buterbaugh brian - final format _12 16 14
TRANSCRIPT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES TO CORPORATE CENTRALIZATION AND
MANAGER EXPERIENCE
A Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University, Online
In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration Marketing
By
Brian Buterbaugh
November 2014
ii
THE RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES
TO CORPORATE CENTRALIZATION AND
MANAGER EXPERIENCE
Copyright ©2014
Brian Buterbaugh
All rights reserved
iv
THE RELATIONSHIP OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES
TO CORPORATE CENTRALIZATION AND
MANAGER EXPERIENCE
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University, Online
In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration Marketing
By
Brian Buterbaugh
Argosy University
November 2014
Elias Demetriades, Ph.D., Chair
Paul Greenberg, Ph.D., Member
Department: College of Business
v
ABSTRACT
Today’s businesses use multidimensional strategies such as changing organizational
structure, to survive and grow in a global, high technology environment. However, this
requires the highest quality of management and leadership at all levels. This dissertation
evaluates the relationships between a manager’s self-perceived leadership practices,
managerial experience, and the degrees of organizational structure, using the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) survey, a commonly used metric of leadership potential.
Survey analyses indicated that decentralized organizations with managers having more
than five years’ experience have a higher quality of leadership behavior. Identifying the
perceived leadership practices of in-place and potential mangers provides a baseline for
the demand by top management for change in order to survive and grow. Although the
prudent business will conduct a detailed analysis of a resource potential, as this paper
points out, historically, it is the steady progression in a decentralized business structure
and the need to adapt to new organization structures, including virtual environments that
leads to success. Therefore, despite the quality of leadership’s best intentions, leaders
must be trained to be leaders, not assume to appear by virtue of a title.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to thank Argosy University and my committee members for their continual
support, mentoring, assistance, and encouragement throughout the dissertation process.
Special thanks are extended to Dr. Demetriades who stepped in and came to my rescue
when my committee turned over and to Dr. Greenberg who kept me on track and in the
right direction. I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Mahdavi who saw the need for and
gave me the guidance that pointed me to completion of the study. I am more than
thankful for the efforts by Linda Jacobsen for being my talented editor making sure that
the text said what was correct and readable. Special thanks go to Stat Assist- Dr. Baxter,
Amanda, Scott, and Dr. Cole- for their rapid and total response in editing and statistical
guidance. My lasting thanks go to Hugo Martinez, who always found the ways that gave
me the time to address a time consuming project.
vii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my mother, father, brother and
daughter. If it was not for their continual support, guidance, upbringing and
encouragement, this task would have been impossible to complete.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................x
TABLES OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1Problem Background .....................................................................................................1Problem Statement .........................................................................................................2Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................3Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................4Limitations .....................................................................................................................6Delimitations ..................................................................................................................7Key Terms and Databases ..............................................................................................7Significance of Study .....................................................................................................9Summary ......................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................12Historical Overview Business Management ................................................................12Business Management Theories ..................................................................................14
Scientific Management Theory ..............................................................................15Administrative Management Theory .....................................................................16Behavioral Management Theory............................................................................19Management Science Theory .................................................................................21Organizational Environment Theory .....................................................................22
Centralization ...............................................................................................................23Definition of Centralization ...................................................................................23
Decentralization ...........................................................................................................25Leadership ....................................................................................................................26Management Experience ..............................................................................................32Summary ......................................................................................................................36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .........................................................................37Research Design...........................................................................................................38Research Question and Hypotheses .............................................................................39Operational of Variables ..............................................................................................41
Leadership Qualities ..............................................................................................41Degree of Organizational Centralization ...........................................................................41
Manager Experience ..............................................................................................42Population, Sampling, and Sampling Procedures ........................................................42
Population ..............................................................................................................42Sample and Sampling Methodology ......................................................................43
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................45Demographics Survey ............................................................................................45Leadership Practices Inventory ..............................................................................45
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................47
ix
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................53Data Analysis Procedure ..............................................................................................53Demographics ..............................................................................................................55
Gender and Ethnicity .............................................................................................55Age Generation and Level of Education ................................................................56Organization Size and Type of Business Sector ....................................................56
Reliability Analysis ......................................................................................................57Analyses of Research Questions 1-3............................................................................58
Data Cleaning.........................................................................................................59Test of Normality ...................................................................................................60Homogeneity of Variance ......................................................................................61Results of Hypotheses 1-3 .....................................................................................62
Analysis of Research Question 4 .................................................................................65Data Cleaning.........................................................................................................65Test of Normality ...................................................................................................66Results of Hypothesis 4 .........................................................................................66
Exploratory Analyses ...................................................................................................67Analysis 1...............................................................................................................69Analysis 2...............................................................................................................70Analysis 3...............................................................................................................72
Summary ......................................................................................................................73
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......76Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................76Results ..........................................................................................................................78Conclusions and Implications ......................................................................................82Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................................85Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................86Limitations ...................................................................................................................87Summary ......................................................................................................................87
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................89
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................94
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................95APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................98APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................101APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................................107APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................110
x
TABLE OF TABLES
1. Construct Validity, as Measured by Cronbach’s Alpha with All Scales Above the .75 level ............................................................................................................................. 46
2. Summary of Variables and Statistical Tests used to Evaluate Research Questions 1 - 4..................................................................................................................................... 54
3. Frequency and Percent Statistics of Participants’ Gender and Ethnicity .................... 55
4. Frequency and Percent Statistics of Age Generation and Level of Education ........... 56
5. Frequency and Percent Statistics of Participants’ Organization Size and Type of Business Sector ........................................................................................................... 57
6. Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Leadership Qualities by Degrees of Centralization and Experience .................................................................................... 60
7. Skew and Kurtosis Statistics of Participants’ Leadership Qualities by Degree of Centralization and Experience .................................................................................... 61
8. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances for Research Questions 1-3 ................ 62
9. Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Hypotheses 1-3 ........... 64
10. Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Degree of Centralization and Leadership Quality Scores ............................................................................................................. 65
11. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics of Participants’ Degree of Centralization and Leadership Quality Scores .......................................................................................... 66
12. Model Summary of Regression Analysis used to Evaluate Hypothesis 4 .................. 67
13. Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 1 ................... 70
14. Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 2 ................... 71
15. Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 3 ................... 73
16. Summary of Results for Research Questions 1 and 4 ................................................. 75
xi
TABLES OF APPENDICES
A. Informed Consent........................................................................................................ 95
B. Demographics Survey ................................................................................................. 98
C. Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) ....................................................................... 101
D. Descriptive Statistics Tables ..................................................................................... 107
E. Figures....................................................................................................................... 110
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Since the 1980’s, business has been faced with surviving and growing in a global
high technology environment. In response, businesses are focusing on multi-dimensional
strategies, principally by changing organizational structure. A favored strategy is to
consider changing the degree of a centralization structure, coupled with personnel
movement. Change can succeed only in a modern environment of leadership and
knowledge sharing, led by experienced managers empowered with freedom of thought in
decision making, and not through micromanaging (French & Bell, 1999). However, no
organization, operations, or personnel change strategy can succeed without leadership.
This dissertation explores leadership qualities and their interaction with the degree of
centralization and the manager’s experience. The degree of centralization in an
organization in operations, cultural environment, and employee inputs is discussed in this
study.
Problem Background
In modern times, business has expanded from a national environment into a
global environment, requiring firms to develop new strategies for goals and
accomplishments, to expand their markets. A business strategy is an essential element in
creating a business. Over time, business models have modified the measurements of
success, resulting in a more holistic approach in evaluating how an organization seeks
new business opportunities. The strategies vary as a function of the type of product or
service, but some observations include, (a) firms with market power are less likely to
decentralize, (b) firms that operate across multiple industries are likely decentralized, and
(c) firms that operate in homogeneous environments are further from adopting current
2
technology, are older, and likely to be centralized (French & Bell, 1999). Centralization
is stronger in high tech companies (Garvin, 2013). In order to create successful change,
management teams must have the competency, experience, structure, and motivation
along with qualified leadership.
Problem Statement
This study was important because businesses have become more decentralized
than ever (Swaan Arons, Driest, & Weed, 2014). Operating units are becoming more
numerous, widely distributed, often with limited or no personal contact with upper levels
of management. The levels of management in a decentralized organization are often
separated in distance and time. In this environment, top management will realize the best
possible performance from mid-level managers who not only demonstrate the highest
levels of leadership, but whose level of leadership can be predicted (Kouzes & Posner,
2006). The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is accepted by French and Bell (1999)
as a milestone means of measuring leadership potential.
By knowing the relationships between LPI behavior scores, managers’ experience
and an organizational structure, one may gain significant insight in leadership behavior in
middle management. This study is novel because Kouzes and Posner (2006) context of
leadership was initially used to study individuals, whereas this dissertation examined
leadership behaviors in firms grouped into the two principal types of organizational
structures in the current business environment (i.e., centralized and decentralized). The
potential audience includes top management, as well as CEOs, because they must all be
innovative leaders to guide their organization in today’s global economy.
3
Purpose of Study
The study was intended to measure and evaluate two principle business
management concepts. The first was to validate firms with a highly decentralized
organizational structure have managers with high exemplary leadership behaviors, as
contrasted with highly centralized firms that have managers with low ranking leadership
behaviors. The second study element was to quantify the relationships between years of
managerial experience and organizational structure. The purpose of this study was to
quantify the relationships between a manager’s leadership behaviors, years of experience,
and his/her perception of how centralized or decentralized her/his company is. The study
indicated that managers with more than 5 years of experience could be more objective in
their self-evaluation of their leadership behaviors than managers with less than 5 years’
experience. To achieve these goals, leadership behaviors were measured with the
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), a self-ranked, Likert scale inventory of 30 key
behaviors. A manager’s years of experience (less than 5 years, 5 years or more) and their
ranking of their company’s degree of centralization was collected using a demographic
survey. Managers categorized their company’s degree of centralization by choosing one
of six categories ranging from no participation in decisions to always participating in
decisions (Likert & Likert, 1976).
Recognizing leadership is a relationship between leaders and followers, the study
evaluated the relationship between leadership practices as measured by LPI scores,
manager’s experience, and organizational structure to predict leadership practices in
middle management. The levels of management in a decentralized organization are often
separated in distance and time. In this environment, top management will realize the best
4
possible performance from mid-level managers who not only demonstrate the highest
levels of leadership, but future potential also. By understanding the relationships
between LPI behavior scores, a manager’s experience, and the organizational structure,
one may gain insights into leadership behavior in middle management.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The purpose of this proposed quantitative study was to examine differences in
leadership behaviors between managers from organizations with different degrees of
centralization, and different levels of management experience (≤5 years, >5 years). The
independent variables include the degree of centralization of an organization and the
manager’s experience. The dependent variable is leadership qualities, as expressed by
the LPI score (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The four research questions include:
RQ1: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers from
organizations with high centralization and those from organizations with low
centralization?
H1Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
H1Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
RQ2: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers with
work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more work experience than 5
years?
5
H2Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more
work experience than 5 years.
H2Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those
with more work experience than 5 years.
RQ3: Are there significant interaction effects between a manager’s years of experience,
(≤5 years, ˃5 years), and the organization’s centralization, and a manager’s self-evaluated
leadership qualities?
H3Null: There are no significant interaction effects between the manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and a
manager’s self-evaluated leadership qualities.
H3Alternative: There are significant interaction effects between manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and managers
self-evaluated leadership qualities.
RQ4: Is there a significant relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s)?
H4Null: There is no relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
H4Alternative: There is a relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
The survey was measured on an 11-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 10
specifically, “Not at all likely” to “Extremely likely.” The Leadership Practices
6
Inventory (LPI) facilitates this evaluation using five leadership practices with six
different elements of each practice for a total of thirty statements. The practices include
(a) encourage, (b) model, (c) enable, (d) inspire, and (e) challenge (Kouzes & Posner,
2006). The degree of organizational centralization was defined as it relates to what
degree an individual has in decisions of how to perform his or her work, and is the
individual involved in determining how to accomplish her or his job and related duties
(McEnrue, 1998). Within a highly centralized environment, individuals participate only
to a degree in establishing job objectives and performance measurements (McEnrue,
1998). Centralization indicates the individual has only limited level of creating the
means of solving problems with the encouragement of management, and making
decisions that contribute to the execution of tactics and strategy, set by top management.
Centralization also relates to the degree individuals rely on policies and procedures to do
their work. For example, if policies set limitations on how work was to be performed,
there is a higher degree of centralization (McEnrue, 1998). Manager experience was
defined as related experience in multifaceted fields and industries leading to decision
making that benefit the organization’s growth pattern. It is measured at the nominal
level. Demographics survey measured manager experience, with options being ≤ 5years
or >5 years. Management experience and degree of centralization was measured at the
interval level and extracted from primary sources through the use of a demographics
survey.
Limitations
The limitations include the respondents distribution may not reflect the actual
distribution of managers in various industries. Respondents in the sample may not reflect
7
the distribution of different levels of management in various industries. Though, it is not
clear how many respondents may have come from any single company.
Delimitations
The selected companies in the United States of America are represented in the
Survey Monkey database. The companies were selected from a business sector that
covers the majority of manufactures of durable consumer goods. The survey respondents
assured a diverse sample population.
Key Terms and Databases
Born global. Born global is defined as those smaller firms that follow a rapid
path in their development (Chandia, Styles, & Wilkinson, 2012).
Business model. Business model is defined as a system, and how the pieces of a
business fit together (Porter, 1998).
Centralization. The centralized organization is characterized as one where
authority, decision making, and planning are focused on a few individuals (French &
Bell, 1999).
Decentralization. The decentralized organization is characterized as one where
authority, decision making, and planning are focused with many individuals (French &
Bell, 1999).
Efficiency. Efficiency was defined as economic value added (EVA) that
measures the differences in pre-implementation to post-implementation of strategies and
their value of the present business cash flow to future cash flow ratio. Alternately,
market value added (MVA) was the difference between the value of a corporation’s
market value and capital as contributed by stockholders and lenders that was often
8
combined with EVA to gauge performance. The EVA measurement can be thought of as
net operating profit after taxes and capital costs, and it is a predictor of MVA (Wheelen
& Hunger, 2008).
Formulas:
EVA = after-tax operating income – (investment in assets x weighted average cost
of capital) (Wheelen & Hunger, 2008).
MVA= total common equity - (total shares outstanding x current market price)
Foreign direct investment (FDI). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is defined as
investment into a company by a company located in another country through buying a
company or expanding operations of an existing company (Galpin, 2001).
Globalizing internationalizer. Globalizing internationalizer is defined as firm’s
business strategy focused on globalization into foreign markets with focus on long
psychic distances (Chandia et al., 2012).
Multinational corporations (MNCs). Multinational corporations (MNCs) are
defined as corporations registered in more than one country or that have operations in
more than one country (Galpin, 2001). Multinational corporations are also known to
have centralized authority. Centralized authority is defined as principal decisions made
at corporate headquarters (Garvin, 2013).
Profitability. Profitability is defined as the measurement of corporate
performance in terms of profits. The usual terms are return on investment (ROI), which
is the result of dividing net income before taxes by the total amount invested. Return on
equity (ROE), is the result of dividing net income by total equity (Wheelen & Hunger,
9
2008). The return on assets (ROA) is derived by dividing net income by total assets.
ROA can be used to measure profitability in place of ROI (Wheelen & Hunger, 2008).
Formulas:
(ROI)= (before-tax net income / total amount invested) (Wheelen & Hunger,
2008).
(ROE) = (net income/total equity) (Wheelen & Hunger, 2008).
(ROA) = (net income/total assets) (Wheelen & Hunger, 2008).
Psychic Distances. Psychic distances are defined as the distance between an
operating business unit and its headquarters (Chandia et al., 2012).
Subsidiary. Subsidiary is defined as a company completely or partially owned,
and wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half the subsidiary’s
stock (Galpin, 2001).
Traditional internationalizer. Traditional internationalizer is defined as a firm’s
business strategy that is globalized with a new focus on new foreign markets through the
use of short psychic distances (Chandia et al., 2012).
Significance of Study
Leadership is required for effective development of a business strategy and
leadership must accurately define who, where, what, and how a firm delivers value to
customers (Weill & Vitale, 2001; Seddon & Lewis, 2003). An organization must demand
internal self-evaluation of its capabilities based on its strengths, weaknesses, risk
management skills, and human resources. This study was directed at an internal analysis
by self-evaluation of the relationships of leadership qualities, manager experience, and
degrees of centralization of the corporation’s structure. These relationships can reveal
10
strong and weak areas of process, organization structure, and human resources that
influence overall company performance.
This study was based on the application of the Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI) developed by Kouzes and Posner (2006). The LPI is a survey instrument applied
with more than 350,000 managers within a variety of organizations with inputs from men
and women of various ages, education, and ethnicity (Kouzes & Posner, 2001). The LPI
is a well-seasoned leadership inventory administrated to thousands of managers (Kouzes
& Posner, 2006).
This research substantiated the survey technique of measuring leadership behavior
in it replicates an internal program at Google, Inc. The founders of this eminently
successful Internet Company created Project Oxygen, a survey program that measures
key management behaviors. The Project Oxygen survey is highly analogous to the LPI
as it validates empowering managers to be active in business decisions within a
decentralized organization yields success. This research demonstrated since the results of
the survey are evidence–based, participants and observers are presented with concrete
factors of action that can be taken to become more effective in managerial matters, and to
enhance career opportunities. The identification of specific leadership practices that
support operational effectiveness may create higher levels of corporate efficiency and
employee productivity, leading to success in today’s dynamic business environment
(Garvin, 2013).
Summary
The study methodology measured and evaluated the relationships of leadership
behavior to manager experience in organizations of various degrees of centralization.
11
Results were expected to be generalizable to manufacturing firms and their populations in
the United States. The proposed sample of 200 participants was expected to be an
adequate statistical representation, though it is not clear how many respondents may have
come from any single company.
The research design was a quantitative exploratory project. This research
measured leadership qualities based on specific attributes through an online survey using
established questionnaires, sampling, and statistical analysis techniques to answer the
research questions. The research design represented a plan to collect this specific
empirical evidence, and to identify and measure relationships between the dependent and
independent variables
12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Business management today reflects the evolution of economic, technical, and
cultural changes that began as America became a modern industrialized nation.
Industrial globalization requires management to be multicultural, politically sensitive,
socially conscious, accommodative of environment, and above all, flexible. This
project’s purpose explores how the level of centralization, decentralization, Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) and manager experience relate to performance in the workplace
and related elements of quality. The process of looking at organizations in today’s
dynamic business environment required the ability to analyze how organizational
structure, managers experience and managers qualities relate to performance. Section
one of chapter 2 discusses the history and management theories in today’s application of
management theories, theories that evolved into organizational structures, both
centralized and decentralized.
Manager experience is often experience in multifaceted fields and industries not
necessarily in the current organization. The manager must demonstrate an understanding
of authority, and how it is used in problem solving and decision making. As managerial
experience evolves with the work force, effective management can influence workers in
completing tasks successfully.
Historical Overview Business Management
Business management was defined as the organization and coordination to
achieve the business objectives. It is comprised of the planning, organization, staffing,
executing, and controlling of the operations that comprise the enterprise (Program
Management Institute, 2004). Peter Drucker, known as one of the fathers of modern
13
management, validates these elements of management as baseline for his widely accepted
principles of decentralization, role of the individual in the work force, customer service,
and application of modern economics (Hammer, Leonard, & Davenport, 2004). The
study of business management evolved as both theorists and practitioners involved
themselves in the industrialization of the economies of America and Europe. As the
industrial process improved to meet both personal and industrial demand, the methods to
control and improve processes were developed (Smith & Milligan, 2011). As industry
grew in response to technological improvements, degrees of authority developed within
labor unions, ownership, management, and competition.
During the industrial revolution, the distribution of management was created to
control production and the distribution of labor (Robertson, 1999). As the factory system
grew, managerial authority provided coordination of capital intensive production and
protected valuable investments (Smith & Milligan, 2011). The introduction of
technology to improve the efficiency of production led to the specific definition of power
and authority in labor and management. The formation of labor unions resulted in
degrees of distribution of power and authority of these two entities (Robertson, 1999).
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith’s guiding principles for the government
included his opinion that one of the righteous duties of the government is the
administration of justice, i.e., how law and order are applied to society (Heilbroner,
1999). Although there are unrealistic elements of this concept, it has resulted in
government regulations requiring businesses be socially responsible. Smith (1982)
contended the government must influence business to be socially responsible, sometimes
with regulation, as businesses will not always self-regulate unless society influences or
14
impacts their profits. Safety standards, child labor practices, and environmental
consciousness are all examples of regulations socially responsible governments enact to
protect the public.
Business Management Theories
Business management theory evolved from the Industrial Revolution to today’s
multiple, complex systems with a holistic approach, covering people, the environment,
politics, and even religion. Management practices branched into five distinct theories
that were prominent during the specific time frames shown below:
Scientific Management Theory (1890 – 1945);
Administrative Management Theory (1895 – 1985);
Behavioral Management Theory (1910 – 1995);
Management Science Theory (1940 – 1995); and
Organizational Environmental Theory (1945 – Present).
Predating these defined periods was the pre-scientific era that took place from 1000 to
1800. During this period, the economy was agrarian, workers were illiterate, the family
was central to life, and management skills were limited, with no direction related to
management roles, expectations, and business behaviors. In the 1700s, Adam Smith
traveled through England studying the effects of the industrial revolution. He observed
the need to find ways to increase worker efficiency with better organizational
performance. Adam Smith foresaw the necessity for an organized methodology to run
businesses more efficiency. This era created the foundation for scientific management
theory.
15
Scientific Management Theory
Fredrick W. Taylor was the principal architect of the theory of scientific
management. His study of operations in a steel mill led to the concept of applying
scientific methods to analyze work and define methods to perform efficiently. Jobs were
studied in a scientific manner to improve performance (Garrison & Levinson, 2006).
Employees, selected for ability, were trained and awarded pay on a piece-part basis
(Garrison & Levinson, 2006). Supervisors were employed to ensure workers performed
to standards.
This management form was accepted nation-wide, but the principles created more
harm than good. Workers were generally dissatisfied with pressure, threat of layoff, and
monotony. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were followers of Taylor. They refined Taylor�s
approach by developing the time and motion study designed to maximize the efficiency
of each individual task (Garrison & Levinson, 2006). Garrison and Levinsons (2006)
study also examined workers� environment in lighting, heating, cooling, and tool and
machine design. Only the idea of scientific management is applied today, and considered
as a baseline concept.
Managers in the 21st century must conduct a similar study and analysis to survive
in the competitive environment. Taylor�s theories are relevant to today�s demands for
monitoring production control, control costs, measure performance and outcomes, and
assure efficiency. The manufacturing process is challenged by today�s globalization of
business. According to Gabor (2000), adapting Taylor�s original theory maximizes
success in this environment.
16
Administrative Management Theory
The administrative management theory is based on the idea an organizational
structure will result in high levels of effectiveness and efficiency. The foundation of the
administrative management theory resides in the early 1900s humanistic approaches
based on methods of business practices (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). Proponents of this
theory are Henri Fayol and Max Weber.
In 1900, when Fayol made his first presentation on business management, the
industrial world was quite different from today�s global industrial complex. Fayol was a
French mining engineer and is considered one of the fathers of modern organizational
management theory (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). In his 1900 presentation, Fayol discussed
the technical and commercial functions of a business were defined, but the administrative
function was not. Fayol used the term administrative to include organization,
communication, accounting, and financial personnel (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). In the
presentation, Fayol�s outlined of organizational structures was revolutionary. Today, it is
one reason management is effective. In the 1900�s, Fayol�s concept of administrative
management was revolutionary in its concept of organizational structures. In today�s
highly competitive economy, this structure is implicit in organization that leads to high
efficiency and effectiveness. Fayol stated, �Every employee, in an undertaking, then
takes a larger or smaller share in the work of administration and has, therefore, to use and
display his administrative faculties� (Wren, Bedeian, & Breeze, 2002, p. 913).
In 1908, Fayol contributed two significant concepts to management theory (Pugh
& Hickson, 2007). One of these was the still-referenced five primary functions of
management, including (a) planning, (b) organizing, (c) commanding, (d) coordinating,
17
and (e) controlling. These were subsequently published in his initial definition of 10
principles of administration. He then went on to develop his work published in 1917,
�Industrial and General Administration�. In this volume, Fayol described his 14
Principles of Management that endure to this day (Pugh & Hickson, 2007).
Fayol�s contemporary was Fredrick Winslow Taylor, an industrial engineer who
formulated the concept of scientific management. The concept of scientific management
is comprised of several elements. It reduces waste and increases productivity by
standardizing work practices and methods. It employs time and motion studies of a
worker to maximize productivity and output. Workers are selected and trained to
increase productivity and efficiency. Workers are paid on differential pay incentives
based on work standards.
The workers reaction to this concept was to believe managers required them to
work more for less pay, to increase output would result in fewer jobs, and to work to
standards was monotonous and repetitive (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). Fayol was a negative
critic of Taylor and rightly so. Fayol believed Taylor�s theory violated the principles of
unity of command, i.e., each employee has one and only one boss (Wren, Bedeian, &
Breeze, 2002). Fayol commented Taylor�s approach resulted in eight different bosses, an
unworkable situation (Wren, Bedeian, & Breeze, 2002). While Taylor�s system produced
large quantities, it was cumbersome, rigid, and slow to adjust to market conditions. In
today�s highly competitive business environment, a firm in a product market can be faced
with the requirement to change an existing product, develop a new product, or reduce
production cost in a compressed time period. The time and expense to rewrite or write
new standards, acquire and install new tools, train workers in new or modified procedure,
18
and often renegotiate labor later with an union can result in failure to keep a market
position.
Max Weber, a German legal scholar, was also a major contributor to modern
principles of both social science and management theory. He developed a corollary to
Fayol�s theory, known as the theory of bureaucracy (Kettler, Loader, & Meja, 2008).
This principle is a system of organization and administration intended to ensure
effectiveness and efficiency. Weber�s concept was a bureaucracy had four attributes,
including (a) clearly specified hierarchy of authority, (b) a specified system of task and
role relationships, (c) a system of written rules and procedures for employee behavior,
and (d) a system of selection and evaluation that rewards employees (Kettler et al., 2008).
Supporting this basic concept are the five operating principles that comprise Weber�s
concept of bureaucracy within a business. Weber believed (a) formal authority derives
from organizational position, (b) organizational positions are to be occupied because of
performance, (c) authority, task responsibilities and related organizational position must
be clearly specified, (d) authority can be exercised only on a hierarchal organization, and
(e) the organization must have a system of rules, procedures and codes of conduct
(Kettler et al., 2008).
In practice, Weber�s bureaucratic managements put too much emphasis on rigid
rules and inflexible regulations. This formal concept required considerable paperwork
and resulted in delays in decision making, as well as necessary flexible procedures.
Workers were required to have highly technical qualifications, limiting the scope of
Human Resource operations. In the end, the bureaucratic theory was more suitable for a
government organization than for business. In general, the impersonal approach to
19
management was unacceptable to the working class. A movement to personalize and
understand human behavior in management led to the development of the Behavior
Management theory.
Behavioral Management Theory
The behavioral management theory developed from studies of how management
should behave. These studies took a humanistic approach in motivating employees to
realize high levels of effectiveness and commitment to organization�s goals. The studies
and development of behavioral management theory are dominated by Follett, the
Hawthorne Studies conducted by Mayo and McGregor�s X-Y Theories (Pugh & Hickson,
2007).
Mary Parker Follett, often known as the mother of conflict resolution, supported a
human relations approach to management. She advocated the integration of management
and workers. She developed the idea of organizational conflict in management (Stein,
2010). This approach involved workers in job analysis and process (Tonn, 2003). To do
so, required management in all departments to communicate directly and operate in a
cross-function manner.
The Hawthorne studies were conducted in 1924 � 1932 at the Western Electric
Co. The studies were led by Elton Mayo of the Harvard School of Business
Administration. Mayo is often known as the father of the human relations movement in
business (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). The studies illustrated how the work setting affected
worker�s fatigue and performance.
The �Hawthorne Effect� was a term used to describe how workers� attitudes toward
management affected worker performance. This finding led to an approach that trained
20
supervisors to elicit cooperation from subordinates so productivity could increase (Pugh
& Hickson, 2007). From this, the human relations movement developed. Features of this
movement include recognition that the behavior of managers and workers in the work
place is important in performance, as are the technical aspects of the task, and the
feelings, thoughts and behavior of workers and managers affect performance (Pugh &
Hickson, 2007).
Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist who lectured at Harvard University and
MIT and became one of the first Sloan Business School graduates, was influenced by
Abraham Maslow�s hierarchy of needs. McGregor noted the hierarchy challenges the
principles that support the scientific management theory. McGregor focused on a
humanistic approach to management, advocating that management had two distinct,
different styles. Theory X theorizes individuals are reluctant to work; Theory Y
theorizes, if workers are committed to the goals of the organization, they will do almost
anything (Pugh & Hickson, 2007).
Theory X can be characterized as micromanagement designed to keep
performance high and workers� behaviors controlled by reward and punishment. Theory
Y has a different approach; workers have more control and accountability for their jobs.
The role of management under Theory Y is not control, but to support, advise, and
evaluate performance (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). McGregor�s ideas have been applied in
industry with success since the 1950s (Pugh & Hickson, 2007). Much of modern
management science theory can be traced back to McGregor.
21
Management Science Theory
Management science theory originated in England during World War II when the
British government needed help in solving, planning, allocating resources, and producing
weapon systems (Eder & Alvintizi, 2010). The basic idea of management science is a
mathematic model applying linear programming and critical path analysis to make
decisions. The theory can be considered an extension of Taylor�s scientific management.
The application of mathematics and statistics are considered methods that support a
scientific approach.
The theory is defined as a set of techniques and systems that, when integrated,
operates as a system to realize maximum use of resources to produce goods and service.
The components of the theory are:
quantitative management that uses mathematical and statistical techniques;
operations management that provides a set of techniques for mangers to
analyze operational systems to increase effectiveness (Eder & Alvintizi,
2010);
management information system (MIS) that provide information on the total
business operation for management�s decision making (Eder & Alvintizi,
2010); and
total quality management (TQM) that focuses on an organization�s input,
conversion, and output activities to increase product (Walton, 1986).
Total Quality Management, (TQM) attributed to Edward Deming, survives in current
management practices. As noted above, the Management Science Theory that began to
be replaced by the Organizational Environment Theory (Walton, 1986) is attributed to
22
Edward Deming. When Deming realized the failure of his previous successful methods
to be adopted by the U.S. industry, he developed a philosophy of management with
which statistical methods were consistent (Walton, 1986). Within this philosophy are
principles analogous to Fayol�s, admittedly not exact in definition, but as effective in
action (Walton, 1986).
Organizational Environment Theory
Organizational environment theory is based on accommodating forces and
conditions outside an organization�s boundaries that affect management�s acquisition and
utilization of resources (Dobbin & Schoonhoven, 2010). Effective operations under such
conditions have led to adopting a systems approach to management that is a subset of
organizational environment theory (Dobbin & Schoonhoven, 2010). In the management
context, a system is defined as a set of interrelated and interdependent functions operating
as a unified whole (Dobbin & Schoonhoven, 2010). The business management approach
is to apply two types of systems, including open and closed.
In business management, the open system takes resources from the external
environment and converts them into goods and services that go back into the external
environment for sale to customers (Dobbin & Schoonhoven, 2010). The open system has
three stages, including (a) the input stage, which acquires raw materials, capital, and
human resources, (b) the conversion stage, which converts the inputs to finished goods,
and adds value, and (c) the output stage, which releases goods to the external
environment. The closed system has very little interaction with the external environment,
and is not affected by external changes. In use, the closed system can experience
entropy, lose its ability to control itself, and self-destruct.
23
The theories of management that have been presented shape the dynamics
between management and employees. The concept of authority is critical to management
theory. The following section explores the concept and dimensions of authority through
levels of centralization of an organization as used within this study.
Every business requires an organization structure. The term structure defines the
overall design of the organization regardless of size, location, product, service, or
customer. There are endless types and designs, but in a context of strategy, structure,
processes, and people, two basic types of organization structure stand out, centralized and
decentralized.
Centralization
Definition of Centralization
The centralized organization is characterized as one where authority, decision
making, and planning are focused on a few individuals, often at a central headquarters.
This type of organization operates in a stable environment with a formal hierarchy and
vertical flow of communication. From an operational viewpoint, centralization is very
efficient with a well-developed culture. Despite the negative effects of a layered
bureaucracy, well defined accountability and job objectives result in high performance
(Robbins & Judge, 2012). It should not be inferred that centralized organizations are bad.
A business� president can establish the company�s strategy and by downward
communication, keep all levels moving in one direction. This assures a constant vision of
mission and helps deliver a positive message to customers and communities (Kates &
Galbraith, 2007).
24
A relatively small group of top managers can react more quickly to a changing
market and make critical decision more efficiently. A small group of top managers can
implement major decisions with minimum conflict and dissent among lower level of
employees (Robbins & Judge, 2012). By taking responsibility for unfavorable decisions,
top management insulates mid-level managers from conflict or dissent. As discussed
previously, the business model is essential to creating a business and how a strategy
works. The organization structure defined in the business model is an essential element
of a business. The structure style, centralized or decentralized, determines how a
business operates.
An example is the Swiss private banking business. Although changing, the
institutions were vertically integrated in wealth management, brokerage, and financial
management. These private banks kept everything in-house due to secrecy and
confidentiality requirements. They are the perfect examples of centralized organization.
The largest Swiss bank, Pictet, remains centralized even while the Swiss banking industry
is changing to a more open and decentralized style (Kates & Galbraith, 2007).
Small businesses are a natural for a centralized structure. The small business
usually has only one manager, the owner. The other employees report directly to the
owner. In many ways, a trucking company is a centralized organization. While
distributed managers make operational decisions, communication to drivers is through
one set of dispatchers. Even self-employed drivers, who are actually small business
owners, must take direction from these dispatchers. Franchise organizations, such as fast
food restaurants, have a unique feature, centralized operations within a decentralized
structure. Top managers control product development and marketing, but an individual
25
franchise is given independence in running a store (Kates & Galbraith, 2007). The
franchisee can make its own staffing decisions, hours of operation, and compensation
decisions. However, employees are closely supervised and follow well defined rules, as
well as standard operating procedures.
Decentralization
Merely labeling a business as decentralized fails to recognize if the firm has a
relatively long history, it probably evolved from a centralized organization. In today�s
business environment of dynamic, global markets, instant communication, and the
flexibility to diversify, businesses are trending to favor the almost universal adoption of
the decentralized organization. However, a decentralized organization is not
disorganized in operating in this environment.
A business must have a corporate center or headquarters. The staff and activities
are outside the operating units. This center provides support for the operating units. The
size itself of the business does not determine the functions in the center. Rather, the
functions are required to influence and constrain the activities at all levels of the
organization�s hierarchy. Depending on the size of the company, functions required in
the center can be performed in the operating unit, but at a scale appropriate to the
subordinate unit (McEnrue, 1998). The corporate center�s contribution to the operating
units is in inverse proportion to the diversity of the company�s portfolio. For example, a
company that has operating units with different business models or different markets in
other geographic locations may delegate functions to the operating unit. The value the
corporate center adds depends on the focus of the portfolio, but the center has an
important function that determines its value.
26
An example of a decentralized organization, a restaurant business, is seen in
McEnrue�s study of managerial experience. This study of 89 restaurants indicates the
business model at the restaurant level had several features of a centralized structure. The
restaurants with the highest increase in sales and profits had specific limitations on
managerial experience, age, and tenure as a restaurant manager, manager of the current
restaurant and with parent organization (McEnrue, 1998).
As businesses operate, change is often indicated to meet market dynamics,
external influenced, environment impact, technical innovation, management, or
acquisition. Tailoring a business model to accommodate a significant change can be
challenging, but it can be done. Businesses can implement multiple business models
within long established organizations. A proposal is to insert a new business model into
an established organization as is or as a separate business unit. Examples of central-
integrated versus decentralized-separate are seen in the Swiss watch manufacturer SMH,
the food manufacturer Nestle, and automobile manufacturer Daimler. Centralization and
decentralization can exist together, but the method of implementation, risk and time
required must be considered (Osterwalden & Pigneur, 2010).
Leadership
Business operations include human relationships that depend on the display of
managerial leadership in both a perceived and actual manner. Business operations,
including the execution of strategies, tactics and implementation of skills and practices,
are effective when the relationships between leaders and employees are understood
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007). To understand these relationships, requires a self-evaluation
of leadership characteristics. Within the research on leadership, Posner and Schmidt
27
(1984, 1994) and Kouzes and Posner (1995) have analyzed the business environment.
Posner and Schmidt (1984) categorized 15 items of leadership characteristics, and later,
Kouzes and Posner (1987), characterized 20 items. Later, work by Kouzes and Posner
(1987, 1995) included 20 categories from their checklist in Characteristics of Admired
Leaders (CAL). These categories are included in the 30 categories of leadership used in
the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), the survey of leadership based in �The
Leadership Challenge� (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Organization development (OD) is in a field of behavioral science with an
objective to define the need for organizational change and develop programs to
implement changes. OD programs are planned, long term, sustained efforts covering a
wide range of business functions. OD is a process analyzing organizational culture,
processes, and structure. OD is a series of interrelated events leading to goals of
organizational and individual development. Within these events is the development of a
knowledge base that includes the foundation of the OD theory (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
A participation/empowerment model is one of the most important foundations of
OD. This model has been validated by both research and practice. French and Bell
(1999) consider the leadership challenge by Kouzes and Posner (2006) an excellent
manual on empowerment. Kouzes and Posner (2006) have created a technique for
describing a �personal best� leadership style through a set of survey questions. These
questions yield a Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2006).
Analysis of the LPI identifies the five practices of exemplary leadership and ten
behavioral commitments exhibited by successful, empowered leaders. French and Bell
(1999) reported the �personal best� exercise to be an excellent way to start individuals,
28
both employees, and management thinking about empowerment in practice, specific,
behaviors (French & Bell, 1999).
In the context of this study, leaders in business today should have leadership
behaviors best suited for the type of organization structure, centralized or decentralized.
The LPI supports this natural conclusion. Leaders in centralized organizations are
individuals with leadership behaviors focused outwardly, goal driven, and getting the
product out the door (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). There is a perceived impression by
others, that centralized leaders lack skills in mindfulness and emotional intelligence. A
perceived trait of a centralized leader is one considered as less participative, as reported
by French and Bell (1999), Likert�s four system matrix chart that shows the practices of
52 managers. In centralized organizations, little latitude is permitted for creativity and
empowerment (French & Bell, 1999).
The concentration at the top of goal setting and decision making in Likert�s
matrix chart, System 1 and 2 supports the leadership behaviors demonstrated in the LPI
as deficiencies. If the culture does not support the leaders, System 1and 2, there is a
disconnection by staff, lack of innovation from no encouragement of empowerment and
management control that leads to a neutered workforce. In Ellen Langer�s view, (Beard,
2014), mindfulness and mindlessness are among the integral elements of leadership. A
psychological analysis of leaders indicates a mindfulness of others as centralized
leadership focuses on goal setting, production output and control. Selection by boards of
directors of leaders, who exhibit behavioral traits that lack emotional connection with
staff, proliferates in centralized organizations. The limited participation in a centralized
organization is a consequence of mindlessness. There is hostility to the organization,
29
resistance to the formal system, little team work, and low motivation. Centralized
organizations are not universally poor performers. Rather, over time one could see
higher profitability if more participative environment were in practice.
There is a natural conclusion the leader of decentralized organizations would
possess different behavioral traits, encourage empowerment, innovation changes, and
participation by management and staff, as seen in Likert�s matrix chart, reported by
French and Bell (1999). Kouzes and Posner�s LPI survey and analysis define the
leadership behaviors in a participative environment (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The
leadership behavior requires special training, emotional intelligence, and positive outlook
of employees, trust and nurturing characteristics. The building of trust and collaboration
is the natural conclusion of decentralized leadership. Decentralized leadership is not
chaotic; rather top leadership is focused on goals and objectives. The execution of
strategic and tactical plans is managed by staff and middle managers. The executive
leadership obligates itself to the setting of policy, procedures, mapping goals, objectives
and providing resources leading to a successful enterprise.
Today�s organization leaders are often faced with either taking over an
underperforming company to fix it or redesigning the existing organization into one that
is more effective. Leaders are constantly looking to the outside but, more importantly, to
themselves and the organization, for indications of the need for organizational change.
The use of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to create change in an organization
by identifying potential leaders and areas of improvements to management and
employees guides organizations to empower leaders to challenge the status quo. LPI has
been used by over 3 million individuals (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). This study will use
30
the LPI to measure if the participants have strong skills in leadership, and the
commitment to demonstrate the five practices of exemplary leadership. Kouzes and
Posner (2006) have matured the LPI into a wide variety of organizations, disciplines, and
demographic backgrounds to help potential leaders create change from within.
Kouzes and Posner (2006) established the foundation that leadership is a
behavior, skill, and ability. The LPI identifies individuals who require training and
behaviors to be more effective in leading others whether students, employees,
organizations, or a country. The purpose of this study was to use the LPI to determine
how self-evaluation is related to centralized or decentralized organizations and the
experience a representative manager possesses (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The LPI
identified leadership�s traits that make an individual comfortable in taking the lead and
assuming a leadership role. Another result of this study is to show, by self-evaluation,
how potential leaders can evaluate they are in a business environment not compatible
with their skill set.
The creators of LPI, Kouzes and Posner (2006), have published multiple books
that document the way leaders are identified and developed. Kouzes and Posner (2012)
have developed the �Leadership Challenge� series that define the five exemplary
characteristics that make a leader and leader should possess. The LPI is an element of the
leadership challenge, supporting the need for evaluation, analysis, and redesign of
organizations.
A primary element of learned behavior is self-control. As seen with Kouzes and
Posner (2008), the five practices of exemplary leadership include: (a) model, (b) inspire,
(c) challenge, (d) enable, and (e) encourage, focus on learned behaviors in others to
31
perform their best, and use these best practices to increase performance within an
organization and transform potential leaders into skilled leadership.
Today�s global, developed world is generally comprised of an information
workforce designated as �knowledge workers� (Bacon, 2012). This workforce is well
educated, preferring to be led and may, in fact, resent the imposition of managerial
authority. This workforce�s managerial effectiveness is a function of influence, not
authority, decree, or coercive methods. The most effective managers lead through social
and emotional approaches and influencing, not just by managerial authority (Bacon,
2012).
Business executives at the higher levels of an organizational hierarchy are
responsible for the firm�s strategic planning. The direction and delegation from their
level to the level that develops detailed plans must reflect the current and predicted
business environment (Bacon, 2012). In the current businesses environment, global
competition, technological innovation, and economic uncertainty require planning to be
beyond the authoritarian leadership style most common to most executives, despite
education and experience (Porter, 1998).
Daniel Goleman�s HBR article, �The Big Leaders�, from December 2013,
supports the concept that successful leaders are trained in emotional elements.
Goleman�s analysis that leaders train themselves, become self-aware, focus on others,
observe the situation and react properly in stressful situations, supports Kouzes and
Posner�s (2012) definition that leadership is a learned behavior. Both Kouzes and Posner
(2008) and Ellen Langer (Beard, 2014) related leadership to emotional intelligence and
one�s own self-awareness. Goleman (2013) defines the way leaders behave are with
32
perceptions, feelings, and focus on the needs of others. These three categories have the
conclusion that leadership training in self-awareness will improve the leader�s ability to
derive strategy, innovation and manage organizations.
The shaping strategy can take advantage of an environment that offers high-
growth, low entry barriers and incumbents stagnant, or in flux. This strategy depends on
a wide distribution of authority to result in a flexible, fast reacting planning cycle to
essentially shape an unpredictable environment to its own. The visionary strategy is
employed where analysis shows the environment can be molded to the firm�s advantage.
This strategy is like the classic style as it requires strong, definitive managerial
authoritative direction, goal setting, and commitment of resources. A survey shows many
companies use the visionary strategy of planning (Reeves, Love, & Tillmanns, 2012).
Management Experience
In today�s changing workplace, organizations find themselves with employees of
ethnic and age diversity, and differing cultural and respect expectations of workers who
may be older and have experience in other industries. Current demographics indicate an
increasing Asian and Hispanic population comprised of young, well educated, ambitious
community, looking forward to becoming members of management, albeit often with less
than six years� experience. This group is faced with lack of opportunity in industry with
an attitude that managers in an organization that have been managing for greater than 6
years have better understanding of the workplace environment, and expectations and the
processes for work to be completed (McCann, 2003). Another consideration is managers
with six years or less are effective only if their experience in within the organization
rather than outside, even if in the same industry.
33
This position stems from a study McCann conducted with students at University
of California, Santa Barbara, and in Thailand (McCann, 2003). A second study was
conducted in Thailand with young workers in the bank workplace environment. These
young managers, 18 to 34 years old, have Asian role expectations of older workers
(McCann, 2003). These role manifestations are demonstrated in the levels of respect paid
to elder bankers, even though these older workers are no longer considered as main bread
winners (McCann, 2003). The organizational rank and corresponding level of authority
related to manager experience is a direct function of age and culture.
Younger bank managers have differing social acceptance criteria based on the
Thai and Asian culture that results in young people favoring their age in-group over age
out-group (McCann, 2003). Social acceptance and work interactions can result in some
very tenuous situations for a young manager when dealing with elders. The need to show
respect at all times can result in less than effective work performance (McCann, 2003).
This ranking of status results in unproductive and unnecessary behaviors that are
culturally based, rather than objective measurements of work output.
Employees with experience are valuable to a company, but there is little empirical
evidence to support this opinion. Studies have conflicting results; two found a positive
correlation between experience and performance ratings (Schmidt, Hunter &
Outerbridge, 1986; Hunter & Hunter, 1984), while others found negative, positive, or no
correlation between managerial experience and performance (Fiedler, 1970; Terborg &
Ungson, 1985; Medoff & Abraham, 1980). The relationship between experience and
performance depends on a number of factors such as job and organization, tenure and
site-specific experience (Hise, Kelly, Gable, & McDonald, 1983; Schmidt, Hunter &
34
Outerbridge, 1986). Typical studies of managers focused on high or intermediate (2-5
years) levels of experience and effects on ratings or work samples. No study looked at
effects on early-stage careers or on profit and sales.
Recognizing the limited scope of past studies, McEnrue, (1998) conducted a study
of managerial experience that took into account organization and job tenure, time in a
position and location, plus age, education, length of time as an assistant manager, and
performance indicators of increased sales and profits. Study data was obtained through a
survey questionnaire. Included in the survey were questions to define dimensions of the
jobs. The five dimensions include (a) analyzability, (b) centralization, (c) authority, (d)
routinization, and (e) formalization. These dimensions are analogous to those found in
the definition of centralized and decentralized management. Within the context of job
responsibilities, movement, and attitude, the managers made observations that are
indicators of leadership factors such as (a) staffing decisions, (b) performance ability, (c)
loyalty, (d) cooperation, and (e) innovation.
McEnrue�s (1998) study showed the more experienced managers achieved higher
sales and increases in profits. The dimensions of the experience were determinates of the
relationships between performance and experience. The study did not indicate if the time
a manager was at a particular location or worked for an organization could be used to
gain insight of future performance. Additional research is required to examine these
factors, as well as effects of experience on turnover, satisfaction, performance, or other
human resources factors. The manager�s studies all carried out the same responsibilities
in the same organization. There may be a link between job experience and job demands.
The study did not examine this area, future research is required examining this
35
possibility. The study further provides a basis for determining the potential effect of
experience on human resource utilization decisions such as promotion, transfer, and
retention.
High Performance Work Practices (HPWP) is most prevalent in larger
organizations, but since the majority of organizations in the United States are small
companies, limiting work to these traits may result in not fully understanding how
managers in smaller organizations measure performance (Rosenthal, 2006). Managers
with years of experience pull from their past experiences to know how to apply the
correct means of measuring performance. The financial implications documented in this
study indicate a workforce of knowledgeable employees and experienced managers
results in better overall employee performance.
This study supports the need for employees who have been developed organically,
and grow into a managerial position rather than the hiring-in of managers with experience
from other industries. This internal promotion policy develops greater employee
ownership and other intrinsic traits leading to a more loyal and participative staff. The
individual-based and team-based plans allow for the growth potential of individuals that
demonstrate autonomy and expertise at their job. These types of growth and employee
development plans lead to leadership roles in small teams or work centers, resulting in
excellence in performance with reward based incentive pay (Gomeze-Mejia, Balkin &
Cardy, 2006).
The diversity of employee’s trends has resulted in organizations having to
recognize their employees may not be fully assimilated into the workplace (Gomeze-
Mejia, Balkin & Cardy, 2006). With younger workers entering organizations with
36
limited business skills, organizations have had to generate training programs that help
managers be more effective, as well as training these younger and foreign employees
with the skills to gain business experience and to become managers. The organizational
cultures of today’s businesses have goals for their employees to become self-sufficient
and become productive contributors. The training programs are designed with that
thought in mind.
Summary
Chapter 2 provided a critical review of the literature focused on the dimensions of
leadership qualities, degree of centralization of an organization, and manager experience.
A review of the literature highlights gaps in the scholarship in relation to the concurrent
impact on business management of the global marketplace and technology with emphasis
on e-business.
Chapter 3 presents a detailed discussion of the methods used in the study.
Included in chapter 3 is a presentation of the strategies for data collection and analysis,
along with an overview of the selected instrumentation. Assurances regarding the
protection of human subjects are provided, and the limitations of the study design are also
presented for consideration.
37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The measurements of leadership interaction with management in the degrees of a
centralized organization are discussed in this chapter. Every business has a business
model that includes the company’s strategy for growth and success. Regardless of the
type of business, its size, or its location, there is a plan implementing a business model
strategy. The hierarchy, roles and relationships of degrees of centralization of an
organization define how a business strategy is executed (Magretta, 2002). The core
elements of the business operations a company must process should include analysis of
management with the objective to determine if the management staff will execute the
growth strategy.
As referenced in Chapter two, understanding the degree of centralization of an
organization is crucial to ongoing operations and the establishment of cultural employee
behaviors. How management treats its employees can be demonstrated by measuring
leadership quality. A good business organization’s evaluation of itself by self-
examination is critical to understanding what works and what is ineffective in a
successful venture. Also, while not the only function to be considered in designing an
organization, managerial experience is important in training and managing employees. A
firm planning to tailor how its business is run, in the context of degree of centralization of
the organization, leadership effectiveness, and managerial experience, should benchmark
the business against other industrial leaders. The degree of organizational centralization
is defined as to what degree an individual has in decisions of how to perform their work,
and if the individual is involved in determining how to accomplish their job and related
duties. Within a highly centralized environment, individuals participate only to a limited
38
degree in establishing job objectives and performance measurements (McEnrue, 1998).
The leadership of the most successful organizations employs these methods to get the
best out of their employees (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The following methodologies
measured the characteristics and traits of leadership that have statistical significance to
the independent (degree of centralization and experience in years of managers) variables
and dependent (leadership qualities) metric.
The purpose of this proposed quantitative study is to examine the difference in
self-evaluated leadership qualities between levels of degrees of centralization of an
organization and manager experience (≤5 years, >5 years). The independent variables are
the degree of centralization of an organization and the manager’s experience. The
dependent variable is leadership qualities as evaluated by the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The research design, data collection,
sampling, and analysis are discussed in this chapter. Survey respondents and ethical
considerations are tailored to comply with established business practices and
organization.
Research Design
The research design is a quantitative, exploratory design using survey
methodology. Exploratory is defined as making attempts to find if there are relationships
between the variables. Exploratory design is not as strong as experimental-designed
studies. Exploratory designs have some similarities to correlation research in that the
manipulation of the independent variable is not attempted and results require special
attention as interpretations and inferences are hard to make. Unlike an experimental
design, exploratory design does not involve manipulation of the independent variable;
39
therefore, cause and effect inferences cannot be made. Rather, the independent variable
observed is in its original state (e.g. sex-male, female), and is used to determine if it
effects the dependent variable, albeit casually. In contrast, the independent variable in an
experimental design is manipulated using random assignment. In this way, cause and
effect can be inferred (Baxter, 2012).
A quantitative study is defined as a study that uses numerical values to measure
observed behaviors, attitudes or other outcomes to discover relationships or differences
between them (Baxter, 2012). A quantitative study was used to assess if self-assessment
of leadership quality is dependent on degrees of centralization and the manager’s
experience.
Survey methodology was selected as it enables the collection of data in an
efficient manner. Surveys are often used in observational exploratory or experimental
designs to test hypotheses (Bowerman & O'Connell, 2007). A Likert-type scale was used
in the survey method to capture a range of perceptions (from low to high) from
participants.
Research Question and Hypotheses
RQ1: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers from
organizations with high centralization and those from organizations with low
centralization?
H1Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
40
H1Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
RQ2: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers with
work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more work experience than 5
years?
H2Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more
work experience than 5 years.
H2Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those
with more work experience than 5 years.
RQ3: Are there significant interaction effects between a manager’s years of experience,
(≤5 years, ˃5 years), and the organization’s centralization, and a manager’s self-evaluated
leadership qualities?
H3Null: There are no significant interaction effects between the manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and a
manager’s self-evaluated leadership qualities.
H3Alternative: There are significant interaction effects between manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and managers
self-evaluated leadership qualities.
RQ4: Is there a significant relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s)?
41
H4Null: There is no relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
H4Alternative: There is a relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
Operational of Variables
Leadership Qualities
Leadership qualities were defined as, but not limited to, excellence in leadership,
establishing direction, developing a vision and strategy, aligning people, motivating, and
inspiring. The leadership qualities are considered particularly critical to continuous
improvement efforts (Kotter, 1999). The Leadership Practices Inventory was an interval
level through criteria: (a) challenge; (b) inspire; (c) enable; (d) model; and (e) encourage
(Kouzes & Posner, 2006). It is measured at the interval level. An 11 point Likert-type
scaling system will be used. Options will range from 0-10. In this case, 0=Not at all
likely,1=Not likely,2=Almost not likely,3=Somewhat not likely,4=Somewhat not
possible,5=Neutral,6=Somewhat possible,7=Somewhat likely,8=Likely,9=Almost
likely,10=Extremely likely. Degrees of centralization of an organization were extracted
from primary sources. Leadership qualities were extracted from primary sources.
Degree of Organizational Centralization
Centralization indicates the individual has only a limited level of creating the
means of solving problems with the encouragement of management, and making
decisions that contribute to the execution of tactics and strategy set by top management.
Centralization also relates to the degree individuals rely on policies and procedures to do
their work. For example, if policies set limitations on how work is to be performed, there
42
is a higher degree of centralization (McEnrue, 1998). Question 2, degree of
centralization on the Demographics survey, measured the level of degree of centralization
of an organization. A 6-point Likert-type scaling system was used. Options ranged from
0 - 5. In this case, 0= Never, 1= Almost never, 2= Sometimes, 3= Frequently, 4= Almost
always, 5= Always
Manager Experience
Manager experience is defined as related experience in management leading to
decision- making that benefits the organization’s growth pattern. It is measured at the
nominal level. Question 3 on the Demographics survey measured manager experience,
with options being ≤5 years, or ˃5 years. Manager experience was extracted from
primary sources.
Population, Sampling, and Sampling Procedures
Population
The online survey system, Survey Monkey Inc., was used to collect the data this
study required. The survey was designed to facilitate the participant’s responses, as well
as the study plan. The sample of 200 employees from firms of small, medium, and large
sized corporations from the United States is drawn from Survey Monkey’s database of
U.S. industries. The informed consent form provides important information about the
study purpose, participation requirements, and the contact information of principal
researcher. Participants were required to provide consent before completing surveys. All
companies consisted of private and public status.
43
Sample and Sampling Methodology
The study convenience sample was drawn by Survey Monkey using its database
of United States industries with guidance from the researcher. A sample size of 200 was
selected to be representative of a diverse population of managers in United States durable
goods manufacturers.
Power analysis. A formal power analysis is employed to determine a proposed
sample size. The analysis requires specifying three elements of the study. The power of
the study establishes the probability a false null hypothesis will be rejected. Kuehl
(2000) recommends the convention of .80 as the study power. The second element is an
estimate of the relative strength of the study’s variables. Effect size is a determinant of
the study power and sample size. In “Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences”, Cohen (1988) defines the effect categories as small, medium, and large. Thus,
a small effect = .10, medium = .25, and large = .40
The third element, alpha, is the significance level, the value representing the
possibility of rejecting the null hypothesis. The conventional value for the proposed size
of the study suggests alpha should be set at .05. Thus, with power set at .80, effect size
set at .25 and alpha set at .05, the sample size required is 128 participants (Faul, Lang, &
Buchner, 2009).
Data Collection Survey data was collected and assembled by the online survey
service, Survey Monkey Inc. Survey participants have been selected from the Survey
Monkey database using the sample group criteria and applying its employee survey
template that covered leadership behavior. The selected survey cannot be activated
without accepting the terms of the informed consent form. All participants were shown
44
how to print the form for their own records using written instructions at the end of the
consent form. Participants received an invitation by e-mail from Survey Monkey to
participate in the online survey. The e-mail includes a link, which if clicked on,
automatically takes the participant to a mandatory online Informed Consent Form. This
form outlined the proposed study plus all necessary contact information if there were any
issues or questions about the study; the participant was notified specifically on the form,
that by clicking NEXT, he or she agreed to voluntarily participate in the study.
Following these steps completed the initial process but did not collect any form of
personal or contact information. This is a further way to protect the participant’s
anonymity and confidentiality.
After the participant read the informed consent form and clicked NEXT, she or he
was asked to continue the survey. The survey was organized to facilitate the participant’s
responses as well as the study’s plan. The first question asked if the participant is a
manager. If the answer is YES, the participant clicks NEXT and the survey continued. If
the answer is NO, the survey is over and the participant received a thank you message.
The next two questions relate to the following: a) the degree of centralization of the
participant’s organization, and b) the participant’s number of years as a manager. When
the participant answered these two questions and clicked NEXT, he or she was taken to
the LPI survey. The LPI survey, comprised of 30 questions, should have taken no more
than 15 minutes. When the participant completed the LPI questionnaire and clicked
NEXT, she or he was taken to 7 demographic questions that should have taken no more
than 2 minutes to complete. The participant clicks FINISH and gets a thank you and
instructions on how to print answers for record.
45
The privacy of the participants was protected during all stages of the study.
Participants were not expected to be exposed any risks to their privacy since no contact
information was ever taken during the study. As an additional measure to protect
participant’s privacy, the study follows strictly the procedures mandated by the
Institutional Review Board of Argosy University.
Instrumentation
Participants were asked to complete two surveys, a Demographics Survey scaled
on the nominal level, and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) scaled at the interval
level. The Demographics Survey collected background information on the managers.
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is a 30-item survey. It was estimated
participants would take 10 to 20 minutes to complete both surveys.
Demographics Survey
Nine questions assessed demographic information on participants. Background
questions on the demographic survey consisted of (1) management status, (2) degree of
centralization, (3) management experience, (4) size business type status, (5) gender
status, (6) ethnicity status, (7) generational birth category, (8) education, and (9) business
sector. A copy of this instrument is in Appendix A.
Leadership Practices Inventory
Evaluating the leadership performance of a manager, or potential in a manager-
candidate, requires the identification of an individual’s unique strengths. The Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) facilitates this evaluation using five leadership quality practices
with six different elements of each practice for a total of thirty statements. The practices
include (a) encourage, (b) model, (c) enable, (d) inspire, and (e) challenge. The inventory
46
was taken by participants completing a 10 to 20 minute questionnaire in which they
indicate the frequency they engage in specified qualities.
The LPI evolved from case studies conducted by (Kouzes & Posner, 2001) on
350,000 managers and non-managers across a number of different organizations and
disciplines. The research design itself was based on a triangulation of quantitative and
qualitative methods. The demographics of the participants included men, women, and
other genders with an assortment of ethnic backgrounds, age, and educational levels.
Validity of the LPI. With the large number of survey items, the alpha
coefficients exceeded .75 for all constructs indicating strong internal consistency and a
highly reliable survey.-see Table 1.
Table 1
Construct Validity, as Measured by Cronbach�s Alpha with All Scales Above the .75 level
Leadership Practices Inventory Construct Self Challenge 0.80 Inspire 0.87 Enable 0.75 Model 0.77 Encourage 0.87
To ensure the five–factor solution for the LPI was appropriate, the regression
modeling technique of factor analysis was employed, supported by the descriptive
statistical technique of principal component analysis. To detect the loading coefficients
on the survey factors, the varimax rotation, together with the implementation of Kaiser
Normalization, was performed. The rotation analysis showed although more than one
factor was loaded by some statements, the highest load on a factor was a result of others,
conceptualized as comprising that factor. The five practices, challenging, inspiring,
47
enabling, modeling, and encouraging (Kouzes & Posner, 2006), can therefore be
visualized as being comprised of the defining leadership qualities. The LPI surveys
include a demographic questionnaire asking generational category group, gender,
ethnicity, management status, years of working, and highest level of education.
Data Analysis
SPSS 22.0 was used to code, tabulate, and test the data. ANOVA was used to test
the Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 and regression analysis was used to test Hypothesis 4. There
was the categorizing of the independent variable of centralization into two groups.
ANOVA is a parametric data analysis testing technique that assumes normality of a
distribution. Provided the assumptions for ANOVA are met, results from testing mean
differences between groups can be reasonably robust (Bowerman & O'Connell, 2007).
ANOVA was developed by the statistician and geneticist R.A. Fisher in the 1920s and
1930s (Lindman, 1974) and is sometimes referred to as Fisher’s ANOVA. ANOVA uses
the equation:
F = Between Mean Squares ÷ Within Mean Squares
The ANOVA equation is simply the sum of squared differences between groups
divided by the sum of squared differences within groups. The basic calculation assesses
the variation in scores found between groups and divides that by the variation in scores
found within groups. The resulting ratio (designated by F) is a measure of the strength of
independence. F is always positive and always greater than 0. Eta squared is also a
measure of the strength of independence and is calculated using the following equation:
Eta squared = Sum of squares between groups ÷ Total sum of squares
48
Eta squared is also referred to as an effect size and is characterized by the
following scale developed by Cohen (1988): .01 = Small, .06 = Medium and .14 = Large.
Thus, the two measures of validity, F and Eta squared, were used to determine if type of
company size (small, or medium) affected tailored business models.
For research question four, a simple regression analysis was used. Regression
analysis is a statistical method used to study the relationship between a single
dependent/criterion variable, and one independent variable. The criterion variable in the
regression model is self-evaluated leadership qualities and its variable degrees of
centralization of an organization. For this analysis, alpha will be set at p = .05 provided
parametric assumptions are met. Specifically, the assumptions include independence of
error, normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Independence of error means the
occurrence of a set of data does not affect the probability of the other. Normality was
tested to ensure the distribution of the sample is normally distributed. Linearity was
tested to ensure there was a linear rather than a nonlinear relationship between the
variables. Homoscedasticity was tested by determining if the variances of the variables
were equal. If these assumptions were violated, the researcher will determine the
appropriate next steps.
The equation used in the regression model is Y = β0 + β1 X1 + €. The predictor
variable is represented with “X” and the criterion variable is represented with “Y.” The
regression coefficient for the model (βn) represented the strength of the regression line
for a specified variable. The symbol € represented an error term that was normally
distributed around a mean of zero. The measures of effect for the regression model
included R, R-squared, and p where R represented the strength of the relationship and
49
ranges from 0 to 1. R-squared represented the amount of shared variance between the
predictor variable and the criterion variable and ranges between 0 and 1. p equaled the
calculated error associated with the test.
After all the participants completed the online survey, the data was exported from
Survey Monkey via Microsoft EXCEL, and uploaded into a database for analysis by
SPSS. Two electronic copies were saved. The researcher saved one copy on a hard
drive. The other electronic copy was stored off-site on a flash drive locked in a file
cabinet in the researcher’s home office. Survey Monkey will store all data in its system
for five years. Passwords are required from users for hard drives, flash drives, and
Survey Monkey. Printed hard copies of all data are kept in a locked file cabinet in the
researcher’s home office. Study data will be stored for 5 years, after which all electronic
drives and hard copy will be deleted or shredded.
All participants took the online survey anonymously. This protects the
participants from any possible challenges by the participant’s employer or associates. All
information is always secured and protected to prevent data from being stolen, leaked, or
used inappropriately.
The analysis procedure is conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software program, Student Version 20.0. Results are presented in three
discrete sections in Chapter 4. These sections include the Demographic, Detail of
Analyses, and Summary of Results sections. The five factors include (a) encourage, (b)
model, (c) enable, (d) inspire, and (e) challenge. The Demographic section includes a
profile of participants responding to the survey. The Detail of Analysis section includes a
complete breakdown of the analysis conducted by hypothesis, including evaluation of
50
appropriate assumptions and final inferential results. The Summary of Results section
includes a recap of the study, study design, results by hypothesis and what the reader will
find in chapter 5.
Ethical Considerations
The application of ethics to a study of business operations requires modification
of standard ethical guidelines. The basic confidentiality tenets of Title 13 of the U.S.
Code are followed to protect respondent’s data. The participants were solicited and
contacted via email. The participants were presented forms for their acceptance. The
formal agreements being used in this research study are documented as invitation letter
and informed consent forms. These forms were submitted via electronic media, either as
an e-mail or web page.
The principal protection requirement is to avoid subject information using given
non-descriptive alphanumeric labels to prevent their names being known. No direct
person - to- person contact is anticipated. Participants were chosen from the Survey
Monkey’s database. The criteria set in the above data sampling and population section
determines inclusive and exclusive data points.
The study participants are outside the researcher’s area of interests to avoid
conflict of interest. Security measures are applied to all computers and communication
processes. Computers have password protection that will be updated as the study
progresses. Selection of participating businesses requires a structural organization
representing the selected business types and sizes within the general population. The data
and findings therefore apply appropriately to a general business environment and are
consistent in quantities and statistics.
51
The procedures of the online survey system, Survey Monkey, were designed to
ensure there was no person-to-person interaction among participants or with the
researcher, so that participants respond in private and with anonymity. To secure all
electronic records related to the study, all hard and flash drives have password
protection that was updated as the study progresses. No form of any transfer of personal
information was collected. The Survey Monkey procedures do not permit any
identifying data to be gathered during the survey. There is no connection of the online
Informed Consent Form and survey responses. No signatures or identifying information
was ever requested, so there is no way to connect the responses to anyone. The
participants were presented invitation and consent forms. Informed consent was
obtained when participants click a button marked “AGREE” at the bottom of the
Informed Consent Form. The survey could not be activated without accepting the terms
of the Informed Consent Form.
Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any given time and all
data will be purged from the records. The study was anonymous and follows standard
rules for record keeping. The study subject was directed at the internal operations of
businesses. Three types of business entities were analyzed: corporation, s-corporation,
individual, and limited partnership. Since the U.S. court system recognizes a corporation
as an individual, the three types can be considered equals. Therefore, the application of
ethics can comply with the ethical principle codes of conduct, as described by at least two
institutions: the American Psychological Association (APA.org) and the American
Sociological Association (Creswell, 2009). All recorded information will be stored
securely for five years, following Argosy University-Online requirements. All recorded
52
data and information will be shredded and destroyed after five years. All data results are
in summary format, and no individually identifiable information is presented. Any
quoted responses, if written, will use pseudonyms or codes to maintain confidentiality.
All business subjects had ethical codes of conduct applied as if they were an
individual’s rights to privacy. The adherence to these rights demonstrated to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) that the application of individual rights had been
applied (Creswell, 2009). Ethical dilemmas may arise and must be faced, recognized as
important and allocated appropriate time for correction to avoid any unforeseen and
unacceptable harm.
53
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of the study was to measure, quantify, and evaluate the relationships
between managers’ leadership behaviors, their years of experience, and whether their
organizational structure is centralized or decentralized. The study was intended to validate
firms with a highly decentralized organizational structure have managers with high
exemplary leadership behaviors, as contrasted with highly centralized firms that have
managers with low ranking leadership behaviors. The study measured and evaluated if
managers with more than 5 years’ experience were more objective in their self-evaluation of
their leadership behaviors than managers with less than 5 years’ experience. To achieve
these goals, leadership behaviors were measured with the Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI), a self-ranked, Likert scale inventory of 30 key behaviors. Managers’ years of
experience and their ranking of their company’s degree of centralization were collected
using a demographic survey.
Data Analysis Procedure
Inferential statistics were used to draw conclusions from the sample tested. The
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to code and tabulate scores
collected from the survey and provide summarized values where applicable, including the
mean, central tendency, variance, and standard deviation. Demographic statistics were
provided including count and percent statistics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
regression analysis were used to evaluate four research questions. The research questions
are as follows:
RQ1: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization?
54
RQ2: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more
work experience than 5 years?
RQ3: Are there significant interaction effects between manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and managers
self-evaluated leadership qualities?
RQ4: Is there a significant relationship between self-evaluated leadership
qualities of managers and the degree of centralization of their respective
organization(s)?
Table 2
Summary of Variables and Statistical Tests used to Evaluate Research Questions 1 - 4
Research Question
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Statistic Technique
1 Leadership Qualities Degree of Centralization ANOVA
2 Leadership Qualities Years of Experience ANOVA
3 Leadership Qualities Interaction ANOVA
4 Leadership Qualities Degree of Centralization Regression
Interaction = degree of centralization * years of experience
Prior to analyzing the four research questions, data cleaning and data screening
were undertaken to ensure the variables of interest met appropriate statistical
assumptions. Thus, the following analyses were assessed using an analytic strategy in
that the variables will be first evaluated for univariate outliers, normality, and
homogeneity of variance. Subsequently, ANOVA and regression analyses were run to
determine if any significant differences existed between variables of interest.
55
Demographics
A sample of 200 managers was specified for the survey, 189 started to respond,
but data was collected from a valid sample of only 117 small, medium, and large sized
corporations within the United States.
Gender and Ethnicity
Demographic data is grouped to reflect the general categories of the management
relationships found in United States durable goods manufacturers. Specifically, 56% of
the participants were male (n = 66), 43% were female (n = 50), and one participant stated
“other” as their gender. Additionally, 102 participants were Caucasian (87.2%), four
were African American (3.4%), two were Asian (1.7%), five were Hispanic (4.3%), and
four were of other ethnicities (3.4%). Displayed in Table 3 are frequency and percent
statistics of participants’ gender and ethnicity.
Table 3
Frequency and Percent Statistics of Participants’ Gender and Ethnicity
Demographic Frequency Percent Gender Male 66 56.4 Female 50 42.7 Other 1 0.9 Total 117 100.0
Ethnicity African American 4 3.4 Asian 2 1.7 Caucasian 102 87.2 Hispanic 5 4.3 Other 4 3.4 Total 117 100.0
56
Age Generation and Level of Education
Specifically, 42.7% of the participants were Baby Boomers male (n = 50), 41%
were Generation (n = 48), 13.7% of participants were from the Generation Y (n = 16) and
three participants (2.6 %) stated Traditionalist. Additionally, 44 participants possess a
graduate degree (37.6%), 27 have a bachelor degree (23.1%), 20 have some college
(17.1%), 17 have associate degree (14.5%), and nine have high school or GED education
(7.7%). Displayed in Table 4 are frequency and percent statistics of participants’ age
generation and level of education
Table 4
Frequency and Percent Statistics of Age Generation and Level of Education
Demographic Frequency Percent Age Generation Generation Y (1981-1995) 16 13.7 Generation X (1965-1980) 48 41.0 Baby Boomers (1943-1965) 50 42.7 Traditionalists (prior to 1943) 3 2.6 Total 117 100.0
Level of Education High school degree/GED 9 7.7 Some college 20 17.1 Associate degree 17 14.5 Bachelor degree 27 23.1 Graduate degree 44 37.6 Total 117 100.0
Organization Size and Type of Business Sector
Specifically, 41.9% of the participants were from large organizations (n = 49),
31.6% were from medium sized organizations (n = 37), and 25.6% were from small
organizations (n = 30). Additionally, 55 participants were from other business sectors
(47%), 18 were from Service sector (15.4%), 15 were from Information &
Communications Technology (12.8%), ten were from Medical Technology sector
57
(8.5%), seven were in Consumer goods (6%), five were from the metal and metal
processing (4.3%), three were from the Automotive sector (2.6%), three were from
Machinery and Equipment sectors (2.6%) and one was from the chemicals sector (0.9%).
Displayed in Table 5 are frequency and percent statistics of participants’ organization
size and business sector
Table 5
Frequency and Percent Statistics of Participants’ Organization Size and Type of Business Sector
Demographic Frequency Percent Organization Size 0-50 individuals 30 25.6 50-500 individuals 37 31.6 500 or more individuals 49 41.9 Missing 1 0.9 Total 117 100.0 Business Sector Automotive 3 2.6 Chemicals 1 0.9 Consumer goods 7 6.0 Information & Communications Technology 15 12.8 Machinery & Equipment 3 2.6 Medical Technology 10 8.5 Metal & Metal Processing 5 4.3 Service sector 18 15.4 Other 55 47.0 Total 117 100.0
Reliability Analysis
Reliability analysis was run to determine if the dependent variable (leadership
quality) was sufficiently reliable. Participants’ leadership qualities were measured by the
30 items on the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). Reliability analysis allows one to
study the properties of measurement scales and the items that compose the scales
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Results from the test found the variable construct was
sufficiently reliable, Cronbach’s alpha (n = 117) = .958. Thus, the assumption of
58
reliability was not violated and the 30-item construct was used as the dependent variable
for research questions 1-4.
Analyses of Research Questions 1-3
Research Questions 1-3 were evaluated using a single analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine if any significant differences in self-evaluated leadership
qualities existed between degrees of centralization of an organization (research question
1), managers’ experience (research question 2), and between the interaction of degrees of
centralization and managers’ experience (research question 3). The dependent variable
was participants’ leadership qualities as measured by 30 items on the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI). Response parameters were measured on an 11-point Likert-
type scale where 1 = not at all likely, 2 = not likely, 3 = almost not likely, 4 = somewhat
not likely, 5 = somewhat not possible, 6 = neutral, 7 = somewhat possible, 8 = somewhat
likely, 9 = likely, 10 = almost likely, 11 = extremely likely. A composite score was
calculated for each participant by averaging case scores across the 30 LPI items and were
used as the dependent variable for research questions 1-3.
The independent variables were participants’ perception of the degrees of
centralization of an organization (research question 1), years of experience (research
question 2), and the interaction between degrees of centralization of an organization and
years of experience (research question 3). Specifically, degrees of centralization was
measured by one item on the demographics survey, “When decisions are being made in
your organization, to what degree do managers invite others participation in the decision
making process?” Response parameters were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale
where 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = almost always, and
59
6 = always. That is, low scores represent high degrees of centralization within the
organization. For example, managers who are actively involved in decisions of how to
perform their job are expected to perceive they work in a low degree of centralization,
i.e., a decentralized organization. Within centralized environment individuals participate
only to a degree in establishing job objectives and performance measurements (McEnrue,
1998). A high degree of centralization indicates that control and decision making are
concentrated at top management and lower levels of management have little or no
participation in making decisions. Centralization also relates to the degree how
individuals rely on policies and procedures to do their work. For example, if policies set
limitations on how work is to be performed, there is a higher degree of centralization
(McEnrue, 1998). For the ANOVA analyses, participants were then categorized into two
groups based on their score. That is, participants that scored between ‘1’ (never) and ‘3’
(sometimes) were placed into the high centralization group and participants that scored
between ‘4’ (frequently) and ‘6’ (always) were placed into the low centralization group.
The independent variable for research question 2 was participants’ level of
managerial experience. Participants were grouped into two categories including those
with five years of managerial experience or less and those with more than five years of
managerial experience. The independent variable for research question 3 was the
interaction between degrees of centralization and the managers’ experience.
Data Cleaning
Before the research questions were evaluated, the data were screened for missing
data and univariate outliers. Missing data were investigated using frequency counts and
no cases existed. The data were screened for univariate outliers by transforming raw
60
scores (leadership quality) to z-scores and comparing z-scores to a critical value of +/-
3.29, p < .001 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Z-scores that exceed this critical value are
more than three standard deviations away from the mean and, thus, represent outliers.
The distributions were evaluated and two cases with univariate outliers were found and
removed from the analysis. Thus, 117 valid responses from participants were received
and 115 were evaluated by research questions 1-3 (n = 115). Descriptive statistics for
participants’ leadership quality scores are displayed in Table D by degrees of
centralization (high centralization, low centralization) and manager experience (5 years
or less, greater than 5 years). Descriptive statistics of participants’ leadership quality
scores for the interaction between degrees of centralization and managers’ experience are
displayed in Table 6.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Leadership Qualities by Degrees of Centralization and Experience
Leadership Quality n Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Degree of Centralization High centralization 50 7.130 11.000 9.243 1.075 -0.061 0.337 Low centralization 65 8.070 11.000 9.728 0.729 -0.322 0.297
Years of Experience 5 years or less 33 7.530 11.000 9.191 0.943 0.037 -0.917 Greater than 5 years 82 7.130 11.000 9.649 0.889 -0.614 -0.154 Note. ntotal = 115
Test of Normality
Before research questions 1-3 were analyzed, basic parametric assumptions were
assessed. That is, for the dependent variable (leadership quality), assumptions of
normality and homogeneity of variance were tested. To test if the distributions were
significantly skewed, the skew coefficients were divided by the skew standard error,
61
resulting in a z-skew coefficient. This technique was recommended by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2007). Specifically, z-skew coefficients exceeding the critical range between -
3.29 and +3.29 (p < .001) may indicate non-normality. Thus, based on the evaluation of
the z-skew coefficients, no distributions exceeded the critical range. Kurtosis was also
evaluated using the same method and no distributions were found to be significantly
kurtotic. Therefore, the distributions of the dependent variable across levels of the
independent variables were assumed to be normally distributed. Displayed in Table 7 are
skew and kurtosis statistics of participants’ leadership quality scores by degrees of
centralization (high centralization, low centralization) and manager experience (5 years
or less, greater than 5 years).
Table 7
Skew and Kurtosis Statistics of Participants’ Leadership Qualities by Degree of Centralization and Experience
Leadership Quality n Skewness Skew Std. Error z-skew Kurtosis Kurtosis
Std. Error z-kurtosis
Degree of Centralization High centralization 50 -0.061 0.337 -0.181 -1.149 0.662 -1.736 Low centralization 65 -0.322 0.297 -1.084 -0.469 0.586 -0.800
Years of Experience 5 years or less 33 0.037 0.409 0.090 -0.917 0.798 -1.149 Greater than 5 years 82 -0.614 0.266 -2.308 -0.154 0.526 -0.293 Note. ntotal = 115
Homogeneity of Variance
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance was run to determine if the error
variance of the dependent variable (leadership quality) were equal across groups (degrees
of centralization and years of experience). Test results indicated that the distribution
across the centralization groups (high centralization, low centralization) did not meet the
assumption of homogeneity of variance, F(1, 113) = 13.004, sig. < .001. Although the
62
dependent variable was not equally distributed across centralization groups, no actions
were taken; it was considered a limitation to the study. The distributions across
participants’ levels of experience did meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance
and was assumed to be equally distributed, F(1, 113) = 0.310, sig. = .579. Displayed in
Table 8 are details of Levene’s Test on two independent variables.
Table 8
Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances for Research Questions 1-3
Independent Variable F df1 df2 Sig. Degrees of Centralization 13.004 1 113 < .001 Years of Experience 0.310 1 113 .579
*Distribution violated the assumption of homogeneity of error variance, p < .050
Results of Hypotheses 1-3
H1Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers
from organizations with high centralization and those from organizations with low
centralization.
H1Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
H2Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers
with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more work experience
than 5 years.
H2Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more
work experience than 5 years.
63
H3Null: There are no significant interactions effects between the manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and a manager’s self-
evaluated leadership qualities.
H3Alternative: There are significant interactions effects between manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and managers self-
evaluated leadership qualities.
Using SPSS 22.0, Hypotheses 1-3 were evaluated using an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine if significant differences in leadership qualities existed between
degrees of centralization of an organization (high centralization, low centralization),
managers’ experience (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and between the interaction of degrees of
centralization and managers’ experience. Results from research question 1 revealed a
significant difference in participants’ leadership quality scores did exist between degrees
of centralization (low centralization, high centralization), F(1, 111) = 6.245, p = .014,
partial eta-squared = .053. That is, organizations with low levels of centralization had
significantly higher leadership quality scores (M = 9.708, SD = 0.729) than organizations
with high levels of centralizations (M = 9.243, SD = 1.075)—see Figure 1 in Appendix E.
Thus, the null hypothesis for research question 1 was rejected in favor of the alternative
hypothesis. Additionally, results indicated that a significant difference in leadership
quality scores did exist between levels of managerial experience F(1, 111) = 4.964, p =
.028, partial eta-squared = .043. That is, managers with more than five years of
experience had significantly higher leadership quality scores (M = 9.649, SD = 0.889)
than managers with five years of experience or less (M = 9.191, SD = 0.943) (Figure 2,
Appendix E). Therefore, the null hypothesis for research question 2 was rejected in favor
64
of the alternative hypothesis. However, results further revealed a significant difference in
leadership quality scores did not exist between the interaction of degrees of centralization
and managers’ experience, F(1, 111) = 0.024, p = .877, partial eta squared < .001. That
is, the difference in leadership quality scores between managers with less than five years
of experience and those with more than five years of experience within high centralized
organizations (five years or less M1 = 8.955, greater five years M2 = 9.392, ∆M = 0.437)
as defined by ( M2 - M1 = 9.392 – 8.955 = 0.437) was similar to the difference in scores
between managers of different experience levels within low centralization organizations
(five years or less M1 = 9.442, greater than five years M2 = 9.822, ∆M = 0.380) as defined
by (M2 – M1 = 9.822 – 9.442 = 0.380). Therefore, the null hypothesis for research
question 3 was retained. See Figure 3 in Appendix E for a means plot of leadership
scores by the interaction between degrees of centralization and gender. Displayed in
Table 9 is a model summary of the ANOVA analysis for hypotheses 1-3.
Table 9
Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Hypotheses 1-3
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Observed Power
Corrected Model 10.530 3 3.510 4.489 .005 .108 .871
Intercept 8222.394 1 8222.394 10514.389
< .001 .990 1.000
Degree of Centralization 4.884 1 4.884 6.245 .014 .053 .698
Years of Experience 3.882 1 3.882 4.964 .028 .043 .598
Interaction 0.019 1 0.019 0.024 .877 < .001 .053
Error 86.804 111 0.782
Total 10514.176 115
Corrected Total 97.334 114
Dependent Variable: Leadership quality, n = 115 Interaction = Degree of Centralization * Years of Experience
65
Analysis of Research Question 4
Research question 4 was evaluated using regression analysis to determine if a
significant relationship between the managers’ self-evaluated leadership qualities and
organizational degree of centralization of an organization. The criterion variable was the
participants’ leadership qualities (composite), as defined in research questions 1-3. The
predictor variable was participants’ degrees of centralization of an organization. For
research question 4, participants’ degrees of centralization was measured on the 6-point
Likert-type scale where 1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 =
almost always, and 6 = always. That is, low scores (3 or less) indicated high levels of
centralization of an organization and high scores (4 or more) indicated low levels of
centralization.
Data Cleaning
Before the research question was evaluated, the data were screened for missing
data and univariate outliers. No missing data existed within the distributions, and two
cases with univariate outliers were found within the criterion variable and were removed
from the analysis. Thus, 117 valid responses from participants were received and 115
were evaluated by research question 4 (n = 115). Descriptive statistics of participants’
centralization and leadership quality scores are displayed in Table 10.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics of Participants’ Degree of Centralization and Leadership Quality Scores
Variable n Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Degree of Centralization 115 1.000 6.000 3.644 0.929 -0.229 0.132 Leadership Quality 115 7.130 11.000 9.517 0.924 -0.416 -0.608 Note. n = 115
66
Test of Normality
Before research question 4 was analyzed, basic parametric assumptions were
assessed. That is, for the criterion and predictor variables (leadership quality and degree
of centralization), assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. The
distributions were tested for linearity and homoscedasticity using scatter plots and the
distributions were found not to violate the assumptions. To test if the distributions were
normally distributed, the technique recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) was
used. Thus, based on the evaluation of the z-skew and z-kurtosis coefficients, no
distributions exceeded the critical range (±3.29). Therefore, the distributions of the
criterion and predictor variables were assumed to be normally distributed. Displayed in
Table 11 are skew and kurtosis statistics of participants’ centralization and leadership
quality scores.
Table 11
Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics of Participants’ Degree of Centralization and Leadership Quality Scores
Variable Skewness Skew Std. Error z-skew Kurtosis Kurtosis
Std. Error z-kurtosis
Degree of Centralization -0.229 0.226 -1.013 0.132 0.447 0.295 Leadership Quality -0.416 0.226 -1.841 -0.608 0.447 -1.360 Note. n = 115
Results of Hypothesis 4
H4Null: There is no relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of managers
and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
H4Alternative: There is a relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
67
Hypothesis 4 was tested using regression analysis to determine if there was a
significant relationship between managers’ self-evaluated leadership qualities and
organizational degree of centralization of an organization. Results indicated a significant,
positive relationship did exist between leadership qualities and centralization, R = .327,
R2 = .107, F (1, 113) = 13.511, sig. < .001. That is, 10.7% (R2 = .107) of the variance
observed in the criterion variable (leadership quality) was due to the predictor variable
(degree of centralization). Additionally, a correlation effect of r = .327 indicated a
medium effect size existed between variables (Cohen, 1988). Thus, the null hypothesis
for research question 4 was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. A model
summary of the regression analysis is displayed in Table 12 and a scatter plot of
leadership quality scores and degrees of centralization is displayed in Appendix E, Figure
4.
Table 12
Model Summary of Regression Analysis used to Evaluate Hypothesis 4
Source R R2 Standard Error F Sig Omnibus Model .327 .107 0.877 13.511 < .001
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 8.333 0.332 25.068 < .001 Degree of Centralization 0.325 0.088 0.327 3.676 < .001 Dependent variable = Leadership quality; n = 115
Exploratory Analyses
Using SPSS 22.0, three analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to
determine if any significant differences in leadership qualities existed between the
interaction of participants’ degrees of centralization of an organization (high
68
centralization, low centralization) and their gender, age groups, and education level. The
dependent variable for exploratory analyses 1-3 was participants’ leadership qualities, as
measured by 30 items on the LPI. The independent variables for exploratory analyses 1-
3 were degrees of centralization of an organization (high centralization, low
centralization), gender, age groups, and level of education. Specifically, the independent
variables for analysis 1 were participants’ degrees of centralization and gender (male n =
65, female n = 49). One participant did not specify their gender and was removed from
the analysis. Thus, 115 valid responses were received and 114 were evaluated by the
ANOVA model for analysis 1 (ntotal = 114). Descriptive statistics for the participants’
leadership quality scores are displayed in Table 18 in Appendix D by degrees of
centralization and gender.
The independent variables for analysis 2 were participants’ degrees of
centralization and age groups. Participants’ age groups were measured on five categories
including Generation Z - 1996-2007(n = 0), Generation Y -1981-1995 (n = 15),
Millennial Generation X -1965-1980 (n = 47), Baby Boomers - 1943-1965 (n = 50), and
Traditionalists - prior to 1943 (n = 3). Due to small samples sizes across age groups,
participants were placed into two groups which included those who were between 18 and
50 years old (Generation Z + Generation Y + Millennial Generation X, n = 62) and those
that were 51 years and older (Baby Boomers + Traditionalists, n = 53). These two age
groups (18-50 years old, 51 years and older) were used in the ANOVA for analysis 2
(ntotal = 115). Descriptive statistics for the participants’ leadership quality scores are
displayed in Table 19 in Appendix D by degrees of centralization and age groups.
69
The independent variables for analysis 3 were participants’ degrees of
centralization and level of education. Participants’ level of education was measured on
six levels including participants with less than a high school degree (n = 0), high school
degree/GED (n = 9), some college (n = 20), Associate’s degree (n = 16), Bachelor’s
degree (n = 26), and graduate degree (n = 44). Due to small sample sizes across
education levels, participants were placed into two groups which included those who did
not have a college degree (less than high school degree + high school degree/GED +
some college + Associate’s degree, n = 45) and those who had a college degree
(bachelor’s degree + graduate degree, n = 70). These two levels of education (no college
degree, college degree and above) were used in the ANOVA for analysis 3 (ntotal = 115).
Descriptive statistics for the participants’ leadership quality scores are displayed in Table
20 in Appendix D by degrees of centralization and levels of education.
Analysis 1
Results from analysis 1 revealed a significant difference in participants’
leadership quality scores did exist between degrees of centralization (low centralization,
high centralization), F (1, 110) = 6.524, p = .012, partial eta-squared = .056. That is,
participants from organizations with low centralization had significantly higher
leadership quality scores (M = 9.708, SD = 0.717) than those with high centralization (M
= 9.243, SD = 1.075)—see Figure 1 in Appendix E. Additionally, results indicated a
significant difference in leadership quality scores did exist between males and females F
(1, 110) = 3.897, p = .050, partial eta-squared = .034. That is, female participants had
significantly higher leadership quality scores (M = 9.700, SD = 0.824) than males (M =
9.357, SD = 0.962)—see Figure 2 in Appendix E. However, results further revealed a
70
significant difference in leadership quality scores did not exist between the interaction of
degrees of centralization and gender, F (1, 110) = 0.387, p = .535, partial eta squared =
.004. That is, the difference in leadership quality scores between males and females
managers within high centralization organizations (male M1 = 9.068, female M2 = 9.507,
∆M = 0.439) as defined as (M2 - M1 = 9.507 – 9.068 = 0.4390) was similar to the
difference in scores between males and females within low centralization organizations
(male M1 = 9.605, female M2 = 9.833, ∆M = 0.228) as defined as (M2 – M1 = 9.833 –
9.605 = 0.228). See Figure 3 in Appendix E for a means plot of leadership scores by the
interaction between degrees of centralization and gender. Displayed in Table 13 is a
model summary of the ANOVA analysis of analysis 1.
Table 13
Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 1
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. (p) Partial Eta Squared
Observed Power
Corrected Model 9.209 3 3.070 3.931 .010 .097 .818 Intercept 9870.795 1 9870.795 12639.093 < .001 .991 1.000 Centralization 5.095 1 5.095 6.524 .012 .056 .716 Gender 3.043 1 3.043 3.897 .050 .034 .499 Interaction 0.302 1 0.302 0.387 .535 .004 .095 Error 85.907 110 0.781 Total 10393.176 114 Corrected Total 95.116 113 Dependent Variable: Leadership quality, n = 114 Interaction = Degree of Centralization * Gender
Analysis 2
Results from analysis 2 revealed a significant difference in participants’
leadership quality scores did exist between degrees of centralization (low centralization,
high centralization), F (1, 111) = 7.325, p = .008, partial eta-squared = .062. That is,
participants from organizations with low centralization had significantly higher
leadership quality scores (M = 9.728, SD = 0.729) than those with high centralization (M
71
= 9.243, SD = 1.075)—see Figure 4 in Appendix E. However, results indicated a
significant difference in leadership quality scores did not exist between age groups (18-50
years old, 51 years and older), F (1, 111) = 1.853, p = .176, partial eta-squared = .016.
That is, participants 51 years and older did not have significantly higher leadership
quality scores (M = 9.671, SD = 0.946) than 18 to 50 year old managers (M = 9.387, SD =
0.891) (see Figure 5, Appendix E). Additionally, results further revealed a significant
difference in leadership quality scores did not exist between the interaction of degrees of
centralization and age groups, F(1, 111) = 0.012, p = .915, partial eta squared < .001.
That is, the difference in leadership quality scores between age groups within high
centralization organizations (18-50 years old M1 = 9.158, 51+ years M2 = 9.372, ∆M =
0.214) as defined as (M2 - M1 = 9.372 – 9.158 = 0.214) was similar to the difference in
scores between age groups within low centralization organizations (18-50 year old M1 =
9.601, 51+ years M2 = 9.852, ∆M = 0.251) as defined as (M2 – M1 = 9.852 – 9.601 =
0.251). See Figure 6 in Appendix E for a means plot of leadership scores by the
interaction between degrees of centralization and age groups. Displayed in Table 14 is a
model summary of the ANOVA analysis of analysis 2.
Table 14
Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 2
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Observed Power
Corrected Model 8.212 3 2.737 3.409 .020 .084 .755 Intercept 9957.040 1 9957.040 12401.360 < .001 .991 1.000 Centralization 5.882 1 5.882 7.325 .008 .062 .765 Age group 1.488 1 1.488 1.853 .176 .016 .271 Interaction 0.009 1 0.009 0.012 .915 < .001 .051 Error 89.122 111 0.803 Total 10514.176 115 Corrected Total 97.334 114 Dependent Variable: Leadership quality, n = 115 Interaction = Degree of Centralization * Age group
72
Analysis 3
Results from analysis 3 revealed a significant difference in participants’
leadership quality scores did exist between degrees of centralization (low centralization,
high centralization), F (1,111) = 7.993, p = .006, partial eta-squared = .067. That is,
participants from organizations with low centralization had significantly higher
leadership quality scores (M = 9.728, SD = 0.729) than those with high centralization (M
= 9.243, SD = 1.075)—see Figure 7 in Appendix E. However, results indicated a
significant difference in leadership quality scores did not exist between levels of
education (no college degree, Bachelor’s degree and above), F (1, 111) = 1.108, p = .295,
partial eta-squared = .010. That is, participants with Bachelor’s degrees and above did
not have significantly higher leadership quality scores (M = 9.602, SD = 0.851) than
those who do not have college degrees (M = 9.387, SD = 1.023)—see Figure 8 in
Appendix E. Additionally, results further revealed a significant difference in leadership
quality scores did not exist between the interaction of degrees of centralization and levels
of education, F (1, 111) = 0.321, p = .572, partial eta squared = .003. That is, the
difference in leadership quality scores between participants with college degrees and
those without within high centralization organizations (no college education M1 = 9.086,
Bachelor’s degree and above M2 = 9.367, ∆M = 0.281) as defined as (M2 - M1 = 9.367 –
9.086 = 0.281) was similar to the difference in scores between levels of education within
low centralization organizations (no college degree M1 = 9.674, Bachelor’s degree and
above M2 = 9.758, ∆M = 0.084) as defined as (M2 – M1 = 9.758 – 9.674 = 0.084). See
Figure 9 in Appendix E for a means plot of leadership scores by the interaction between
73
degrees of centralization and levels of education. Displayed in Table 15 is a model
summary of the ANOVA analysis of analysis 3.
Table 15
Test of Between Subjects Effects Derived from ANOVA of Analysis 3
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Observed Power
Corrected Model 7.717 3 2.572 3.186 .027 .079 .723 Intercept 9667.947 1 9667.947 11974.844 < .001 .991 1.000 Centralization 6.454 1 6.454 7.993 .006 .067 .800 Level of Education 0.895 1 0.895 1.108 .295 .010 .181 Interaction 0.260 1 0.260 0.321 .572 .003 .087 Error 89.616 111 0.807 Total 10514.176 115 Corrected Total 97.334 114 Dependent Variable: Leadership quality, n = 115 Interaction = Degree of Centralization * Level of education
Summary
The study is important because businesses are becoming more decentralized than
ever. Operating units are becoming more numerous, widely distributed, often with
limited or no personal contact with upper levels of management. The business
environment requires the highest qualities of leadership in an operating unit. The levels
of management in a decentralized organization are often separated in distance and time.
In this environment, top management will realize the best possible performance from
managers who demonstrate the highest levels of leadership behavior. By knowing the
current relationships between high LPI behavior scores, managers’ experience, and an
organizational structure, one may gain insight of leadership behavior in middle
management. The potential audience includes top management as well as CEOs because
at these levels, they are leaders themselves, and must be innovative to guide their
organization in today’s global economy. The identification of the perceived leadership
practices of in-place and potential managers provides a baseline for the constant demands
74
for change in order to survive and grow. The study is novel because the Kouzes and
Posner (2008) context of leadership is generally directed at the individual whereas the
proposed research is directed at leadership behaviors in firms grouped into the two
principal types of organizational structures in the current business environment (i.e.,
centralized & decentralized).
The study sample is drawn from a Survey Monkey database of United States
industries, using guidance from the researcher. A sample size has been selected so as to
be representative of a diverse population of managers in United States’ durable goods
manufacturers.
Analysis of the data indicates the researcher’s hypothesis was valid, supporting
the relevance of the group leadership behaviors of managers in decentralized
organizations with more than five years’ experience. The novel approach of applying the
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to groups of managers affirms the quality
measurement protocols both to the instrument and research process. The data of the
independent variables, which have not been used before, do show the significant
movement of higher LPI scores with managers in decentralized organizations (Kouzes &
Posner, 2008). With managers of greater than five years of experience the data supports
both hypothesis there is a relationship between high LPI scores, levels of centralization of
the organization and experience.
75
Table 16
Summary of Results for Research Questions 1 and 4
Research Question Dependent Variable Independent Variable Test Sig.
1 Leadership Qualities Degree of Centralization ANOVA .014 2 Leadership Qualities Years of Experience ANOVA .028 3 Leadership Qualities Interaction ANOVA .877 4 Leadership Qualities Degree of Centralization Regression < .001
Interaction = degree of centralization * years of experience
Results indicated there were significant differences across the levels of the
independent variables: degrees of centralization and years of experience. The results
show organizations with low levels of centralization had significantly higher leadership
quality scores than organizations with high levels of centralizations. Additionally,
managers with more than five years of experience had significantly higher leadership
quality scores than managers with five years of experience or less. Recommendations,
analysis, and conclusion will be discussed in Chapter 5.
76
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a brief statement of the purpose of the study, comments on
related studies described in the literature review, findings of the data analysis and
conclusion and implications. The purpose of this study was to measure and quantify the
relationships between managers’ leadership behaviors, managers’ years of experience,
and the managers’ perceptions of how centralized or decentralized their companies are
using a WEB-based survey system. Leadership behaviors are measured with the LPI, a
self-ranked, Likert scale inventory of 30 key behaviors, along with managers’ years of
experience and their ranking of their company’s degree of centralization.
The literature review indicates that critical literature related to leadership has
focused on the dimensions of leadership qualities, degree of centralization of an
organization, and manager experience as separate entities, not as integrated, interrelated
functions. A review of the literature highlights a gap in scholarship relative to the
concurrent impact on business management of operating in the emerging global
marketplace and employing modern technology. The literature describes studies of
organizational development programs directed at developing individuals to more
effectively manage organizations, but the focus of these programs is on individual
leadership, not usually with a holistic approach to the basic structure of an organization.
Summary of Findings
In this study, 115 managers from small, medium, and large corporations
manufacturing durable goods within the United States responded. Data were entered into
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22) and were then tested using
77
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis to evaluate the research questions.
The research questions are as follows:
RQ1: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers from
organizations with high centralization and those from organizations with low
centralization?
H1Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
H1Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers from organizations with high centralization and those from
organizations with low centralization.
RQ2: Are there differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between managers with
work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more work experience than 5
years?
H2Null: There are no differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities between
managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those with more
work experience than 5 years.
H2Alternative: There are significant differences in self-evaluated leadership qualities
between managers with work experiences of length less than 5 years and those
with more work experience than 5 years.
RQ3: Are there significant interaction effects between a manager’s years of experience,
(≤5 years, ˃5 years), and the organization’s centralization, and a manager’s self-evaluated
leadership qualities?
78
H3Null: There are no significant interaction effects between the manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and a
manager’s self-evaluated leadership qualities.
H3Alternative: There are significant interaction effects between manager’s years of
experience, (≤5 years, ˃5 years), and organizations centralization, and managers
self-evaluated leadership qualities.
RQ4): Is there a significant relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s)?
H4Null: There is no relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
H4Alternative: There is a relationship between self-evaluated leadership qualities of
managers and the degree of centralization of their respective organization(s).
Results
Results from Research Question 1 revealed a significant difference in
participants’ leadership quality scores did exist between degrees of centralization. Thus,
the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. French and Bell
highlight the participation/empowerment model as a key building element of
organizational development (French & Bell, 1999). French and Bell (2009) utilize
Kouzes and Posner’s (2006) leadership seminars as part of their theory on systems and
organizational development (Kouzes & Posner, 2006). The analysis of leadership
practices derived in the Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory surveys
identifies a set of people as the “personal best,” successful, empowered leaders (French &
Bell, 1999). French and Bell (1999) report a study, by the originator of the four system
79
approach, Rensis Likert, and in the evolution of his system models. French and Bell
(1999) report the interaction within system types and how they relate within the group of
low centralization organizations (French & Bell, 1999). Likert’s studies of management
type and styles measured leadership, organizations, and job satisfaction using surveys.
As the studies evolved, four types of management systems were defined. These systems
had analogous to terms used in this research paper. Likert’s Systems 1 and 2: “exploitive
authoritative and “benevolent authoritative” are equivalent to “high centralization.”
Likert’s systems 3 and 4: “consultative “and “participative group” are equivalent to “low
centralization.” This evolution with organizational variables that follow the LPI
leadership behaviors leads to higher profits in system 4. The natural conclusion is that
decentralized organizations have leaders who behave, interact, speak, demand innovation,
and encourage participation of its employees, as demonstrated with Likert’s matrix chart.
Results from Research Question 2 indicate without regard to degree of
centralization, a significant difference in leadership quality scores did exist between
levels of managerial experience; that is, managers with more than five years of
experience had significantly higher leadership quality scores than managers with five
years of experience or less. It might seem arbitrary that experience of more and less than
5 years was selected as measurement criteria, but this study and others indicate there is a
crossover point at about 5 years where experience begins to be an important factor in
leadership competency, a principal contributor to business success and growth.
McEnrue’s (1998) findings support the need for experienced managers related to the
dimensions of the job analogous to the LPI factors that relate to job satisfaction, decision
making, problem solving, and empowerment skills. Additionally, McEnrue (1998)
80
demonstrated in her study that a principal factor leading to developing relationships
resulting in higher performance is a manager’s years of experience (McEnrue, 1998).
McEnrue linked job experience with the job demands, reiterating the fact that managers
with more experience knew how to get the best out of their workforce. McEnrue’s study
of managerial experience supports the current successful restaurant business model that
the degree of centralization does not matter (McEnrue, 1998).
McCann’s (2003) study of the banking industry in Thailand revealed the industry
had an attitude that managers with 6 years or more experience had better understanding
of the workplace environment, expectations, and the processes for work to be completed
(McCann, 2003).
The research results of research Question 3 show in both high and low
centralization organizations, managers with less than 5 years’ experience have leadership
quality scores not significantly lower than the scores for managers with more than 5
years’ experience. Further, the differences between scores for managers in high
centralization and managers in low centralization were similar, but the scores for both
types of organization are in the high range. These findings must be taken in the proper
context. Earlier in this paper, the Problem Statement indicates low centralization is
becoming the more efficient organization in today’s business world. It should not be
inferred that highly centralized businesses are deficient in their quality of their
managerial leadership (Kates & Galbraith, 2007). A highly centralized business is
usually very efficient, with well-defined accountability and job objectives resulting in
high performance. A small group of top managers can react quickly to a changing market
and make critical decisions more quickly (Robbins & Judge, 2012). Some businesses, by
81
their very nature, have centralized organizations. They cannot however, be successful
unless their managers have the highest possible leadership qualities (Kates & Galbraith,
2007).
Decentralized businesses are thriving in an environment of dynamic global
markets, instant communication, and interactive customers. The delegation of authority
and responsibility to operating units is required, but at a scale appropriate to the
subordinate unit. The managers of operating units will contribute to corporate success
only if they have the highest possible leadership qualities (McEnrue, 1998).
The result of research Question 4 indicates there is a significant relationship
between manager’s self-evaluated leadership qualities and the degree of centralization.
This relationship is positive in favor of low centralization. Firms whose managers
evaluate themselves as having high leadership quality scores are employed in and can
gain insight of firms moving toward low centralization. Drucker validates the thought
that the baseline of decentralized organizations values the individual’s role in the
workplace, customer service and how decentralized organizations meet the concept of
modern economies. Drucker asserts that companies work best when they are
decentralized (PMI, 2004). McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y direct today’s
management to subscribe to the Theory Y approach where workers have more control
and accountability for their jobs. This approach contains the ingredients of a high quality
of leadership behavior. Modern management typology supports this approach with
decentralized organizations (Pugh & Hickson, 2007).
In today’s business environment, top leadership demands performance-based
behavior by their managers. The expectation is to show “personal best” as a quality of
82
successful work-related behavior, along with other behaviors that top leaders need to gain
insight of performance outcomes (French & Bell, 1999). The evolution of organization
trending toward decentralized organizational structures embodies the field of leadership
qualities and behaviors. Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI) provides top management with leadership guidelines required to achieve
performance objectives. The LPI is used to help organizations leverage the workforce to
higher performance and empowerment. When used appropriately, the LPI can provide
significant support to management of the evolution to higher levels of decentralization.
As seen with Google’s “Project Oxygen”, Google’s top management required an internal
change of their management structure and training program to help managers improve
skills, reduce turnover, and enhance employee satisfaction with noticeable positive
impact on sales, productivity, and profitability. The literature about Google’s continuing
success describes how businesses rely on LPI and similar self-evaluated surveys as
management insight (Garvin, 2013).
Conclusions and Implications
The concept of direct and influential relationships of leadership practice and years
of managerial experience to current trends in decentralized organization structure was
confirmed. The natural conclusion that managers with less than five years’ experience
would over-estimate their abilities and those managers with more than five years’
experience would rate themselves lower on the exemplary behaviors were confirmed.
The findings of this study replicated the LPI results by Kouzes and Posner (2006) by
showing managers in decentralized organizations evaluated themselves to have high
exemplary behaviors. Having the LPI baseline an organization’s structure and self-
83
evaluate behaviors permits the innovative leader to recognize the need to build a better,
well trained staff. While conceding the limitation of the Likert studies reported in French
and Bell (1999), this research’s results show the survey feedback technique is a valid
method for top management to use in organization development.
The study results have implications for management practices. The levels of
management in a decentralized organization are often separated in distance and time.
Therefore, there must be more mid-manager involvement in how the organization
operates. As operating units become more numerous and widely distributed, the need to
not limit the personal contact with upper levels of management requires immediate
attention to realize the high performance required for survival and growth. Regardless of
the degree of centralization, managers must have the highest possible leadership qualities.
Feedback from the LPI survey can be an important asset in a firm’s success and
growth as well as personal career development. Today’s technology-enabled business
trends are influencing strategies across a wide spectrum of industries. The LPI survey of
managers tells executives that change management is required by evaluating participant’s
responses. The survey identifies deficiencies in the five exemplary leadership behaviors
and provides a focus for training within the organization. Identifying leaders with
exemplary leadership behavior reinforces the principal that good management skills
result in survival and growth (Kouzes & Posner, 2006).
Although age is a human factor that cannot be used for discrimination in
employment and promotion, it is a factor that will become important in future business
decisions. The Exploratory Analysis 2 indicates no significant differences in leadership
quality scores between the younger (18-50 years old) group and the older (51 years and
84
older) group within both high and low centralized organizations. Analysis 2 is gender-
neutral, but in today’s business world, men dominate the managerial ranks (The
Economist, 2010). As discussed elsewhere in this paper, men overestimate their abilities
leading to a conclusion that men in both age groups had lower leadership scores than they
really stated. This is an important matter for the future of all businesses.
The implications of Analysis 3 are contributory to a commonly popular opinion of
the contribution of college education in the business world. Analysis 3 revels that in both
low and high centralization organizations, there is no significant difference in leadership
quality scores between managers with a college degree and mangers with no degree.
These findings were foretold by Kouzes and Posner’s (2006) program development of
student leadership practices inventory. The Facilitators Guide for Student LPI cites mean
scores for sample populations where LPI scores for high school students were not
significantly different from undergraduate college students (Kouzes & Posner, 2006).
Another important, linking factor is how managers who were grown organically within
the organization and grew to a managerial position demonstrated greater knowledge of
the job and how workers wanted to be treated. This can be seen in Managing Human
Resources (Gomeze-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy, 2006).
Historically and statistically, women in business have been confronted with a
workplace where men are paid more and are promoted faster. This persists today even
though in the United States, women earn more college and graduate degrees than men.
Data from the LPI survey provides a foundation for the questions as to why, how, and
what can be done to change an unquestionable barrier to women’s position in the
workforce. The Exploratory Analysis reveals female participants had significantly higher
85
leadership quality scores than males in both high and low centralization organizations.
The real significance of this finding is traceable to studies reported by Kay and Shipman
(2014) in the Atlantic, April 2014. The studies indicate, in testing, women underestimate
and men overestimate their abilities and performance. Transposing these findings to the
LPI survey scores, it can be postulated that the females in the LPI survey underestimated
their leadership behaviors. The implication is obvious; the next generation of leaders
should have no gender identification.
Recommendations for Further Research
The research conducted in this study was constrained so as to provide a targeted
analysis of leadership behavior. The study can be replicated by including a larger
population of participants in different business sectors with emphasis on today’s
emerging market areas. For example, e-commerce, which by design is highly
decentralized with operating units separated in distance and time, requires high levels of
leadership to be successful in the digital environment. Research is required to define the
relationship of leadership behavior in remote operating units to the success, or not, in the
parent business.
Future studies are recommended for businesses that are global, with headquarters
in the United States, and operating units located in other countries. The study focuses on
product oriented firms. Service oriented firms, such as franchised fast food restaurants,
have unique organizations. The corporate headquarters is highly centralized; the
operating units are highly decentralized, and within the unit, are highly centralized. A
study is a recommended on the leadership behaviors of managers of remote operating
units and unit performances.
86
The research in the study measured leadership practices anonymously even
though the demographics asked for gender. The analysis of data did not include social
identity although social identity is important in how a person perceives himself or herself
and how people are perceived by others. It is recommended future studies include the
social identity of survey respondents.
Future studies are recommended for the sampling of respondents to reflect the
actual distribution of managers in various industries. A study should be conducted to
reflect the distribution of different levels of management in various industries, though it
is not clear how many respondents may have come from any single company.
The research in this study presents business leaders with information that can be
used immediately in executing a strategy for planned change. Recognizing that change
takes time, future research replicating this study over a long term would indicate the
degree of success of the strategy. The research in this study was directed at self-
evaluation of managers without specifying organizational level. A study evaluates the
perceptions of leadership behavior of managers’ immediate supervisors should indicate if
the supervisors have challenges to their performance.
Recommendations for Practice
Top management has the responsibility to identify the need for change in the
organization. The leadership practices measured in the survey of this study can assist the
organization with implementing learned education from within. Analysis of the survey
validates the proposition that the quality of leadership behaviors of managers is related
directly to experience. Results of the research Question 2 show managers with more than
5 years’ experience had higher leadership scores than managers with less than 5 years.
87
Although the study did not acquire data as to the reason for differences, the scores are
definitive enough to indicate training in leadership should start early in a manager’s
appointment if not sooner.
The internal education structure is based on organizational functions to teach best
practices. Leadership practices provide the guide to develop an internal school to pass
the organization’s DNA from one tenure to the next. For example, Google Inc. has an
internal program called “Project Oxygen” which evaluates its management and
employees and establishes internal education structure to teach managers how to manage.
It is recommended that businesses, of any size or type, as a minimum, evaluate the
leadership behaviors of its managers using the LPI survey. Further, it is recommended
that, if resources permit, business adopt a programmatic approach to evaluating and
enhancing leadership behaviors similar to Google’s Project Oxygen (Garvin, 2013).
Limitations
A sample of 200 managers was specified for the survey, 189 started to respond,
but data was collected from a valid sample of only 117 small, medium, and large sized
corporations within the United States. The limitations include the respondents
distribution may not reflect the actual distribution of managers in various industries.
Respondents in the sample may not reflect the distribution of different levels of
management in various industries, and it is not clear how many respondents may have
come from any single company.
Summary
Business today is faced with multiple and constant threats to survival and growth.
These threats come from several directions and intensity: globalization, new
88
technologies, economies, and political instability to mention a few. There are numerous
strategies available for business to cope with these threats, but no strategy can succeed
without leadership. A proven strategy is the process that identifies and develops the
leadership practices of managers and employees supporting a strategy for organization
development through planned change.
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is the most widely used and highly
regarded means to measure on-hand and potential leadership behaviors. Top
management intending to execute a strategy of planned change can have high confidence
that surveys like the one described in this study will guide the workforce to greater levels
of achievement.
89
REFERENCES
Bacon, T. R. (2012). Elements of influence: the art of getting others to follow your lead. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Beard, A., Mindfulness in the age of complexity. Harvard Business Review, 92(3), 68-73.
Baxter. J. (2012). Dissertation Format. In J. Baxter (Ed.), Baxter incorporated. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Baxter.
Bowerman, B. L., & O'Connell, R. T. (2007). Business statistics in practice (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw/Hill.
Chandia, Y., Styles, C., & Wilkinson, I. F. (2012). An opportunity based view of rapid internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 74.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods design approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
McCann, R. M. University of California, Santa Barbara, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2003. 3112904.
Rosenthal, J.E. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2006. 3207424.
Dobbin, F., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (2010). Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970 - 2000. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Eder, H., & Alvintizi, P. (2010). Management science -theory and applications series. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fiedler, F. (1970). Leadership experience and leader performance-Another hypothesis shot to hell. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 1-14.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Gabor, A. (2000). The Capitalist Philosophers: The Geniuses of Modem Business-Their Lives, Times, and Ideas. New York: Crown Business..
90
Galpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Garrison, W. L., & Levinson, D. M. (2006). The transportation experience: Policy, planning and deployment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Garvin, D. A. (2013). How google sold its engineers on management. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 75-82.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Cardy, R. L. (2007). Managing human resources(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall.
Hammer, Leonard, & Davenport (2004). Why don’t we know more about knowledge? MIT Sloan Management Review.
Harvard Business Review.com. (2013) Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://HBR.com.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1999). The worldly philosophers: the lives, times and ideas of the great economic thinkers (7th ed., Rev.). New York, NY: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.
Hise, R., Kelly, J., Gable, M., & McDonald, J. (1983). Factors affecting the performance of individual chain store units: An empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing, 5(2), 22-39.
Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Kates, A & Galbraith, J, Designing your organization. December 23, 2010, John Wiley and Sons.
Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014, May 1). The confidence gap. The Atlantic, (5), 1-19.
Kettler, D., Loader, C., & Meja, V. (2008). Karl Mannheim and the legacy of Max Weber: Retrieving a research programme. Aldeshot, England: Ashgate.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). Leadership challenge (3rd.ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P. (1999). What do leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, vol 2 ,no.3, 59-67 .
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). Leadership challenge (1st.ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). Leadership challenge (2nd.ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)
91
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2001). Leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (The Leadership Practices Inventory)(2nd.ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). Student leadership practices inventory (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). Leadership practices inventory (3rd.ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Kuehl, R.O. (2000). Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press
Beard, A. (2014).Ellen Langer: Mindfulness in the age of complexity. Harvard Business Review, 92(3), 68-73.
Likert, R., & Likert, J. G. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lindman, H.R. (1974). Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. San Franciso, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Magretta, J. (2002) Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, May: 86-92.
McEnrue, M. P. (1998). Length of experience and the performance of managers in the establishment phase of their careers. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 175-185.
Medoff, J. L., & Abraham, K. G. (1980). Experience. performance, and earnings. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(4), 703-736.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
92
Program Management Institute (2004). Program management book of knowledge (3 ed.). Square Newton, PA: Program Management Institute. Inc.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. (1984). Education organization and religious concerns. California Management Review, 26, Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. (1994). Values congruence and differences between the interplay of personal and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 341-347.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (2007). Great writers on organizations. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Reeves, M., Love, C., & Tillmanns, P. (2012). Your strategy needs a strategy. Harvard Business Review, 90(9), 76-83.
Robbins, S. P., &Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall.
Robertson, P. L. (1999). Authority and control in modern industry: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Schmidt, F., Hunter, J., & Outerbridge, A. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory rating of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432-439.
Seddon, P. B., & Lewis, G. P. (2003). Strategy and business models: What's the difference? In 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (pp. 236-248). Adelaide, South Australia: a Department of Information Systems, The University of Melbourne.
Smith, S., & Milligan, A. (2011). Bold: How to be brave in business and win (1st ed.). London, U.K.: Kogan Page.
Smith, A. (1982). Wealth of nations (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Viking Press.
Stein, G. (2010). Managing people and organizations: Peter Drucker's legacy. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Swaan Arons, M. D., Driest, F. V. D, & Weed, K. (2014). The ultimate marketing machine. Harvard Business Review, 92(7/8), 54-63.
Tabachnick, B., C. & Fidell, L., S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Terborg, J. R., & Ungson, G. (1985). Group-administered bonus pay and retail store performance: A two-year study of management compensation. Journal of Retailing, 6(1), 63-77.
93
The Economist (2010, September 1). Economist intelligence unit limited. The Economist,14-15.
Tonn, J. C. (2003). Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Walton, M. (1986). The Deming management method. New York, NY: Perigee Books.
Weill, P. and Vitale, M.R. (2001). Place to Space: Migrating to eBusiness Models. Harvard Business School Press.
Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2008). Concepts in strategic management and business policy (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson: Prentice Hall.
Wren, D. A., Bedeian, A. G., & Breeze, J. D. (2002). The foundation of Henri Fayol's administrative theory. Management Decision, 40(9), 906-918.
94
APPENDICES
95
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
96
APPENDIX A: Informed Consent
Dear Prospective Participant:
My name is Brian Buterbaugh and I am a doctoral student in the Business Administration department at Argosy University-San Diego campus working on my dissertation. This study is a requirement to fulfill my degree and will not be used for decision-making by any organization. This study is for research purposes only.
You are cordially invited to volunteer your participation in my dissertation research. The purpose of this research is to examine the difference in leadership styles between levels of centralization and manager experience (<=5 years, >5 years).
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you participate in this research, you will be asked complete and/or participate in the following: A Demographics Survey and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).
How Long Will This Study Take?The research will be conducted over a two month period. You may participate as your time permits during this timeframe. It is expected to take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete the surveys.
What If You Change Your Mind About Participating?You can withdraw at any time during the study. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you choose to withdraw, your data can be withdrawn as long as it is identifiable.
How Will Your Information Be Treated?The information you provide for this research will be treated confidentially, and all data (written and recorded) will be kept securely. Written documentations will be stored in a locked file cabinet, accessible only by me (Brian Buterbaugh), in my home. Recorded data and transcribed data will be stored on my personal password protected laptop, which accessible only by me, then transferred to the locked cabinet after the research is completed. Results of the research will be reported as summary data only, and no individually identifiable information will be presented. In the event your information is quoted in the written results, I will use codes to maintain your confidentiality
All information obtained will be held with the strictest confidentiality. You will be asked to refrain from placing your name or any other identifying information on any research form or protocols to further ensure confidentiality is maintained at all times. All recorded information will be stored securely for five years, per Argosy University-San Diego campus requirements. At the end of the five years, all recorded data and other information will be deleted and all written data will be shredded.
97
What Are the Benefits in This Study?As you are in a management position, the LPI survey provides a self-
development assessment tool that measures leadership competencies The participant is given insight into the leadership practices that are required to succeed in today’s dynamic business environment. If you are in a marketing management position, feedback from the LPI survey can be an important asset in your firm’s success and growth as well as your personal career development. Today’s technology-enabled business trends are influencing strategies across a wide spectrum of industries. Marketing is connected to the business strategy, and is linked to general management in additional to its traditional functions of planning, research, and customer interaction. Marketers must connect, inspire, focus, organize, and build. Marketing is the principal, if not the only, interface with the customer with the responsibility to leverage customer insight through the entire company organization. The marketing organization must have the personal-best leadership practices at all levels recognizing that leadership is a relationship between leaders and followers. The LPI provides this guidance.
You also have the right to review the results of the research if you wish to do so. A copy of the results may be obtained by contacting Brian Buterbaugh: Email: [email protected] or Phone: 619-227-1006
Additionally, should you have specific concerns or questions, you may contact my dissertation chair, Dr. Elias A. Demetriades at Argosy University-San Diego campus by phone at 312- 301- 1025 or email at edemetriades @argosy or Dr. Diana Siganoff, IRB Chair, Argosy University-Orange County Argosy campus (714) [email protected],
I have read and understand the information explaining the purpose of this research and my rights and responsibilities as a participant. I have all my questions answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. By continuing on and completing the questionnaire, I am giving my voluntary consent to participate in this research. I understand my rights and obligations as a participant.
Signature Date
98
APPENDIX B
Demographics Survey
99
APPENDIX B: Demographics Survey
Instructions: Please answer each question honestly.
1. Do you presently hold a management position?
_______ Yes _______ No
2. When decisions are being made in your organization, to what degree do managers invite others participation in the decision making process?
_______ Never _______ Almost never _______ Sometimes _______ Frequently _______ Almost always _______ Always
3. For how many years have you been in a management role?
_____ ≤5 years _____ ˃˃≥5 years
4. What is the size of your organization?
_______ 0-50 individuals _______ 50 to 500 individuals No _______ 500 or more individuals
5. Which category below do you fall into?
_____ Generation Z (born between 1996 and 2007) _____ Gen Y (born between 1981 and 1995) _____ Millennial Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980) _____ Baby Boomers (born between 1943 and 1965) _____ Traditionalists, (born prior to 1943)
100
6. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received?
_____ Less than high school degree _____High school degree or equivalent (e.g., GED)
_____Some college but no degree _____Associate degree _____Bachelor degree _____Graduate degree
7. Which of the following best describes your current occupation?
_____ Automotive _____ Chemicals _____ Consumer goods _____ Information &Communications Technology _____ Machinery & Equipment _____ Medical technology _____ Metal & Metal Processing _____ Renewable energy _____ Service sectors _____ other
101
APPENDIX C
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
102
APPENDIX C: Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
The below questionnaire is to be responded to as an evaluation of your leadership behaviors in the workplace. Please answer honestly
Instructions: Please answer honestly.
0=Not at all likely
1=Not likely
2=Almost not likely
3=Somewhat not likely
4=Somewhat not possible
5=Neutral
6=Somewhat possible
7=Somewhat likely
8=Likely
9=Almost likely
10=Extremely likely
103
1. I set a personal example of what I expect of others. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. I talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets done. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. I seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and abilities. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. I develop cooperative relationships among the people I work with. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. I praise people for a job well done Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6. I spend time and energy making certain that people I work with adhere to the principles and standards we have agreed on.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. I describe a compelling image of what our future could be like. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. I challenge people to try new and innovative ways to do their work. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. I actively listen to diverse points of view. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
104
10. I make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their abilities. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11. I follow through on promises and commitments that I make. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12. I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13. I search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for innovative ways to improve what we do.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14. I treat others with dignity and respect. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15. I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the success of our projects.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
16. I ask for feedback on how my actions affect people's performance. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17. I ask "What can we learn?" when things don’t go as expected. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18. I support the decisions that people make on their own. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
105
19. I publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to shared values. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20. I build consensus around a common set of values for running our organization. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
21. I paint the "big picture" of what we aspire to accomplish. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
22. I make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and establish measurable milestones for projects and programs that we work on.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
23. I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their work. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
24. I find ways to celebrate accomplishments. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
25. I am clear about my philosophy of leadership. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
26. I speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of our work.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27. I experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of failure. Not at
all likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
106
28. I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing themselves.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
29. I give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their contributions.
Not at all
likely
Not likely
Almost not
likely
Somewhat not likely
Somewhat not
possible Neutral Somewhat
possible Somewhat
likely Likely Almost likely
Extremely likely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
107
APPENDIX D
Descriptive Statistics Tables
108
Descriptive Statistics
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics of Leadership Quality Scores by Degrees of Centralization and Managers� Experience
Leadership Quality n Mean Std. Deviation High centralization 5 years or less 17 8.955 1.095 Greater than 5 years 33 9.392 1.051 Total 50 9.243 1.075
Low centralization 5 years or less 16 9.442 0.699 Greater than 5 years 49 9.822 0.721 Total 65 9.728 0.729
Experience Total 5 years or less 33 9.191 0.943 Greater than 5 years 82 9.649 0.889 Total 115 9.517 0.924
Table 18
Descriptive Statistics of Participants� Leadership Quality Scores by the Intervention between Degrees of Centralization and Gender for Male and Female Managers
Leadership Quality n Mean Std. Deviation High centralization Male 30 9.068 1.130 Female 20 9.507 0.955 Total 50 9.243 1.075
Low centralization Male 35 9.605 0.718 Female 29 9.833 0.708 Total 64 9.708 0.717
Gender Total Male 65 9.357 0.962 Female 49 9.700 0.824 Total 114 9.504 0.917
109
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics of Participants� Leadership Quality Scores by the Intervention between Degrees of Centralization and Age Groups
Leadership Quality n Mean Std. Deviation High centralization 18 - 50 years old 30 9.158 1.021 51 years and older 20 9.372 1.167 Total 50 9.243 1.075
Low centralization 18 - 50 years old 32 9.601 0.701 51 years and older 33 9.852 0.746 Total 65 9.728 0.729
Age Group Total 18 - 50 years old 62 9.387 0.891 51 years and older 53 9.671 0.946 Total 115 9.517 0.924
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics of Participants� Leadership Quality Scores by the Intervention between Degrees of Centralization and Levels of Education
Leadership Quality n Mean Std. Deviation High centralization No college degree 22 9.086 1.136 Bachelor's degree and above 28 9.367 1.029 Total 50 9.243 1.075
Low centralization No college degree 23 9.674 0.828 Bachelor's degree and above 42 9.758 0.678 Total 65 9.728 0.729
Levels of Education Total No college degree 45 9.387 1.023 Bachelor's degree and above 70 9.602 0.851 Total 115 9.517 0.924
110
APPENDIX E
Figures
111
Means Plot
Analysis 1 Figure 1
Figure 1. Means plot of leadership quality scores by high centralization (n = 50) and low
centralization (n = 64)
112
Analysis 1 Figure 2
Figure 2. Means plot of leadership quality scores by male (n = 65) and female (n = 49)
managers
Analysis 1 Figure 3
113
Figure 3. Means plot of leadership quality scores by the interaction between degrees of
centralization and gender (n = 114)
114
Analysis 2 Figure 4
Figure 4. Means plot of leadership quality scores by high centralization (n = 50) and low
centralization (n = 65)
115
Analysis 2 Figure 5
Figure 5. Means plot of leadership quality scores by age groups (18-50 years old n = 62,
51 years and older n = 53)
Analysis 2 Figure 6
116
Figure 6. Means plot of leadership quality scores by the interaction between degrees of
centralization and age groups (n = 115)
117
Analysis 3 Figure 7
Figure 7. Means plot of leadership quality scores by high centralization (n = 50) and low
centralization (n = 65)
118
Analysis 3 Figure 8
Figure 8. Means plot of leadership quality scores by levels of education (no college
degree n = 45, college degree and above n = 70)
119
Analysis 3 Figure 9
Figure 9. Means plot of leadership quality scores by the interaction between degrees of
centralization and levels of education (n = 115)
120
Analysis 4 Figure 10
Figure 13. Scatter plot of participants’ leadership quality scores and degrees of
centralization