6.5 Analysis of impacts of TPB components on leadership styles of deans
6.5.3 The independent variables and the performance-driven goal-setter
160
difference in the attitudinal effect on this managerial style at different levels of PBC. 13 This suggests that the (non-) existence of barriers perceived by deans does not change the effect of attitudes on the people manager style. Thus, the people manager style is best explained by the TRA model i.e. by the attitudes and subjective norms of the deans towards the style.
Table 6.17 Bivariate regression analyses independent variables on the performance-driven goal-setter style
Performance-driven goal-setter style beta* t-value P Adj. R2 F Attitude towards this style (n=59) 0.63
(0.52)
6.11 0.000 0.38 37.37
Subjective norms towards this style (n=55)
0.67 (0.08)
6.58 0.000 0.44 43.35
Perceived behavioural control (n=57) -0.17 * (-0.08)
1.30 0.200 0.01 1.68
* The first coefficient is the standardized coefficient, between brackets the unstandardized b is presented.
Just as with the previous styles, in the next step we carried out a multiple regression including the two explanatory variables of TRA to combine the effects of both attitudes and subjective norms on this style. When we compare the results of the bivariate regression presented in table 6.17 with those of the multiple regression (table 6.18) we note that the model explains more of the variance in this style (Adj.
R2 = 0.51) than in the first step. Both independent variables remain statistically significant though we note a decrease in both the effects of attitudes (from 0.63 to 0.35) and in that of subjective norms (from 0.67 to 0.47) suggesting that there could be some correlation between the two variables.
162
Table 6.18 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables on the performance-driven goal setter style (N=55)
Performance-driven goal setter-style Beta* t-
value
р
Attitude towards this style 0.35 3.13 0.003
Subjective norms towards this style 0.47 4.14 0.000
Adj. R2 = 0.51. F=30.09
* The first coefficient is the standardized coefficient, between brackets the unstandardized b is presented.
We then applied TPB to establish the possible effect of perceived behavioural control on the performance-driven goal setter style as we did in the previous instances.
As presented in Table 6.19 there is indeed an interaction effect; i.e. the degree to which deans perceive barriers affects the relationship between attitudes and the performance-driven goal setter style. The model is significant (F=20.28, p < 0.00) and explains just more variance (R2=0.59) than the previous model (R2=0.51).This again suggests that performance-driven goal setter style can be explained by the positive attitudes of the deans and is also highly associated with the social norm of deans towards this style. In this style, PBC has an effect on the relationship between the relevant attitudes and the style.
Table 6.19: Multiple regression on performance-driven goal setter style with moderating variable (n=53)
performance-driven goal-setter style b* t-value P
Attitude towards this style (centered) 0.37 3.93 0.000
Perceived behavioural control (centered) -0.15 -3.07 0.0043 Moderator attitude x perceived behavioural control
(based on centered variables)
0.23 2.81 0.007
Social norms for this style (not centered) 0.06 4.22 0.000 Adj. R2 = 0.59. F=20.28
* The table only contains the unstandardized coefficients
The results in Table 6.19 and Figure 6.5 demonstrate that PBC has an impact on the effect of attitudes on the style. We note a statistically positive relationship between attitude and the style. This effect is – as was expected, weakest when behavioural control is perceived to be relatively low (at -1 standard deviation) where we find a flatter slope (0.06) than at the mean of PBC (0.37). At the highest level of PBC (at +1 standard deviation of the mean) this slope is considerably higher than at lower levels of PBC (0.69). There is a statistically significant difference between the slopes at +1 and -1 standard deviation of the mean of PBC.14
14 As is testified by the fact that in Figure 6.5, the confidence levels of the b’s at +1 and -1 from the mean do not overlap
164
Figure 6.5: Conditional effects on performance-driven goal-setter style at different levels of perceived behavioural control
Minus 1 Standard Deviation PBC, b= 0.06 (95% confidence interval: -0.16 - 0.27) Mean PBC, b=0.37 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 - 0.56)
Plus 1 Standard Deviation PBC, b=0.69 (95% confidence interval: b= 0.52 – 0.86)
While this model conforms to the theoretical postulations of TRA, the outcomes of this last part are also in accordance with TPB as we note that in this style perceived behavioural control has the expected positive effect on the relationship between
attitudes and style. The less barriers the deans face, the more impacts attitudes have on the performance-driven goal setter style.
6.5.4 The independent variables and the empathetic pushers style
The third style demonstrated by the Kenyan deans is the empathetic pushers style which is based on the clan and market quadrants of CVF. We undertook the same steps as with the previous styles. The first was a bivariate regression analysis (see Table 6.20) which shows that both attitudes (Adj. R2 =50) and subjective norms (Adj. R2 =42) explain the variance in this style and are statistically significant. In this case, attitude explains more of the variance than subjective norms. Perceived behavioural controls again does not have any direct effect on this style (Adj. R2 = - 0.02).
Table 6.20 Bivariate regression analyses independent variables on the empathetic pushers style
Empathetic pusher style beta* t-value P Adj. R2 F
Attitude towards this style (n=59) 0.71 (0.63)
7.77 0.000 0.50 60.37
Subjective norms towards this style (n=55)
0.66 (0.08)
6.42 0.000 0.42 41.24
Perceived behavioural control (n=57) -0.04 (-0.02)
0.30 0.769 -0.02 0.09
* The first coefficient is the standardized coefficient, between brackets the unstandardized b is presented.
The outcome of the multiple regression (combining the two independent variables of TRA) as presented in Table 6.21 indicates that the model explains more (Adj. R2
=0.57) variance in this style than in the first two analyses. Both variables remain statistically significant in the combined model though we note a decrease in both the effects of attitudes (from 0.71 to 0.49) and in that of subjective norms (from 0.66 to 0.37) suggesting that there could be some correlation between the two variables.
166
This suggests just like before, that part of the effect of the social norms is indirect, running via the attitudes of the deans.
Table 6.21 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables on the empathetic pushers style (n=55)
Empathetic pusher style Beta* t-value р
Attitude towards this style 0.49 (0.42) 4.38 0.000
Subjective norms towards this style 0.37 (0.04) 3.29 0.002 Adj. R2 = 0.57. F=37.13
* The first coefficient is the standardized coefficient, between brackets the unstandardized b is presented.
The application of TPB to establish the possible effects of perceived behavioural control on the relationship between attitudes and the empathetic pushers style ( see Table 6.22 and Fig 6.6) improved the model (Adj. R2 = 0.63). It was again notable that the style could be explained by the positive attitudes of the deans towards this style. This determinant is also highly associated with the social norm of deans towards this style.
Table 6.22: Multiple regression on empathetic pushers style with moderating variable (n=53)
b* t-value P
Attitude towards this style (centered) 0.53 5.48 0.00
Perceived behavioural control (centered) -0.09 -1.90 0.064 Moderator attitude x perceived behavioural control
(based on centered variables)
0.24 2.94 0.005
Social norms for this style (not centered) 0.04 3.19 0.002 Adj. R2 = 0.63. F=23.89
* The table only contains the unstandardized coefficients
According to Table 6.22 and Figure 6.6 we note that perceived behavioural control again has an impact on the effect of attitudes on the style. There is a statistically positive relationship between attitude and the style. This effect, r, is again weakest when behavioural control is perceived to be relatively low (at -1 standard deviation) where the slope is flatter (0.21) than at the mean (0.53) and at a relatively high level (+1 standard deviation from the mean) where the slope is even steeper (0.85). The difference of the slopes at +1 and -1 standard deviation of the mean of PBC is statistically significant15. Perceived behavioural control has the expected positive effect on the relationship between attitudes and style. It suggests that the less barriers the deans face, the more impacts attitudes have on the performance- driven goal setter style. This style can thus be explained based on TPB.
15As can be noted in Figure 6.6, the confidence levels of the b’s at +1 and -1 from the mean do not overlap
168
Figure 6.6: Conditional effects on empathetic pusher style at different levels of perceived behavioural control
Minus 1 Standard Deviation PBC, b= 0.21 (95% confidence interval: -0.00 - 0.43) Mean PBC, b=0.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.34 - 0.73)
Plus 1 Standard Deviation PBC, b=0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.68 – 1.03)