive analysis of data. This analysis was used for determining

whether the data needed to undergo statistical transformations, such as data reduction, so

that significant variables could be extracted from the much larger variable set, before

further analyses were conducted. Findings were collected at each step along the way,

from descriptive analysis of raw data, to assessments of correlation between variables, to

data reduction, and then final presentation.

A two-dimensional rank-index model was also developed as a part of this chapter,

allowing each significant skill and domain to be analyzed not just in terms of its rank, but

also in terms of its relative penetration across the entire sample, i.e. all respondents across

the four job functions. This provided a much more detailed understanding of not just

what domains and skills mattered, but also to what extent, and their implications for the

particular job function.

Purpose Statement




76

In addition, it was the purpose of this study to identify the top three domains and

top five skills for each group, and to determine if significant differences existed in

reported TLSi ratings between the respective groups of executives.

Research Questions









Technology leaders?

Research Methods and Data Collection Procedures

This research attempts to study differences between groups of people and as such,

a quantitative research design was selected for this study (McMillan & Schumacher,

2010; Roberts, 2010). A quantitative instrument, called the TLSi, was used to collect

self-rating data on 10 transformational leadership domains and 80 skills (Larick & White,

2012), and this data was analyzed using quantitative statistical methods.

In order to collect data using this instrument, an approval was first sought from

the owners of the instrument, and a proposal was then submitted to the BUIRB. Once

this proposal was approved, each participant in this study was provided with a description

of the study, along with an explanation of their right to voluntarily participate in the

77

research, their right to withdraw at any time without any penalty, and their right to

request confidentiality. Once this informed consent was acquired, the participants were

administered the online TLSi survey. Participants were selected using well defined

selection criteria, and the collected response data was provided to the researcher through

a password-protected electronic file, which was destroyed after the analysis was

conducted. No personally identifiable information was collected for any respondent.

Population

This study targeted “mid-size” / “middle-market” companies in the Unites States,

and there are 200,000 such companies. This population was narrowed down to select

sectors and an annual gross revenue range. As such, the target population for this study

constituted of 14,500 mid-size companies in the United States, with annual revenues

between $50 million and $1 billion, operating in the services and communications

sectors.

Sample

Using a sampling frame and defined selection criteria, a list of executives was

developed, who would receive the TLSi survey. These participants all (a) met the

definition of executive/leader in the context of this study; (b) had experience working in a

service or communication company in the field of Marketing, Sales, HR, or IT; and (c)

are were currently working at, or had worked at, in the last five years, at a company that

has annual revenues between $50 million to $1 billion. The sampling method used was

convenience sampling, and each potential respondent was analyzed to ensure compliance

with the criteria. To ensure that the company met the revenue and industry criteria, tools

and listings such as LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, Hoovers, Forbes, and other publicly available

78

online sites and records, containing company profile information, were used. A review of

the work history of each executive, as listed on LinkedIn and other public sources, was

conducted to ensure that these executives either currently, or within the last five years,

had held leadership positions. The final sample consisted of 319 respondents.

Response Data

The TLSi survey was sent to 319 executives – 90 in Marketing, 78 in Sales, 81 in

HR, and 70 in IT. Only fully completed responses were considered for this study. All

together 115 completed responses were received – 31 in Marketing, 27 in Sales, 25 in

HR, and 32 in IT. This reflected an overall response rate of 36.1%, with the following

breakdown, by job function: 34.4% response rate for Marketing, 34.6% for Sales, 30.9%

for HR, and 45.7% for IT. No personally identifying information or demographic details

were collected.

Presentation and Analysis of Data

Definition of Data Elements

Data was collected using the TLSi instrument. The data model used in this

instrument utilized a simplistic structure. There were 10 leadership domains that the

survey covered, and for each domain, there were eight associated skills, for a total of 80

skills. Respondents scored themselves not only on the skill but also on the domains.

This allowed the domain scores to be used not just for analysis, but also as a dependent

variable, which, according to McMillan and Schumacher (2010) is a measured variable

that can be used to study the consequence of variables it depends on. The 80 skill

variables were used not only for analysis, but also as independent variables for studying

domains as the dependent variable. The domain variables were labelled from D1 through

79

D10, and the skill variables were labelled S1 through S80. These are described below,

grouped by domain.

D1 – visionary leadership. This leadership domain is defined in the TLSi as

creating a vision of the future as an ethical agent of change, who mobilizes stakeholders

to transform the organization. Transformational Leadership skills in this domain are

labelled S1 through S8 and described below.

S1: Anticipates and plans for the future.

S2: Mobilizes stakeholders to transform the organization.

S3: Plans & actions match the core values of the organization.

S4: Communicates personal vision

S5: Inspires others

S6: Involves stakeholders in creating a vision for the future

S7: Challenges thinking about the future

S8: Uses strategic thinking to create direction for the organization

D2 – communication. This domain is defined as leadership that effectively

supports an environment of open communication where the exchange of ideas, solutions,

& problems are discussed inside & outside the organization. Skills under this domain are

labelled S9 through S16 and described below.

S9: Builds strong relationships through open communication & listening

S10: Presents ideas & information in a well-organized manner

S11: Takes time to communicate and listen to others

S12: Communicates effectively in oral presentations

S13: Communicates clear and concise messages

S14: Communicates an inspiring vision

80

S15: Communicates in a variety of medium

S16: Listens with respect to others opinions

D3 – problem-solving & decision making. This domain describes a leader as

someone who creates an environment that enables everyone to contribute productively

through understanding and appreciation of differences and focus on the mission of the

organization. Skills under this domain (S17 through S24) are described below.

S17: Organizes people & resources to accomplish tasks

S18: Involves staff in decisions

S19: Decisive in making decisions

S20: Open to alternative solutions to problems

S21: Clarifies and defines problems and tasks

S22: Sets clear goals and directions

S23: Reviews outcomes of problem solving and seeks feedback

S24: Proactive in identifying problems and involving others in seeking solutions

D4 – personal/interpersonal skills. This is defined as leaders that are

approachable, likeable and demonstrate high emotional intelligence in motivating others

toward excellence. Skills in this domain (S25 – S32) are defined below.

S25: Approachable and easy to talk with

S26: Has a good sense of humor

S27: Provides feedback in a constructive manner

S28: Counsels & supports others

S29: Provides support for personal development

S30: Motivates team members

S31: Skillfully manages conflict

S32: Displays energy in personal & work goals

81

D5 – character/integrity. This domain defines a leader as someone who fosters

trust in the organization by creating an emotionally intelligent organization whose

members know themselves and know how to deal respectfully and understand others.

Skills in this domain (S33 - S40) are defined below.

S33: Understands personal strengths and weaknesses

S34: Sincere & straightforward

S35: Manages stress effectively

S36: Accepts responsibility for actions

S37: Treats others with respect & dignity

S38: Exhibits principled leadership in working with others

S39: Builds trusting relationships

S40: Is considerate of others

D6 – collaboration. This is defined as building a culture of trusting relationships

and purposeful involvement that supports critical and creative problem solving and

decision making through effective communication and conflict resolution. Skills (S41 –

S48) in this area are defined as:

S41: Encourages open dialog

S42: Participates in team meetings

S43: Shares leadership responsibilities

S44: Manages unproductive behavior in teams

S45: Facilitates decision making

S46: Open to feedback

S47: Gives teams members authority to accomplish tasks

S48: Builds strong relationships of team members

82

D7 – creativity and sustained innovation. A leader in this domain is

characterized with developing a culture of divergent thinking and responsible risk taking

that harnesses the potential of available human capital to transform the organization.

Skills (S49 – S56) in this domain are:

S49: Provides resources that support non-traditional solutions

S50: Fosters & encourages creativity

S51: Generates new ideas

S52: Uses divergent fields & disciplines to create something new

S53: Promotes a positive culture of change and improvement

S54: Establishes clear expectations

S55: Supports risk taking

S56: Willing to take a courageous stand

D8 – diversity. This is defined as someone who integrates the strengths that

individual and cultural differences contribute to create an organization that is equitable,

respectful and morally accountable in a global society. Skills (S57 – S64) are:

S57: Awareness of own prejudices and impact on others

S58: Understanding of divergent points of view

S59: Understands that treating people fairly may mean treating them differently

according to their ability and background

S60: Recognizes the value of people with different talents and beliefs

S61: Shows understanding of self and others

S62: Reflects and learns from experience

S63: Involves diverse stakeholders in planning and decision making

S64: Aware of and sensitive to different cultures, styles and values

83

D9 – team building. This leader is known for creating an effective team by

instilling a cooperative atmosphere, building collaborative interaction, and encouraging

constructive conflict. Skills (S65 – S72) are:

S65: Holds self & others accountable

S66: Provides subordinates effective mentoring & coaching

S67: Provides feedback for improved performance

S68: Builds a culture of open communication

S69: Challenges & encourages team members

S70: Empowers others to work independently

S71: Builds a culture that is safe and promotes responsible risk taking

S72: Encourages divergent thinking

D10 – political intelligence. This leader with this domain in known for

generating organizational influence to ethically advocate for causes and changes that will

advance the organization’s vision and mission. Skills (S73 – S80) are:

S73: Maintains openness and transparency in sharing information

S74: Mobilizes stakeholders to achieve goals

S75: Develops relationships with key champions who can influence priorities

S76: Builds coalitions to support initiatives through consistent messages

S77: Builds trust & support with constituents

S78: Negotiates by focusing on interests rather than positions

S79: Understands political connections between stakeholders and decision makers

S80: Anticipates obstacles by engaging others to share ideas

84

Response Groupings

The survey was administered to four groups of executives, and these groups were

based on their job function. Each group had a different URL, for a total of four URLs,

one each for Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT. This unique URL for each group allowed for

easy classification of responses, in real-time, as respondents filled out the survey. The

data model did not require any additional variables to be populated via user input. No

demographic information or personally identifying data was collected and all responses

were anonymous. Incomplete responses were discarded and were not included in the

dataset made available to the researcher, guaranteeing that analysis was only conducted

on fully completed responses (see Table 1).

Table 1

Summary of Fully Completed Responses

Job Function of Executives 𝑛 %

Marketing 31 27.0

Sales 27 23.5

Human Resources 25 21.7

Information Technology 32 27.8

Total 115 100

Note: 𝑁 = 115.

Self-Rating Scores and Rankings by Job Function Groupings

Self-rating scores were collected by asking the respondents to describe to what

extent did a particular trait apply to them, or described them. Their responses were

collected using a five point Likert scale with the following options – Very little extent

(1.0), Little extent (2.0), Some extent (3.0), Great extent (4.0), and Very great extent (5.0).

85

The responses were assembled in the groupings described earlier, and the mean

scores were computed for each domain and each skill. While the mean scores for each

domain ranged between three and five, variance was observed across the groupings for

each domain. The descriptive statistics showed different amounts of variance around the

mean, as evidenced by the value of the respective standard deviation. For each grouping,

the domains were then ranked by their mean, from the highest to lowest score, thereby

providing an insight into which domains rose to the top for each grouping. These

rankings showed a clear difference across groups. Descriptive statistics, along with

ranking of each domain by groups, are shown in Appendix F.

A similar descriptive analysis was conducted on the 80 transformational skills,

and the observations were similar – the scores on each of the skills, and the variance in

self-rated score for each skill, varied consistently across different groupings. The skills

were also ranked on their mean scores, and as with domain scores, the rankings across the

groups varied significantly. Descriptive statistics and rankings for skills are shown in

Appendix G. These descriptive statistics answer RQ 1. These statistics helped isolate, in

raw data, the top three domains and top five skills for each group (see Table 2).

86

Table 2

Top 3 Domains & Top 5 Skills Based on Raw Data

Marketing Sales HR IT

Top

Domains

D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

D5 Character /

Integrity

D5 Character /

Integrity

D9 Team

Building

D5 Character /

Integrity

D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

D2 Communica-

tion

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

D6 Collaboration

Top

Skills

S34 Sincere &

straight

forward

S37 Treats others

with respect

& dignity

S37 Treats others

with respect

& dignity

S47 Gives teams

members

authority

S37 Treats others

with respect

& dignity

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S40 Is

considerate

of others

S34 Sincere &

straight

forward

S8 Uses strategic

thinking to

create

direction

S34 Sincere &

straight

forward

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S37 Treats others

with respect

& dignity

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S40 Is considerate

of others

S26 Has a good

sense of

humor

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S32 Displays

energy in

personal &

work goals

S78 Negotiates by

focusing on

interests

S34 Sincere &

straight

forward

S70 Empowers

others to

work

independently

Note. HR = Human Resource; IT = Information Technology; D = Domain; S = Skills.

While Table 2 may appear to answer RQ2, it was necessary to conduct further

analysis on the data set, given the large number of variables that could potentially be

correlated to each other, thereby leading to a situation where multiple variables would be

explaining the same factor and appearing in the ranks multiple times with different

names. To address this, further analyses were conducted to study correlations between

variables, reduce the number of variables, and create indexed measures to determine top

skills and domains.

87

Relationships Between Variables

Relationship between response and predictor variables. The TLSi defined

each domain as consisting of eight skills. In this respect, the domain scores were used as

measures for response (dependent) variables and the scores for corresponding skills

served as measures for predictor (independent) variables. Using response and predictor

variables, first, a regression analysis was conducted for each domain (10 regressions).

This analysis helped identify which skills were most significant predictors for that

particular domain, what their weights were towards the domain score, and whether the

skill variables themselves were mutually correlated.

The key observations from the 10 regression outputs are presented in Tables 3-12.

Coefficient denotes the weight of each skill variable (i.e. how much that variable

influences the domain score). Each skill variable’s significance is shown by its p-value

(p-value ≤ 0.05 means that variable is statistically significant in the regression). The row

labelled VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) provides a quantitative measure of the severity

of multicollinearity that exists between skill variables.

Table 3

D1 – Regressing Skill Variables S1 Through S8

D1 versus S1 - S8

Predictor Constant S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8

Coef 0.3809 0.1228 0.2694 -0.2494 0.2688 0.0350 0.0882 0.2019 0.1424

p-value 0.505 0.214 0.003 0.008 0.002 0.760 0.403 0.062 0.101

VIF 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.3

Note. R2 = 49.50%, R2 _Adj. = 45.70%; S = Skill Variable; Coef = Coefficient; VIF =

Variance Inflation Factor.

88

Table 4


D2 versus S9 - S16


Coef 1.4588 0.2452 0.0716 -0.1322 0.0183 0.2039 -0.0182 0.1309 0.1239

p-value 0.015 0.023 0.412 0.229 0.831 0.044 0.829 0.083 0.219

VIF 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.3

Note. R2 = 20.60%; R2-ADJ. – 14.60%; S = Skill Variable; Coef = Coefficient; VIF =


Table 5


D3 versus S17 - S24


Coef 1.7001 0.0997 0.1156 -

0.0539

0.0185 0.1668 0.0741 -

0.0125

0.1984

p-value 0.001 0.313 0.153 0.476 0.828 0.062 0.377 0.876 0.021

VIF 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4

Note. R2 = 26.00%; R2-Adj. = 20.40%; S = Skill Variable; Coef = Coefficient; VIF =


Table 6


D4 versus S25 - S32


Coef 0.9221 0.4233 -0.1057 0.1262 0.0119 0.0276 0.1163 0.1069 0.1041

p-value 0.159 0.000 0.244 0.248 0.891 0.764 0.223 0.224 0.282

VIF 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.1



Table 7


D5 versus S33 - S40


Coef 1.1982 0.1026 0.1632 -0.0187 0.0311 0.1405 -0.1615 0.4471 -0.0115

p-value 0.114 0.296 0.233 0.815 0.805 0.302 0.180 0.000 0.924

VIF 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.8



89

Table 8


D6 versus S41 - S48


Coef 2.1455 0.1052 -0.0024 0.1671 -0.0131 0.0303 -0.0488 -0.1007 0.3404

p-value 0.002 0.409 0.982 0.100 0.870 0.794 0.611 0.376 0.001

VIF 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3



Table 9


D7 versus S49 - S56


Coef -0.5980 0.1806 0.2541 0.1280 0.0974 0.0837 0.2352 0.0034 0.1207

p-value 0.327 0.038 0.011 0.128 0.209 0.393 0.016 0.971 0.202

VIF 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.5



Table 10


D8 versus S57 - S64


Coef 0.3480 0.1309 0.0013 0.1319 0.2750 0.0382 0.0162 -0.0116 0.2946

p-value 0.585 0.167 0.991 0.144 0.034 0.724 0.882 0.918 0.003

VIF 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.3



Table 11


D9 versus S65 - S72


Coef 0.6159 -0.0490 0.1314 0.1619 0.0800 0.2735 0.1446 0.0946 0.0089

p-value 0.341 0.635 0.174 0.113 0.449 0.010 0.135 0.364 0.923

VIF 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.2



90

Table 12


D10 versus S73 - S80


Coef -0.7258 0.0021 0.1495 0.1276 0.2487 -0.0496 0.1430 0.4099 0.0985

p-value 0.335 0.983 0.256 0.285 0.036 0.663 0.194 0.000 0.387

VIF 1.0 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3



Additionally, Appendix H presents the NPP (Normal Probability Plot) of

standardized residuals for each regression. The pattern of these plots helped understand

the type of distribution for each regression, and they also served as a check for normality

of data. The regression analysis led to a few distinct observations. First, it was apparent

that while the domains were defined as groups of skills, the skill variables in that group

were are not necessarily all good predictors of the domain. This was evidenced by the

fact that multiple skill variables in each regression had p-values greater than 0.05,

implying that the null hypothesis for that variable (𝐻0: The variable has no effect) could

not be rejected, which meant that the variable was not a statistically significant predictor.

This can be caused when multiple variables are correlated with each other, or when the

number of regressors is high (Hildebrand, Ott, & Gray, 2005; Lilien & Rangaswamy,

2004; Sharma, 2004). This is also reflected in the relatively low Coefficient of

Determination (𝑅2). As further regressions were conducted by dropping predictors with

high p-values, the Adjusted Coefficient of Determination (𝑅2-Adj.), which adjusts the

predictability of the model based on the number of predictors used, started to increase,

further confirming that not all skill variables contributed towards the domain scores.

Second, certain domains showed a skewed or non-normal distribution, as is

evidenced by the Normal Probability Plot of standardized residuals. When the residuals

91

were plotted using an NPP, the shape of the plot provided useful clues. The plots for D1,

D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, and D10 appeared to follow the straight line, indicating that

they could be normal. D2, however appeared as an inverted graph, indicating that this

could be an exponential distribution. D4, D7, and D9 changed slopes multiple times,

implying that there could have been an unidentified variable in play, or the distribution

could be skewed (Minitab, 2016; NIST/SEMATECH, 2012).

The Anderson-Darling statistic is often used to test for normality of data.

Examination of the AD statistic along with the p-value showed that for D2 and D10, the

Null Hypothesis (𝐻0: The data follows a normal distribution) could be rejected (p-value

< 0.05), thereby suggesting that predictors S9 – S16 and S73 – S80 were likely not

normally distributed. The AD statistic also revealed that D4, D7, and D9 were Weibull

distributions and the respective predictors follow a skewed distribution. These non-

normal distributions could explain why some of the regressions had low 𝑅2 and non-

significant predictors (Osborne & Waters, 2002).

Third, a high number of variables demonstrated correlation with other variables.

This was evidenced in the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) measures presented earlier. A

VIF score of 1 indicates that predictors are not correlated; a score ranging between 1 and

5 means that predictors are moderately correlated; and VIF of 5 to 10 indicates high

correlation. As the analysis above showed, predictors were moderately correlated. This

also complemented an earlier observation around fewer variables that were statistically

significant in the regression. When variables are correlated, “multicollinearity” should be

investigated further for all linear analyses, and data reduction methods should be

employed.

92

Correlation Within Response Variables and Predictor Variables

As there were a large number of variables (10 domains, 80 skills), it is

conceivable that variables were inter-correlated. The analysis above also suggested that

an investigation of multicollinearity be done. Multicollinearity describes a situation

where multiple variables attempt to describe the same phenomenon, and they are closely

related in such a way that changes in one could be used to predict the changes in the

other, with a strong level of accuracy. Multicollinearity can potentially create issues with

linear analyses, making the models unstable and highly susceptible to variance

(Hildebrand et al., 2005; Lilien & Rangaswamy, 2004). Consequently, it was important

to understand how response and predictor variables were correlated amongst themselves

and across domains.

A correlational analysis was conducted on all response and predictor variables.

Two correlation grids were prepared, on for each pair of domain variables, and another

for each pair of skills variables. Each cell in the grid consisted of two values – a Pearson

Moment Correlation Coefficient for the pair, and the associated significance (p-value) of

that correlation. Appendix I shows the correlation coefficient r and the p-value for each

domain variable pair (note: The correlation are color coded). These correlations were

significant with p-value < 0.05.

Negligible correlations (absolute value of r ≤ 0.2) show no highlights, weak

correlations (0.2 < |r| ≤ 0.4) are shown in a yellow highlight, strong correlations (0.4 < |r|

≤ 0.7) are shown in red highlight, and very high correlations (0.7 < |r| ≤ 1.0) are shown in

blue highlight (Harey & Goehring, 1981). Multiple strong correlations (0.4 < |r| ≤ 0.7)

were found.

93

Appendix J presents a similar grid of r and p-value for the 80 skill variables, and

it too showed, similar to domains, that most skill variables were inter-correlated to some

degree, and many were strongly correlated; a quick grouping of these variables, just

based on the value of |r| showed that as many as 53 skill variables could potentially be

reduced to 17 variables, due to their high degree of correlation (see Appendix K). This

implied (without yet running a statistical data reduction model) that that number of

mutually exclusive variables could be around 40. These observations together implied

that data reduction should be done to effectively answer RQ 2 and RQ 3.

Data Reduction Considerations

Methods, such as exploratory factor analysis, have long been used for data

reduction (Field, 2013; Yong & Pearce, 2013). There are certain assumptions that should

be verified before running an exploratory factor analysis, so that the results are stable

(Field, 2013; Jones and Bartlett Publishers, n.d.; Lilien & Rangaswamy, 2004; Statistics

Solutions, 2016; Yong & Pearce, 2013). These assumptions and respective checks are

presented below.

As described earlier, many variables were highly correlated. If variables are

perfectly correlated (|r| = 1), then a perfect multicollinearity exists, and for a good factor

analysis, this should not happen (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, n.d.; Statistics Solutions,

2016). The data shows that while variables were moderately or strongly correlated, no

perfect multicollinearity existed in the data. The appendices also show that the

correlation matrix is not an identity matrix (one where the diagonals are one and the off-

diagonal elements are zero) as factor analysis cannot be done with an identity matrix.

94

The data used should be also be interval and linear, and must not contain extreme

values or outliers, for a stable factor analysis (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, n.d.;

Statistics Solutions, 2016). As the data for this study were collected using a 5-point

interval rating scale, there were no extreme observations or outliers in the data. No

transformations were applied to any of the variables in the data and so the variables were

linear in nature. The data collected by the TLSi were interval in nature (Bertram, n. d.).

Using a 5 point or larger scale lowers the error rate when using such interval data for

factor analysis (Carifio & Perla, 2007; Lubke & Muthen, 2004), and as the TLSi used a 5

point scale, the above conditions were also met.

Normality is not required for factor analysis (Race, 2016), and an analysis of the

Anderson-Darling statistic for the distribution of skill variables by domain showed that

there were groups of variables that were normally distributed, as well as groups that were

skewed, and non-normal.

Homoscedasticity, a phenomenon where the predictor variables all have the same

finite variance (also referred to as “homogeneity of variance”) must also be considered in

factor analysis. While homoscedasticity is a requirement for some linear analyses like

regression, it is not a requirement for factor analysis (Field, 2013; Jones and Bartlett

Publishers, n.d.; Race, 2016; Statistics Solutions, 2016). As mentioned earlier, the data

consisted of both normal and non-normal distributions; hence, the check for

homoscedasticity was done along with the test for normality (Anderson-Darling).

Bartlett’s Test, along with Levene’s Test were both used in situations where the

distribution was normal, and for non-normal distribution, only Levene’s Test was used.

The results, (see Table 13), showed that in most cases, the p-value was greater than 0.05,

95

implying that the null hypothesis (𝐻0: All variances are equal) could not be rejected.

This meant that homogeneity of variance was present in most variables except for a small

group.

Table 13

Test of Equal Variances While Accounting for Normality of Data

Skill

Variables

Anderson-Darling Normal

Bartlett's Test Levene's Test Hom.

Var. Statistic p-value Statistic p-value Statistic p-value

S1 - S8 0.541 0.162 Yes 4.470 0.484 2.540 0.061 Yes

S9 - S16 1.229 0.005 No 0.030 0.986 1.140 0.397 Yes

S17 - S24 0.733 0.054 Yes 0.330 0.222 0.980 0.457 Yes

S25 - S32 0.379 0.400 No 0.400 0.378 1.220 0.363 Yes

S33 - S40 0.639 0.094 Yes 1.420 0.985 0.770 0.678 Yes

S41 - S48 0.727 0.056 Yes 1.250 0.869 1.040 0.446 Yes

S49 - S56 0.415 0.329 No 2.320 0.677 1.750 0.211 Yes

S57 - S64 0.521 0.181 Yes 0.350 0.840 0.640 0.674 Yes

S65 - S72 0.423 0.315 No 0.000 1.000 N/A N/A N/A

S73 - S80 0.965 0.015 No 0.300 0.990 2.400 0.044 No

Note. Hom Var. = Homogeneity Variance.

The last consideration was sample size. Traditionally, theorists have maintained

that a large sample size is required for factor analysis, and there are many thoughts on

this subject. Given the practical implication and importance of this method, many

researchers and theorists now maintain that such an analysis can be conducted on smaller

data sets that have 100 (or even 50) samples to analyze (Jones and Bartlett Publishers,

n.d.). Multiple studies have also dispelled the misconception that a pre-determined

sample size applies to all factor analyses; rather the necessary sample size depends on

multiple aspects, can vary from one study to another, and in numerous cases, a sample

96

size of 100 is sufficient (R. C. MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999).

Mundfrom, Shaw, and Tian Lu (2005) also suggest that sample size can be reduced if

communalities (a number ranging between 0 and 1) are high, which was true for this

study, with communalities generally at 0.8 or higher. As such, a sample size of 115 was

determined to be sufficient for this factor analysis.

Factor Analysis

A factor analysis using Principal Components along with Varimax Rotation was

conducted on the data (see Appendix L). As the above assumptions were met, this

method was suitable for data reduction. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) first

extracts the maximum variance across variables and groups them in the first factor; then

it repeats this process until all factors are covered. As each factor is covered, its

respective eigenvalue (a scalar that explains the variance explained by that factor) is

computed. These eigenvalues represent the strength of that factor and provide means for

cutoff of factors. An eigenvalue of 1 means that the factor explains the average value of

variance, and an eigenvalue less than 1 means that the factor explains lesser than the

variables it is representing. As such, the eigenvalue rule states that only factors with

eigenvalue greater than 1 should be considered, and those with values less than 1 can be

discarded (Field, 2013; Jones and Bartlett Publishers, n.d.; Race, 2016; Yong & Pearce,

2013). The scree plot shown in Figure 3 shows that Factor 23 is the last factor with an

eigenvalue greater than 1; hence, the 80 skill variables could be reduced to 23 factors.

97

Figure 3. Scree plot generated from factor analysis of skill variables.

The impact of the PCA can often be verified visually by using a score plot, which

shows the distribution of scores across the first two factors, as they explain the most

variance in PCA. After a score plot was generated, the scores were then grouped by job

functions, and patterns started to emerge. HR scores were primarily present in quadrant 1

and 4, IT was quadrant 1 and 2, Marketing across all four quadrants, and Sales primarily

in quadrant 1, 2, and 4 (see Figure 4). Although Factor 1 and 2 (shown in the plot) only

explained 29% of the variance, that in itself showed differences in clustering. The 23

factors, that met the eigenvalue cutoff, together explained 75% of the variance.

98

Figure 4. Score plot grouped by job function.

In order to better analyze the factors that meet the eigenvalue cutoff, it is a

common practice to use factor rotation. Such rotation of axes does not change the

variance explained by the entire factor sub-space, and could reduce the explanation of

variance for the cutoff factors, but it improves the explanation of variables through

simplification of structure (Abdi, 2003; Field, 2013), and is therefore often a good trade-

off. The most commonly used rotation method is Varimax rotation, an orthogonal

rotation technique that attempts to minimize the number of variables with high loadings

on a given factor, in order to produce different mix of variables within the factors (Jones

and Bartlett Publishers, n.d.).

After the Varimax rotation, the factors that met the eigenvalue cutoff, still

explained 69% of the variance in data. As the sample size was 115, factor loadings of 0.5

or higher were considered significant at the 0.05 level (Race, 2016). The significant

99

skills variables post factor analysis; all together, the number of significant skill variables

reduced to 41, from the initial set of 80. Note that the significant loadings in the

appendix are highlighted in red. Appendix M lists out the significant skills variables post

factor analysis; all together, the number of significant skill variables reduced to 41, from

the initial set of 80.

Ranking and Indexing of Domains and Significant Skills

The next step in this analysis was to only retain the 41 significant skill variables.

These variables were then reordered based on the mean score of the significant variables,

and the ranks were reassigned. Additionally, an index was also computed for each

significant skill. See Table 14 for how the index was computed as.

Table 14

Index Computation Formula

Formula Definition

𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙𝒊𝒋 = (�̅�𝒊𝒋 �̅�𝒊)⁄ ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎 where:

i represents each of the significant skill variables,

j represents each of the four job functions,

�̅�𝑖𝑗= mean of ith skill in the jth job function

�̅�𝑖= total sample mean of ith skill

The purpose of creating this index was to measure the relative importance of that

significant skill for that job function, compared to the entire data set, i.e. all respondents.

For any skill, an index value of 100 meant that the skill rating for that job function is the

same as that for all respondents; a value lower than 100 meant that the skill for that group

is under-indexed (lower than all others) for that job function; and, a value greater than

100

100 means that the skill is over-indexed (higher than all others) for that job function; and,

a value greater than 100 means that the skill is over-indexed (higher than all others) for

that job function. Appendix N shows the mean, rank, and indexes for each significant

skill for each job function. The top five skills, based on rank alone, are highlighted in

blue.

Analyzing Domains and Skills Using Rank-Index Two-Dimensional Plane

The final stage in the analysis of data, which helped answer RQ 2 and RQ 3

effectively, was to study each variable (domains and the reduced set of skills variables)

across two dimensions – one, a rank that reflected the self-rating scores of respondents,

and second, an index that provides a relative measure of the importance of that skill. This

was achieved by creating a matrix plot of rank and index for both domains and skills, for

each job function. The specific Matrix plots are all included in the appendices. Figure 5

below explains the structure of this plot and how it is used to interpret the findings.

Figure 5. Matrix plot structure for analyzing domain variables and significant skill

variables, using Rank-Index combination.

For the analysis presented below, the following nomenclature is used:

Quad 1: Right bottom of the matrix

Quad 2: Left bottom of the matrix

Quad 4:Status Quo

Quad 3:De-emphasize

Quad 2:Growth Opportunity

Quad 1:Best Group

Ran

k

Index

<--

Hig

h

Lo

w -

->

<-- Under-Indexed Over-Indexed -->

Matrix plot of Rank Versus Index

101

Quad 3: Right top

Quad 4: Left top

For every job function under consideration, Quad 1 contained domains or skills

that were not only highly ranked, but were also over-indexed, meaning that these

domains or skills were highly important and highly used in that job function and

exceeded the average across all groups; hence, they denoted the top skills and domains

for the group, and require continuous focus and attention. Quad 2 had high rank,

indicating that respondents felt that these domains or skills highly represented them, but

the index showed that there were other groups in the sample that were ranked themselves

higher than this group, i.e. the group was under-indexed for these domains or skills. As

such, these were interpreted as growth opportunities. Quad 3 showed low rank, but was

over-indexed, implying that for this group, the skills that were least representative were

still higher ranked than all other groups in the sample, thereby suggesting that these

domains and skills could be de-emphasized for that group. Quad 4 showed a low rank

and was under-indexed, indicating that no action was needed on these, for that group, and

these were lower priority domains and skills.

After analyzing domains on this two-dimensional structure post data

transformation, it was found that the top domains remained the same as earlier, as the

domains are generic in nature; however, not all domains for each group were in Quad 1.

In other words, the actions associated with domains provided additional insights. The

matrix plot for domain variables for Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT are presented in

Appendix O. See Table 15 for the top domain variables for each job function.

102

Table 15

Top Domains - Post Factor Analysis & Rank-Index Based


D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

(Focus)

D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

(Grow)

D4 Personal /

Interpersonal

Skills

(Focus)

D6 Collaboration

(Focus)

D9 Team Building

(Focus)

D5 Character /

Integrity

(Grow)

D5 Character /

Integrity

(Focus)

D5 Character /

Integrity

(Focus)

D2 Communication

(Focus)

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

(Grow)

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

(Focus)

D3 Problem-

Solving &

Decision

Making

(Focus)

D2 Communication

(Grow)

D2 Communication

(Focus)

-

-

Note: HR = Human Resources; IT = Information Technology; D = Domain.

Each job function, except sales, was over-indexed on one or more domain; Sales,

however, was under-indexed in all domains and did not have any entries in Quad 1, and

their top domains all fell in Quad 2, indicating that their top domains all offered growth

opportunities. Additionally, a growth opportunity for Marketing was D5 (Character /

Integrity), and for IT was D4 (Personal / Interpersonal Skills). An analysis of Quad 3

showed that the domains that needed to be de-emphasized (over-indexed but lower

ranked) were D1 (Visionary Leadership) and D7 (Creativity & Sustained Innovation) for

Marketing; none for Sales; D7 (Creativity & Sustained Innovation), D8 (Diversity), and

D10 (Political Intelligence) for HR; and, D8 (Diversity) and D9 (Team Building) for IT.

Collectively, this provided a good assessment of the domains that are different across

various job functions.

The two-dimensional matrixes for significant skills, post factor analysis and data

transformation were more granular, and contained numerous new insights. As with

103

domains, a review of Quad 1 provided the list of top skills used by each job function (see

Table 16).

Table 16

Top Significant Skills - Post Factor Analysis & Rank-Index Based


S32 Displays

energy in

personal &

work goals

S50 Fosters

creativity

S16 Listens to

others with

respect

S50 Fosters

creativity

S41 Encourages

open dialog

S16 Listens to

others with

respect

S41 Encourages

open dialog

S41 Encourages

open dialog

S8 Uses strategic

thinking to

create

direction

S73 Open &

transparent

in sharing

information

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S73 Open &

transparent in

sharing

information

S36 Accepts

responsibility

for actions

S20 Open to

alternate

solutions

S39 Builds

trusting

relationships

S39 Builds

trusting

relationships

S37 Treats others

with respect &

dignity

S40 Considerate

of others

S37 Treats others

with respect

& dignity

S65 Holds self &

others

accountable

S65 Holds self &

others

accountable

-

-

S25 Approachable

& easy to talk

to

S25 Approachable

& easy to talk

to

S28 Counsels &

supports

others

-

-

S40 Considerate

of others

-

-

-

-

-

-

S65 Holds self &

others

accountable

-

-

Note. HR = Human Resources; IT = Information Technology; S = Significant Skills.

While a few skills were present in multiple job functions in Quad 1, most skills

showed numerous differences across different job functions. HR had the highest number

of skills in Quad 1, followed by Marketing, then IT, and then Sales. As with domain

variables, Sales had the fewest number of skills that were over-indexed, and most of their

104

highly ranked skills were indexed lower, thereby offering these skills as growth

opportunities.

The most significant growth opportunities for Marketing were S40 (Considerate

of others), and S50 (Fosters creativity); for Sales were S36 (Accepts responsibility), S37

(Treats others with respect & dignity), S41 (Encourages open dialog), and S65 (Holds

self and others accountable); for HR was S50 (Fosters creativity); and, for IT were S37

(Treats others with respect & dignity), S36 (Accepts responsibility), S40 (Considerate of

others), and S20 (Open to alternate solutions). Similarly, the variables that each job

function must de-emphasize were also disparate across different job functions.

Marketing had the highest number of entries in Quad 3, followed by HR, and then IT;

sales had the fewest. This provides valuable insights in terms of where the focus of skill

development for each group should shift, for more effective leadership development

given the situational context of job function. The significant skills matrix plots can be

found in Appendix P.

Summary

The review, analysis, and presentation of data revealed some interesting insights.

As the TLSi has two groups or variables – domains and skills – and each domain was

related with eight skills, it was evident that first this relationship should be explored to

see which skill variables are significant towards the domain. This analysis led to

interesting findings about the cross-connectedness of skill variable among themselves,

not just for the domain they belong to, but also across domains. This was confirmed by

studying the significance level of the skill variable in the corresponding regression, its

105

Variance Inflation Factor, and the complete correlation matrix, which further confirmed

that data should be reduced to significant variables before further analysis was conducted.

The study of correlations initially suggested that as many as half of the skill

variables could be eliminated through data reduction. A 5 point Likert scale, which the

TLSi uses, is a relatively moderate spread, and so it’s not unusual to see a compact

normal distribution; however, certain domain and skill groups showed a skewed

distribution, suggesting that these categories had different variances than others.

A factor analysis, followed by a Varimax rotation, allowed extraction of only

significant skills. Once this was completed, indexes were created for each skill within a

group, compared to the entire sample. This again provided rich insights – e.g. Sales

executives ranked domains such as interpersonal skills, character and integrity, and

problem solving, very high; however, they were under-indexed on these domains when

compared to other groups, clearly showing that their top domains present a growth

opportunity. Similarly, Marketing executives indexed heavily on visionary leadership

and sustained innovation, but they ranked them low, implying that across the board, these

domains are assumed for leadership positions and so focus can shift from these domains

to the ones that need growth, such as integrity, which is very likely as the information

proliferation of today has allowed customers to instantly notice discrepancy between

marketing messages / promises compared to actual / perceived benefits.

Insights for skills went deeper due to the nature of the granular variables, and post

factor analysis, the top skills varied different across groups. Skills identified in the

growth quadrant (Quad 2) as well as the de-emphasis quadrant (Quad 3) also varied

significantly across job functions. Respondents in the Sales function found many of their

106

top skills in the growth quadrant, while HR had the most, compared to the other groups,

in their focus quadrant (Quad 1), implying that HR executives could have a broader

skillset as it related to transformational leadership skills. These insights and conclusions

are presented in more detail in the next chapter.

107

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter starts with a brief summary of the purpose, the research questions,

and the selected methodology and sample used for the study. This is then followed by a

summary of the major findings. Conclusions, drawn from the findings, are then

presented, and finally, recommendations are provided for future research.

Purpose of the Study



Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT using the TLSi. In addition, it was the purpose of this

study to identify the top 3 domains and top 5 skills for each group, and to determine if

significant differences existed in reported rankings between these groups.

Research Questions

There were three research questions that this study attempted to answer: (1) What

were the TLSi self-rating scores for business leaders in mid-size companies in the field of

Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and Information Technology? (2) What were the

top three domains and top five skills for each group, and (3) Were there significant

differences between the groups?

Research Design and Instrument

Studies that attempt to explain factors, study differences, or conduct deductive

analysis, typically employ a quantitative research design, as that is best suited for such

purposes (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Roberts, 2010). As such, this study used a

quantitative descriptive design. This study did not administer any treatments, and so a

non-experimental study design was chosen (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Patten,

108

2012). The data was collected using a TLSi survey, delivered online, to the selected

respondents. This quantitative instrument collects data on 10 domains and 80 skills,

using a 5 point Likert scale (Larick & White, 2012). Data were analyzed using different

statistical methods.

Population, Sample, and Completed Responses

The target population for this study comprised 14,500 mid-size companies in the

United States, with annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion, operating in the

services and communications sectors. A sampling frame was developed using three

criteria so that every prospective respondent (a) met the definition of executive/leader in

the context of this study; (b) had experience working in a service or communication

company in the field of Marketing, Sales, HR, or IT; and (c) was currently working at, or

had worked at, in the last five years, a company with annual revenues between $50

million to $1 billion. The sample consisted of 319 respondents. A total of 115 completed

responses were received – 31 in Marketing, 27 in Sales, 25 in HR, and 32 in IT.

Major Findings

There were several major findings based on the analyses conducted on the data.

These findings are presented first for transformational leadership domains, and then for

transformational leadership skills, and in each section, the findings are addressed in

accordance with the research questions.

Analyzing significant domain and skills variables by looking at their rank order in

isolation, based on mean scores, was not optimal as it only showed how that group rated

the particular domain or skill. The use of an index, as a second dimension, provided

109

additional depth to the analysis by showing how that domain or skill rank measured up in

its importance when compared to the entire sample (and therefore, the population).

In the four quad model presented in Chapter IV, Quad 1 consisted of domains or

skills which had high rank and high index, meaning that not only were they important,

they were also ahead of the overall sample score, thereby making them strength

differentiators for the group. Quad 2 consisted of high rank-low index skills or domains.

While these skills / domains ranked high, their score was lower than the overall sample

score, implying that these presented opportunities for further growth. Quad 3 consisted

of low rank-high index skills/domains. This meant that the group’s score on that skill or

domain was higher than the overall sample score, showing that the skill or domain was

over-emphasized / over-used, or its relative importance over-stated. Quad 4 was low

rank-low index, consisting of those skills / domains which were not only ranked lower by

the group, but also by the sample; they could be left at status-quo, or would require focus

across all groups, if their importance was to be increased.

Findings Related to Domains

Top-tier common domains. The following domains were the top domains for at

least three of the four groups (Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT) – Character/Integrity,

Personal/Interpersonal Skills, Problem Solving & Decision Making, and Communication.

The domains tend to be generic and as such it was not unusual that multiple job functions

would have some similar domains.

Differences within top common domains. There were some distinct differences

within the top domains. First, the implications associated with top domains were

different for different groups. For Sales executives, the top domains, Character /

110

Integrity, Problem Solving, and Communication, were sizably under-indexed, scoring

well below other groups, implying that these were growth opportunities. Marketing

executives showed Character / Integrity as a growth opportunity, and IT showed Personal

/ Interpersonal Skills as a domain for improvement. HR was the only group with all the

four domains in the strong suit (Quad 1) category.

Second, the relative spread of scores across these domains was also interesting.

Scores of Character / Integrity varied the most with HR scoring the highest (4.44),

followed by IT (4.41), Marketing (4.16), and Sales (4.00). Scores for Problem Solving

followed a similar pattern – highest was HR (4.32), then IT (4.31), followed by

Marketing (4.10), and Sales (3.96). The other domain spreads were narrow. This finding

indicates that while there were domains that were similar across groups, their extent

varied, and HR and IT executives considered themselves strongest at Character / Integrity

and Problem Solving, compared to other groups.

Low-tier domains. First, every group (Marketing, Sales, HR, IT) showed

Political Intelligence as the lowest scoring domain. The spread was also minimal, and as

such every group hovered around the overall mean. While not in the scope of this study,

this finding implies that further exploration could be conducted around the need for, or

raising awareness of, Political Intelligence as a domain for transformational leadership.

If the need exists, this finding points to a sizeable gap in terms of the capabilities of

leaders around Political Intelligence.

Second, Diversity also showed low rankings across groups. While Marketing and

HR were consistent with the overall low ranking, IT was over-indexed significantly and

Sales was under-indexed significantly. An analysis of today’s work environment could

111

explain the difference between IT and Sales in terms of Diversity. IT professionals

usually interact with people across the world; in fact, IT advancement was a significant

contributor to information proliferation around the world. As such, it is not surprising

that IT over-indexes on Diversity compared to all other functions. Similarly, effective

Sales strategies have traditionally relied on building relationships with local communities

or markets, and it can be hypothesized that this focus on similarities, not differences, may

contribute to lower scores on this domain. The most interesting finding, however, is that

this domain was in the bottom two domains for each group, thereby implying that similar

to Political Intelligence, there is either a limited need or an opportunity to unilaterally

increase awareness for this domain, as it relates to transformational leadership.

Third, Visionary Leadership was also ranked low for every group except

Marketing. It fell in the bottom three domains for all groups, and in the mid-range for

Marketing; the scores, however, varied quite a bit as this was highly over-indexed for

Marketing, resulting in placement within the de-emphasis Quad. There is a lot of

literature on the importance of Visionary Leadership for addressing transformational

changes; however, Marketing was the only group that demonstrated some alignment with

this, compared to others. This implies that either Marketing needs to de-emphasize this

(as they over-index), or other groups may need more substantiation / training / awareness

around how and why Visionary Leadership matters.

Mid-tier domains. Collaboration was ranked in the middle by all groups except

IT, who ranked it in their top domains. The Quad placements show that for every group

other than IT, this domain hovered around the intersection of the two axes (rank and

index), implying that it may not need much action, and executives generally understand

112

its importance. Similarly, Team Building was a mid-range score for every group except

Marketing, who placed it in their top domains. As the scores for all other groups were

either on the axis themselves close to the intersection, or in the status-quo Quad, it

implied that the importance of this domain was generally well understood across groups.

Findings Related to Skills

The skills were much more granular than the domains and as such, there were

additional findings associated with the skills. They were also more complex to analyze

for the same reason. The factor analysis helped reduced this complexity by reducing

variables to statistically significant ones, which explained the data; however, it still

required analyzing over 40 skill variables. In order to further extract findings, factor

loadings and the coefficients of the skills towards the factors were both considered, along

with the two dimensions used to plot the skills – rank and index.

Top-tier common skills. The following were in the top 10 skills for at least three

out of the four groups: being open to alternate solutions, accepting responsibility, treating

others with respect, being considerate to others, encouraging open dialogue, fostering and

encouraging creativity, and holding self and others accountable. The indices for these

skills also hovered around 100, implying that there was not much difference between

group scores and overall sample scores.

Differences within top common skills. As with the domains, there were some

differences within groups, for each of the top common skills. Marketing’s score for most

similar domains was at par with the overall average, but consideration for others and

fostering creativity were slightly under-indexed; Sales was slightly under-indexed on

encouraging open dialog and slightly over-indexed on being open to alternate solutions;

113

HR was over-indexed for all these skills; IT was under-indexed on treating others with

respect, and on being considerate to others. Second, unlike domains, the range of scores

for each group was rather small, and the distribution was compact. Collectively, these

two observations show that while executives felt that there were slight differences in

levels of maturity for each of the top common skills, these differences were minimal, and

this common set of skills applied relatively evenly to all groups.

Top-tier non-overlapping skills. An analysis of the top 10 skills across each

group showed that while many skills were common across domains, there were many

skills in each group that were unique to that group. These skills for Marketing were

counseling and supporting others, setting clear goals and direction, strategic thinking to

create direction, display of high energy, and building trust with constituents. The skills

for Sales were listening to others opinions, and sharing information with transparency.

HR top differentiated skills comprised building trusting relationships, building trust with

constituents, listening to others with respect, being approachable and easy to talk to, and

building relationships using open communication. For IT, the skills were sharing

information with transparency, and being approachable.

An analysis of the spread for most of these skills showed a skew, where the

leading group had the highest score, while the others were relatively low and in close

proximity with each other. This confirmed that not only were these skills uniquely

ranked highly for one group, they also differentiated that group from others. The overall

strength skills for any group were a combination of common and distinct skills.

Many of these top overlapping and distinct skills belonged to the top domains

discussed earlier. This is not surprising, as the TLSi groups skills into logical domains.

114

Low-tier common skills. The bottom 10 skills for each group showed multiple

commonalities. While there were still some differences, the following skills were rated

lowest across at least three job functions – managing unproductive behavior in teams,

managing stress effectively, managing conflict skillfully, anticipating obstacles by

engaging others, building coalitions, managing one’s own prejudices, using divergent

thinking for innovation, providing resources for non-traditional solutions, and

communicating using multiple mediums.

Another interesting observation was that these skills perceptually appear to be the

“difficult” side of leadership – managing conflict, unproductive behavior, prejudices,

obstacles, stress, and communication – indicating that no matter what the group is, these

areas are weaknesses for everyone. This implies that across the board, if these skills are

considered important for transformational leadership, then a concerted effort will be

needed to develop these skills for all leaders.

Low-tier non-overlapping skills. There were fewer skills in this category, and

most low-tier skills showed commonality, as discussed earlier. There were, however, a

few – for Marketing, they were communicating personal vision, and being clear and

concise; for Sales, they were communicating personal vision, and building strong

relationships with their own team members; for HR, these were involving stakeholders to

create a vision of the future, presenting well-organized ideas, and involving staff in

decisions; and for IT, the list included taking time to listing to others, and providing

subordinates effective mentoring and coaching. As with the top-tier non-overlapping

skills, most of these showed a skew, with the respective group scoring the lowest and

115

others showing higher scores within close proximity. As such, these were differentiated

weaknesses for that group.

A close analysis of these weakness skills also showed that many of them belonged

to the weaker domains, which again, is not surprising, as the TLSi groups it as such.

Mid-tier skills with growth opportunities. The mid-tier skills comprised of

those that were not grouped in the top or the low tier. As such, this set was much larger.

In order to extract good findings, Quad 2 and Quad 4 for each job function were

analyzed. Mid-ranked skills, closest to the X-axis, and farthest from the Y-axis, in Quad

2 and 4, were picked up, as these represented the most prominent growth opportunities

among those skills that neither rose to the top tier, nor settled in the bottom tier.

Mid-tier skills with growth potential for Marketing were, building relationships

using open communication, listening to others with respect, approachability, building

trusting relationships, and building a culture of risk-taking. Growth opportunities for

Sales were, inspiring others, strategic thought process for creating direction, building

relationships using open communication, organized presentation of ideas, involving staff

in decisions, counseling and supporting others, motivating team members, building

trusting relationships, building a culture of risk-taking, and building support with

constituents.

HR had the fewest skills falling in this category. These skills were, strategic

thought process for creating direction, display of high energy, and openness and

transparency in sharing information. Mid-tier skills with growth potential for IT were,

ensuring plans and actions match core values of the organization, strategic thought

process for creating direction, building relationships using open communication, listening

116

to others with respect, setting clear goals and direction, counseling and supporting others,

display of high energy, and understanding personal strengths and weaknesses.

These findings above provide details around what strength and weakness areas

would specifically need to be addressed uniquely for Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT.

Literature review, presented in Chapter II, covers the situational context of leadership as

it relates to job function, and discusses existing research around difference in

transformation leadership skills needed by executives in Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT

functions. The findings support the literature and go into further details around specific

transformational leadership skills that differ by job function.

Unexpected Findings

There was only one unexpected finding. An inherent limitation in using a Likert

scale with an odd number of stops is “gravitation to the mean”, which means that

respondents can quickly choose the middle value, in order to complete the survey faster

(Hoskin, 2012). As such, it was expected that the mean values for the sample, and for

each of the groups, would hover somewhere around 3.0; however, this did not turn out to

be the case. As presented in the descriptive analysis earlier, the responses mostly

hovered between 3 and 5, implying that leaders and executives may generally have a very

favorable opinion of themselves and their transformational leadership skills.

Conclusions

There were multiple conclusions that were drawn from the results of this study.

These conclusions utilize the findings presented in the prior section. These conclusions

are presented in the order of the research questions. Conclusions related to the first two

117

questions were straightforward; however, the third research question led to deep analysis

of data, followed by extensive insight extraction, delivering multiple conclusions.

RQ1 required a presentation of the self-rating scores of executives in the field of

Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT, for 10 domains and 80 skills associated with

transformational leadership.

RQ2 attempted to identify the top three domains and top five skills for each job

function. Findings were developed based on rank ordering the response data.

Marketing’s top three domains were Personal / Interpersonal Skills, Team Building, and

Communication, and the top five skills were sincerity and straight-forward approach,

treating others with respect, strategic thinking for creating direction, accepting

responsibility for actions, and display of high energy. Similarly, for Sales, domains were

Personal / Interpersonal Skills, Character / Integrity, and Problem-Solving & Decision

Making, and the skill were treating others with respect, accepting responsibility, sincerity

and straight-forward approach, being considerate, and negotiation with a focus on

interests.

Top HR domains were Character / Integrity, Personal / Interpersonal Skills, and

Problem-Solving, and top skills were treating others with respect, being considerate,

accepting responsibility, good sense of humor, and sincerity. IT domains were Character

/ Integrity, Problem-Solving, and Collaboration, and skills were giving team members

authority, sincerity, treating others with respect, accepting responsibility, and

empowering others to work independently.

RQ3 required multiple additional data analyses to ensure that variables were first

analyzed for their predictability and significance, then their distribution was studied,

118

followed by elimination of redundant variables, and then the development of a two-

dimensional structure so that domains and statistically significant skills were not just

studied based on their rank, but also in light of their relative importance compared to the

entire sample. This resulted in multiple conclusions including new findings for top

domains and skills, and they are presented below.

General Conclusions

First, the situational context of job function, with respect to transformational

change, matters. This premise was well discussed in the review of literature. Multiple

studies have analyzed different situational contexts for research purposes, finding that

leaders have to use different sets of skills or behaviors depending on specific and

different needs of the job (Dóci & Hofmans, 2015; Eacott, 2010; Kirkbride, 2006; Scott,

2007, 2013; Turner, Müller, & Dulewicz, 2009). The findings in this study supported

this; while there were many similarities in domains and skills across job functions, there

were many unique differences as well, and leaders in Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT use

different transformational leadership skills for their jobs.

Second, the level of specificity matters. Myatt (2012) stated that not only the

situation context mattered, he also argued for creating a “leadership job description” with

an intent to be specific in terms of what leadership on the job would entail. For this

study, when the 10 domains were analyzed, there were some differences that emerged.

As the domains were quite generic, a sizeable number of similarities across job functions

were observed. The story, however, was different when skills were analyzed. The raw

data for all skills showed marked differences between the rating and ranking of these

skills. This difference remained prominent even after the redundant variables were

119

removed, and only significant variables were considered. As the skills were fine-grained

and specific, the distinctions, as well as similarities, were clear and prominent.

Third, when studying situational context with a large number of variables, it is

important to address redundancies. The skill variables captured by the TLSi are

exhaustive, and therefore have multiple strong correlations between the variables. Before

studying similarities and differences, it was important to reduce the dataset to significant

variables. As such, the findings were manageable and actionable.

Fourth, leaders appear to have a generally favorable view of themselves, as the

various self-rating responses all leaned towards high scores. This phenomena has been

observed and reported by multiple researchers in their respective work (Feuer, 2014;

Finkelstein, 2004; Sala, 2001). This study found such to be the case as well.

Fifth, there are commonalities in terms of strong and weak transformational

leadership domains across the four job functions that this study targeted. Character /

Integrity, Personal / Interpersonal Skills, Problem Solving & Decision Making, and

Communication emerged as strong transformational leadership domains across the job

functions. Similarly, Political Intelligence, Diversity, and Visionary Leadership emerged

as the weakest domains for all job functions. Political Intelligence has often been

identified as an area that leaders need to improve on, as its lack can have a negative

impact on getting things done (Bancroft, 2016; Reffo, 2014; White et al., 2007).

Similarly, diversity and cultural intelligence has been identified as another area that

leaders and organizations score poorly on (Llopis, 2011); both these areas are consistent

with the findings in this study.

120

Lastly, as with domains, there are specific skills related to transformational

leadership that found a strong presence in every one of the four job functions, as well as

skills that were clearly weak across the groups. The strong skills were: being open to

alternate solutions to problems, accepting responsibility for one’s own actions, treating

others with respect and dignity, being considerate of others, encouraging open dialogue,

fostering and encouraging creativity, and holding self and others accountable. These

skills generally match common leadership trait areas, such as influence, character, and

accountability, and as such, it is not surprising that they rose to the top of the common

transformational leadership skillset. Leaders may have learned and honed these skills

already as a part of their existing jobs, experience, or training.

There were also many transformational leadership skills that were weak across all

job functions. These were, communicating using a variety of media, skillfully managing

conflict, managing stress effectively, managing unproductive behavior in teams,

providing resources that support non-traditional solutions, using divergent fields &

disciplines to create something new, being aware of one’s own prejudices and their

impact on others, building coalitions to support initiatives through consistent messages,

and anticipating obstacles by engaging others to share ideas. A review of this group of

skills suggest that they all are the more difficult areas of leadership. Conflict,

unproductive behavior, and stress management have often been identified as key focus

areas for leaders (Harvey & Drolet, 2006; O'Brien & Beehr, 2016; Tjosvold, 2008) and as

such, it is not surprising that transformational leadership skills associated with these areas

were found to be the weakest among all job functions.

121

Differences Specific to Job Functions

Various domains and skills were also found to be significantly distinct by job

function. As discussed earlier, domains tend to be generic; as a result, there were only a

few unique differences in domains; however, there were many skills that made each job

function’s transformational leadership skillset different.

Marketing. A distinct differentiating domain for marketing was Team Building.

While the other groups ranked this in the mid-low category, Marketing ranked it in the

top three. Similarly, while the other three functions ranked Visionary Leadership

relatively low, Marketing ranked it higher than the rest; so, as far as the domains were

concerned, Team Building was a clear differentiator, followed by Visionary Leadership.

From a skills perspective, marketing had quite a few differentiators. This group

has distinct strength differentiators in the form of setting clear goals and directions, using

strategic thinking to create direction for the organization, displaying energy in personal &

work goals, building trust & support with constituents, and counseling & supporting

others. In addition to the common skills discussed earlier, these are the unique strong

skills that marketing leaders must have. Collectively this makes up the strengths skillset

for marketing.

There were a few distinct weaknesses, as well. These were communicating

personal vision, and communicating clear and concise messages. A transformational

leadership growth skillset, for Marketing, would include common weakness discussed

earlier, along with these two unique weaknesses for Marketing. These strength and

weakness skillsets form the unique transformational leadership skills portfolio for

Marketing.

122

Sales. No distinct or differentiating domains were found for Sales; strength and

weakness domains were the same as the common strong and weak domains. An

interesting conclusion, though, was that for Sales, even the top common domains were

categorized in the growth category, as their relative index on these domains was lower

than that of the group. There were, however, skills that differentiated Sales from others.

Differentiators for strengths included listening with respect to others opinions, and

maintaining openness and transparency in sharing information. Differentiating

weaknesses included communicating personal vision, and building strong relationships

with team members. These differentiator skills for strengths and weaknesses, coupled

with common strength and weakness, provide the distinct transformational leadership

skills portfolio for Sales.

HR. Similar to Sales, no distinct or differentiating domains were found for HR

either, and the strength and weakness domains were the same as the common strong and

weak domains. There were, however, transformational leadership skills that

differentiated HR from others. Differentiators for strengths included building trusting

relationships, building trust & support with constituents, approachability and ease to talk

with, listening with respect to others opinions, and building strong relationships through

open communication & listening. Differentiators for weaknesses included involving

stakeholders in creating a vision for the future, presenting ideas & information in a well-

organized manner, and involving staff in decisions. These, coupled with common

strengths and weaknesses, created the unique HR skillset portfolio.

IT. Similar to Marketing, one differentiating strength domain – Collaboration –

was found for this group. This was the third most important domain for IT, which is not

123

surprising as IT is an internal facing organization that services multiple other departments

in an organization. As with every group, differentiating skills were found as well.

Differentiating strengths included maintaining openness and transparency in sharing

information, and approachability and ease to talk with. Differentiating weaknesses

included taking time to communicate and listen to others, and providing subordinates

effective mentoring & coaching. Coupled with common strengths and weaknesses, this

created the distinct skillset portfolio for IT.

Differences in Mid-Tier Skills

The findings also list skills that are different for each job function, in the mid-tier

category. These skills could serve as additional growth opportunities; however, as they

are mid-tiered, they are not likely to lead to further growth in transformational leadership

skillset until the strength and weakness portfolio, discussed above, is addressed first.

The complete and distinct portfolio of strengths and weaknesses, for each job

functions, is presented in Appendix Q.

Implications for Action

Several implications for action became apparent, based on findings and

conclusions. First, a distinct portfolio of strong and weak transformational leadership

skills for each job function, would allow for the development of a customized scorecard

(which could also serve as a progress report) for leaders in the field of Marketing, Sales,

HR, and IT, hoping to manage a transformational change. Navigating such a change is

crucial for organizations today (Calarco & Gurvis, 2006; Center for Creative Leadership,

2013; McCallum, 2001; Wilson, 2014), and the nature of the change differs by job or

functional context (Derue et al., 2011; Dóci & Hofmans, 2015; Kirkbride, 2006).

124

Progress on leadership development is difficult to come about without getting specific

(Myatt, 2012), and the findings of this study can help develop a detailed scorecard for

each job function.

Second, these findings can streamline leadership development in the context of

the job function. Leadership is a vast area, and most leaders draw specific skills from a

“pool” of skills, depending on the context in which they are acting (Kirkbride, 2006).

The findings and conclusions of this study resulted in identification of such skills that are

not only needed in a job, but are also distinct and unique in terms of their application for

that job function specifically. As such, using these findings can result in targeted

leadership development, by job function, with an emphasis on transformational change.

Leadership development is a focus area for almost every organization today, and the

findings in this study present an opportunity for targeting such leadership development to

the most crucial needs of the organization.

Third, this can help bridge the “leadership gap”, which is the difference between

the skills that leaders possess and the skills that are needed to do the job satisfactorily.

The Center for Creative Leadership (2013) has been reporting that this gap has increased

in the recent years, particularly as traditional leadership development programs do not

necessarily solve for transformational leadership gaps that exist today. Having a

customized plan for transformational leadership development can not only reduce this

leadership gap, but can also increase an organizations capability to handle

transformational change (IBM, 2008, 2012; Jørgensen, Owen, & Neus, 2008).

Fourth, the findings in this study can be directly applied for screening or

recruiting executives. As the job function for which executives are hired is already

125

known, these findings could be used as a primer to explore strengths and weaknesses of

prospective candidates, particularly in relation to leadership skills and change

management needed for that job function. This can make the recruitment process more

efficient, and reduce executive failure.

Fifth, targeted programs can be cost effective for the organization. Using the

findings of this study as a primer, leadership development programs may not need to be

all-encompassing or over-arching; rather, only the missing pieces need to be deployed.

With the rapid increase of online or modular courses, offered by numerous providers such

as Lynda.com, General Assembly, Coursera etc., delivering targeted content for specific

learning needs is becoming a widely accepted norm. Typical costs for specific and

modular content courses is much lesser than full courses that extend over a longer period

of time. Of course, in some cases, larger training may be a necessity; however, the

possibility of addressing only the needed gaps, can significantly reduce training costs.

This can also be extended to onboarding programs for new leaders.

Lastly, these findings make succession planning easier. As the name suggests,

succession planning often involves considering executives from multiple different job

functions, for a new and potentially larger role. In such cases, it would be very helpful to

know what skills does an incumbent have, and what skills will need to be developed. As

these findings can help customize the learning agenda, better succession planning is

possible.

Recommendations for Further Research

Based on this study, there are numerous areas for further research, which can

enhance the body of knowledge on this subject matter and address more gaps in research.

126

First, a direct extension of this study could consider analyzing additional job

functions. For various cost and viability reasons, this study focused on four job functions

– Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT. The U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and

Training Administration maintains a national database containing occupational

information for many job functions (O*NET Resource Center, 2014), and a future

research study could pick up additional job functions from this (or other) sources to

conduct a similar analysis. This would significantly enhance the body of knowledge for

those additional job functions, and address the research gap around using job function as

a situational context for transformational leadership. Additionally, this would expand the

portfolio of job function specific transformational leadership skillset.

Second, another extension research study could target new industry sectors.

According to GE Capital, there are 11 distinct industry sectors (GE Capital, 2011), and

this study only targeted two of them. As such, there are a lot of industry sectors whose

executives, in different job functions, can benefit from a similar research.

Third, only mid-size companies were considered for this research. Large

corporations with more complex structures, larger leadership and executive teams, and

expansive functional spans, can significantly benefit by preparing their leaders for

transformational changes that happen on a global scale. As such, this study can be

extended to large organizations with multiple job functions.

The above three recommendations are specific extensions along each of the three

dimensions – size, industry sectors, and job functions – that this study incorporated. A

fourth extension, which was beyond the scope of this study, would be to analyze gender

or generational cohort based differences in the use of transformational leadership skills,

127

either in conjunction with any or all of the three dimensions listed above, or

independently. Millennials are a sizeable proportion of the workforce today, and this is

further expected to grow. There is an abundance of literature around how millennials

differ in their style, preferences, and execution of various tasks on the job. This implies

that if the leaders of tomorrow are going to emerge from this generational cohort, it is

imperative to analyze how well they are prepared for leading transformational changes.

Similarly, there could be gender based differences in the use of transformational

leadership skills. This study found that situational context matters, and so the next set of

situational context for analyses, could be gender and generational cohort. This can

provide further specificity with respect to transformational leadership skill development

and training.

The Center for Creative Leadership (2015) has been conducting studies on

leadership development at all levels in an organization, given its importance.

Researchers on this subject have also proposed that leadership skills research should

target various levels (“strata”) in an organization (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson,

2007). As such, a fifth recommendation for further research, based on this this study,

could be to analyze the similarities and differences in transformational leadership

domains and skills across the different levels of the organization. If plausible, this can be

further sub-divided by job function or gender, but the overarching benefit could be to

customize transformational leadership development for each level in an organization.

Sixth, a new research study could be commissioned to analyze how and what

personality traits are connected to transformational leadership skillset portfolios. As this

study found differences in skillset for each job function, it would be worthwhile to

128

examine how much of a natural fit certain personality types are with the portfolio for a

given job function. This can provide an estimate for the level of effort needed to develop

such skills, given people have different personality types and traits.

Seventh, future research could attempt studying the overlap between traditional

leadership skills and transformational leadership skills. Leadership development has

existed in organizations for a long time, and as such, leaders are already getting trained

on certain things today, as a part of their regular job profile. This future research could

try to bridge the gap between what exists and what is now needed in today’s world,

further reducing the leadership gap problem discussed in this study (Leslie, 2009).

Finally, a longitudinal study could be undertaken to study how leadership skills

and domains have changed, for any given job function, over time. This time-series

analysis, focusing on job functions, can provide valuable clues in terms of the volatility

of needs for leading organizations and changes. Functions with relatively quickly

changing needs for leadership skills would likely benefit from increased attention

towards specific and targeted development, as opposed to ones where the needs change

infrequently.

Some of the recommendations for future research, presented above, require

additional demographic information. In this respect, researchers could consider adding a

set of demographic questions, which are not personally identifiable data points, to the

survey. Doing so may provide data points to slice the data for additional analysis, such as

the ones based on gender and generational cohort.

129

Concluding Remarks and Reflections

My journey on leadership research started very early, and the seeds for this study

were planted back in the 1970s before I even knew it. I grew up on a university campus,

and in my childhood days, I spent a lot of time with my father, a prominent academic

scholar, hearing stories about how business leaders transformed the world. This was not

extraordinary, as my father’s area of specialization was Organizational Behavior and

Personnel Management. By the time I became a teenager, I had learned a great deal

about Lee Iacocca, John D. Rockefeller, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, and many others. I

learnt not only about success stories, but also about business failures. This often left me

wondering about what would make leaders successful in their jobs, or how leadership

failures could be minimized. I would ask my father the same question, and he would

explain to me, in language that I could understand, multitudes of leadership theories and

studies that tried to explain this. This left me further intrigued, and I knew that someday,

I would make my own attempt to try and understand this.

The world of business has changed significantly since then. Not only have I seen

this change, I have also experienced it, as an executive and a member of the business

community myself. It is my passion towards this subject area that drew me to conduct

this study, and I am humbled that I had an opportunity to do so.

At the onset of this journey, I started by reviewing literature on understanding the

importance of situational context in leadership. I realized that the subject matter on

leadership is vast, and situational context studies are also widespread; however, I found

that there were still many gaps which did not sufficiently answer how the existing

knowledge could be applied in a targeted manner, to maximize the chances of

130

organizational success. I also picked up the growing importance of addressing

transformational changes, thereby applying the need for targeted development to the

context of transformational leadership. This was the genesis of this study. I had often

been advised that a good dissertation topic stands at the intersection of the researcher’s

passion for that subject, and a practical need for the outcome; this topic addressed both

those dimensions.

Under the guidance of subject matter experts – my dissertation chair and my

committee members – I then focused on honing in on the purpose for this study and

developing the research questions that needed to be answered. I also started actively

thinking about who I would target for data collection, how would I go about doing this,

and what instruments would I use. After reviewing multiple options, I selected the TLSi

as my choice of instrument, and went through an elaborate process of defining the

population and sample. Following BUIRBs clearly defined processes for each stage of

this journey, I launched this study.

Once the data was collected, I looked at numerous ways to analyze it so that the

findings would be insightful and actionable. After this comprehensive analysis, findings

were extracted and implications were developed. It was a humbling moment to see the

findings come together. As a researcher, I was curious to see the output, and so I was

fascinated with the findings.

This study concluded that the situational context of job function matters for

transformational leadership development. As such, this can potentially lead the way to

expansion of the body of knowledge around “personalization” of leadership development.

We live in a world today that is characterized with hyper-segmentation and fine-grained

131

targeted messaging; so, it would be imperative to think of leadership development

specialization as a personalization initiative, which can account for transformational

leadership skill development by gender, job function, age or generational cohort, or

experience level.

Curiosity in learning is what fuels growth in knowledge, and every question that

is answered, paves the way for new questions. I feel elated thinking about the

possibilities for answering these new questions, which is why I have presented many

possibilities for future research. I am truly grateful for the support of my family,

teachers, and committee members, for their help in this research, and I hope that

organizations can use the implications for actions, discussed earlier, for advancing

transformational leadership development and maximizing organizational success.

132

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. (2014). Aaker on branding: 20 principles that drive success. New York, NY:

Morgan James Publishing.

Aaker, D. A. (2008a). Marketing in a silo world: The new cmoc. California

Management Review, 51(1), 144-156. doi: 10.2307/41166473

Aaker, D. A. (2008b). Spanning silos: The new cmo imperative. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business Press.

Aanstoos, C. M. (2014). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salem Press.

Abdi, H. e. (2003). Factor Rotations in Factor Analyses Encyclopedia of Social Sciences

Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Abouelenein, M. S. (2012). CIOs transformational leadership behaviors in community

colleges: A comparison-based approach to improving job satisfaction of

information technology workers. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3535722)

Adams, S. (2013). The worst CEO screw-ups of 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/12/18/the-worst-ceo-screw-ups-

of-2013/

AllBusiness.com. (2008, January). The benefits of outsourcing for small businesses. The

New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com /allbusiness/ AB52 21

523_primary

Amayah, A. T., & Gedro, J. (2014). Understanding generational diversity: Strategic

human resource management and development across the generational "divide".

133

New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 26(2), 36-

48.

Anderson, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2010). Ten common mistakes in leading

transformational change. Retrieved from http://changeleadersnetwork.com/free-

resources/ten-common-mistakes-in-leading-transformation

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010a). Beyond change management (2nd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010b). The change leader's roadmap (2nd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010c). Three types of organizational change:

Beyond change management (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010d). What is transformation, and why is it so hard

to manage? Retrieved from http://www.beingfirst.com/resources /pdf/SR

WhatIsTransformation_v3_101006.pdf

Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010e). Ten common mistakes in leading

transformational change. Retrieved from http://changeleadersnetwork.com/free-

resources/ten-common-mistakes-in-leading-transformation

Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformational and charismatic leadership. In D. V. Day & J.

Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 256-288). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

134

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. doi:

10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4

Araoz, C. F. (2007). Great people decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Introduction: Leadership development: Micro, macro, or both?

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 524-525. doi:

10.2307/40214411

Armstrong, G. (2005). Leadership competencies: The changing landscape. HR.com.

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants & Institute of Management

Accountants. (2012). The changing role of the CFO. Retrieved from

http://www.accaglobal. com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/finance-

transformation/pol-afb-croc.pdf

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

25(8), 951–968. doi: 10.1002/job.283

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of

leadership:Cases on transactional and transformational leadership: Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

Balakrishnan, L., & Prathiba, S. (2011). Accelerating performance for future leaders-

developing leadership competencies in financial institutions. SIES Journal of

Management, 7(2), 97-101.

Bancroft, D. (2016). Political Intelligence. Retrieved from

http://www.ttmassociates.com/resources/political-intelligence/

135

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and

emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161. doi: 10.1108/01437730010325040

Bascuas, K. (2015). Leaders are made not born. Associations Now, 11(1), 48-53.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

Free Press

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational

impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-

32. doi: 10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Redwood

City, CA: MindGarden.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

and managerial applications. New Yor, NY: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.): Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bertram, D. (n. d.). Likert Scales... are the meaning of life. Retrieved from

http://www.al-huda.net/2012/PA/2014/topic-dane-likert.pdf

Birkinshaw, J. (2013, May). Why corporate giants fail to change. Fortune. Retrieved

from http://fortune.com/2013/05/08/why-corporate-giants-fail-to-change/

136

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:

Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism

about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733-

753. doi: 10.1002/job.342

Bradt, G. B., Check, J. A., & Pedraza, J. E. (2011). The new leader's 100-day action

plan: How to take charge, build your team, and get immediate results. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Breene, R. T. S., Nunes, P. F., & Shill, W. E. (2007). The chief strategy officer. Harvard

Business Review, 85(10), 84-93.

Brewer, G. (1997, July). The 7 traits of great sales leaders. Highbeam Business.

Retrieved from http://business.highbeam.com/136996/article-1G1-20942877/7-

traits-great-sales-leaders

Brinker, S. (2009). Why IT and marketing are diametrically opposed. Retrieved from

http://chiefmartec.com/2009/01/why-it-and-marketing-are-diametrically-

opposed/

Bureau of National Affairs. (2011). Transforming sales through managers and focus.

Report on Salary Surveys, 18(10), 13-14.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Calarco, A., & Gurvis, J. (2006). Adaptability: Responding effectively to change:

Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions,

persistent myths and urban legends about likert scales and likert response

formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences 3(3), 106.

137

Caruso, A. (2015). Statistics of US businesses: Employment and payroll summary

report: 2012. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

Carpenter, D. J., Fusfeld, A. R., & Gritzo, L. A. (2010). Leadership skills and styles.

Research Technology Management, 53(6), 58-60.

Cawthon, D. L. (1996). Leadership: The great man theory revisited. Business Horizons,

39(3), 1.

Center for Creative Leadership. (2013). Adapting to organizational change. Greensboro,

NC: CCL Press.

Center for Creative Leadership. (2015). The leadership development roadmap: A guide

for developing successful leaders at all levels. Retrieved from Greensboro, NC:

http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/programs/LDR.pdf

Chand, S. (2015). Great man theory and trait theory of leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/leadership/great-man-theory-and-trait-theory-

of-leadership/28004/

Chemers, M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership: Psychology Press.

Chia-Feng, Y. (2014). CEO overconfidence, CEO compensation, and earnings

manipulation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 167-193.

doi: 10.2308/jmar-50722

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and

servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis.

Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433-440. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1470-8

138

Christensen, L. T., Firat, A. F., & Cornelissen, J. (2009). New tensions and challenges in

integrated communications. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 14(2), 207 - 219. doi: 10.1108/13563280910953870

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. K. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive

revolution in change (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cooperstein, D. (2012, July). Marketing change management - Like it or not, you have

to figure it out. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ david

cooperstein/2012/07/11/marketing-change-management-like-it-or-not-you-have-

to-figure-it-out/

Corporate Executive Board. (2010a, May). The changing landscape of corporate IT.

Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/

may2010/ca20100521_661911.htm

Corporate Executive Board. (2010b). The future of corporate IT: How to prepare for

five radical shifts in IT value, ownership, and role. Arlington, VA: Corporate

Executive Board.

Corporate Executive Board (2014). Top Insights for the World's Leading Executives.

Washington, DC, Corporate Executive Board.

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2009). Survey research: Process and limitations.

International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 16(1), 9-15.

Cox, J. (2012). CEOs gone wild: What's wrong with corporate America? Retrieved

from http://www.cnbc.com/id/47416397#

Crowley, M. C. (2011). Lead from the heart: Transformational leadership for the 21st

century. Bloomington, IN: Balboa Press.

139

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2012). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In D. V. Day

& J. Antonakis (Eds.), The Nature of Leadership (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4),

183-195. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.183

Deaux, J., & Gara, A. (2013, August). Kodak: The end of an American moment. The

Street. Retrieved from http://www.thestreet.com/story/11995806/1/kodaks-

bankruptcy-manufacturing-a-21st-century-rebirth.html

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and

behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2010.01201.x

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: the role of

developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal

of Applied Psychology(4), 859.

DiCarlo, L. (2002). How Lou Gerstner got IBM to dance. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/2002/11/11/cx_ld_1112gerstner.html

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004).

Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17(2), 177-193. doi: 10.1108/09534810410530601

Dóci, E., & Hofmans, J. (2015). Task complexity and transformational leadership: The

mediating role of leaders' state core self-evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly,

26(2015), 436-447.

140

Eacott, S. (2010). Tenure, functional track and strategic leadership. International

Journal of Educational Management, 24(5), 448-458.

Eastman, R. (2010). Sizing up small-to-medium business (SMB). SMB Research.

Retrieved from http://smbresearch.net/sizing-up-smb/

Ellett, J. (2015, February). New Study Says 6 Changes Will Transform Marketing.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnellett/2015/02/04/new-

study-says-6-changes-that-will-transform-marketing/

Erickson, T. (2009, February). The four biggest reasons for generational conflict in

teams. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/02/the-

four-biggest-reasons-for-i/

Fallon, N. (2014, October). Leadership failures: 5 stumbling blocks for bosses. Business

News Daily. Retrieved from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7293-why-

leaders-fail.html

Feuer, M. (2014). How do others see you? Try swallowing hard and looking in the

mirror. Smart Business Online.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). Theory of leadership effectiveness. New Yord, NY: McGraw-Hill

Inc.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Finkelstein, S. (2004). Why start executives fail:And what you can learn from their

mistakes. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Fleenor, J. W., & Prince, J. M. (1997). Using 360-degree feedback in organizations.

Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

141

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2012). The leadership of organization change: A View from

recent empirical evidence. In R. Woodman, W. Pasmore, & A. B. R. Shani

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 20, pp. 1-36).

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Friedman, T. L. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and

Giroux.

Fune, R. P. (2013). Leadership styles: Perceptions in information technology project

teams (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis

database. (UMI No. 3559926)

Garcia, E. J. (2009). Raising leadership criticality in MBAs. Higher Education, 58(1),

113-130. doi: 10.2307/40269171

Gardner, J. W. (1993). On Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.

GE Capital. (2011). The market that moves America. Retrieved from http://www.middle

marketcenter.org/Media/Documents/the-market-that-moves-america-insights-

perspectives-and-opportunities-from-middle-market-companies_the_ market_

that _moves_america_white_paper.pdf

Gentry, W., Deal, J. J., Stawiski, S., & Ruderman, M. (2012). Are leaders born or

made? Perspectives from the executive suite. Greensboro, NC: Center for

Creative Leadership.

Germain, M. L. (2012). Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and

expertise: Reality or fallacy? Performance Improvement, 51(5), 32-39. doi:

10.1002/pfi.21265

142

Gillis, J., Jr. (2011). Global leadership development: An analysis of talent management,

company types and job functions, personality traits and competencies, and

learning and development methods (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI 3455394)

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-

80.

Gorman, M. F. (2011). A case study in effectively bridging the business skills gap for

the information technology professional. Journal of Education for Business, 86,

17-24. doi: 10.1080/08832321003663348

Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review.

Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153.

Gregory H. Wolf Resigns as Humana President and CEO. (1999). [Press release].

Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com /louisville/stories/1999 /08/02/ daily

6.html

Grier, S. (2009). Leadership skills – The top 5 skills needed for IT leadership roles.

Retrieved from http://itmanagersinbox.com/1257/leadership-skills-

%E2%80%93-the-top-5-skills-needed-for-it-leadership-roles/

Groth, A. (2011, June). 19 amazing ways CEO Howard Schultz saved Starbucks.

Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/howard-

schultz-turned-starbucks-around-2011-6

Gulamhusein, K. (2005). Golden handshakes: Pay for failure and executive dismissals

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses


143

Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs

fail. McKinsey Quarterly(1), 121-126.

Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2008). Transformational leadership:

The transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved from

http://edis.ifas.ufl. edu /pdffiles/HR/HR02000.pdf

Hamelin, G. (2011, September). Consumers Power Transformational Marketing. CRM

Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Columns-

Departments/The-Tipping-Point/Consumers-Power-Transformational-

Marketing-77057.aspx

Hammond, S. A. (1998). The thin book of appreciative inquiry (2nd ed.). Bend, OR:

Think Book Publishing Co.

Harey, J., & Goehring, J. (1981). Statistical methods in education. Arlington, VA:

Information Resources Press.

Harvey, T. R., & Drolet, B. (2006). Building teams, building people. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership.

Educational leadership, 61(7), 8-13.

Harps, L. H. (2003, February). What makes a logistics leader? Inbound Logistics.

Retrieved from http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/what-makes-a-

logistics-leader/

Harris, M. L. (2015). Examining transformational leadership skills of elementary

principals from the perspectives of elementary principals and teachers in school

144

districts located in Riverside county, California (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3684867)

Harvey, T. R., & Drolet, B. (2006). Building teams, building people. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present,

and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-32.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2012). Management of organizational

behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hildebrand, D. K., Ott, R. L., & Gray, J. B. (2005). Basic statistical ideas for managers

(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Hitch, C., & Bennett, B. (2011). How to help leaders succeed: A guide to successful

executive career transitions. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Kenan-Flagler Business

School.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:

Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179

Hoskin, R. (2012). The dangers of self-report. Retrieved from http://www.science brain

waves.com/uncategorized/the-dangers-of-self-report/

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339.

145

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership: Seattle, WA :

University of Washington, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Huang, M. P., & Kao, F. H. (2014). The values-fit based charismatic leadership theory:

The mediation process and multilevel analysis. Chinese Journal of Psychology,

56(2), 215-235.

Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership:A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

IBM. (2006). Expanding the innovation horizon: The global CEO study 2006. Somers,

NY: IBM Corporation.

IBM. (2008). The enterprise of the future IBM global CEO study 2008. Somers, NY:

IBM Corporation.

IBM. (2012). Leading through connections IBM global CEO study 2012. Somers, NY:

IBM Corporation.

Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., Locander, W. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M.

(2005). New directions in sales leadership research. The Journal of Personal

Selling and Sales Management, 25(2), 137-154.

Jackson, E. (2012, January). The seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/02/the-

seven-habits-of-spectacularly-unsuccessful-executives/

Johnson, D. (2011, November). 2 big companies that missed the opportunity to adapt to

new technology. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/overcome-

by-change-the-failure-of-two-companies-to-seize-the-initiative-and-master-

oncoming-change-2011-11

146

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Sage Journals, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/33/7/14.short

Jones and Bartlett Publishers. (n.d.). Factor analysis path analysis, and structural

equation modeling. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Jorgensen, H. H., Owen, L., & Neus, A. (2008). Making change work. Somers, NY:

IBM Corporation.

Kalb, I. (2012, November). Here's where it all started to go wrong for HP. Business

Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/hp-from-healthy-

profits-to-help-please-2012-11

Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership

model in action. Industrial & Commercial Training, 38(1), 23-32. doi:

10.1108/00197850610646016

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of

Management, 5(2), 48-60.

Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational leadership and

commitment: A multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating

processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3),

364 - 387.

Kotter, J. (2012, May). Barriers to change: The real reason behind the Kodak downfall.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter /2012/05/02 /

barriers-to-change-the-real-reason-behind-the-kodak-downfall/

147

Krathwohl, D. R. (2004). Methods of educational and social sciencerResearch: An

integrated approach. Waveland Pr Inc.

Lane, N., & Piercy, N. (2004). Strategic customer management:. Designing a profitable

future for your sales organization. European Management Journal, 22, 659-668.

doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.029

Larick, K., & White, P. C. (2012). Transformational Leadership Skills Inventory

[Measurement instrument].

Leslie, J. B. (2009). The leadership gap. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.

Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative

research. The American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435-452. doi:

10.2307/30038950

Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2004). Marketing engineering - computer assisted

marketing analysis and planning (Revised 2nd ed.). State College, PA: Trafford

Publishing.

Lima, L. A. C. (2006). Leadership in the information age: How chief information

officers lead information technology workers. (Doctorial dissertation). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3216860).

Liu, J., Siu, O.-L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-

being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 454-479. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-

0597.2009.00407.x

148

Llopis, G. (2011). The lack of cultural intelligence is damaging our enterprises and our

economy. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ glennllopis

/2011/05/30/the-lack-of-cultural-intelligence-is-damaging-our-enterprises-and-

our-economy/#149391d11e78

Llorens, J. J., & Battaglio, R. P. (2010). Human resources management in a changing

world: Reassessing public human resources management education. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 30(1), 112-132. doi: 10.1177/0734371 X09351

828

Lubke, G. H., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models

for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group

comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(4), 514-534.

Lund, T. (2012). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: Some arguments

for mixed methods research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,

56(2), 155-165. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.568674

McCallum, J. S. (2001). Adapt or die. Ivey Business Journal (November/December

2001).

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and

Practice, 1(1), 3-30.

149

Malshe, A. (2009). Strategic sales organizations: Transformation challenges and

facilitators within the sales–marketing interface. Journal of Strategic Marketing,

17(3-4), 271-289. doi: 10.1080/09652540903064811

Management Study Guide. (2008). Great man theory of leadership. Retrieved from

http://managementstudyguide.com/great-man-theory.htm

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance

in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-270. doi: 10.1037/h0044587

Marzano, J., & Samant, N. (2011, January). Sales and finance work together in the best-

run companies. Sales & Marketing Management. Retrieved from

http://www.sales andmarketing.com/article/sales-and-finance-work-together-

best-run-companies

Matuszak, G., Hanley, R., & Rios, P. (2013). Technology innovation survey 2013: The

changing landscape of disruptive technologies. Retrieved from https://www.

kpmg.com/CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/KPMG-

technology-innovation-survey-2013-O-201311.pdf

McKee, A., Boyatzis, R., & Johnston, F. (2008). Becoming a resonant leader. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business Press.

McKiernan, P. (2010). Poll shows Americans still disappointed in leaders. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based

inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

150

Melaia, S., Abratt, R., & Bick, G. (2008). Competencies of marketing managers in South

Africa. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(3), 233-246. doi:

10.2307/40470385

Merritt, C. (n.d.). What size company is considered a mid-size company? Houston

Chronical. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/size-company-

considered-midsize-company-71776.html

Messmer, M. (2006). 10 qualities of successful financial executives. Strategic Finance.

Retrieved from http://www.imanet.org/docs/default-source/sf/6careers-

pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership:

Past, present, and future. In D. V. Day & D. V. Day (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of leadership and organizations. (pp. 221-240). New York, NY, US:

Oxford University Press.

Minitab. (2016). Interpret all statistics and graphs for simple regression. Retrieved from

http://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab-express/1/help-and-how-to/modeling-

statistics/regression/how-to/simple-regression/interpret-the-results/all-statistics-

and-graphs/#normal-probability-plot-of-the-residuals

Moore, M. (2008). Spotlight on executive onboarding. PA Times, 31(10), 5-5.

Moore, S., Grunberg, L., & Krause, A. J. (2015). Generational differences in workplace

expectations: A comparison of production and professional workers. Current

Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological

Issues, 34(2), 346-362. doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9261-2

151

Moravec, M., & Schreiner, P. J. (1967). Adjusting managerial acts to behavioral

concepts. California Management Review, 10(2), 31-34.

Morley, M. J., Gunnigle, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Collings, D. G. (2006). New directions in

the roles and responsibilities of the HRM function. Personnel Review, 35(6),

609-617. doi: 10.1108/00483480610702683

Morral, E. J. (2012). Transformational leadership and creativity: An in-depth analysis of

mediating constructs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3502647)

Moua, M. (2010). Culturally intelligent leadership: Leading through intercultural

interactions. New York, NY: BusinessExpert Press.

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills

strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154-166. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.005

Munarriz, R. A. (2004). Saving America online. Retrieved from http://www.fool.com

/investing/small-cap/2004/11/18/saving-america-online.aspx

Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Tian Lu, K. (2005). Minimum sample size

recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of

Testing, 5(2), 159-168. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4

Munir, K. (2012, February). The demise of Kodak: Five reasons [Web log post]. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/26/the-

demise-of-kodak-five-reasons/

Murph, Y. U. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between

transformational leadership during complex organizational change and worker

152

and organizational outcomes in public and private sector organizations

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses


Myatt, M. (2012, September). A leadership job description. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/09/05/a-leadership-job-description/

Nahavandi, A. (2009). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Nayar, V. (2013, August). Three differences between managers and leaders. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-

transiti

National Center for the Middle Market. (2014). The national center for the middle

market - Info sheet. Retrieved from http://www.middlemarketcenter.org /Media/

Documents/NCMM_InfoSheet_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Newman, R. (2010, August). 10 great companies that lost their edge. U.S. News.

Retrieved from http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2010/08/19/10-

great-companies-that-lost-their-edge

Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011). Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit

transformational leadership behaviors? - An experience sampling method study

on the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22, 344-352. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.009

NIST/SEMATECH. (2012). e-Handbook of dtatistical methods Retrieved from

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/normprpl.htm

153

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

O'Brien, K. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2016). Managing employees' occupational stress. In A.

M. Rossi, J. A. Meurs, P. L. Perrewé, A. M. Rossi, J. A. Meurs, & P. L. Perrewé

(Eds.), Stress and quality of working life: Interpersonal and occupation‐based

stress. (pp. 181-198). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.

O*NET Resource Center. (2014). About O*NET. Retrieved from http://www.onetcenter.

org/overview.html

Olanoff, D. (2012). A look at Yahoo’s CEOs from 1995 to 2012 (all six of them).

Retrieved from http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/14/a-look-at-yahoos-

ceos-from-1995-to-2012-all-six-of-them/

Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that

researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,

8(2).

Osterhaus, E. (2013). The HR department of 2020:6 bold predictions. Retrieved from

http://new-talent-times.softwareadvice.com/the-hr-department-of-2020-413/

Papworth, M. A., Milne, D., & Boak, G. (2009). An exploratory content analysis of

situational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 28(7), 593-606.

doi: 10.1108/02621710910972706

Parry, T. (2008). Dump the silos. Multichannel Merchant, 4, 61-62.

Patten, M. L. (2012). Understanding Research Methods. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak

Publishing.

154

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations:

Tools for talking when sare high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer

- ThepPower to change anything. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Pawar, B. S. (2003). Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(7), 397-406. doi:

10.1108/01437730310498596

Petran, M. P. (2008). An exploratory study of executive transformational leadership,

wisdom, and emotional intelligence in management process turnaround

situations (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertration and

Theses. (UMI No. 3291733)

Petty, M. (2011). The dark side of leadership: Catastrophic Failure. Strategic Leadership

Review, 1(1). Retrieved from https://submissions .scholasticahq. com

/supporting_files/385/attachment_versions/382

Piccolo, R. F., & Buengeler, C. (2013). Behavioral approach to leadership. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Piercy, N. F., & Lane, N. (2003). Transformation of the traditional salesforce:

Imperatives for intelligence, interface and integration. Journal of Marketing

Management, 19(5/6), 563-582.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009, November). Financial leadership in challenging times:

Challenges and opportunities for today’s CFOs. PriceWaterHouseCoopers.

Retrieved from //www.pwc.com/en_US/us/increasing-finance-function-

effectiveness /assets /financial-leadership-in-challenging-times.pdf

155

Privitera, G. J. (2014). Survey and correlational research designs. Research Methods for

the Behavioral Sciences (pp. 225 - 260). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Race, S. (2016). Factor analysis. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Advanced Analytics.

Raelin, J. D., & Cataldo, C. G. (2011). Whither middle management? Empowering

interface and the failure of organizational change. Journal of Change

Management, 11(4), 481-507. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630509

Ravichandran, T., & Nagabrahmam, D. (2000). Revisiting the dichotomy: Managers

versus leaders. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(4), 486-506. doi:

10.2307/27767681

Reffo, G. (2014). Leadership PQ: How political intelligence sets successful leaders

apart, 2234.

Regan, T. (2014, July). Dov Charney just the latest CEO gone wild, USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2014/07/23/

dov-charney-american-apparel-sex-allegations/13040889/

Richards, L. (2015). Why is change important in an organization? Houston Chronicle.

Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/change-important-organization-

728.html

Riddle, D. (2009). Executive integration - Equipping transitioning leaders for success.

Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership

Riggio, R. E. (2009). What 100 years of research shows about effective leadership.

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-

leadership/200911/what-100-years-research-shows-about-effective-leadership

156

Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, applications.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sala, F. (2001). It's Lonely at the Top: Executives' Emotional Intelligence Self (Mis)

Perceptions. Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in

Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/executive

_emotional_intelligence360.pdf

Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative

debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.

Samuel, M. (2006). Creating the accountable organization. Katonah, NY: Xephor Press.

Saxby, A. (2013). What's the difference between sales and marketing? Retrieved from

http://www.chiefoutsiders.com/blog/bid/97817/What-s-the-Difference-Between-

Sales-and-Marketing

Schultz, D. E., Cole, B., & Bailey, S. (2004). Implementing the 'connect the dots'

approach to marketing communication. International Journal of Advertising,

23(4), 455-477.

Schutt, R. K. (2012). Survey research. Investigating the social world: The process and

practice of research (pp. 159 - 185). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,

Inc.

Scott, C. J. (2007). The dimensions of marketing leadership: Exploring heterogeneity

and relationship with perceived effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). Available

from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3393807)

157

Scott, C. J. (2013). Corporate marketing leaders: The key attributes. Journal of Business

Strategy, 34(1), 41-46. doi: 10.1108/02756661311301774

Sharma, J. K. (2004). Business statistics. Delhi, India: Pearson Education.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:

Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714. doi:

10.2307/30040662

Skinner, S. J., & Kelley, S. W. (2006). Transforming sales organizations through

appreciative inquiry. Psychology & Marketing, 23(2), 77-93. doi:

10.1002/mar.20101

Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). Leading now, leading the future:

What senior HR leaders need to know. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human

Resource Management.

Statistics Solutions. (2016). Factor analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.statisticssolutions.com/factor-analysis-sem-factor-analysis/

Stewart, J. E. (2013). Leadership style and learning organization: A survey of

information technology professionals (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3564320)

Stoddard, N., & Wyckoff, C. (2008). The costs of CEO failure. Retrieved from

http://chiefexecutive.net/the-costs-of-ceo-failure

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: Survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New

York, NY, US: Free Press.

158

Stuart-Menteth, H., Wilson, H., & Baker, S. (2006). Escaping the channel silo:

Researching the new consumer. International Journal of Market Research,

48(4), 415-437.

Szilagyi, A. D. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (1984). Matching managers to strategies: A

review and suggested framework. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 626-

637. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1984.4277370

Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.

The Economist. (2012, October). The mighty middle. The Economist. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21564893-medium-sized-firms-are-

unsung-heroes-america%E2%80%99s-economy

The Economist. (2015). The rise of the marketer: Driving engagement, experience, and

revenue. London, UK: The Economist.

The Midmarket Institute. (2015). Midsize companies. Retrieved from http://www. Mid

market.org/user-type/midsize-companies

Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational

performance? Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 388-400.

Thompson, G., & Glaso, L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: A test from three

perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544.

doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130

Thornton, P. B. (2011). Why some leaders succeed and others fail. Leader to Leader,

2011(60), 17-21.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19.

159

Tobak, S. (2013, December 30). The worst CEO of 2013. Fox Business. Retrieved from

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2013/12/30/worst-ceo-2013/

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

Turner, J. R. A., Müller, R. A., & Dulewicz, V. A. (2009). Comparing the leadership

styles of functional and project managers. International Journal of Managing

Projects in Business/Emerald, 198.

Tysiac, K. (2013). Managing change, people, and transparency: An interview with

former FASB chairman Robert Herz. Journal of Accountancy. Retrieved from

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2013/jul/20137709.html

U. S. Census Bureau. (2015). Statistics about business size (including small business)

from the U.S. census bureau. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau.

Ulrich, D., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2015). Are we there yet? What's next for HR? Human

Resource Management Review, 25(2), 188-204. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.004

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh,

PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership

matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived

environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143.

doi: 10.2307/3069341

Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity:

The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate.

Human Relations, 63(8), 1105-1128. doi: 10.1177/0018726709354132

160

Wang, X.-H., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of

transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6),

1134-1144. doi: 10.1037/a0020754

Waste Management Chairman Quits, the Second in 9 Months. (1997). [Press release].

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/30/business/waste-

management-chairman-quits-the-second-in-9-months.html

Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all

levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wells, S. J. (2005). Neglecting to help new executives get into the swim of things

quickly can incur enormous organizational costs. HR Magazine, 50.

White, P. C., Harvey, T. R., & Kemper, L. (2007). The politically intelligentl. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Wilson, J. (2014). Managing change successfully. Journal of Accountancy, 217(4), 38-

41.

Winfrey, G. (2014). Midsize companies outpace the broader market. Inc Magazine.

Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/graham-winfrey/why-the-us-middle-market-

is-the-economy-s-growth-engine.html

Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Yarow, J. (2012, May). Here's why Yahoo is doomed to have uninspiring CEOs forever.

Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-ceo-

problems-2012-5

161

Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on

exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,

9(2), 79-94.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zenger, J. (2012). We wait too long to train our leaders. Harvard Business Review,

2012(12).

162

APPENDIX A

Literature Matrix

173

APPENDIX B

Description of the Study

The world of business is changing at a rate faster than it ever has. These changes

can arise due to multiple reasons, such as technology, changing needs of customers,

economy, globalization, environment, and changing demographics. Businesses must

embrace these continuous changes in today’s environment, for their going concern, as

many of these changes have far-reaching impact and are transformational in nature.

Leaders of different job functions – such as Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and

Information Technology – must deal with these transformational changes and their

impact. This situation presents a case for looking into the transformational leadership

characteristics in relation to the job function of the leader.

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study is to identify transformational


Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT using the TLSi (Transformational Leadership Skills

inventory) survey tool. In addition, another purpose of this study is to identify the top 3

domains and top 5 skills for each function, and to determine if significant differences

exist in reported TLSi ratings between the respective groups of executives.

174

APPENDIX C

Consent Forms

INFORMATION ABOUT: An Analysis of Transformational Leadership Skills of

Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and Information Technology Leaders in Relation

to Their Job

RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATOR: Ramendra Singh

THE FOLLOWING WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC SURVEY:

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study is to identify transformational


Marketing, Sales, HR, and IT using the TLSi (Transformational Leadership Skills

inventory) survey tool. In addition, another purpose of this study is to identify the top 3

domains and top 5 skills for each function, and to determine if significant differences

exist in reported TLSi ratings between the respective groups of executives.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may choose not to participate.

If you decide to participate in this electronic survey, you can withdraw at any time. The

survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your responses will be

confidential. The survey questions will pertain to your self-assessment of your

transformational skills and their respective skill domains.

Each participant will be provided with a qualifier variable (G1 through G4) that

will identify the job function domain under which his/her response will be grouped.

Each respondent will be tracked via a code for identification purposes. The researcher

will keep the data safe-guarded in an encrypted, password protected file, which will be

175

stored on a data drive kept under lock and key, to which the researcher will have sole

access. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

No information that identifies you will be released without your separate consent

and that all identifiable information will be protected to the limits allowed by law. If the

study design or the use of the data is to be changed, you will be so informed and your

consent re-obtained. You understand that if you have any questions, comments, or

concerns about the study or the informed consent process, you may write or call the

Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Brandman University, at

16355 Laguna Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92618, (949) 341-7641.

If you have any questions about completing this survey or any aspects of this

research, please contact Isabella Dayton at [email protected] or by phone at

925.548.7931; or Dr. Bill Brown, Advisor, at [email protected].

ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Clicking on the “continue” button indicates that you have

read the informed consent form, and the information presented here, and that you

voluntarily agree to participate. If you do not wish to participate in this electronic

survey, you do not need to continue.

You acknowledge receipt of the complete Informed Consent packet and “Bill of

Rights.” You have read the materials and give your consent to participate in the study.

mailto:[email protected]

176

APPENDIX D

TLSi Survey

190

APPENDIX E

Approval to use TLSi Instrument

TLSi

PERMISSION FOR USE

This will serve as permission for you to use the Transformational Leadership Skills

Inventory (TLSi) created by Dr. Keith Larick and Dr. Patricia White, to collect data for

your Dissertation research. A study An Analysis of Transformational Leadership

Skills of Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, and Information Technology Leaders

in Relation to Their Job". This authorization will extend from December 1, 2015 to

May 30, 2016.

No portion of the TLSi is to be reproduced

191

APPENDIX F

Domain Scores Descriptive Statistics by Job Function Groupings

192

APPENDIX G

Skill Scores Descriptive Statistics by Job Function Groupings

195

APPENDIX H

NPP of Residuals for Each Regression (Response Variable D1 – D10)

200

APPENDIX I

Correlation Between Domain Variables

Correlation Between Domain Variable

Cell contents: correlation coefficient r

p-value

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

D2 0.34

0.00

D3 0.43 0.15

0.00 0.11

D4 0.22 0.41 0.27

0.02 0.00 0.00

D5 0.34 0.33 0.41 0.40

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

D6 0.19 0.43 0.31 0.30 0.41

0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

D7 0.48 0.20 0.39 0.14 0.33 0.39

0.00 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00

D8 0.41 0.25 0.39 0.19 0.32 0.22 0.47

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00

D9 0.38 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.41 0.41 0.36 0.37

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

D10 0.46 0.35 0.25 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.37 0.31 0.36

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

201

APPENDIX J

Correlation Between Skill Variables

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:co

rrel

atio

n c

oef

fici

ent

r

p-v

alu

e

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S1

0S

11

S1

2S

13

S1

4S

15

S1

6S

17

S1

8S

19

S2

0S

21

S2

2S

23

S2

4S

25

S2

6S

27

S2

8S

29

S3

0S

31

S3

2S

33

S3

4S

35

S3

6S

37

S3

8S

39

S4

0

S2

0.3

9

0.0

0

S3

0.2

80

.27

0.0

00

.00

S4

0.2

70

.41

0.2

5

0.0

00

.00

0.0

1

S5

0.3

70

.45

0.0

30

.48

0.0

00

.00

0.7

90

.00

S6

0.2

60

.49

0.1

20

.37

0.4

1

0.0

10

.00

0.2

10

.00

0.0

0

S7

0.4

60

.50

0.1

70

.37

0.4

70

.27

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.00

S8

0.2

60

.37

0.1

90

.24

0.2

80

.22

0.3

9

0.0

10

.00

0.0

40

.01

0.0

00

.02

0.0

0

S9

0.0

80

.22

0.1

90

.24

0.3

10

.16

0.1

50

.10

0.4

00

.02

0.0

40

.01

0.0

00

.08

0.1

20

.28

S1

00

.07

0.1

10

.11

0.0

40

.02

0.0

1-0

.01

0.1

20

.08

0.4

70

.26

0.2

40

.69

0.8

10

.94

0.9

00

.19

0.4

0

S1

10

.01

0.0

90

.23

0.2

60

.22

0.0

80

.14

0.0

00

.51

0.1

2

0.9

50

.36

0.0

10

.01

0.0

20

.38

0.1

50

.96

0.0

00

.21

S1

20

.29

0.2

50

.08

0.2

70

.33

0.1

10

.25

0.2

30

.16

0.3

20

.16

0.0

00

.01

0.4

00

.00

0.0

00

.25

0.0

10

.01

0.0

90

.00

0.1

0

S1

30

.22

0.1

70

.09

0.2

80

.26

0.0

10

.17

0.0

70

.31

0.3

60

.27

0.2

9

0.0

20

.08

0.3

50

.00

0.0

10

.93

0.0

80

.44

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S1

40

.33

0.3

70

.18

0.5

60

.51

0.3

20

.37

0.4

40

.20

0.0

90

.07

0.3

60

.28

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.37

0.4

50

.00

0.0

0

S1

50

.18

0.3

40

.03

0.3

10

.37

0.3

30

.17

0.1

80

.18

0.0

60

.11

0.2

40

.15

0.2

6

0.0

50

.00

0.7

60

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.06

0.0

50

.54

0.2

30

.01

0.1

10

.01

S1

60

.11

0.2

40

.09

0.2

00

.26

0.2

00

.26

0.0

40

.34

0.1

00

.46

0.1

10

.22

0.1

60

.11

0.2

70

.01

0.3

40

.04

0.0

10

.03

0.0

10

.68

0.0

00

.29

0.0

00

.23

0.0

20

.08

0.2

7

S1

70

.27

0.4

10

.19

0.3

60

.38

0.3

90

.40

0.3

00

.07

0.0

10

.10

0.2

20

.16

0.2

40

.42

0.2

2

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.4

50

.93

0.2

90

.02

0.1

00

.01

0.0

00

.02

S1

80

.21

0.4

30

.17

0.2

80

.21

0.3

80

.34

0.0

20

.15

0.1

10

.12

0.2

60

.26

0.2

40

.30

0.1

90

.47

0.0

30

.00

0.0

60

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.82

0.1

20

.27

0.2

00

.01

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.05

0.0

0

S1

90

.38

0.1

70

.24

0.1

30

.17

0.0

20

.20

0.2

20

.07

0.3

5-0

.01

0.3

20

.19

0.1

20

.11

0.0

20

.05

0.0

5

0.0

00

.07

0.0

10

.17

0.0

70

.84

0.0

40

.02

0.4

60

.00

0.8

80

.00

0.0

50

.19

0.2

40

.87

0.6

10

.60

S2

00

.25

0.3

30

.13

0.2

40

.25

0.2

10

.44

0.0

30

.06

0.0

80

.21

0.0

60

.16

0.2

20

.16

0.2

90

.36

0.3

30

.07

202

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:co

rrel

atio

n c

oef

fici

ent

r

p-v

alu

e

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S1

0S

11

S1

2S

13

S1

4S

15

S1

6S

17

S1

8S

19

S2

0S

21

S2

2S

23

S2

4S

25

S2

6S

27

S2

8S

29

S3

0S

31

S3

2S

33

S3

4S

35

S3

6S

37

S3

8S

39

S4

0

S2

10

.26

0.3

00

.08

0.3

60

.36

0.2

10

.29

0.2

00

.23

0.1

50

.07

0.2

00

.43

0.3

20

.25

0.2

10

.40

0.2

70

.28

0.1

8

0.0

10

.00

0.4

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.03

0.0

20

.11

0.4

70

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.05

S2

20

.34

0.3

60

.51

0.4

20

.25

0.3

60

.18

0.2

20

.24

0.0

90

.27

0.0

90

.24

0.3

20

.22

0.1

60

.34

0.3

20

.34

0.1

40

.35

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

60

.02

0.0

10

.33

0.0

00

.37

0.0

10

.00

0.0

20

.09

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.13

0.0

0

S2

30

.45

0.4

10

.25

0.3

30

.34

0.2

50

.38

0.4

20

.11

0.1

10

.11

0.3

00

.24

0.3

20

.34

0.2

30

.35

0.2

30

.30

0.2

50

.40

0.3

5

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.2

60

.24

0.2

60

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

S2

40

.44

0.5

50

.28

0.4

20

.41

0.3

40

.45

0.3

80

.14

-0.0

10

.13

0.2

00

.13

0.4

40

.26

0.2

30

.33

0.2

20

.19

0.3

50

.34

0.2

70

.46

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

40

.95

0.1

70

.03

0.1

60

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.02

0.0

40

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

0

S2

5-0

.09

-0.0

20

.07

0.0

50

.08

0.1

60

.11

-0.0

60

.37

0.0

50

.34

-0.0

70

.15

-0.0

50

.07

0.2

6-0

.04

0.0

7-0

.02

0.1

5-0

.11

0.0

3-0

.06

0.1

1

0.3

40

.86

0.4

40

.60

0.3

90

.10

0.2

50

.51

0.0

00

.61

0.0

00

.44

0.1

10

.62

0.4

40

.01

0.6

90

.44

0.8

30

.10

0.2

30

.74

0.5

40

.24

S2

60

.12

0.1

50

.10

0.1

30

.17

0.1

00

.06

0.0

90

.16

0.2

00

.14

0.2

60

.24

0.1

10

.24

0.1

80

.01

0.0

40

.13

-0.0

10

.08

0.1

50

.13

-0.0

30

.15

0.1

90

.12

0.3

00

.16

0.0

70

.30

0.5

10

.34

0.0

80

.03

0.1

40

.01

0.0

10

.27

0.0

10

.06

0.9

30

.67

0.1

70

.91

0.3

80

.11

0.1

70

.73

0.1

2

S2

70

.31

0.3

80

.15

0.3

10

.38

0.2

10

.24

0.1

20

.26

0.1

30

.12

0.2

70

.36

0.3

20

.29

0.3

20

.24

0.3

10

.20

0.2

40

.38

0.2

60

.39

0.3

30

.11

0.4

0

0.0

00

.00

0.1

20

.00

0.0

00

.03

0.0

10

.19

0.0

10

.15

0.2

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

30

.01

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.2

60

.00

S2

80

.04

0.0

80

.27

0.2

20

.21

-0.0

30

.15

0.0

00

.32

0.0

60

.28

0.1

40

.25

0.0

40

.01

0.2

50

.22

0.1

10

.28

0.1

00

.28

0.1

30

.20

0.1

70

.12

0.0

70

.37

0.6

60

.39

0.0

00

.02

0.0

20

.79

0.1

20

.97

0.0

00

.55

0.0

00

.13

0.0

10

.64

0.9

40

.01

0.0

20

.22

0.0

00

.29

0.0

00

.18

0.0

30

.07

0.1

90

.49

0.0

0

S2

90

.25

0.3

30

.40

0.2

60

.35

0.1

70

.41

0.2

40

.40

0.0

70

.24

0.2

10

.21

0.2

20

.28

0.2

10

.43

0.2

50

.18

0.2

50

.23

0.3

20

.25

0.2

40

.15

0.2

30

.42

0.3

6

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.08

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.46

0.0

10

.02

0.0

20

.02

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

60

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.1

20

.01

0.0

00

.00

S3

00

.20

0.1

80

.28

0.2

90

.37

0.3

20

.15

0.2

00

.30

0.1

60

.20

0.1

30

.19

0.4

10

.21

0.2

00

.30

0.1

50

.26

0.1

70

.28

0.3

40

.29

0.4

00

.22

0.1

80

.25

0.2

60

.33

0.0

40

.05

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

10

.03

0.0

00

.09

0.0

30

.17

0.0

40

.00

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.12

0.0

10

.08

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.05

0.0

10

.00

0.0

0

S3

10

.22

0.2

50

.06

0.1

20

.18

0.2

20

.18

0.0

20

.20

0.1

40

.24

0.1

70

.29

0.0

50

.16

0.3

40

.16

0.2

80

.22

0.2

50

.36

0.1

40

.31

0.1

60

.03

0.2

10

.43

0.2

00

.15

0.1

0

0.0

20

.01

0.5

50

.21

0.0

50

.02

0.0

60

.84

0.0

30

.14

0.0

10

.06

0.0

00

.59

0.0

80

.00

0.0

80

.00

0.0

20

.01

0.0

00

.15

0.0

00

.10

0.7

50

.03

0.0

00

.03

0.1

10

.28

S3

20

.20

0.2

20

.19

0.2

70

.21

0.1

30

.18

0.3

40

.19

0.3

80

.09

0.3

70

.15

0.3

50

.24

0.0

40

.13

0.2

20

.43

0.0

90

.15

0.2

20

.30

0.1

30

.03

0.1

10

.10

0.0

50

.16

0.2

10

.17

0.0

40

.02

0.0

50

.00

0.0

20

.18

0.0

60

.00

0.0

40

.00

0.3

70

.00

0.1

10

.00

0.0

10

.66

0.1

80

.02

0.0

00

.36

0.1

10

.02

0.0

00

.18

0.7

40

.25

0.3

00

.59

0.0

90

.03

0.0

7

S3

30

.33

0.3

70

.26

0.2

10

.32

0.2

60

.36

0.1

40

.12

0.0

30

.14

0.2

10

.22

0.1

10

.20

0.2

00

.32

0.3

30

.19

0.2

00

.26

0.2

50

.42

0.3

20

.10

0.1

50

.40

0.2

40

.39

0.1

30

.30

0.1

1

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.13

0.2

10

.73

0.1

30

.03

0.0

20

.26

0.0

40

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.03

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.2

90

.12

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.19

0.0

00

.26

S3

40

.12

0.1

40

.20

0.2

00

.03

0.1

00

.11

0.2

10

.21

0.2

30

.15

0.1

00

.13

0.1

40

.09

0.2

80

.13

0.1

60

.27

0.1

00

.30

0.2

70

.16

0.1

90

.14

0.0

80

.19

0.1

70

.22

0.1

60

.16

0.3

40

.11

0.2

10

.12

0.0

30

.04

0.7

30

.31

0.2

60

.03

0.0

30

.01

0.1

10

.27

0.1

80

.14

0.3

70

.00

0.1

70

.10

0.0

00

.29

0.0

00

.00

0.0

90

.04

0.1

40

.42

0.0

50

.08

0.0

20

.08

0.0

80

.00

0.2

6

S3

50

.28

0.2

80

.16

0.1

70

.35

0.1

20

.26

0.0

50

.22

0.0

90

.28

0.1

90

.15

0.1

00

.35

0.2

90

.18

0.1

60

.21

0.2

10

.29

0.2

00

.45

0.1

80

.05

0.3

20

.41

0.1

90

.26

0.1

50

.40

0.2

20

.30

0.1

3

0.0

00

.00

0.0

90

.07

0.0

00

.22

0.0

10

.62

0.0

20

.36

0.0

00

.04

0.1

20

.27

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.09

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.05

0.6

00

.00

0.0

00

.04

0.0

10

.12

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.16

S3

60

.26

0.2

00

.24

0.1

60

.18

0.1

60

.13

0.0

50

.18

0.1

80

.14

0.1

50

.21

0.1

30

.07

0.2

90

.21

0.2

80

.25

0.1

60

.18

0.2

50

.12

0.1

10

.12

-0.0

10

.17

0.1

00

.14

0.1

10

.17

0.3

00

.13

0.3

30

.01

0.0

10

.03

0.0

10

.09

0.0

50

.08

0.1

60

.62

0.0

50

.06

0.1

40

.12

0.0

20

.17

0.4

40

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

10

.10

0.0

50

.01

0.2

00

.24

0.2

00

.91

0.0

60

.30

0.1

50

.24

0.0

80

.00

0.1

80

.00

0.9

1

S3

70

.16

0.2

00

.19

0.1

10

.17

0.1

30

.17

0.0

80

.46

0.1

80

.35

0.1

40

.29

0.1

80

.17

0.5

40

.25

0.2

60

.16

0.2

60

.20

0.3

30

.20

0.1

80

.33

0.1

60

.29

0.3

20

.31

0.2

70

.31

0.2

30

.28

0.3

50

.22

0.3

0

0.0

90

.03

0.0

40

.22

0.0

70

.16

0.0

70

.38

0.0

00

.06

0.0

00

.14

0.0

00

.06

0.0

70

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.0

90

.01

0.0

30

.00

0.0

30

.06

0.0

00

.09

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

S3

80

.17

0.0

90

.33

0.1

90

.07

-0.0

60

.15

0.0

30

.24

0.2

80

.21

0.1

60

.39

0.2

0-0

.05

0.2

10

.14

0.2

50

.31

0.1

60

.29

0.3

10

.05

0.0

50

.13

0.1

10

.20

0.1

90

.14

0.2

40

.19

0.2

10

.08

0.3

10

.06

0.3

60

.33

0.0

70

.32

0.0

00

.04

0.4

30

.53

0.1

20

.79

0.0

10

.00

0.0

30

.08

0.0

00

.03

0.5

70

.02

0.1

40

.01

0.0

00

.09

0.0

00

.00

0.6

30

.57

0.1

50

.24

0.0

40

.05

0.1

40

.01

0.0

40

.02

0.3

80

.00

0.5

50

.00

0.0

0

S3

90

.13

0.2

60

.08

0.2

70

.27

0.2

70

.14

0.0

40

.53

0.1

10

.23

0.1

40

.28

0.1

00

.17

0.3

30

.25

0.2

80

.09

0.2

40

.24

0.1

40

.13

0.2

10

.35

0.2

40

.23

0.3

10

.28

0.4

00

.24

0.0

50

.21

0.2

80

.15

0.2

80

.34

0.2

9

0.1

80

.01

0.3

90

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

30

.66

0.0

00

.23

0.0

10

.15

0.0

00

.31

0.0

60

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.3

20

.01

0.0

10

.14

0.1

70

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.57

0.0

20

.00

0.1

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

S4

00

.25

0.1

60

.21

0.2

10

.22

0.1

50

.13

-0.0

30

.31

0.2

10

.37

-0.0

20

.28

0.1

00

.04

0.5

40

.13

0.1

50

.08

0.3

40

.16

0.2

60

.14

0.2

90

.31

0.1

00

.31

0.2

50

.34

0.2

90

.26

0.0

70

.23

0.4

00

.20

0.2

70

.62

0.2

10

.32

0.0

10

.09

0.0

30

.03

0.0

20

.11

0.1

70

.77

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.86

0.0

00

.30

0.6

80

.00

0.1

80

.12

0.3

90

.00

0.0

80

.00

0.1

40

.00

0.0

00

.30

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.46

0.0

10

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

0

203

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:co

rrel

atio

n c

oef

fici

ent

r

p-v

alu

e

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S1

0S

11

S1

2S

13

S1

4S

15

S1

6S

17

S1

8S

19

S2

0S

21

S2

2S

23

S2

4S

25

S2

6S

27

S2

8S

29

S3

0S

31

S3

2S

33

S3

4S

35

S3

6S

37

S3

8S

39

S4

0

S4

10

.05

0.1

50

.09

0.0

50

.22

0.1

60

.27

0.1

20

.40

0.0

80

.26

-0.1

40

.19

0.0

40

.12

0.3

20

.11

0.2

50

.01

0.2

30

.06

0.0

9-0

.01

0.1

00

.53

0.2

00

.33

0.2

00

.40

0.2

20

.18

0.0

70

.21

0.2

80

.24

0.1

40

.32

0.2

20

.29

0.3

3

0.6

00

.12

0.3

70

.60

0.0

20

.09

0.0

00

.22

0.0

00

.41

0.0

10

.13

0.0

40

.71

0.1

90

.00

0.2

40

.01

0.8

80

.02

0.5

60

.36

0.8

90

.31

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.02

0.0

60

.45

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.15

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.00

S4

20

.22

0.1

50

.11

0.2

10

.18

0.3

30

.23

-0.0

10

.23

0.0

00

.15

0.1

00

.06

0.1

30

.19

0.0

30

.23

0.3

30

.05

0.1

20

.27

0.1

80

.04

0.1

20

.23

0.1

50

.33

0.1

60

.23

0.2

30

.17

0.0

20

.20

0.1

30

.16

0.0

30

.05

0.1

90

.19

0.1

1

0.0

20

.12

0.2

50

.03

0.0

60

.00

0.0

20

.95

0.0

11

.00

0.1

20

.29

0.5

40

.17

0.0

40

.75

0.0

20

.00

0.6

20

.22

0.0

00

.05

0.7

00

.22

0.0

10

.10

0.0

00

.09

0.0

10

.01

0.0

70

.87

0.0

30

.18

0.1

00

.76

0.6

00

.05

0.0

40

.24

S4

30

.11

0.3

10

.21

0.3

80

.34

0.3

10

.30

0.2

20

.28

-0.0

90

.25

0.1

20

.20

0.2

10

.27

0.2

30

.52

0.3

70

.11

0.1

80

.28

0.3

00

.21

0.2

70

.07

-0.0

50

.20

0.1

90

.15

0.1

60

.16

0.1

90

.12

0.1

90

.10

0.1

70

.21

0.1

70

.02

0.1

1

0.2

30

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.34

0.0

10

.19

0.0

40

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.2

60

.06

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.4

70

.62

0.0

40

.05

0.1

00

.08

0.0

80

.05

0.1

90

.05

0.2

70

.06

0.0

30

.06

0.8

60

.25

S4

40

.32

0.3

00

.11

0.2

20

.26

0.1

80

.22

0.0

80

.14

0.1

30

.11

0.2

40

.22

0.2

00

.29

0.2

40

.37

0.3

60

.25

0.2

30

.36

0.1

20

.26

0.3

20

.03

0.2

20

.55

0.2

90

.29

0.2

60

.27

0.0

60

.46

0.1

30

.32

0.1

20

.25

0.1

90

.26

0.2

7

0.0

00

.00

0.2

30

.02

0.0

10

.06

0.0

20

.39

0.1

30

.15

0.2

40

.01

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.20

0.0

10

.00

0.7

80

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.51

0.0

00

.18

0.0

00

.20

0.0

10

.04

0.0

10

.00

S4

50

.37

0.5

00

.21

0.3

90

.42

0.3

00

.39

0.3

10

.30

0.1

10

.22

0.3

60

.38

0.3

50

.24

0.2

90

.30

0.4

60

.22

0.0

90

.48

0.3

70

.46

0.3

4-0

.02

0.0

70

.33

0.1

20

.25

0.1

90

.29

0.3

80

.27

0.3

00

.31

0.3

20

.28

0.2

90

.16

0.1

7

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.23

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.34

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.8

50

.43

0.0

00

.19

0.0

10

.04

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

80

.07

S4

60

.10

0.2

90

.08

0.1

40

.27

0.3

10

.24

0.0

40

.29

0.1

40

.28

0.0

40

.15

0.2

20

.23

0.4

00

.10

0.3

20

.02

0.3

70

.09

0.1

40

.27

0.2

60

.29

0.0

20

.33

-0.0

10

.24

0.1

50

.31

0.1

70

.07

0.1

50

.26

0.3

10

.30

0.1

80

.27

0.2

9

0.3

10

.00

0.3

90

.14

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.64

0.0

00

.13

0.0

00

.66

0.1

00

.02

0.0

20

.00

0.3

00

.00

0.8

60

.00

0.3

40

.13

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.80

0.0

00

.91

0.0

10

.12

0.0

00

.07

0.4

40

.10

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.06

0.0

00

.00

S4

70

.12

0.1

50

.24

0.2

60

.32

0.1

10

.30

0.1

60

.24

-0.0

30

.07

0.1

40

.15

0.2

60

.16

0.1

70

.23

0.2

30

.08

0.1

50

.35

0.1

70

.18

0.2

90

.14

-0.0

80

.29

0.2

60

.32

0.3

70

.19

0.0

80

.13

0.2

10

.26

0.1

10

.21

0.2

20

.21

0.1

8

0.2

10

.10

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.23

0.0

00

.08

0.0

10

.74

0.4

50

.15

0.1

10

.00

0.0

90

.07

0.0

10

.01

0.3

90

.11

0.0

00

.08

0.0

50

.00

0.1

50

.41

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.39

0.1

60

.02

0.0

10

.24

0.0

30

.02

0.0

20

.06

S4

80

.24

0.3

80

.15

0.4

20

.36

0.3

50

.27

0.0

90

.31

0.0

90

.30

0.1

00

.27

0.2

40

.25

0.2

10

.46

0.5

30

.19

0.3

70

.31

0.4

00

.25

0.3

30

.24

0.1

10

.26

0.2

30

.33

0.5

10

.22

0.1

60

.20

0.2

10

.21

0.2

00

.31

0.3

10

.50

0.3

4

0.0

10

.00

0.1

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.34

0.0

00

.37

0.0

00

.30

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.24

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.10

0.0

30

.02

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S4

90

.11

0.2

20

.13

0.2

20

.23

0.1

20

.30

0.1

30

.14

-0.0

30

.13

0.0

70

.31

0.2

70

.03

0.1

10

.22

0.1

90

.11

0.1

80

.24

0.3

40

.12

0.1

4-0

.04

0.0

70

.27

0.1

30

.20

0.0

60

.12

0.0

30

.15

0.1

50

.08

-0.0

40

.12

0.0

40

.04

0.1

6

0.2

50

.02

0.1

60

.02

0.0

20

.21

0.0

00

.16

0.1

30

.75

0.1

60

.44

0.0

00

.00

0.7

40

.25

0.0

20

.05

0.2

60

.06

0.0

10

.00

0.2

00

.13

0.7

00

.44

0.0

00

.16

0.0

40

.51

0.2

10

.72

0.1

10

.10

0.4

20

.65

0.2

00

.68

0.6

80

.08

S5

00

.02

0.1

40

.04

0.2

10

.39

0.2

30

.26

0.2

30

.21

-0.0

80

.15

0.1

30

.11

0.4

00

.11

0.1

40

.22

0.1

2-0

.01

0.2

20

.06

0.0

60

.10

0.1

40

.14

0.0

60

.23

0.0

90

.29

0.2

00

.03

0.0

90

.11

-0.0

30

.14

-0.0

20

.12

-0.0

20

.02

0.0

7

0.8

60

.15

0.7

00

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.02

0.0

20

.37

0.1

10

.17

0.2

30

.00

0.2

30

.12

0.0

20

.20

0.9

10

.02

0.5

20

.55

0.2

90

.13

0.1

30

.51

0.0

10

.35

0.0

00

.03

0.7

20

.36

0.2

40

.72

0.1

40

.87

0.2

20

.87

0.8

10

.44

S5

10

.23

0.2

50

.16

0.1

40

.26

0.2

40

.30

0.4

30

.06

-0.0

20

.09

0.0

7-0

.13

0.3

90

.09

0.0

10

.02

-0.0

20

.12

0.0

6-0

.06

0.1

70

.10

0.3

20

.13

0.0

90

.02

-0.1

50

.15

0.1

8-0

.07

0.1

40

.13

0.0

5-0

.01

0.0

90

.06

-0.1

60

.00

0.0

4

0.0

10

.01

0.1

00

.13

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.5

10

.83

0.3

20

.43

0.1

60

.00

0.3

40

.91

0.8

50

.84

0.2

00

.52

0.5

10

.07

0.3

10

.00

0.1

80

.36

0.8

00

.12

0.1

20

.06

0.4

50

.13

0.1

70

.61

0.8

90

.34

0.5

40

.10

0.9

90

.71

S5

20

.15

0.3

00

.17

0.1

80

.34

0.0

40

.42

0.2

30

.08

-0.0

30

.10

0.1

50

.14

0.2

30

.10

0.0

80

.30

0.2

10

.33

0.2

60

.08

0.2

60

.12

0.1

60

.16

0.0

80

.01

0.1

90

.24

0.0

9-0

.06

0.2

00

.15

0.0

20

.08

0.1

20

.12

0.1

2-0

.01

-0.0

3

0.1

20

.00

0.0

70

.06

0.0

00

.69

0.0

00

.01

0.4

10

.78

0.3

10

.12

0.1

40

.02

0.3

10

.39

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.01

0.4

20

.01

0.2

00

.09

0.0

80

.41

0.9

50

.05

0.0

10

.34

0.5

20

.03

0.1

10

.84

0.4

00

.22

0.1

90

.20

0.8

90

.75

S5

30

.21

0.2

90

.19

0.3

30

.27

0.1

60

.31

0.2

40

.29

0.1

20

.08

0.1

60

.29

0.2

40

.18

0.1

50

.23

0.2

50

.35

0.1

90

.33

0.2

60

.24

0.1

00

.07

0.1

80

.26

0.3

80

.27

0.2

10

.14

0.3

50

.06

0.1

30

.21

0.3

10

.21

0.2

00

.20

0.0

4

0.0

30

.00

0.0

40

.00

0.0

00

.08

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.21

0.4

00

.09

0.0

00

.01

0.0

50

.12

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.04

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.30

0.4

70

.05

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.1

40

.00

0.5

40

.18

0.0

30

.00

0.0

20

.04

0.0

30

.64

S5

40

.29

0.4

20

.17

0.4

60

.39

0.3

80

.18

0.3

00

.20

0.0

10

.15

0.2

20

.32

0.4

20

.37

0.2

60

.28

0.3

60

.21

0.1

00

.41

0.4

80

.31

0.2

60

.04

0.2

30

.40

0.2

10

.25

0.2

70

.18

0.1

70

.29

0.2

30

.10

0.1

60

.20

0.1

90

.23

0.1

6

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

60

.00

0.0

30

.92

0.1

10

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.31

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.7

10

.02

0.0

00

.03

0.0

10

.00

0.0

50

.07

0.0

00

.01

0.3

10

.10

0.0

30

.05

0.0

20

.09

S5

50

.31

0.3

20

.17

0.2

70

.43

0.2

50

.44

0.2

30

.06

0.0

40

.07

0.2

80

.20

0.3

10

.28

0.1

30

.38

0.3

20

.31

0.2

60

.35

0.2

00

.29

0.2

8-0

.03

0.1

70

.25

0.1

20

.26

0.1

10

.27

0.1

50

.33

0.1

10

.40

0.1

30

.08

0.0

70

.01

0.0

9

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.01

0.5

20

.69

0.4

30

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.15

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.7

80

.07

0.0

10

.21

0.0

10

.24

0.0

00

.12

0.0

00

.23

0.0

00

.18

0.4

20

.46

0.9

20

.33

S5

60

.24

0.2

40

.06

0.2

90

.24

0.2

30

.30

0.2

00

.04

0.1

90

.05

0.2

70

.26

0.4

10

.10

0.1

30

.20

0.3

20

.36

0.1

70

.28

0.1

80

.25

0.3

3-0

.06

0.0

70

.30

0.1

80

.13

0.3

00

.25

0.3

30

.11

0.2

80

.23

0.2

30

.07

0.1

30

.12

0.0

8

0.0

10

.01

0.5

30

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.04

0.6

60

.04

0.5

90

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.2

80

.16

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.07

0.0

00

.06

0.0

10

.00

0.5

30

.44

0.0

00

.06

0.1

60

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.2

60

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.4

80

.16

0.1

90

.42

S5

70

.33

0.4

20

.29

0.3

30

.35

0.2

30

.53

0.2

00

.19

0.0

50

.24

0.1

90

.23

0.2

60

.22

0.1

90

.26

0.3

30

.20

0.2

70

.17

0.3

30

.41

0.3

80

.12

0.1

80

.35

0.2

00

.46

0.3

00

.20

0.1

70

.50

0.0

40

.35

0.0

90

.22

0.0

20

.16

0.2

9

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.03

0.0

50

.62

0.0

10

.04

0.0

10

.01

0.0

20

.04

0.0

10

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.2

10

.05

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.08

0.0

00

.66

0.0

00

.35

0.0

20

.83

0.1

00

.00

S5

80

.46

0.3

30

.29

0.2

40

.33

0.2

10

.41

0.2

10

.14

0.1

10

.21

0.1

10

.22

0.2

20

.11

0.3

10

.33

0.3

10

.28

0.4

30

.24

0.3

80

.41

0.3

90

.13

0.0

80

.29

0.1

30

.21

0.2

50

.36

0.1

70

.35

0.1

60

.38

0.1

10

.38

0.2

40

.10

0.4

0

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.02

0.1

50

.25

0.0

20

.26

0.0

20

.02

0.2

60

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

70

.39

0.0

00

.18

0.0

30

.01

0.0

00

.07

0.0

00

.09

0.0

00

.27

0.0

00

.01

0.2

70

.00

S5

90

.11

0.2

90

.31

0.2

10

.08

0.0

60

.25

0.1

00

.12

0.0

50

.15

-0.0

70

.14

0.1

00

.02

0.1

60

.15

0.0

20

.03

0.1

20

.01

0.1

50

.29

0.4

00

.13

0.0

50

.28

0.2

20

.33

0.1

10

.05

-0.0

40

.33

0.2

20

.18

0.0

10

.12

-0.0

20

.09

0.2

3

0.2

40

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.3

80

.53

0.0

10

.31

0.2

10

.59

0.1

10

.47

0.1

30

.30

0.8

10

.08

0.1

20

.84

0.7

70

.20

0.9

30

.11

0.0

00

.00

0.1

80

.59

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.26

0.6

10

.67

0.0

00

.02

0.0

50

.96

0.2

10

.86

0.3

30

.01

S6

00

.26

0.2

60

.09

0.2

10

.16

0.2

00

.32

0.1

70

.12

0.0

60

.14

0.1

10

.22

0.1

90

.04

0.3

70

.25

0.2

50

.19

0.4

30

.09

0.1

30

.21

0.2

80

.34

0.0

80

.33

0.2

80

.23

0.1

80

.09

0.0

60

.13

0.2

10

.19

0.1

80

.34

0.1

30

.26

0.3

8

0.0

10

.01

0.3

40

.03

0.1

00

.03

0.0

00

.06

0.1

90

.52

0.1

30

.25

0.0

20

.04

0.6

60

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.0

40

.00

0.3

20

.16

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.39

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.05

0.3

20

.56

0.1

80

.03

0.0

40

.05

0.0

00

.16

0.0

10

.00

204

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:

S4

1S

42

S4

3S

44

S4

5S

46

S4

7S

48

S4

9S

50

S5

1S

52

S5

3S

54

S5

5S

56

S5

7S

58

S5

9S

60

S6

1S

62

S6

3S

64

S6

5S

66

S6

7S

68

S6

9S

70

S7

1S

72

S7

3S

74

S7

5S

76

S7

7S

78

S7

9

S4

1

S4

20

.25

0.0

1

S4

30

.18

0.1

6

0.0

50

.09

S4

40

.22

0.3

00

.23

0.0

20

.00

0.0

1

S4

50

.20

0.2

50

.35

0.2

5

0.0

40

.01

0.0

00

.01

S4

60

.37

-0.0

20

.13

0.0

80

.26

0.0

00

.82

0.1

60

.43

0.0

0

S4

70

.35

0.2

20

.25

0.1

40

.29

0.3

3

0.0

00

.02

0.0

10

.15

0.0

00

.00

S4

80

.26

0.2

70

.32

0.2

90

.32

0.2

40

.26

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

1

S4

90

.12

-0.0

10

.35

0.1

70

.14

0.0

90

.21

0.1

3

0.1

90

.89

0.0

00

.07

0.1

40

.36

0.0

20

.17

S5

00

.21

0.1

30

.36

0.1

50

.13

0.2

80

.31

0.1

50

.28

0.0

20

.16

0.0

00

.12

0.1

70

.00

0.0

00

.11

0.0

0

S5

10

.22

0.0

40

.11

0.0

30

.12

0.0

90

.10

0.0

40

.22

0.3

1

0.0

20

.66

0.2

40

.73

0.2

20

.33

0.2

70

.66

0.0

20

.00

S5

20

.23

-0.0

60

.31

0.0

10

.19

0.0

20

.06

0.1

80

.38

0.1

60

.36

0.0

20

.56

0.0

00

.88

0.0

40

.81

0.5

30

.06

0.0

00

.09

0.0

0

S5

30

.14

0.2

60

.24

0.1

30

.33

0.1

00

.31

0.3

10

.16

0.1

50

.04

0.3

4

0.1

30

.01

0.0

10

.18

0.0

00

.29

0.0

00

.00

0.0

80

.12

0.6

40

.00

S5

40

.17

0.2

60

.27

0.4

00

.44

0.0

90

.09

0.3

00

.20

0.0

70

.15

0.1

10

.16

0.0

80

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.35

0.3

20

.00

0.0

30

.44

0.1

10

.26

0.0

9

S5

50

.23

0.2

20

.38

0.3

70

.41

0.1

30

.28

0.2

40

.26

0.3

00

.21

0.3

30

.25

0.1

5

0.0

20

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.15

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.11

S5

60

.15

0.1

90

.25

0.2

50

.40

0.1

60

.27

0.1

70

.28

0.1

90

.26

0.2

20

.29

0.2

20

.48

0.1

10

.04

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.09

0.0

00

.08

0.0

00

.04

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.02

0.0

0

S5

70

.21

0.1

50

.19

0.3

10

.27

0.1

90

.19

0.3

40

.26

0.1

60

.14

0.1

80

.15

0.2

80

.34

0.2

6

0.0

30

.12

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.04

0.0

40

.00

0.0

10

.10

0.1

40

.05

0.1

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

S5

80

.35

0.1

60

.29

0.2

20

.27

0.2

40

.30

0.2

70

.31

0.2

10

.22

0.3

00

.14

0.1

10

.46

0.2

90

.40

0.0

00

.10

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.03

0.0

20

.00

0.1

50

.26

0.0

00

.00

0.0

0

S5

90

.19

-0.1

10

.14

0.2

20

.11

0.1

30

.07

0.1

70

.22

0.0

50

.12

0.0

5-0

.07

0.1

50

.07

0.1

40

.42

0.1

9

0.0

50

.26

0.1

30

.02

0.2

30

.17

0.4

40

.07

0.0

20

.64

0.2

00

.61

0.4

40

.12

0.4

50

.15

0.0

00

.04

S6

00

.34

0.1

40

.21

0.2

40

.20

0.2

70

.23

0.3

10

.26

0.3

20

.18

0.2

50

.27

0.1

00

.25

0.3

10

.28

0.4

50

.24

0.0

00

.15

0.0

30

.01

0.0

30

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

50

.01

0.0

00

.28

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

1

205

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:co

rrel

atio

n c

oef

fici

ent

r

p-v

alu

e

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S1

0S

11

S1

2S

13

S1

4S

15

S1

6S

17

S1

8S

19

S2

0S

21

S2

2S

23

S2

4S

25

S2

6S

27

S2

8S

29

S3

0S

31

S3

2S

33

S3

4S

35

S3

6S

37

S3

8S

39

S4

0

S6

10

.30

0.3

10

.32

0.4

80

.30

0.2

60

.38

0.1

60

.30

0.0

70

.14

0.0

90

.34

0.3

00

.16

0.2

70

.34

0.2

90

.18

0.3

00

.34

0.3

60

.33

0.2

50

.24

0.1

60

.49

0.3

60

.46

0.3

60

.31

0.3

00

.37

0.2

20

.26

0.2

30

.38

0.3

40

.34

0.3

7

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.09

0.0

00

.49

0.1

40

.33

0.0

00

.00

0.0

90

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.08

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S6

20

.37

0.3

30

.21

0.2

70

.35

0.2

30

.37

0.3

00

.19

0.1

10

.14

0.2

90

.06

0.2

90

.26

0.3

10

.36

0.3

70

.25

0.3

50

.28

0.2

80

.43

0.3

30

.02

0.0

70

.34

0.1

80

.26

0.2

30

.27

0.1

40

.31

0.1

60

.22

0.2

10

.25

0.1

40

.21

0.2

4

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.24

0.1

30

.00

0.5

30

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.8

30

.44

0.0

00

.05

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.15

0.0

00

.10

0.0

20

.03

0.0

10

.14

0.0

30

.01

S6

30

.35

0.4

60

.18

0.4

40

.50

0.4

60

.43

0.3

40

.21

0.0

20

.23

0.2

40

.17

0.3

80

.34

0.2

80

.52

0.4

20

.12

0.3

70

.37

0.3

10

.35

0.3

90

.11

0.1

00

.33

0.2

90

.32

0.2

80

.23

0.2

00

.34

0.0

80

.17

0.1

60

.27

0.0

10

.25

0.2

9

0.0

00

.00

0.0

60

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.87

0.0

10

.01

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.2

20

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.2

70

.27

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.41

0.0

80

.09

0.0

00

.95

0.0

10

.00

S6

40

.34

0.3

70

.23

0.1

60

.21

0.3

10

.23

0.1

70

.21

0.0

90

.19

0.1

20

.09

0.1

80

.21

0.2

60

.31

0.3

20

.20

0.2

70

.02

0.3

50

.11

0.4

40

.05

0.0

70

.31

0.1

10

.33

0.1

60

.17

0.0

60

.27

0.1

20

.20

0.1

60

.20

0.0

90

.23

0.3

2

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.08

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.06

0.0

30

.35

0.0

50

.19

0.3

50

.06

0.0

30

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.00

0.8

00

.00

0.2

50

.00

0.5

80

.44

0.0

00

.23

0.0

00

.08

0.0

70

.53

0.0

00

.20

0.0

40

.10

0.0

30

.37

0.0

10

.00

S6

50

.27

0.2

60

.19

0.2

40

.23

0.2

50

.26

0.1

70

.26

0.3

30

.13

0.2

00

.35

0.1

70

.19

0.2

80

.33

0.3

00

.25

0.2

20

.39

0.3

30

.23

0.1

60

.14

0.2

50

.34

0.1

90

.27

0.3

30

.37

0.2

30

.21

0.3

40

.16

0.4

40

.37

0.3

00

.29

0.2

4

0.0

00

.01

0.0

50

.01

0.0

10

.01

0.0

10

.08

0.0

10

.00

0.1

70

.03

0.0

00

.06

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.08

0.1

30

.01

0.0

00

.05

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

20

.00

0.1

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

S6

60

.10

0.2

50

.28

0.1

90

.23

0.1

80

.28

0.1

30

.15

-0.0

10

.13

0.1

00

.25

0.1

70

.06

0.3

20

.22

0.2

40

.22

0.1

00

.32

0.2

80

.28

0.2

20

.03

0.2

30

.46

0.4

90

.46

0.3

10

.33

0.1

40

.30

0.1

00

.23

0.1

50

.19

0.1

80

.17

0.1

9

0.3

10

.01

0.0

00

.05

0.0

10

.06

0.0

00

.17

0.1

00

.92

0.1

70

.28

0.0

10

.06

0.5

30

.00

0.0

20

.01

0.0

20

.28

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.7

50

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.12

0.0

00

.30

0.0

10

.10

0.0

40

.06

0.0

70

.04

S6

70

.37

0.4

10

.24

0.3

40

.38

0.3

70

.42

0.3

10

.21

0.0

50

.12

0.1

50

.30

0.3

20

.29

0.1

50

.31

0.2

60

.23

0.3

90

.38

0.2

70

.46

0.3

40

.09

0.1

10

.50

0.3

90

.44

0.3

50

.22

0.0

90

.40

0.1

50

.25

0.0

40

.10

0.0

00

.26

0.1

8

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.58

0.1

90

.12

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.12

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.3

50

.23

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.34

0.0

00

.12

0.0

10

.64

0.2

80

.99

0.0

10

.06

S6

8-0

.01

0.1

40

.04

0.3

50

.29

0.2

50

.24

0.0

90

.54

-0.0

90

.36

0.1

20

.28

0.2

60

.15

0.1

80

.12

0.2

7-0

.12

0.0

30

.19

0.2

1-0

.01

0.1

40

.31

0.1

50

.24

0.2

00

.21

0.2

40

.13

0.1

20

.07

0.2

50

.15

0.1

50

.22

0.1

90

.37

0.1

6

0.9

10

.14

0.7

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.32

0.0

00

.34

0.0

00

.19

0.0

00

.01

0.1

20

.05

0.2

00

.00

0.2

00

.76

0.0

40

.03

0.9

30

.13

0.0

00

.10

0.0

10

.03

0.0

20

.01

0.1

60

.20

0.4

60

.01

0.1

10

.11

0.0

20

.04

0.0

00

.10

S6

90

.22

0.2

60

.16

0.3

50

.33

0.2

10

.26

0.1

10

.32

0.1

90

.11

0.2

10

.33

0.2

70

.25

0.1

50

.42

0.3

40

.26

0.3

20

.40

0.3

40

.25

0.1

90

.10

0.2

80

.42

0.3

80

.44

0.4

50

.25

0.2

80

.21

0.2

10

.30

0.1

40

.32

0.3

60

.37

0.3

1

0.0

20

.01

0.0

80

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.24

0.0

00

.05

0.2

30

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.11

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.04

0.3

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

30

.02

0.0

00

.15

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S7

00

.10

0.2

40

.12

0.3

50

.34

0.2

10

.31

0.1

50

.13

0.0

30

.10

0.1

10

.16

0.1

60

.15

0.2

70

.26

0.2

80

.09

0.2

40

.22

0.1

30

.09

0.1

60

.24

0.0

70

.19

0.0

90

.19

0.1

20

.18

0.0

50

.18

0.1

10

.16

0.1

90

.19

0.2

10

.18

0.2

1

0.2

90

.01

0.2

10

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.11

0.1

70

.73

0.2

90

.24

0.0

90

.09

0.1

20

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.3

50

.01

0.0

20

.17

0.3

70

.10

0.0

10

.44

0.0

40

.33

0.0

40

.22

0.0

50

.59

0.0

50

.24

0.1

00

.04

0.0

50

.03

0.0

50

.03

S7

10

.35

0.5

10

.20

0.4

00

.40

0.3

90

.52

0.1

40

.28

-0.0

20

.08

0.1

60

.24

0.3

80

.39

0.2

40

.41

0.5

70

.16

0.2

20

.38

0.3

50

.37

0.4

00

.05

0.1

10

.40

0.1

30

.39

0.3

10

.24

0.1

30

.34

0.2

10

.37

0.2

00

.13

0.1

90

.30

0.0

8

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.13

0.0

00

.82

0.3

80

.09

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

90

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.6

30

.25

0.0

00

.17

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.17

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.04

0.1

60

.04

0.0

00

.43

S7

20

.16

0.2

30

.33

0.1

90

.23

0.1

60

.31

0.2

00

.19

-0.0

20

.12

0.1

50

.11

0.2

1-0

.08

0.1

70

.15

0.1

10

.17

0.2

50

.09

0.2

80

.09

0.2

50

.04

0.0

20

.22

0.2

60

.40

0.1

80

.07

0.0

90

.22

0.0

50

.08

0.0

30

.29

0.0

50

.02

0.2

3

0.0

80

.01

0.0

00

.04

0.0

10

.09

0.0

00

.03

0.0

50

.81

0.1

90

.11

0.2

60

.03

0.4

10

.07

0.1

20

.26

0.0

70

.01

0.3

40

.00

0.3

60

.01

0.7

10

.83

0.0

20

.01

0.0

00

.06

0.4

90

.32

0.0

20

.57

0.4

10

.75

0.0

00

.61

0.8

40

.02

S7

3-0

.07

0.0

20

.07

0.2

20

.05

0.1

40

.13

0.0

90

.15

-0.0

50

.19

0.0

8-0

.02

0.1

3-0

.08

0.1

60

.05

0.1

00

.04

0.0

3-0

.02

0.1

5-0

.08

0.0

40

.15

-0.0

80

.04

0.0

70

.07

0.0

80

.01

0.0

6-0

.11

0.1

4-0

.03

0.0

90

.03

0.2

00

.09

0.0

2

0.4

60

.86

0.4

90

.02

0.5

70

.15

0.1

50

.34

0.1

10

.62

0.0

50

.39

0.8

60

.17

0.4

30

.09

0.6

30

.29

0.6

80

.77

0.8

10

.12

0.4

20

.64

0.1

10

.42

0.6

90

.49

0.4

90

.41

0.9

30

.54

0.2

50

.15

0.7

80

.34

0.7

80

.04

0.3

60

.83

S7

40

.36

0.5

60

.32

0.4

00

.42

0.4

70

.36

0.3

80

.23

0.1

00

.21

0.1

20

.19

0.3

70

.38

0.1

80

.39

0.3

80

.20

0.3

00

.31

0.4

60

.43

0.4

60

.07

0.0

50

.27

0.1

40

.26

0.4

20

.25

0.3

60

.27

0.2

70

.24

0.2

80

.28

0.2

30

.21

0.2

4

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.30

0.0

20

.21

0.0

40

.00

0.0

00

.05

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.4

70

.58

0.0

00

.13

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

30

.01

S7

50

.27

0.4

70

.21

0.4

00

.35

0.2

80

.26

0.2

20

.28

0.2

00

.24

0.1

60

.22

0.2

90

.26

0.0

80

.26

0.3

50

.12

0.3

10

.14

0.3

20

.42

0.2

80

.19

0.1

30

.35

0.0

90

.25

0.3

50

.18

0.2

60

.41

-0.0

10

.25

0.0

90

.18

0.0

70

.34

0.1

4

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.04

0.0

10

.09

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.37

0.0

10

.00

0.2

00

.00

0.1

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

40

.17

0.0

00

.32

0.0

10

.00

0.0

50

.01

0.0

00

.96

0.0

10

.34

0.0

50

.49

0.0

00

.14

S7

60

.34

0.4

20

.08

0.4

10

.33

0.4

10

.38

0.2

80

.24

0.0

90

.18

0.1

90

.23

0.3

40

.17

0.2

20

.34

0.2

10

.22

0.2

10

.36

0.2

80

.44

0.2

40

.02

0.0

80

.27

0.0

80

.10

0.1

60

.23

0.3

20

.27

0.1

50

.24

0.1

10

.22

0.1

30

.14

0.0

7

0.0

00

.00

0.4

30

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.37

0.0

60

.04

0.0

10

.00

0.0

70

.02

0.0

00

.03

0.0

20

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.8

50

.39

0.0

00

.38

0.3

10

.09

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.11

0.0

10

.25

0.0

20

.16

0.1

40

.48

S7

70

.26

0.3

00

.11

0.3

40

.40

0.2

90

.27

0.1

80

.52

-0.0

50

.16

0.2

70

.13

0.2

60

.26

0.2

30

.24

0.2

30

.24

0.1

20

.27

0.0

80

.19

0.1

90

.22

0.1

40

.21

0.2

70

.25

0.3

10

.18

0.1

90

.25

0.1

90

.08

0.2

60

.29

0.2

70

.58

0.1

6

0.0

10

.00

0.2

30

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.05

0.0

00

.57

0.0

80

.00

0.1

50

.01

0.0

10

.01

0.0

10

.01

0.0

10

.19

0.0

00

.40

0.0

40

.04

0.0

20

.13

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

50

.05

0.0

10

.05

0.4

10

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.09

S7

80

.28

0.3

00

.16

0.1

90

.25

0.2

20

.26

0.0

70

.15

0.2

00

.15

0.2

50

.26

0.1

30

.02

0.2

40

.20

0.2

20

.11

0.2

30

.21

0.1

60

.25

0.2

60

.02

0.0

10

.20

0.1

60

.11

0.1

00

.19

0.2

30

.19

0.1

00

.11

0.3

40

.15

0.2

90

.15

0.1

5

0.0

00

.00

0.1

00

.04

0.0

10

.02

0.0

10

.47

0.1

20

.04

0.1

00

.01

0.0

10

.16

0.8

20

.01

0.0

30

.02

0.2

50

.01

0.0

20

.09

0.0

10

.01

0.8

00

.92

0.0

40

.08

0.2

40

.28

0.0

40

.02

0.0

50

.29

0.2

50

.00

0.1

20

.00

0.1

10

.11

S7

90

.36

0.3

30

.04

0.2

10

.38

0.2

50

.23

0.1

10

.18

0.0

10

.06

0.1

30

.15

0.0

70

.08

0.0

70

.31

0.1

40

.17

0.2

00

.20

0.0

70

.24

0.2

40

.00

0.0

50

.24

0.2

70

.16

0.1

50

.24

-0.0

10

.48

0.0

60

.25

0.0

60

.20

0.1

10

.28

0.1

9

0.0

00

.00

0.6

80

.03

0.0

00

.01

0.0

20

.26

0.0

60

.95

0.5

10

.18

0.1

00

.48

0.3

80

.45

0.0

00

.13

0.0

70

.03

0.0

40

.49

0.0

10

.01

0.9

80

.62

0.0

10

.00

0.1

00

.12

0.0

10

.92

0.0

00

.50

0.0

10

.56

0.0

30

.25

0.0

00

.05

S8

00

.33

0.4

30

.09

0.2

40

.41

0.5

70

.31

0.2

30

.16

-0.0

30

.18

0.1

40

.12

0.2

20

.34

0.3

00

.21

0.1

60

.07

0.1

90

.19

0.2

00

.32

0.4

00

.18

0.1

70

.20

0.0

50

.04

0.2

40

.28

0.0

20

.27

-0.0

70

.19

0.0

70

.10

-0.1

30

.15

0.1

2

0.0

00

.00

0.3

20

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

80

.78

0.0

60

.14

0.2

00

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.09

0.4

70

.04

0.0

50

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

50

.08

0.0

30

.56

0.6

50

.01

0.0

00

.84

0.0

00

.47

0.0

50

.44

0.2

90

.18

0.1

20

.21

206

Co

rrel

ati

on

Bet

wee

n D

om

ain

Va

ria

ble

Cel

l co

nte

nts

:

S4

1S

42

S4

3S

44

S4

5S

46

S4

7S

48

S4

9S

50

S5

1S

52

S5

3S

54

S5

5S

56

S5

7S

58

S5

9S

60

S6

1S

62

S6

3S

64

S6

5S

66

S6

7S

68

S6

9S

70

S7

1S

72

S7

3S

74

S7

5S

76

S7

7S

78

S7

9

S6

10

.32

0.2

10

.31

0.3

30

.37

0.2

60

.30

0.3

50

.21

0.1

10

.07

0.2

00

.32

0.3

40

.13

0.2

50

.35

0.3

10

.28

0.1

8

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.23

0.4

60

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.1

70

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.05

S6

20

.14

0.2

70

.22

0.4

20

.37

0.2

50

.23

0.2

50

.08

0.1

50

.11

0.2

00

.21

0.2

80

.38

0.2

10

.31

0.3

10

.02

0.3

00

.23

0.1

40

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.01

0.4

20

.11

0.2

50

.03

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.8

40

.00

0.0

1

S6

30

.23

0.2

60

.39

0.3

40

.34

0.1

70

.17

0.3

70

.38

0.2

40

.24

0.3

60

.33

0.3

90

.38

0.1

90

.30

0.4

0-0

.04

0.3

30

.34

0.4

6

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.07

0.0

70

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.04

0.0

00

.00

0.6

50

.00

0.0

00

.00

S6

40

.21

0.1

20

.18

0.3

00

.18

0.2

10

.09

0.3

10

.19

0.1

80

.23

0.1

60

.11

0.1

50

.23

0.2

70

.36

0.3

90

.22

0.3

50

.20

0.2

10

.31

0.0

20

.22

0.0

60

.00

0.0

60

.02

0.3

30

.00

0.0

40

.06

0.0

20

.08

0.2

30

.11

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

30

.03

0.0

0

S6

50

.24

0.1

80

.25

0.2

70

.39

0.1

60

.21

0.3

10

.11

0.0

00

.16

0.1

10

.30

0.2

60

.23

0.3

30

.24

0.2

30

.08

0.1

40

.42

0.1

90

.26

0.2

0

0.0

10

.06

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.09

0.0

20

.00

0.2

30

.98

0.0

90

.24

0.0

00

.01

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.4

00

.13

0.0

00

.04

0.0

10

.03

S6

60

.16

0.2

00

.21

0.3

00

.27

0.2

30

.24

0.2

20

.20

0.1

80

.06

0.1

60

.31

0.3

40

.23

0.2

90

.34

0.1

30

.19

0.2

00

.42

0.2

00

.26

0.1

30

.30

0.0

80

.03

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.02

0.0

30

.05

0.5

20

.09

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.17

0.0

50

.04

0.0

00

.03

0.0

10

.17

0.0

0

S6

70

.18

0.2

70

.18

0.4

00

.36

0.2

00

.29

0.3

00

.23

0.2

80

.10

0.1

30

.35

0.4

40

.26

0.2

60

.42

0.2

50

.25

0.3

60

.45

0.4

00

.46

0.2

40

.24

0.4

3

0.0

60

.00

0.0

50

.00

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.3

00

.15

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

S6

80

.35

0.3

00

.26

0.1

10

.22

0.2

10

.29

0.3

80

.17

0.2

60

.09

0.0

50

.23

0.2

00

.10

0.0

20

.05

0.0

80

.07

0.1

50

.22

0.0

90

.18

0.0

50

.12

0.1

50

.12

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.25

0.0

20

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.01

0.3

60

.63

0.0

20

.03

0.3

10

.84

0.6

00

.40

0.4

70

.11

0.0

20

.32

0.0

60

.61

0.2

10

.10

0.2

0

S6

90

.33

0.2

60

.32

0.4

30

.30

0.2

10

.29

0.5

40

.21

0.1

6-0

.01

0.1

40

.40

0.2

70

.29

0.2

70

.29

0.2

50

.19

0.2

50

.59

0.2

90

.30

0.2

60

.38

0.3

20

.37

0.3

4

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

30

.10

0.9

40

.15

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

50

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S7

00

.32

0.2

40

.27

0.1

50

.31

0.2

00

.42

0.1

30

.14

0.3

10

.19

0.2

20

.25

0.2

60

.23

0.2

10

.21

0.4

40

.04

0.3

80

.30

0.1

80

.31

0.1

30

.25

0.1

80

.27

0.1

10

.20

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.12

0.0

00

.04

0.0

00

.18

0.1

30

.00

0.0

50

.02

0.0

10

.01

0.0

20

.03

0.0

20

.00

0.6

90

.00

0.0

00

.06

0.0

00

.17

0.0

10

.05

0.0

00

.24

0.0

4

S7

10

.33

0.3

20

.34

0.3

20

.53

0.3

10

.43

0.5

00

.25

0.3

00

.16

0.2

00

.32

0.3

30

.47

0.4

00

.36

0.3

10

.23

0.2

20

.35

0.2

90

.32

0.3

20

.25

0.3

40

.38

0.3

70

.38

0.3

4

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

80

.04

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

S7

20

.24

0.0

10

.24

0.1

40

.19

0.1

70

.37

0.0

70

.40

0.3

40

.31

0.3

30

.15

0.1

00

.25

0.2

60

.27

0.4

20

.21

0.3

10

.24

0.1

80

.27

0.3

20

.10

0.3

00

.22

0.1

40

.24

0.3

00

.13

0.0

10

.95

0.0

10

.12

0.0

40

.07

0.0

00

.49

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

20

.29

0.0

10

.01

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.0

10

.06

0.0

00

.00

0.3

10

.00

0.0

20

.14

0.0

10

.00

0.1

8

S7

30

.15

0.0

90

.29

-0.0

50

.09

0.3

10

.25

0.0

90

.11

0.2

00

.00

0.0

90

.03

-0.0

20

.12

0.0

3-0

.01

0.0

4-0

.03

0.0

50

.10

0.1

10

.09

0.0

3-0

.06

0.0

4-0

.03

0.4

00

.19

0.0

80

.11

0.3

2

0.1

20

.36

0.0

00

.64

0.3

50

.00

0.0

10

.36

0.2

30

.04

0.9

80

.36

0.7

20

.85

0.2

10

.75

0.8

90

.71

0.7

80

.60

0.3

00

.23

0.3

30

.76

0.5

10

.69

0.7

40

.00

0.0

40

.39

0.2

30

.00

S7

40

.22

0.1

40

.42

0.2

00

.33

0.3

30

.27

0.5

50

.10

0.1

00

.13

0.1

60

.31

0.3

40

.29

0.1

80

.32

0.3

20

.10

0.0

60

.44

0.3

10

.42

0.2

30

.23

0.2

10

.35

0.2

70

.33

-0.0

30

.41

0.1

20

.05

0.0

20

.13

0.0

00

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.2

80

.28

0.1

70

.08

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.05

0.0

00

.00

0.2

80

.50

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.02

0.0

10

.03

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.76

0.0

00

.19

0.6

3

S7

50

.15

0.1

60

.20

0.2

60

.29

0.2

90

.14

0.4

40

.12

0.1

60

.20

0.1

60

.22

0.2

60

.09

0.1

50

.36

0.1

70

.26

0.0

40

.48

0.2

70

.26

0.2

10

.22

0.0

60

.36

0.1

40

.29

0.0

20

.30

0.0

10

.02

0.4

8

0.1

10

.08

0.0

40

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.1

40

.00

0.1

90

.10

0.0

40

.09

0.0

20

.00

0.3

30

.12

0.0

00

.07

0.0

10

.67

0.0

00

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

20

.51

0.0

00

.14

0.0

00

.87

0.0

00

.88

0.8

00

.00

S7

60

.09

0.1

30

.34

0.2

50

.45

0.2

20

.01

0.3

00

.16

0.1

20

.01

0.1

60

.27

0.3

40

.32

0.2

60

.23

0.3

10

.17

0.1

00

.44

0.2

50

.38

0.0

70

.25

0.1

20

.25

0.1

00

.19

0.1

00

.34

-0.0

10

.03

0.4

30

.43

0.3

20

.16

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.02

0.9

20

.00

0.0

90

.22

0.9

10

.09

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.00

0.0

70

.30

0.0

00

.01

0.0

00

.47

0.0

10

.21

0.0

10

.31

0.0

40

.31

0.0

00

.96

0.7

60

.00

0.0

0

S7

70

.26

0.3

20

.13

0.2

80

.27

0.1

20

.16

0.3

30

.03

0.1

10

.12

0.1

70

.31

0.3

60

.17

0.1

00

.14

0.2

1-0

.04

0.0

80

.29

0.1

70

.40

0.0

90

.24

0.1

30

.25

0.3

30

.26

0.2

20

.29

0.0

50

.05

0.2

70

.23

0.3

0

0.0

10

.00

0.1

70

.00

0.0

00

.22

0.1

00

.00

0.7

60

.25

0.2

00

.07

0.0

00

.00

0.0

70

.30

0.1

50

.03

0.6

50

.39

0.0

00

.07

0.0

00

.33

0.0

10

.18

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.02

0.0

00

.57

0.6

20

.00

0.0

20

.00

S7

80

.07

0.1

40

.24

0.1

80

.36

0.1

20

.11

0.1

40

.14

0.0

6-0

.10

0.0

70

.23

0.1

00

.12

0.1

30

.12

0.2

50

.18

0.1

20

.33

0.0

90

.21

0.1

60

.31

0.1

00

.09

0.0

50

.13

0.1

20

.24

0.1

60

.09

0.2

80

.17

0.3

40

.14

0.4

70

.12

0.0

10

.05

0.0

00

.19

0.2

20

.14

0.1

30

.53

0.2

80

.47

0.0

10

.30

0.2

00

.16

0.1

90

.01

0.0

50

.21

0.0

00

.33

0.0

30

.10

0.0

00

.28

0.3

40

.57

0.1

80

.20

0.0

10

.09

0.3

30

.00

0.0

80

.00

0.1

5

S7

90

.15

0.2

50

.22

0.3

40

.17

0.0

00

.15

0.2

60

.04

0.0

80

.01

0.1

20

.19

0.2

10

.22

0.1

10

.31

0.2

10

.16

0.0

50

.30

0.2

50

.25

0.1

90

.16

0.0

70

.25

0.0

30

.23

0.1

30

.18

0.0

4-0

.11

0.3

20

.41

0.4

10

.29

0.0

7

0.1

20

.01

0.0

20

.00

0.0

61

.00

0.1

20

.00

0.6

70

.41

0.9

20

.19

0.0

40

.03

0.0

20

.23

0.0

00

.03

0.0

80

.64

0.0

00

.01

0.0

10

.05

0.0

80

.45

0.0

10

.73

0.0

20

.16

0.0

50

.66

0.2

40

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.46

S8

00

.12

0.2

10

.28

0.2

70

.21

0.2

8-0

.01

0.1

40

.09

0.1

20

.23

0.1

40

.14

0.3

10

.32

0.1

10

.24

0.2

80

.10

0.1

20

.16

0.3

10

.42

0.1

50

.22

0.3

00

.36

0.1

10

.07

0.1

20

.27

0.1

00

.05

0.3

90

.26

0.3

80

.23

0.2

00

.28

0.2

20

.02

0.0

00

.00

0.0

20

.00

0.8

80

.14

0.3

50

.22

0.0

20

.13

0.1

30

.00

0.0

00

.25

0.0

10

.00

0.3

10

.20

0.0

90

.00

0.0

00

.10

0.0

20

.00

0.0

00

.26

0.4

80

.21

0.0

00

.31

0.5

80

.00

0.0

10

.00

0.0

10

.03

0.0

0

207

APPENDIX K

Rough Groupings of Skill Variables Based on Value of ‘r’

Highly Correlated Groups

Skill Variables Count

Group 1 S80, S63, S24, S6, S5, S2 6

Group 2 S79, S76, S75, S33 4

Group 3 S77, S39, S9 3

Group 4 S74, S43, S30, S22 4

Group 5 S72, S58 2

Group 6 S71, S55, S47, S18, S17, S7 6

Group 7 S69, S53, S4, S29, S27 5

Group 8 S67, S57, S54, S43 4

Group 9 S66, S28 2

Group 10 S65, S36 2

Group 11 S60, S20 2

Group 12 S56, S14 2

Group 13 S45, S21 2

Group 14 S41, S25 2

Group 15 S40, S37, S16 3

Group 16 S32, S19 2

Group 17 S23, S1 2

208

APPENDIX L

Factor Analysis: Principal Components with Varimax Rotation and % Variation

Explained

Var

iab

leF

acto

r1F

acto

r2F

acto

r3F

acto

r4F

acto

r5F

acto

r6F

acto

r7F

acto

r8F

acto

r9F

acto

r10

Fac

tor1

1F

acto

r12

Fac

tor1

3F

acto

r14

Fac

tor1

5F

acto

r16

Fac

tor1

7F

acto

r18

Fac

tor1

9F

acto

r20

Fac

tor2

1F

acto

r22

Fac

tor2

3

S1

-0.0

25

-0.0

2-0

.26

50

.10

7-0

.31

5-0

.15

50

.04

1-0

.20

8-0

.04

9-0

.30

70

.17

30

.22

90

.04

70

.10

90

.06

20

.19

40

.03

0.2

3-0

.00

30

.03

1-0

.10

40

.03

8-0

.10

9

S2

-0.0

05

0.3

66

-0.1

2-0

.09

9-0

.25

5-0

.32

80

.15

2-0

.21

70

.08

3-0

.12

20

.30

20

.12

90

.10

50

.20

7-0

.02

70

.01

90

.02

80

.01

7-0

.04

1-0

.04

5-0

.02

8-0

.13

6-0

.06

4

S3

0.0

75

0.0

01

-0.0

47

-0.1

77

-0.0

07

0.0

31

0.0

14

0.0

56

-0.0

78

-0.1

29

0.1

19

0.7

98

0.0

96

0.0

45

-0.0

05

0.0

43

-0.0

30

.09

3-0

.04

9-0

.00

70

.04

2-0

.00

3-0

.00

6

S4

0.0

76

0.1

27

-0.0

18

-0.0

93

-0.5

73

-0.1

15

0.1

58

-0.2

04

-0.1

25

-0.0

37

-0.0

01

0.1

60

.04

70

.18

50

.19

6-0

.05

80

.12

70

.03

6-0

.16

50

.01

20

.22

6-0

.20

1-0

.01

5

S5

0.1

05

-0.0

15

-0.2

18

-0.1

06

-0.5

16

-0.2

56

0.1

88

-0.2

53

-0.1

26

-0.2

54

0.0

73

-0.0

99

0.2

19

0.0

4-0

.02

50

.01

0.0

35

0.0

81

0.0

27

-0.0

50

.05

5-0

.26

50

.22

2

S6

0.0

26

0.2

66

0.0

38

0.0

14

-0.1

05

-0.6

88

0.0

88

-0.1

57

-0.1

88

-0.0

74

0.1

06

0.0

04

-0.1

45

0.0

39

-0.0

29

-0.0

45

0.0

56

0.0

99

-0.1

14

0.0

86

0.1

32

-0.1

42

0.0

55

S7

0.0

12

0.2

05

-0.2

13

-0.1

09

-0.2

29

-0.1

11

0.0

53

-0.0

66

-0.0

15

-0.4

25

0.3

48

-0.0

65

0.3

53

0.3

17

-0.0

98

-0.0

48

0.0

56

0.0

83

0.0

13

0.0

82

0.1

22

0.0

50

.02

3

S8

-0.0

37

-0.0

08

0.0

11

-0.0

25

-0.1

67

-0.1

51

0.0

37

-0.0

68

-0.0

51

-0.0

50

.82

60

.11

20

.11

8-0

.00

9-0

.00

60

.00

30

.03

8-0

.01

7-0

.15

7-0

.09

50

.02

5-0

.05

90

.11

7

S9

0.3

54

0.0

61

-0.1

03

-0.1

54

-0.0

57

0.0

01

0.6

46

-0.1

24

0.0

06

-0.0

23

0.0

60

.15

1-0

.03

7-0

.11

7-0

.19

-0.1

10

.10

10

.03

4-0

.02

3-0

.09

70

.11

2-0

.07

90

.23

4

S1

00

.07

9-0

.02

1-0

.01

0.0

24

0.0

53

0.0

34

-0.0

52

-0.0

12

-0.0

84

0.0

19

0.1

09

0.0

27

-0.0

55

0.0

9-0

.02

40

.03

7-0

.05

90

.11

3-0

.23

2-0

.83

-0.0

28

0.0

02

-0.0

78

S1

10

.62

30

.04

6-0

.12

6-0

.04

5-0

.05

9-0

.10

20

.24

5-0

.00

50

.07

-0.0

11

-0.1

49

0.2

56

0.1

51

0.0

89

0.0

02

-0.1

37

0.0

16

-0.0

88

0.0

33

-0.2

26

0.1

18

-0.0

38

0.1

85

S1

20

.01

70

.07

4-0

.13

40

.00

4-0

.18

60

.00

20

.24

0.0

91

0.0

46

-0.2

58

0.1

29

-0.0

67

0.1

44

-0.0

52

0.4

19

0.2

55

-0.0

48

0.0

33

-0.2

57

-0.3

84

0.1

46

-0.1

11

0.1

35

S1

30

.16

90

.20

5-0

.07

9-0

.18

2-0

.26

20

.04

60

.12

8-0

.09

4-0

.07

5-0

.10

8-0

.09

50

.00

50

.03

4-0

.06

4-0

.09

0.0

33

0.3

59

0.0

96

0.1

27

-0.5

62

-0.0

65

-0.0

24

0.0

43

S1

40

.03

50

.12

5-0

.03

20

.00

7-0

.71

7-0

.07

40

.06

40

.04

4-0

.21

2-0

.02

40

.26

40

.05

90

.06

30

.12

0.0

73

0.1

09

0.1

32

0.0

31

-0.2

08

-0.0

30

.04

10

.01

70

.28

3

S1

5-0

.02

50

.17

-0.2

22

0.0

25

-0.1

72

-0.2

32

0.1

33

0.0

62

-0.0

48

-0.0

38

0.0

35

0.0

41

0.0

16

0.0

44

-0.0

49

0.1

47

-0.0

38

0.0

23

-0.1

25

-0.0

44

-0.1

-0.7

58

0.0

43

S1

60

.73

70

.12

3-0

.15

9-0

.17

1-0

.08

3-0

.17

60

.12

40

.04

20

.02

80

.05

40

.06

1-0

.05

20

.03

30

.11

5-0

.03

60

.08

8-0

.08

10

.13

70

.08

0.0

20

.08

20

.04

10

.03

6

S1

70

.12

20

.33

80

.00

6-0

.10

.05

9-0

.05

-0.0

02

-0.2

18

-0.3

37

-0.1

04

0.2

64

0.0

19

0.1

92

0.2

07

0.1

82

0.1

64

0.1

04

0.1

29

0.0

70

.10

.02

9-0

.46

20

.06

2

S1

80

.05

60

.78

1-0

.03

7-0

.03

2-0

.00

1-0

.08

20

.10

30

.00

7-0

.07

4-0

.16

1-0

.07

70

.06

50

.07

0.2

18

-0.0

39

0.2

05

0.1

0.1

03

-0.1

29

-0.0

69

0.0

6-0

.13

70

.01

5

S1

9-0

.10

8-0

.09

1-0

.25

7-0

.20

5-0

.03

8-0

.01

90

.05

9-0

.13

5-0

.13

4-0

.02

0.0

62

0.2

35

0.3

34

-0.1

43

0.0

59

0.2

21

00

.16

5-0

.34

6-0

.29

10

.04

20

.07

7-0

.20

7

S2

00

.19

90

.10

1-0

.10

3-0

.03

8-0

.07

8-0

.05

9-0

.01

6-0

.06

9-0

.11

6-0

.06

7-0

.00

2-0

.00

90

.14

10

.77

-0.0

82

0.0

65

0.0

77

0.0

30

.02

8-0

.05

10

.00

1-0

.05

20

.01

5

S2

10

.06

80

.19

4-0

.33

7-0

.29

-0.2

65

-0.0

36

0.1

-0.1

25

-0.2

14

0.0

28

0.2

33

-0.0

04

-0.0

59

-0.0

07

0.0

84

0.1

33

0.3

15

0.1

49

0.1

-0.1

55

-0.0

42

-0.1

63

-0.2

05

S2

20

.17

20

.25

9-0

.04

8-0

.04

4-0

.19

2-0

.15

6-0

.03

7-0

.10

6-0

.21

2-0

.08

80

.06

0.6

53

0.0

22

-0.0

69

0.0

44

-0.0

75

0.3

16

0.1

35

-0.0

65

-0.0

27

0.1

08

-0.1

12

-0.1

04

S2

30

.06

50

.14

3-0

.41

8-0

.10

6-0

.10

3-0

.22

40

.05

5-0

.11

1-0

.10

3-0

.22

80

.32

80

.22

5-0

.05

50

.14

50

.20

10

.13

90

.02

7-0

.00

1-0

.17

4-0

.02

5-0

.11

8-0

.14

30

.01

7

S2

40

.07

20

.02

8-0

.20

1-0

.02

7-0

.37

4-0

.30

30

.11

40

.04

8-0

.23

5-0

.11

70

.25

0.1

18

0.0

77

0.1

70

.00

20

.18

5-0

.00

2-0

.01

60

.03

20

.00

5-0

.02

3-0

.06

9-0

.04

3

S2

50

.24

5-0

.06

40

.14

0.0

69

0.1

34

-0.2

07

0.3

35

0.0

99

-0.1

06

-0.0

72

-0.1

89

0.0

53

0.1

17

0.0

91

-0.5

47

-0.0

18

-0.0

89

0.0

18

-0.0

63

-0.0

93

0.0

82

-0.0

27

0.1

24

S2

60

.05

9-0

.05

2-0

.16

6-0

.06

5-0

.05

7-0

.08

10

.13

10

.05

4-0

.05

4-0

.05

60

.02

60

.04

0.0

42

-0.0

51

-0.0

66

0.1

02

0.0

13

-0.0

02

-0.0

15

-0.1

53

-0.0

38

-0.0

75

-0.0

02

S2

70

.07

90

.11

3-0

.28

1-0

.35

4-0

.23

5-0

.06

40

.08

7-0

.09

20

.03

3-0

.09

-0.0

03

0.0

67

-0.2

34

0.1

52

-0.1

72

0.4

48

0.1

92

0.0

89

-0.0

37

-0.0

73

0.0

15

-0.0

85

0.1

42

S2

80

.20

9-0

.10

7-0

.04

7-0

.73

70

.05

30

.08

10

.26

2-0

.11

7-0

.11

3-0

.03

5-0

.08

10

.07

50

.13

90

.00

50

.04

70

.16

80

.06

7-0

.05

2-0

.04

-0.0

49

0.0

43

-0.0

41

-0.0

15

S2

90

.13

40

.08

8-0

.03

4-0

.41

-0.0

54

0.1

51

0.1

41

0.0

05

-0.1

17

-0.4

92

0.2

16

0.1

85

0.0

25

0.1

-0.1

89

0.0

32

0.0

37

0.0

88

-0.0

06

-0.0

04

0.0

56

-0.2

29

0.1

38

S3

00

.09

3-0

.00

7-0

.05

2-0

.17

6-0

.20

2-0

.18

60

.22

90

.02

4-0

.76

4-0

.05

30

.07

50

.20

1-0

.01

60

.02

3-0

.05

90

.06

9-0

.06

0.0

21

-0.0

87

-0.1

07

-0.0

2-0

.00

20

.14

5

S3

10

.24

70

.15

7-0

.53

5-0

.16

20

.10

9-0

.23

10

.11

4-0

.10

4-0

.00

3-0

.00

9-0

.04

3-0

.01

6-0

.13

80

.16

6-0

.00

40

.20

20

.17

30

.11

-0.0

85

-0.1

27

-0.0

01

0.1

05

-0.1

17

S3

20

.05

60

.09

5-0

.10

2-0

.04

6-0

.14

90

.03

10

.03

7-0

.01

6-0

.05

7-0

.05

50

.16

90

.08

10

.10

1-0

.00

4-0

.01

3-0

.05

3-0

.03

70

.11

9-0

.81

6-0

.20

80

.04

2-0

.11

20

.01

S3

30

.08

60

.15

3-0

.13

8-0

.08

10

.04

6-0

.15

70

.12

1-0

.28

90

.04

2-0

.58

60

.03

30

.14

60

.04

70

.01

6-0

.05

30

.39

40

.09

30

.02

3-0

.03

4-0

.00

7-0

.11

7-0

.04

5-0

.02

2

S3

40

.30

60

.06

2-0

.11

3-0

.03

-0.0

63

0.1

62

0.1

08

0.0

15

-0.0

57

0.1

18

0.3

06

0.0

27

-0.1

-0.0

84

-0.1

99

0.0

76

0.1

37

0.3

33

-0.2

75

-0.1

05

0.1

67

-0.0

79

-0.3

49

S3

50

.17

10

.04

5-0

.75

-0.1

04

-0.0

33

0.0

01

0.0

32

-0.1

40

.00

7-0

.13

6-0

.05

40

.07

40

0.0

66

-0.0

50

.01

4-0

.05

8-0

.08

-0.1

16

-0.0

01

-0.0

28

-0.2

08

0.0

58

S3

60

.19

60

.14

50

.03

-0.0

5-0

.10

2-0

.02

50

.13

40

.00

10

.05

2-0

.00

2-0

.07

10

.14

60

.09

0.0

3-0

.03

50

.04

4-0

.12

20

.78

7-0

.12

-0.0

61

0.0

65

-0.0

45

-0.0

37

S3

70

.68

60

.06

1-0

.04

-0.0

57

0.0

68

0.0

61

0.2

24

-0.0

98

-0.1

62

-0.1

32

0.0

82

0.1

2-0

.02

70

.02

3-0

.16

20

.12

80

.12

60

.14

6-0

.18

3-0

.02

-0.0

44

-0.0

54

0.0

45

S3

80

.18

80

.23

7-0

.03

3-0

.04

6-0

.17

60

.32

50

.14

1-0

.09

5-0

.22

60

.16

9-0

.00

60

.32

40

.12

80

.00

2-0

.18

0.1

98

-0.0

90

.15

10

.03

6-0

.25

80

.18

80

.18

8-0

.16

2

S3

90

.15

60

.14

70

-0.1

05

0.0

07

-0.0

63

0.7

48

-0.1

04

-0.2

69

-0.0

22

-0.0

17

-0.0

55

-0.0

93

0.1

66

-0.0

42

0.0

6-0

.02

70

.15

70

.07

4-0

.09

40

.06

3-0

.00

8-0

.10

5

S4

00

.69

2-0

.12

5-0

.03

1-0

.05

7-0

.13

80

0.0

32

-0.0

79

-0.1

84

-0.2

03

-0.0

87

0.0

55

-0.1

65

0.1

66

-0.2

18

0.0

71

0.1

07

0.1

47

-0.0

16

-0.0

85

-0.0

05

-0.0

23

-0.1

23

209

Var

iab

leF

acto

r1F

acto

r2F

acto

r3F

acto

r4F

acto

r5F

acto

r6F

acto

r7F

acto

r8F

acto

r9F

acto

r10

Fac

tor1

1F

acto

r12

Fac

tor1

3F

acto

r14

Fac

tor1

5F

acto

r16

Fac

tor1

7F

acto

r18

Fac

tor1

9F

acto

r20

Fac

tor2

1F

acto

r22

Fac

tor2

3

S4

10

.22

20

.11

1-0

.10

9-0

.07

70

.05

5-0

.00

20

.16

9-0

.04

3-0

.05

6-0

.08

10

.08

1-0

.04

0.1

29

0.0

56

-0.7

79

0.0

82

0.0

42

0.0

34

-0.0

12

-0.0

34

0.0

86

-0.0

21

0.0

89

S4

2-0

.05

90

.19

8-0

.09

3-0

.11

8-0

.06

8-0

.14

50

.15

7-0

.08

2-0

.08

2-0

.05

8-0

.02

60

.10

3-0

.11

20

.04

-0.1

74

0.1

78

-0.0

68

-0.0

01

0.0

12

0.0

20

.04

5-0

.00

40

.03

7

S4

30

.19

20

.24

7-0

.04

1-0

.09

7-0

.01

-0.1

65

-0.1

01

-0.2

64

-0.1

30

.17

80

.09

60

.11

20

.29

1-0

.07

1-0

.00

50

.08

70

.26

0.1

06

-0.0

51

0.0

77

0.2

73

-0.3

28

0.2

49

S4

40

.09

60

.13

8-0

.12

1-0

.19

2-0

.09

3-0

.05

70

.06

-0.1

8-0

.11

4-0

.09

0.0

04

-0.0

32

0.0

07

0.0

77

-0.0

26

0.7

23

0.0

48

0.0

48

0.0

34

-0.0

7-0

.03

5-0

.14

70

.04

3

S4

50

.16

50

.48

6-0

.27

4-0

.11

3-0

.28

4-0

.08

0.0

91

-0.1

31

0.0

85

-0.1

11

0.2

67

0.1

15

0.0

12

-0.1

32

0.0

33

0.0

19

0.0

50

.21

3-0

.15

5-0

.12

20

.02

6-0

.01

60

.05

S4

60

.22

70

.24

1-0

.26

1-0

.03

4-0

.10

6-0

.24

20

.09

30

.07

0.0

45

-0.0

12

-0.0

23

0.0

23

-0.1

66

0.3

22

-0.3

38

-0.0

21

-0.0

87

0.1

69

-0.0

79

-0.0

97

0.2

9-0

.01

40

.22

2

S4

7-0

.05

40

.05

-0.3

97

-0.2

17

-0.1

33

0.1

43

0.1

65

0.0

5-0

.25

9-0

.08

50

.12

60

.12

4-0

.10

80

.06

5-0

.22

1-0

.00

10

.09

30

.10

70

.05

3-0

.00

50

.21

4-0

.08

40

.23

5

S4

80

.16

20

.44

7-0

.04

4-0

.06

7-0

.12

6-0

.04

30

.27

1-0

.21

7-0

.52

6-0

.05

6-0

.05

90

.09

10

.08

80

.20

6-0

.07

9-0

.06

10

.03

20

.03

80

.00

9-0

.05

70

.06

8-0

.16

1-0

.03

3

S4

90

.04

0.0

83

-0.0

58

-0.0

92

-0.1

15

-0.0

17

0.0

01

0.0

12

0.0

24

-0.0

50

.03

40

.05

60

.19

90

.08

-0.0

10

.04

30

.82

1-0

.02

60

.01

50

0.0

79

0.0

08

0.1

17

S5

00

.07

40

.04

5-0

.05

8-0

.07

8-0

.15

6-0

.03

7-0

.00

6-0

.03

8-0

.08

7-0

.03

50

.12

3-0

.07

30

.05

80

.02

9-0

.10

40

.05

40

.13

-0.0

55

-0.0

05

0.0

53

0.1

47

-0.0

64

0.7

6

S5

1-0

.06

4-0

.15

0.0

19

0.2

25

-0.2

25

-0.2

45

0.0

82

0.1

3-0

.02

8-0

.10

70

.31

90

.13

40

.30

20

.03

5-0

.16

10

.01

90

.15

80

.21

-0.1

44

0.1

13

-0.1

20

.15

10

.30

9

S5

2-0

.02

50

.07

70

.04

1-0

.10

8-0

.06

7-0

.01

60

.04

9-0

.05

70

.02

7-0

.08

90

.09

90

.12

50

.80

90

.15

1-0

.10

6-0

.05

10

.21

30

.03

6-0

.10

70

.02

30

.01

1-0

.05

0.0

55

S5

3-0

.09

0.1

15

-0.1

47

-0.4

95

-0.0

87

0.0

10

.20

4-0

.18

3-0

.01

70

.11

50

.10

70

.10

70

.20

40

.13

6-0

.02

2-0

.25

30

.06

0.2

33

-0.2

01

-0.0

69

-0.0

26

-0.1

14

0.1

S5

40

.14

10

.32

30

.13

8-0

.21

8-0

.48

2-0

.26

70

.10

4-0

.13

70

.01

5-0

.02

20

.13

10

.18

8-0

.03

8-0

.15

4-0

.02

30

.30

20

.14

0.0

1-0

.05

8-0

.04

1-0

.06

6-0

.15

6-0

.13

7

S5

50

.00

10

.18

1-0

.49

9-0

.03

9-0

.10

7-0

.13

6-0

.15

6-0

.09

7-0

.1-0

.16

10

.12

6-0

.08

40

.42

4-0

.01

5-0

.00

60

.18

90

.11

50

.11

9-0

.00

2-0

.03

20

.13

5-0

.12

30

.11

6

S5

6-0

.05

40

.23

9-0

.32

3-0

.17

3-0

.22

-0.0

78

-0.0

72

0.0

29

-0.2

02

0.0

86

0.0

37

-0.1

44

0.1

88

0.0

01

0.0

77

0.1

36

0.1

73

0.2

49

-0.3

51

-0.1

55

-0.0

40

.24

30

.13

1

S5

70

.13

50

.20

2-0

.17

5-0

.14

7-0

.13

5-0

.14

-0.0

34

-0.1

34

-0.1

37

-0.6

29

-0.0

09

0.1

32

0.1

10

.09

60

.00

40

.00

10

.03

8-0

.03

8-0

.06

-0.0

66

-0.0

41

-0.0

03

0.0

46

S5

80

.28

60

.04

3-0

.41

0.1

52

-0.0

02

-0.1

31

-0.0

35

-0.0

83

-0.2

-0.1

74

0.1

03

0.2

23

0.2

12

0.1

86

-0.1

43

0.1

14

0.2

53

-0.1

12

-0.0

78

0.0

07

-0.0

37

0.0

71

-0.0

11

S5

90

.08

30

.00

6-0

.03

7-0

.10

6-0

.04

10

.01

6-0

.02

9-0

.10

2-0

.02

5-0

.22

30

.06

40

.12

4-0

.03

50

.00

4-0

.11

90

.07

90

.09

7-0

.02

20

.06

20

.00

90

.00

30

.00

1-0

.01

9

S6

00

.27

60

.11

-0.0

36

-0.1

38

0.0

19

-0.0

35

0.0

45

0.1

03

-0.0

85

-0.0

10

.09

5-0

.08

10

.13

40

.25

-0.1

23

0.0

84

0.1

11

0.0

37

-0.0

11

-0.0

28

0.0

18

0.0

43

0.1

74

S6

10

.11

0.0

92

-0.0

15

-0.3

15

-0.1

78

-0.0

02

0.1

01

-0.3

26

-0.2

31

-0.1

85

0.0

01

0.2

16

-0.1

05

0.2

64

-0.2

15

0.1

17

0.1

71

0.1

73

-0.2

77

0.1

02

0.0

60

-0.0

02

S6

20

.20

10

.16

4-0

.19

4-0

.09

5-0

.08

2-0

.14

0.0

32

-0.1

02

0.0

08

-0.1

65

0.3

15

0.1

57

0.0

85

0.3

45

0.1

36

0.3

75

-0.1

10

.13

10

.03

4-0

.05

10

.17

7-0

.08

30

.06

9

S6

30

.21

30

.12

30

.02

2-0

.17

6-0

.16

5-0

.35

90

.15

9-0

.08

3-0

.05

2-0

.14

30

.20

90

.02

80

.21

70

.31

40

.06

40

.14

80

.28

5-0

.02

4-0

.11

10

.07

-0.0

1-0

.26

50

.02

5

S6

40

.15

50

.17

4-0

.07

0.0

04

-0.0

12

-0.1

05

0.0

68

-0.0

57

-0.0

65

-0.0

93

0.0

11

0.1

54

0.0

45

0.1

05

-0.0

11

0.1

13

0.0

86

0.0

50

.01

2-0

.05

1-0

.02

9-0

.05

30

.09

2

S6

50

.14

30

.11

3-0

.09

9-0

.10

80

.06

5-0

.13

80

.09

9-0

.07

4-0

.27

2-0

.06

10

.13

80

.06

20

.00

10

.07

1-0

.01

80

.05

20

.17

80

.62

5-0

.05

9-0

.23

1-0

.11

8-0

.01

7-0

.03

5

S6

60

.13

30

.20

1-0

.12

8-0

.73

5-0

.07

9-0

.20

7-0

.06

30

.11

6-0

.15

7-0

.17

90

.04

0.1

01

0.0

56

-0.0

48

-0.0

56

0.1

31

0.0

45

0.1

1-0

.01

20

.06

40

.01

60

.14

20

.04

4

S6

7-0

.08

10

.10

3-0

.09

-0.4

9-0

.19

1-0

.26

60

.09

8-0

.11

7-0

.04

2-0

.23

90

.21

40

.12

2-0

.12

40

.27

3-0

.06

30

.13

50

.14

6-0

.00

90

.03

3-0

.10

8-0

.07

9-0

.12

60

.08

7

S6

80

.15

30

.19

3-0

.05

5-0

.04

9-0

.21

60

.00

20

.45

50

.05

5-0

.09

6-0

.03

50

.01

-0.0

38

-0.0

53

-0.0

86

-0.2

45

-0.1

17

0.2

03

0.0

24

0.0

33

0.0

56

0.4

4-0

.12

30

.12

1

S6

90

.04

90

.15

4-0

.10

9-0

.30

2-0

.09

10

.15

60

.10

5-0

.21

8-0

.47

3-0

.10

40

.01

70

.01

1-0

.02

30

.17

6-0

.11

30

.13

0.1

60

.09

7-0

.12

8-0

.08

60

.24

7-0

.19

5-0

.00

6

S7

00

.10

80

.12

7-0

.08

8-0

.06

-0.1

21

-0.0

45

0.0

66

-0.0

35

0.0

22

-0.0

62

0.0

34

0.0

31

0.1

04

0.0

78

-0.1

34

-0.0

08

0.0

26

0.0

87

0.0

3-0

.02

80

.03

-0.0

56

0.1

19

S7

1-0

.10

60

.58

2-0

.37

4-0

.11

1-0

.24

9-0

.08

90

.17

2-0

.02

6-0

.15

2-0

.12

80

.08

40

.05

20

.07

10

.00

6-0

.16

0.0

39

0.0

60

.12

80

.04

80

.10

90

.06

-0.1

26

0.1

01

S7

20

.12

4-0

.12

4-0

.02

8-0

.23

3-0

.01

9-0

.03

1-0

.02

60

.08

7-0

.05

3-0

.28

70

.13

40

.18

90

.14

70

.01

8-0

.05

80

.05

20

.34

9-0

.07

-0.0

79

0.0

35

0.3

04

0.1

45

0.2

13

S7

30

.02

90

.02

90

.01

30

-0.0

23

-0.0

61

0.0

62

0.0

51

-0.0

18

0.0

45

0.0

15

0.0

67

0.0

37

0.0

22

-0.0

4-0

.00

80

.04

1-0

.00

6-0

.03

20

.01

90

.91

20

.06

50

.07

6

S7

40

.09

90

.22

8-0

.15

1-0

.08

9-0

.25

8-0

.29

70

.05

-0.2

73

-0.2

77

-0.0

32

0.2

13

0.2

67

0.0

45

0.1

77

-0.2

16

-0.0

42

-0.0

04

0.0

53

-0.1

98

-0.0

25

0.0

49

-0.2

64

-0.0

73

S7

5-0

.07

90

.20

5-0

.03

60

.05

3-0

.12

5-0

.18

10

.27

1-0

.45

9-0

.09

1-0

.16

5-0

.00

30

.29

4-0

.06

20

.37

-0.0

50

.06

10

.03

40

.00

6-0

.20

1-0

.17

8-0

.05

6-0

.05

80

.23

9

S7

60

.14

10

.25

2-0

.15

60

.00

6-0

.17

5-0

.28

90

.04

7-0

.54

1-0

.02

40

.04

90

.22

50

0.0

64

0.0

59

0.0

55

0.0

21

0.0

9-0

.01

7-0

.26

70

.03

80

.00

40

.04

0.0

14

S7

70

.07

90

.05

9-0

.01

2-0

.08

8-0

.18

6-0

.11

70

.73

5-0

.14

1-0

.09

3-0

.04

80

.10

3-0

.01

80

.15

8-0

.02

2-0

.05

80

.18

5-0

.04

90

.06

5-0

.13

50

.14

-0.0

26

-0.0

6-0

.09

1

S7

80

.07

20

.09

2-0

.04

5-0

.06

-0.0

43

-0.1

43

0.0

63

-0.0

40

.02

3-0

.02

5-0

.01

10

.07

7-0

.01

20

.08

90

.04

50

.03

10

.04

70

.17

9-0

.10

2-0

.14

0.0

36

0.0

08

0.0

19

S7

90

.03

-0.0

25

-0.1

4-0

.07

5-0

.03

5-0

.10

70

.17

7-0

.80

3-0

.06

-0.1

89

0.0

29

-0.0

46

0.0

75

0.0

34

-0.0

12

0.1

88

-0.0

47

0.0

27

0.0

86

-0.0

37

-0.0

79

0.0

03

-0.0

06

S8

00

.08

8-0

.00

6-0

.14

9-0

.07

1-0

.11

1-0

.84

0.0

5-0

.10

5-0

.02

1-0

.05

90

.09

0.0

29

0.1

30

.05

3-0

.04

50

.11

1-0

.01

80

.02

80

.10

9-0

.00

60

.02

9-0

.08

10

.03

2

No

te:

% V

ar4

.20

%3

.90

%3

.80

%3

.80

%3

.70

%3

.70

%3

.70

%3

.00

%2

.90

%2

.90

%2

.90

%2

.90

%2

.70

%2

.70

%2

.60

%2

.60

%2

.50

%2

.40

%2

.30

%2

.30

%2

.30

%2

.30

%2

.30

%

210

APPENDIX M

Significant Variables After Varimax Rotation

Factors Skill Variables

Factor1 S11 S16 S37 S40

Factor2 S18 S71

Factor3 S31 S35

Factor4 S28 S66

Factor5 S4 S5 S14

Factor6 S6 S80

Factor7 S9 S39 S77

Factor8 S76 S79

Factor9 S30 S48

Factor10 S33 S57

Factor11 S8

Factor12 S3 S22

Factor13 S52

Factor14 S20

Factor15 S25 S41

Factor16 S44

Factor17 S49

Factor18 S36 S65

Factor19 S32

Factor20 S10 S13

Factor21 S73

Factor22 S15

Factor23 S50

211

APPENDIX N

Skill Ranks and Indexes for Significant Variables, by Job Function Groupings.

213

APPENDIX O

Matrix Plot of Domain Variables

215

APPENDIX P

Matrix Plot of Skill Variables

217

APPENDIX Q

Common and Differentiating Domains and Skills Across Job Functions