CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Presented in this chapter are the data, analysis and interpretation of the findings. The discussion of the topics is arranged in the following subheadings: Profile
of the Respondents; Leadership Styles Ascribed by the Managers as
Perceived by the Respondents; Performance Effectiveness of the Employees
as Perceived by the Respondents; Significance of the Difference in the
Performance Effectiveness of the Employees According to the Employee
Category of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff; Significance
of the Relationship between the Leadership Styles of the Managers and
the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees; and Significant
Influence of the Leadership Styles of Managers to the Performance
Effectiveness of the Employees.
Profile of the Respondents
Presented in Table 1 is the profile of the respondents according to gender, educational attainment and employee category. There
are a total of 134 respondents and 67 or 50.0 percent are male and 67
or 50.0 percent are female. The educational attainment of the
respondents was categorized into five levels: BS Graduates, BS Graduates
with MA Units, Master’s Degree Graduates, Master’s Degree Graduates
with Doctorate Degree Units, and Doctorate Degree Graduates. Bachelor’s
Degree Graduates comprised 27.6 percent or 37 respondents, Bachelor’s
Degree Graduates with MA units comprised 49.3 percent or a total of 66
respondents, Master’s Degree Graduates comprised 6.7 percent or 9
respondents, Master’s Degree Graduates with Doctorate Degree Units
comprised 14.9 percent or 20 respondents and Doctorate Degree Graduates
comprised 1.5 percent or 2 respondents with a total of 134 respondents
or 100 percent. As to their employee category, the respondents were categorized into two: Teaching and Non-teaching. Those
who are teaching comprised 67.9 percent or 91 respondents and those who
are non-teaching comprised 32.1 percent or 43 respondents with a total
of 134 or 100 percent.
Table 1. Profile of the Respondents
Profile
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Gender
| ||
Male
|
67
|
50.0
|
Female
|
67
|
50.0
|
Educational Attainment
| ||
AB/BS Graduates
|
37
|
27.6
|
AB/BS Graduates with MA/MS Units
|
66
|
49.3
|
MS/MA Graduates
|
9
|
6.7
|
MS/MA with Doctorate Degree Units
|
20
|
14.9
|
Doctorate Graduates
|
2
|
1.5
|
Employee Category
| ||
Teaching
|
91
|
67.9
|
Non-teaching
|
43
|
32.1
|
Total
|
134
|
100
|
Level of Leadership Styles Ascribed by the Managers of the College as Perceived by the Respondents
Presented in this section is the level of leadership styles ascribed by the managers of the college as perceived by the respondents in
terms of autocratic leadership, charismatic leadership, participative
leadership, servant leadership, situational leadership, transactional
leadership and transformational leadership.
Autocratic Leadership. Presented
in Table 2 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of autocratic
leadership.
The respondents manifested a varied level of perception on their managers’ leadership style as being autocratic. They manifested a high level of perception to the first, second and fifth indicator which have the mean score of 3.56, 3.74 and 3.63 respectively. However, they
revealed a moderate level of perception on their managers’ leadership
style as being autocratic in the third and fourth indicators which have
the mean score of 3.22 and 3.34 respectively.
The
second indicator got the highest mean score of 3.74 which reveals that
the managers often make the most decisions on institution matters over
their employees or subordinates.
The
third indicator got the lowest mean score of 3.22 which reveals that
the managers sometimes imposes personal decisions on institution matters
without the knowledge of the employees or subordinates.
Table
2. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Tells
his/her subordinates/employees what is to be done and how they want
it to be accomplished without getting the suggestions of his/her
followers.
|
3.56
|
High
|
2. Makes the most decisions on institution matters over the employees/subordinates.
|
3.74
|
High
|
3. Imposes personal decisions on institution matters without the knowledge of the employees/subordinates.
|
3.22
|
Moderate
|
4. Keeps
most of the institution responsibilities in himself/herself rather
than utilizes delegation to the employees/subordinates.
|
3.34
|
Moderate
|
5. Manifests self-willed behaviour to the employees/subordinates he/she manages.
|
3.63
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.50
|
High
|
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of autocratic leadership is
3.50. This reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This
result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could
manifest at times a high level of autocratic leadership in dealing with
the employees and their subordinates.
Charismatic Leadership. Presented
in Table 3 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of charismatic
leadership which is
defined by Max Weber as resting on devotion to the exceptional
sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person.
The respondents manifested varied levels of perception as to the managers’ leadership style as being charismatic. They
revealed a high level of perception to the second through fifth
indicator as to whether their managers’ leadership style is charismatic
with a mean score of 3.65, 3.51, 3.56 and 3.69 respectively, but they
revealed a moderate level of perception to the first indicator with a
mean score of 3.22.
The
highest of all the indicators is the fifth one which says that the
managers provide an environment full of energy and positive
reinforcement which inspires the employees and subordinates more in
doing their tasks well with a mean score of 3.69.
The
respondents indicated a moderate level of perception as to the
managers’ leadership style as being charismatic in the first indicator
which says that the managers gather followers through dint of
personality and charm rather than any form of power or authority. This is also the indicator which has the lowest mean score of 3.22. This
reveals that the respondents have the perception that the managers
utilize their authority in dealing with their employees or subordinates
rather than just using their charisma or charm in terms of personality.
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of charismatic leadership is
3.52. This reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This
result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could
manifest at times a high level of charismatic leadership in dealing with
the employees and their subordinates.
Table
3. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Gathers followers through dint of personality and charm rather than any form of external power or authority.
|
3.22
|
Moderate
|
2. Inspires the employees/subordinates to be loyal to the organization.
|
3.65
|
High
|
3. Stimulates unwavering loyalty and trust of employees/subordinates to the organization.
|
3.51
|
High
|
4. Manifests the feeling of sympathy to the employees/subordinates.
|
3.56
|
High
|
5. Provides an environment full of energy and positive reinforcement.
|
3.69
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.52
|
High
|
Participative Leadership. Presented
in Table 4 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of participative
or democratic leadership.
The
respondents manifested the same high level of perception on the
manager’s leadership style as being participative or democratic in all
the indicators with a mean score of 3.64, 3.66, 3.72, 3.69 and 3.70
respectively.
The
highest of all the indicators is the third one with a mean score of
3.72 which states that the managers encourage their subordinates or
employees to develop their potentials in the organization.
The
lowest is the first indicator with a mean score of 3.64 which states
that the managers respect the decision of the employees or subordinates
on matters affecting them.
Table
4. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Participative Leadership
Participative Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Respects the decision of the employees/subordinates on matters affecting them.
|
3.64
|
High
|
2. Consults the employees/subordinates on matters that require their decision.
|
3.66
|
High
|
3. Encourages the subordinates/employees to develop their potentials in the organization.
|
3.72
|
High
|
4. Delegates some responsibilities to the subordinates/employees rather than taking them by himself/herself.
|
3.69
|
High
|
5. Recognizes subordinates/employees’ important participation for the advancement of the organization.
|
3.70
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.68
|
High
|
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of participative or democratic
leadership is 3.68. This reveals that the measure
described in all the indicators are often manifested by the managers as
perceived by the respondents. This result may lead us to
conclude that the managers of the college could manifest at times a high
level of participative or democratic leadership in dealing with the
employees and their subordinates. As recalled, participative leadership is a style of leadership in which the leader involves subordinates in goal setting, problem solving, team building, etc., but retains the final decision making authority (Rampur, 2000).
Servant Leadership. Presented
in Table 5 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of servant
leadership.
The
respondents manifested the same high level of perception on the
manager’s leadership style as servant leadership in all the indicators
with a mean score of 3.88, 3.66, 3.69, 3.59 and 3.66 respectively.
The
highest of all the indicators is the first one with a mean score of
3.88 which states that the managers give high regard on the value of
morality and sanctity of their profession which is a thing worthy of
emulation. The lowest of all the indicators is the fourth
one with a mean score of 3.59 which states that the managers serve the
employees or subordinates without anticipating any material return.
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of servant leadership is 3.70. This
reveals that the measure described in all the indicators are often
manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This
result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could
manifest at times a high level of servant leadership in dealing with the
employees and their subordinates.
Table
5. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Servant Leadership
Servant Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Gives high regard on the value of morality and sanctity of his profession.
|
3.88
|
High
|
2. Stresses the essential value of service to the organization.
|
3.66
|
High
|
3. Leads the organization by exemplifying himself in action.
|
3.69
|
High
|
4. Serves the employees/subordinates without anticipating any material return.
|
3.59
|
High
|
5. Esteems the profession of servitude as worthy of emulation.
|
3.66
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.70
|
High
|
As recalled, servant leadership, as discussed in chapter 2, is
not a concept or a principle. It is an inner standard of living which
requires a spiritual understanding of identity, mission, vision and
environment. If
the employees and subordinates realize that their managers have values
associated with servant leadership, they would also be inspired to do
their assigned tasks diligently. This supports what Secretan (1998) had pointed out that leadership is about inspiration of oneself and of others.
Situational Leadership. Presented
in Table 6 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of situational
leadership.
The respondents manifested varied levels of perception as to the managers’ leadership style as situational leadership. They
manifested a high level of perception to the first, second, third and
fifth indicator as to whether their managers’ leadership style is
situational leadership with a mean score of 3.77, 3.81, 3.86 and 3.65
respectively, but they revealed a moderate level of perception to the
fourth indicator with a mean score of 3.40.
The
highest of all the indicators is the third one which says that the
managers’ leadership style varies from one person to another with a mean
score of 3.86.
The
lowest of all the indicators is the fourth one which reveals the
respondents’ moderate level of perception as to the managers’ leadership
style as situational leadership which says that the managers lead the
same person one way sometimes and another way at other times with a mean
score of 3.40 which could speak of the management’s consistency in
dealing with their employees.
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of situational leadership is
3.70. This reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This
result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could
manifest at times a high level of situational leadership in dealing with
the employees and their subordinates.
Table
6. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Situational Leadership
Situational Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Uses the most appropriate leadership style depending on the situation.
|
3.77
|
High
|
2. Analyzes the needs of the situation he/she is in.
|
3.81
|
High
|
3. Leadership style varies from one person to another.
|
3.86
|
High
|
4. Leads the same person one way sometimes and another way at other times.
|
3.40
|
Moderate
|
5. Adapt
his/her leadership style to follower ‘maturity’, based on how ready
and willing the follower is to perform required tasks.
|
3.65
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.70
|
High
|
“Different situations call for different leadership styles”, as recalled, is the principle
that the situational leadership method from Kenneth Blanchard and Paul
Hersey is anchored (12Manage E-learning Community Management website,
2007). It holds that managers must use different leadership styles depending on the situation.
Transactional Leadership. Presented
in Table 7 is the level of leadership style ascribed by the managers of
the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of transactional
leadership.
The respondents manifested varied levels of perception as to the managers’ leadership style as transactional leadership. They
manifested a high level of perception on the second through the fifth
indicator as to whether their managers’ leadership style is situational
leadership with a mean score of 3.60, 3.83, 3.50 and 3.67 respectively,
but they revealed a moderate level of perception to the first indicator
with a mean score of 3.46. The highest of all the
indicators is the third one which says that the managers motivate
followers by setting goals for desired performance with a mean score of
3.83.
The
lowest indicator is the first one which reveals the respondents’
moderate level of perception as to the managers’ leadership style as
transactional leadership which says that the managers’ leadership is
based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance with a mean score of 3.46.
The overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to their manager’s leadership style in terms of transactional leadership is 3.61. This reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could manifest at times a high level of transactional leadership in dealing with the employees and their subordinates.
Table
7. Level of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Transactional Leadership
Transactional Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.
|
3.46
|
Moderate
|
2. Is responsive and his/her basic orientation is dealing with present issues.
|
3.60
|
High
|
3. Motivates followers by setting goals for desired performance.
|
3.83
|
High
|
4. Relies on standard forms of inducement, reward, punishment and sanction to control followers.
|
3.50
|
High
|
5. Leadership depends on the leader’s power to reinforce subordinates for their successful completion of the bargain.
|
3.67
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.61
|
High
|
Transformational Leadership. Presented
in Table 8 is the level of leadership style practiced by the managers
of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of
transformational leadership.
The
respondents manifested the same high level of perception as to the
managers’ leadership style in terms of transformational leadership. They
manifested a high level of perception in all the indicators as to
whether their managers’ leadership style is transformational leadership
with a mean score of 3.56, 3.62, 3.74, 3.71 and 3.66 respectively.
The
highest of all the indicators is the third one which says that the
managers motivate followers to work for goals that go beyond
self-interest. The lowest is the first indicator with a
mean score of 3.56 which states that the managers seek overtly to
transform the organization.
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their manager’s leadership style in terms of transformational leadership
is 3.66. This reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often manifested by the managers as perceived by the respondents. This
result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college could
manifest at times a high level of transformational leadership in dealing
with the employees and their subordinates.
According to Bass (2006), transformational leadership approach
causes change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, it
creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal
of developing followers into leaders.
Table 8. Level
of Leadership Style Ascribed by the Managers of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Seeks overtly to transform the organization.
|
3.56
|
High
|
2. Displays large amounts of enthusiasm.
|
3.62
|
High
|
3. Motivates followers to work for goals that go beyond self-interest.
|
3.74
|
High
|
4. Creates learning opportunities for his/her followers.
|
3.71
|
High
|
5. Possesses good management skills to develop strong emotional bonds with followers.
|
3.66
|
High
|
Overall Mean
|
3.66
|
High
|
Summary. Presented in Table 9 is the summary of the level of perception of the employees as to their managers’ leadership styles. It shows
that among the seven leadership styles, both the servant leadership and
the situational leadership have the highest weighted mean score of 3.70
followed by participative leadership, transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, charismatic leadership and autocratic
leadership which have the weighted mean score of 3.68, 3.66, 3.61, 3.52
and 3.50 respectively.
The overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to their managers’ leadership style is 3.62 which means that
all of the seven variables have the high level of manifestation of the
leadership styles practiced by the managers of the college as perceived
by the respondents. The lowest of all the indicators is their perception
on the managers’ leadership style in terms of autocratic leadership
with a mean score of 3.50 which implies that based on the respondents’
perception, their managers and school leaders do not ascribe autocratic
or authoritarian leadership.
Notably, the study revealed
that the managers of the college mostly employ both the servant
leadership and situational leadership in dealing with their employees
and subordinates wherein
servant leadership is anchored on the idealism on servant hood (Spears,
2002), while situational leadership, a leadership method introduced by
Blanchard and Hersey in the early 1970s, on the other hand, proposes
that leaders choose the best course of action or decision based upon
situational variables (12Manage E-learning Community Management website, 2007).
Table 9. Summary on the Level of Leadership Styles Ascribed by the Managers of the College as Perceived by the Respondents
Indicator
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
Autocratic Leadership
|
3.50
|
High
|
Charismatic Leadership
|
3.52
|
High
|
Participative Leadership
|
3.68
|
High
|
Servant Leadership
|
3.70
|
High
|
Situational Leadership
|
3.70
|
High
|
Transactional Leadership
|
3.61
|
High
|
Transformational Leadership
|
3.66
|
High
|
Finally,
this result may lead us to conclude that the managers of the college
could manifest at times high levels of various leadership styles in
dealing with the employees and their subordinates. This supports the
statement cited by Northouse (2007) which says that managers
deal with their employees in different ways in different situations and
that whatever approach is predominately used it will be vital to the
success of the business.
Level of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College as Perceived by the Respondents
Presented
in this section is the level of performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college in terms of employee development, employee
efficiency, job satisfaction and stable policies and programs as
perceived by the respondents.
Employee Development.
Presented in Table 10 is the level of performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of
employee development.
The
respondents manifested varied levels of perception as to the employees’
performance effectiveness in terms of employee development. They
revealed a high level of perception on the first, second, third and
fifth indicator with a mean score of 3.80, 3.64, 3.70 and 3.54
respectively, but they revealed a moderate level of perception on the
fourth indicator with a mean score of 3.13.
The
highest of all the indicators is the first one which says that
employees receive professional trainings such as seminars, workshops,
etc. for the development of their skills and knowledge with a mean score
of 3.80. However, they manifested a moderate level of
perception as to the employees’ performance effectiveness in terms of
employee development in the fourth indicator, which is also the lowest
indicator, with a mean score of 3.13. This reveals that
the respondents perceive that the employees are not given enough
opportunities for educational travels or grants. The
management of the college may have to focus or give more attention to
this specific area since this affects the performance effectiveness of
the employees in the organization.
Table 10. Level
of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College as
Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Employee Development
Employee Development
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Employees receive professional trainings – seminars, workshops, etc. for the development of their skills and knowledge.
|
3.80
|
Often
|
2. Employees have opportunities for advanced education.
|
3.64
|
Often
|
3. Employees
are provided with professional reading resources, such as library
office, subscription of newspapers, magazines, etc. to enable
employees keep abreast with current organizational trends and issues.
|
3.70
|
Often
|
4. Employees are given opportunities for educational travels/grants.
|
3.13
|
Sometimes
|
5. Employees are given the chance to develop their talents and abilities for possible future positions.
|
3.54
|
Often
|
Overall Mean
|
3.56
|
Often
|
The overall mean score of the performance effectiveness of the employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of employee development is 3.56. This
reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often
manifested by the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents. This result may lead us to conclude that the
employees manifest satisfaction in terms of the employee development of
the college.
This supports one of the principles of effective leadership introduced by Sugars (2008) which says that the leaders must know
their people and look out for their subordinates’ well-being and must
also recognize the importance of sincerely caring for their workers.
Employee Efficiency.
Presented in Table 11 is the level of performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of
employee efficiency.
The
respondents manifested the same high level of perception as to the
employees’ performance effectiveness in terms of employee efficiency
through the first to the fifth indicator with a mean score of 3.91,
3.90, 3.78, 3.71 and 3.79 respectively. The
highest of all the indicators is the first one with a mean score of 3.91
which states that the employees display excellent quality of work which
is expected of employees.
The
lowest of all the indicators is the fourth one which states that the
employees have adequate resources to facilitate work activities with a
mean score of 3.71. Though the description of the
fourth indicator could still be classified as high, the management of
the college may still have to look into this specific area as this also
affects the performance effectiveness of the employees. As Ogbonnia
(2007) argued, effective leadership is the ability to successfully
integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and
external environment for the attainment of organizational or societal
goals. To
facilitate successful employee performance, it is important to
understand and accurately measure leadership performance of the leaders and managers (Campbell, 1990).
Table
11. Level of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College
as Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Employee Efficiency
Employee Efficiency
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Employees display excellent quality of work.
|
3.91
|
Often
|
2. Employees adhere to his/her established work schedule.
|
3.90
|
Often
|
3. Employees submit completed work objective on or before the set or agreed upon deadline.
|
3.78
|
Often
|
4. Employees have adequate resources to facilitate work activities.
|
3.71
|
Often
|
5. Employees submit their required work outputs on time.
|
3.79
|
Often
|
Overall Mean
|
3.82
|
Often
|
Job Satisfaction.
Presented in Table 12 is the level of performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of job
satisfaction. The respondents manifested varied levels of
perception as to the employees’ performance effectiveness in terms of
job satisfaction. They manifested a high level of
perception on the first, third, fourth and fifth indicator with a mean
score of 3.62, 3.69, 3.75 and 3.63 respectively, but they revealed a
moderate level of perception on the second indicator with a mean score
of 3.37.
The
highest of all the indicators is the fourth one which says that the
management provides environment that promotes harmonious relationships
among peers and between subordinates and superiors with a mean score of
3.75.
However,
they manifested a moderate level of perception as to the employees’
performance effectiveness in terms of job satisfaction in the second
indicator, which is also the lowest indicator, with a mean score of
3.37. This reveals that the respondents perceive that the
management does not offer enough incentives to deserving and competent
employees. The management of the college may have to focus
or give more attention to this specific area since this affects the
performance effectiveness of the employees in the organization.
The overall mean score of the performance effectiveness of the employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of job satisfaction is 3.61. This
reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often
manifested by the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents. This result may lead us to conclude that the employees manifest effective performance in terms of job satisfaction.
Table 12. Level of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College as Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Management offers adequate and equitable compensation.
|
3.62
|
Often
|
2. Management offers incentive to deserving and competent employees.
|
3.37
|
Sometimes
|
3. Management actions and decisions are in conformity with existing policies and programs.
|
3.69
|
Often
|
4. Management provides environment that promote harmonious relationship among peers and between subordinates and superiors.
|
3.75
|
Often
|
5. Management provides working environment that promote good disposition of employees.
|
3.63
|
Often
|
Overall Mean
|
3.61
|
Often
|
Leaders and managers must follow one of the principles of effective leadership introduced by Sugars
(2008) which says that leaders and managers must develop a sense of
accountability, ownership and responsibility in their people which will
help them carry out their professional responsibilities. Another
leadership principle introduced by Sugars (2008) states that leaders
and managers must know their people and look out for their well being
and that they must sincerely care for their workers.
Stable Policies and Programs.
Presented in Table 13 is the level of performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college as perceived by the respondents in terms of
stable policies and programs.
The
respondents manifested the same high level of perception as to the
employees’ performance effectiveness in terms of stable policies and
programs through the first to the fifth indicator with a mean score of
3.93, 3.98, 4.06, 3.73 and 3.70 respectively.
The
highest of all the indicators is the third one with a mean score of
4.06 which states that the employees are knowledgeable of the policies
and guidelines to be followed for the office or college operations.
The
lowest of all the indicators is the fifth one which reveals that the
employees perceive that they are not given enough opportunities to
report or communicate with appropriate authorities for issues and
problems that cannot be resolved in the department level with a mean
score of 3.70. The management of the college
may have to focus or give more attention to this specific area since
this affects the performance effectiveness of the employees in the
organization.
The overall mean score of the performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents in terms of stable policies and programs is 3.88. This
reveals that the measure described in the indicators are often
manifested by the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents. This result may lead us to conclude that the
employees revealed satisfaction and trust to the administration in terms
of the stable policies and programs of the college.
Table
13. Level of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College
as Perceived by the Respondents in terms of Stable Policies and Programs
Stable Policies and Programs
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
1. Employees are knowledgeable on the organizational mission, vision and goals.
|
3.93
|
Often
|
2. Employees
keep documents on programs and projects provided for by the college
as contained in the development program plans, manuals, brochures,
circulars, memorandums and publications.
|
3.98
|
Often
|
3. Employees are knowledgeable of the policies and guidelines to be followed for the office or college operations.
|
4.06
|
Often
|
4. Employees have their seminars or meetings on a regular basis to discuss and evaluate employee assignments.
|
3.73
|
Often
|
5. Employees
are given opportunities to report or communicate with appropriate
authorities for issues and problems that cannot be resolved in the
department level.
|
3.70
|
Often
|
Overall Mean
|
3.88
|
Often
|
Knowing
how to communicate with your people, seniors, and other key people
within the organization is an important key to effective leadership
(Sugars, 2008).
Summary.
Presented in Table 14 is the summary on the levels of performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents. It shows
that among the four indicators, the item stable policies and programs
got the highest weighted mean of 3.88 followed by employee efficiency
with a weighted mean of 3.82, job satisfaction with a weighted mean of
3.61 and employee development a weighted mean of 3.56 respectively. All of the four indicators for performance effectiveness show high level of description. It reveals that all of the four variables have the high level of manifestation of the performance effectiveness.
Furthermore,
as the fourth indicator got the highest mean score of 3.88, it reveals
that the employees are confident that the college has stable policies
and programs while the first indicator got the lowest mean score of 3.56
which reveals that the employees are not so confident in the area of
employee development of the college. The lowest of all the indicators is
the first one which is about employee development with a mean score of
3.56.
The
overall mean score of the level of perception of the employees as to
their performance effectiveness as perceived by the respondents is 3.72. This
result may lead us to conclude that the employees of the college
manifest effectiveness and satisfaction in their respective positions or
designations in terms of performance effectiveness.
Table 14. Summary on the Level of Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College as Perceived by the Respondents
Indicator
|
Mean
|
Descriptive Level
|
Employee Development
|
3.56
|
Often
|
Employee Efficiency
|
3.82
|
Often
|
Job Satisfaction
|
3.61
|
Often
|
Stable Policies and Programs
|
3.88
|
Often
|
Significance of the Difference in the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees When Grouped by the Employee Category of Teaching and Non-teaching Staff
Presented
in Table 15 is the significance of the difference in the performance
effectiveness of the employees when grouped according to employee
category of teaching and the non-teaching staff.
In
terms of employee development, the computed t value is 1.915 with the p
value of .058 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. It
reveals that there is no significant difference in the performance
effectiveness of the employees in terms of employee development when
grouped by employee category of the teaching and the non-teaching staff.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
In
terms of employee efficiency, the computed t value is .422 with the p
value of .674 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. It
reveals that there is no significant difference in the performance
effectiveness of the employees in terms of employee efficiency when
grouped by employee category of the teaching and the non-teaching staff.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
In terms of job satisfaction, the computed t value is 1.243 with the p value of .216 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. It
reveals that there is no significant difference in the performance
effectiveness of the employees in terms of job satisfaction when grouped by the employee category of the teaching and the non-teaching staff. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
In
terms of stable policies and programs, the computed t value is 1.869
with the p value of .064 which is higher than 0.05 level of
significance. It reveals that there is no significant
difference in the performance effectiveness of the employees in terms of
stable policies and programs when grouped by the employee category of the teaching and the non-teaching staff. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Table 15. Significance of the Difference in the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees When Grouped by their Category
Performance Effectiveness
|
Employee Category
|
t-value
|
p-value
|
Decision on Ho
|
Interpretation
| |
Teaching
|
Non-teaching
| |||||
Employee Development
|
3.46
|
3.78
|
1.915
|
.058
|
Accept
|
Not Significant
|
Employee Efficiency
|
3.80
|
3.86
|
.422
|
.674
|
Accept
|
Not Significant
|
Job Satisfaction
|
3.54
|
3.76
|
1.243
|
.216
|
Accept
|
Not Significant
|
Stable Policies and Programs
|
3.78
|
4.08
|
1.869
|
.064
|
Accept
|
Not Significant
|
Overall
|
3.65
|
3.87
|
1.608
|
.110
|
Accept
|
Not Significant
|
Significant at .05 level of significance.
The overall computed t value is 1.608 with the p value of .110 which is greater than 0.05 level of significance. It
reveals that there is no significant difference in the performance
effectiveness of the employees when grouped by the employee category of
the teaching and the non-teaching staff. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The
result reveals that there is no significant difference in the
performance of the employees of the college when grouped according to
the employee category of teaching and non-teaching staff. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Significance of the Relationship between the Leadership Styles of Managers and the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College
Presented in this section is the significance of the relationship between the leadership styles of managers and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the college.
Autocratic Leadership. Presented in Table 16 is the significance
of the relationship between autocratic leadership and the performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college. As Kartha
cited (2010), autocratic leadership may have its benefits; however, in
most cases it is seen as something that is undesirable. Studies show that if autocratic leadership is dominantly used, employees resist and therefore their performance is affected.
The table shows the non-significance of the relationship between autocratic leadership and three of the variables in the performance effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were -.025 for employee development; -.120 for employee efficiency; -.114 for
job satisfaction and -.225 for stable policies and programs
respectively. The p value .778 for employee development; .166 for
employee efficiency; .190 for job satisfaction are greater than 0.05
level of significance which implies that there is no significant
relationship between autocratic leadership and the first three variables
of the performance effectiveness namely employee development, employee
efficiency and job satisfaction. Therefore, considering the three variables, the null hypothesis is accepted. However, in the variable stable policies and programs, the p value .009 is lesser than .01 level of significance. In
the variable stable policies and programs, therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected which implies that there is a significant
relationship between autocratic leadership and in this specific variable
on stable policies and programs. Furthermore, since the
indicator stable policies and programs is -.225, this implies that as
the level of the variable autocratic leadership increases, the level of
the performance effectiveness in terms of stable policies and programs
decreases; otherwise, or if the level of the variable autocratic
leadership decreases, the level of the performance effectiveness in
terms of stable policies and programs increases.
Charismatic Leadership. Also presented in the same table is the significance
of the relationship between charismatic leadership and the performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college. As recalled, charismatic leaders inspire others and encourage them to be their best and in return, employees want to impress a charismatic leader (Musser, 1987).
The table shows the significant relationship between charismatic leadership and all the variables in performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .667 for
employee development; .494 for employee efficiency; .606 for job
satisfaction; and .650 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between the
charismatic leadership and the performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college.
Participative Leadership. Presented in the same table is the significance
of the relationship between participative leadership and the
performance effectiveness of the employees of the college.
The table shows the significant relationship between participative leadership and all the variables in performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .658 for
employee development; .507 for employee efficiency; .624 for job
satisfaction; and .700 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between participative
leadership and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the
college.
As cited by Cherry (1989), Lewin’s study found that participative leadership is generally the most effective leadership style. It enables the employees to play a major part in any decision-making process, which is needed to make the employee performance better (Spears, 2002). In
this type of leadership, employees are given the liberty to suggest
their views and opinions to decide on some specific aspects; thus, it
can render motivation to the employees, with the employees’ thinking that the management is seriously considering their suggestions as well. And this certainly has a very positive impact on teamwork and employee performance. In addition, it also contributes to a good, productive work environment (Rampur, 2000).
Servant Leadership. Presented in the same table is the significance of the relationship between servant leadership and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the college.
The table shows the significant relationship between servant leadership and all the variables in performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .635 for
employee development; .494 for employee efficiency; .619 for job
satisfaction; and .594 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between servant
leadership and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the
college.
Situational Leadership. Presented in the same table is the significance
of the relationship between situational leadership and the performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college.
Situational leadership is based on situational theory introduced by Spencer in1884. This
theory assumes that different situations call for different
characteristics. According to the theory, "what an individual actually
does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon
characteristics of the situation in which he functions.”
The table shows the significant relationship between situational leadership and all the variables in the performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .602 for
employee development; .624 for employee efficiency; .654 for job
satisfaction; and .688 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between situational
leadership and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the
college.
Transactional Leadership. Presented in the same table is the significance
of the relationship between transactional leadership and the
performance effectiveness of the employees of the college. This leadership style is based on transactional leadership theory. The theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers (Bass, 1990).
The table shows the significant relationship between transactional leadership and all the variables in the performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .519 for
employee development; .579 for employee efficiency; .547 for job
satisfaction; and .538 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between transactional
leadership and the performance effectiveness of the employees of the
college.
Transformational Leadership. Presented in the same table is the significance
of the relationship between transformational leadership and the
performance effectiveness of the employees of the college.
The table shows the significant relationship between transformational leadership and all the variables in performance
effectiveness of employees. The computed r values were .657 for
employee development; .618 for employee efficiency; .658 for job
satisfaction; and .658 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It
reveals that there is a significant relationship between
transformational leadership and the performance effectiveness of the
employees of the college.
This supports the study by Kennedy (2002) that the effect of transformational leadership style on performance is significant. Furthermore,
according to Burns as cited by Rampur (2000), the transforming approach
creates significant change in the life of people and organizations. It
redesigns perceptions and values, and changes expectations and
aspirations of employees.
Overall Result. Presented
in the same table is the overall result on the significance of the
relationship between the leadership styles and the performance
effectiveness of the employees of the college as perceived by the
respondents.
The table shows the significant relationship between the leadership styles of the managers and the performance
effectiveness of the employees. The computed r values were .726 for
employee development; .618 for employee efficiency; .701 for job
satisfaction; and .706 for stable policies and programs. The p value of all the variables is .000 which is lesser than .01 level of significance. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is rejected. It reveals that there is a significant
relationship between the leadership styles of the managers and the
performance effectiveness of the employees of the college.
Table 16. Significance
of the Relationship between the Leadership Styles of Managers and the
Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of the College
Leadership Styles
|
Performance Effectiveness
| |||
Employee Development
|
Employee Efficiency
|
Job Satisfaction
|
Stable Policies and Programs
| |
Autocratic Leadership
(p – value)
|
-.025
(.778)
|
-.120
(.166)
|
-.114
(.190)
|
-.225**
(.009)
|
Charismatic Leadership
(p – value)
|
.667**
(.000)
|
.494**
(.000)
|
.606**
(.000)
|
.650**
(.000)
|
Participative Leadership
(p – value)
|
.658**
(.000)
|
.507**
(.000)
|
.624**
(.000)
|
.700**
(.000)
|
Servant Leadership
(p – value)
|
.635**
(.000)
|
.494**
(.000)
|
.619**
(.000)
|
.594**
(.000)
|
Situational Leadership
(p – value)
|
.602**
(.000)
|
.624**
(.000)
|
.654**
(.000)
|
.688**
(.000)
|
Transactional Leadership
(p – value)
|
.519**
(.000)
|
.579**
(.000)
|
.547**
(.000)
|
.538**
(.000)
|
Transformational Leadership
(p – value)
|
.657**
(.000)
|
.618**
(.000)
|
.658**
(.000)
|
.658**
(.000)
|
Overall
(p – value)
|
.726**
(.000)
|
.618**
(.000)
|
.701**
(.000)
|
.706**
(.000)
|
** Significant at .01
The results presented in this section prove the path-goal theory developed by House in 1971 and revised in 1996 as well as the functional leadership theory introduced by McGrath in 1962, the theories from which this research is anchored. Path-goal
theory is a leadership theory in the field of organizational studies
which states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction,
motivation and performance of his subordinates. The
revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that
complement subordinates’ abilities and compensate for deficiencies
(House, 1996). Functional
leadership theory, on the other hand, is a particularly useful theory
for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to
organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues
that a leader can be said to have done his job well when he has
contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al.,
1991).
Significant Influence of the Leadership Styles of the Managers
to the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees
Presented
in Table 17 is the significant influence of the leadership styles of
the managers of the college to the performance effectiveness of the
employees. The r² value of .638 explains that 63.8
percent can be explained by the model. This means further that
autocratic leadership, charismatic leadership, participative leadership,
servant leadership, situational leadership, transactional leadership
and transformational leadership can explain 63.8 percent of the
performance effectiveness of the employees. The remaining 36.2 percent can be explained by other factors which are not included in this study.
Table 17. Significant Influence of the Leadership Styles of the Managers to the Performance Effectiveness of the Employees
Model
|
R
|
R Square
|
Adjusted R Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
1
|
.799
|
.638
|
.618
|
.46345
|
No comments:
Post a Comment