study of implicit leadership theory in a sample of the spanish middle managers
Post on 21-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
PRESENTATION
• Main reasons of this study• Theories, Theoretical Model
• Conclusions
• Important Results
• Statistical Analysis Techniques
• Data Collection Instrument
• Hypothesis
• Others Cross-Cultural Management StudiesPART I
PART II
PART III
MAIN REASONS TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERNATIONAL PROJECT
TO DETERMINE THOSE IMPLICIT THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL
LEADERSHIP CULTURALLY ENDORSED (61 COUNTRIES)
TO FIND SCARCE SPANISH MIDDLE MANAGER EDUCATION ABOUT
CULTURE DIFFERENCES
TO NOTE SMALL NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP USING A SAMPLE OF THE SPANISH MIDDLE MANAGERS
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORY - Lord y Mahles (1991).
Individuals have implicit theories
about the attributes and behaviors
that distinguish leaders from others,
efective leaders from ineffective ones
VALUE/BELIEF THEORY - Hofstede (1984); Triandis (1995).
Values and Beliefs
within culture
THEORIES (I)
EffectiveInfluencialAcceptable
Granted Status+Privileges
The behaviors of individuals, groupsand institutions are enacted and viewedas legitimate, acceptable and effective
IMPLICIT MOTIVATION THEORY - Is the Theory of non-conscious motives
originally advanced by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark y Lowell (1953):
STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY - Child (1981).
Demands (Organizational Contingencies) that are imposed on organizations
THEORIES (II)
“Affiliation” “Achievement” “Power (social influence)”
The essential nature of Human Motivation can be understoodin terms of three implicit motives
Organizational Form andPractice
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES FOR EACH
CULTURE
LEADERATTRIBUTES &
BEHAVIOR
LEADER ACCEPTANCE& EFFECTIVENESS
ORGANIZATIONALCONTINGENCIES
ORGANIZATIONALCULTURE, VALUES
& PRACTICES
SOCIETAL CULTURE, VALUES & PRACTICES
THEORETICAL MODEL
OTHERS CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES(1960-90)
*Power Distance (Sratification), Tolerance versus Intolerance of Uncertainty, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Feminity
1960 1970 1980 1990 Kluckholm y Strodtbeck (1961)
Haire, Guiselli y Porter (1966)
Cummings et al. (1971)
Bass y Burger (1979)
Hofstede * (1980) (1983)
Bass (1986)
McFarlin et al. (1992) Lewis (1992) Boldy et al. (1993) Trompenaars (1993) Page y Wiseman (1993) Pavett y Morris (1995)
HYPOTHESIS
“ INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLE
ADOPTED, THE IMPLICIT THEORY OF
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP SHOWS THE
SOCIETAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND
PRACTICES”
INSTRUMENT: QUESTIONNAIRES ALPHA Y BETA
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: ( Factor Dimensionality Reliability Validity)
Correlation Coefficient for Multiple Item Scales, James et al. (1984)
One-way Analysis of Variance
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC)
Generalizability Analysis, Glick (1985)
Hierarchical Analysis of Variance, Kirk (1995)
Second-order Factor Analysis
Principal Components Factor Analysis (Maximun Likelihood)
SAMPLE: 153 MIDDLE MANAGERS (91) FINANCIAL SERVICES (62) FOOD SECTOR
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
CUESTIONNAIRES
QUESTIONNAIRE ALPHA: Section 1: The way things are in your work organization (35 Items)
“ 2: Leader Behaviors (56)
“ 3: The way things generally shoyuld be in your work
(41) “ 4: Leader Behaviors (56 )
“ 5: Demographic Questions (28)
QUESTIONNAIRE BETA: Section 1: The way things are in your society (39 Items)
“ 2: Leader Behaviors (56)
“ 3: The way things should be in your society (39)
“ 4: Leader Behaviors (56 )
“ 5: Demographic Questions (28)
EXAMPLE OF PARALLEL ITEMSFOR THE CULTURE SCALES (I)
ORGANIZATIONAL AS ISThe pay and bonus system in this organization is designed to maximize:
Individual CollectiveInterests Interests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ORGANIZATIONAL SHOULD BEIn this organization, the pay and bonus system should be designed to maxime:
Individual CollectiveInterests Interests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EXAMPLE OF PARALLEL ITEMSFOR THE CULTURE SCALES (II)
SOCIETY AS IS
The economic system in this society is designed to maximize:
Individual CollectiveInterests Interests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SOCIETY SHOULD BE
I believe tha economic system in this society should be designed to maxime:
Individual CollectiveInterests Interests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CULTURE DIMENSIONS (I)
1.- UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE:
the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events.
2.- POWER DISTANCE:
the degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.
3.- COLLECTIVISM I:
reflects the degree to which organizational and societal practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.
4.- FUTURE ORIENTATION:
the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future and delaying gratification.
CULTURE DIMENSIONS (II)
5.- COLECTIVISM II:
reflects the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.
6.- PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION:
the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward group members for performance improvement and excellence.
7.- HUMANE ORIENTATION:
the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friedly, generous, caring and kind to others.
8.- GENDER EGALITARIANISM:
the extent to which and organization or a society minimizes gender role differences.
9.- ASSERTIVENESS:
the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggresive in social relationships.
EXAMPLE OF LEADER BEHAVIORS
CAUTIOUS = Proceeds/performs with great care and
does not take risks
ORGANIZADED = Well organizaded, methodical, orderly
Scale (Sections 2 & 4):
1= Greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader
2= Somewhat inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader
3= Slightly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader
4= Has no impact on whether a person is an outstanding leader
5= Contributes slightly to a person from being an outstanding leader
6= Contributes somewhat to a person from being an outstanding leader
7= Contributes greatly to a person from being an outstanding leader
DESCRIPTIVE STADISTICS :
• FREQUENCIES, PERCENT OF EACH DISTINCT VALUE & CHI-SQUARE (4F)
INFERENCE STADISTICS:• CANONICAL CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS (6M)
• HOTELLING T² (3D)• FACTOR ANALYSIS
(VMAX)(4M)• STEPWISE REGRESSION (2R)• DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS (7M)
PREDICTION 1
PREDICTION2
PREDICTION 3
PREDICTION 4
PREDICTION 5
PREDICTION 6
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES (BMDP STATISTICAL PROGRAM)
CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA
CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES
BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI- SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.
1859.29 1482 0.00000.885520 0.94085 1 1653.66 1406 0.00000.79192 0.88990 2 1504.52 1332 0.00000.78281 0.88476 3 1359.46 1232 0.0006
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.0.00025 0.01591 37 0000 2 0.99830.00003 0.00591
CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA
CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES
BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI-SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.
1775.32 1394 0.00000.85707 0.92578 1 1590.50 1320 0.00000.81688 0.90382 2 1429.23 1248 0.00030.77721 0.88159 3 1286.59 1178 0.0144
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.0.01782 0.13349 33 0.60 8 1.00000.00627 0.07918
CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA
CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES
BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI-SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.
31228.24 5775 0.00001.000 1.000 1 30510.98 5624 0.00001.000 1.000 2 29793.73 5475 0.00001.000 1.000 3 29076.47 5328 0.0000
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.0.004 0.0641 74 0.06 3 0.99650.001 0.0355
P 4:
“FINANCIAL MIDDLE MANAGERS PROFILE
WILL REFLECT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FOR
THE FOOD MIDDLE MANAGERS PROFILE”
“SHOULD BE” LEVEL
A = UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
B = ASSERTIVENESS
C= GENDER EGALITARISM
D = FUTURE ORIENTATION
E = POWER DISTANCE
F = COLLECTIVISM (I)
G = HUMANE ORIENTATION
H = PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION
I = COLLECTIVISM (II)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A B C D E F G H I
FINANCIAL FOOD
(p<0.05) y-axis means
“AS IS” LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A B C D E F G H I
FINANCIAL FOOD
(p<0.05) y-axis means
A = UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
B = ASSERTIVENESS
C= GENDER EGALITARISM
D = FUTURE ORIENTATION
E = POWER DISTANCE
F = COLLECTIVISM (I)
G = HUMANE ORIENTATION
H = PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION
I = COLLECTIVISM (II)
P 5:
“IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES WILL DEPEND ON
VALUES AND PRACTICES AS SOCIETAL AS
ORGANIZATIONAL”
* Factors: Autocratic Administrative Considerate Charismatic Humane Individualist Sincere
AUTOCRATIC
• GENDER EGALITARIANISM (O.C.)
• FUTURE ORIENTATION (S. C.)
• POWER DISTANCE (O.V.;S.V.)
• HUMANE ORIENTATION (O.C.;S.V.)
• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION (S.V./C.)
• COLLECTIVISM (II) (O.V.;S.V./C.)
0.24*
-0.35*
0.36*
0.39*
0.26*
0.18
0.22*
-0.24*0.26*
-0.20
-0.46*
S.: SocietalO.: OrganizationalV.: ValuesC.: Practices : Regression Coef.
(p<0.05) (*p<0.01)
• FUTURE ORIENTATION (S.V.)
• COLLECTIVISM (II) (O.V.)
• POWER DISTANCE (O.V.)
• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION (O.C.) (S.C.)
(S.V.)
ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATE
CHARISMATIC
HUMANE
SINCERE
INDIVIDUALISTIC
0.32*
0.26
0.45*
-0.31*
-0.29*
0.27*
0.28*
-0.22
0.36*
0.39*
(p<0.05)
S.: SocietalO.: OrganizationalV.: ValuesC.: Practices : regression coef.
(*p<0.01)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A B C D E F G
FINANCIAL FOOD
LEADERSHIP STYLES BY SECTORS (Leadership Prototype Scales)
A = AUTOCRATIC
B = ADMINISTRATIVE
C= CONSIDERATE
D = CHARISMATIC
E = HUMANE
F = INDIVIDUALISTIC
G = SINCERE
(p<0.05) y-axis means
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES (The most difference by sectors)
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
A B C D E F G
Atributes
A = EFFECTIVE BARGAINER
B = NON-EGALITARIAN
C = MODEST
D = FORESIGHT
E = MOTIVE AROUSER
F = EXCELLENCE O.
G = HONEST
y-axis Standardized coefficients for canonical variables
SOCIETAL & ORGANIZATIONALVALUES
Performance Orientation• Gender Egalitarianism • Assertiveness• Humane O.• Power Distance • Future O.
• Collectivism (I) & (II) • Uncertainty Avoidance
CONCLUSIONS P1, P2, P3:SOCIETAL VALUES/ PRACTICES SOCIALES
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES/PRACTICES
SOCIETAL &
ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
*The “onion diagram”: manifestation of culture at different levels of depth (Hofstede,1991)
CHANGES: Societal,
Economical Political
CONCLUSIONS P4:MIDDLE MANAGER PROFILE BY SECTORS
(values y practices)
• RELIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS, RULES & PROCEDURES TO
ALLEVIATE UNPREDICTABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS
• ASSERTIVENESS
• FEMINITY BEHAVIORS (inversely in values level)
• FUTURE ORIENTED
• GROUPS & INDIVIDUALS GOALS
• HUMANE ORIENTED
• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION
• ORGANIZATIONAL LOYALTY
FINANCIAL S.
FOOD S.
• AUTOCRATIC
• ADMINISTRATIVE
• CHARISMATIC
• CONSIDERATE
• HUMANE
• INDIVIDUALISTIC
• SINCERE
• Peformance Orientation
• Gender Egalitarianism• Humane Orientation
• Power Distance• Future Orientation
• Collectivism (II)
• Uncertainty Avoidance• Colectivism (I)
CULTURE DIMENSIONS´ INFLUENCEIN LEADERSHIP STYLES
CONCLUSIONS P5:
CONCLUSIONS P6: LEADERSHIP STYLES
(Leadership Prototype Scales) • SINCERE• ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRIBUTES SOMEWHAT (2 Sectors)• CONSIDERATE• CHARISMATIC
• INDIVIDUALISTIC SLIGHTLY INHIBITS (2 Sectors)
• HUMANE HAS NO IMPACT : (Financial Sector)
CONTRIBUTES SLIGHTLY (Food Sector)
• AUTOCRATIC SLIGHTLY INHIBITS: (Financial Sector)
SOMEWHAT INHIBITS (Food Sector)
CONTRIBUTES:
• EFFECTIVE BARGAINER
• EXCELENCE ORIENTED
• IMPROVEMENT ORIENTED
• INTRA-GROUP COMPETIDOR
• UNIQUE
CONTRIBUTES:
• WIN/WIN PROBLEM-SOLVING
• HONEST
• SINCERE
• MODEST
FINANCIAL SECTORFOOD SECTOR
CONCLUSIONES P6: IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES
INHIBITS:
RISK TAKERSELF-EFFACING
INHIBITS:SELF-INTERESTARROGANTCYNICALDICTATORIALBOSSYELITIST & NON-EGALITARIAN
HYPOTHESIS
“INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLE
ADOPTED, THE IMPLICIT THEORY OF
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP SHOWS THE
SOCIETAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND
PRACTICES”