View of NEED OF LEADERSHIP STYLE IN MOULDING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT TO OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES CONFRONTED BY HIGHER EDUCATION W.R.T. AUTONOMY INDIVIDUAL TEACHING-STAFF- MANAGEMENT MEMBER WITHIN SCHOOLS/COLLEGES – A COARSE ANALYATICAL ANAYLSIS

(1)

NEED OF LEADERSHIP STYLE IN MOULDING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT TO OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES CONFRONTED BY HIGHER EDUCATION W.R.T.

AUTONOMY INDIVIDUAL TEACHING-STAFF- MANAGEMENT MEMBER WITHIN SCHOOLS/COLLEGES – A COARSE ANALYATICAL ANAYLSIS

Dr. Shweta Jain Pancholia

Asst. Professor (Management Department), SRGBN College, Sanawad Mrs. Anubhuti Pawar

Asst. Professor (Management Department), SRGBN College, Sanawad

Abstract- Many countries have seen rapidly rising numbers of people with higher qualifications. But in a fast-changing world, producing more of the same education will not suffice to address the challenges of the future. Perhaps the most challenging dilemma for teachers today is that routine cognitive skills, the skills that are easiest to teach and easiest to test, are also the skills that are easiest to digitize, automate and outsource. A generation ago, teachers could expect that what they taught would last for a lifetime of their students.

Today, where individuals can access content on google, where routine cognitive skills are being digitized or outsourced, and where jobs are changing rapidly, education systems need to place much greater emphasis on enabling individuals to become lifelong learners, to manage complex ways of thinking and complex ways of working that computers cannot take over easily. Students need to be capable not only of constantly adapting but also of constantly learning and growing, of positioning themselves and repositioning themselves in a fast changing world. These changes have profound implications for teachers, teaching and learning as well as for the leadership of schools/colleges and education systems. Since the quality of teaching is at the heart of student learning outcomes, it is an appealing idea to bring together education leaders from high performing and rapidly improving education systems to explore to what extent educational success and some of the policies related to success transcend the specific characteristics of cultures and countries. This publication underpins the research work about what can make educational reforms effective, and highlights examples of crucial roles of leaders for reformation that have produced specific results, show promise or illustrate imaginative ways of implementing/confronting changes.

Keywords: Education System, Leadership, Culture, Countries, Confronting issues, Crucial roles.

1 INTRODUCTION

This research paper recognizes that leadership in education in the twenty-first century has an increasingly important role in the transformation of society. Leaders have an onerous responsibility to address issues which affect the development of greater social justice in their nations‟ attempts to ensure their economic futures. For those in education, leadership now involves confronting issues such as those of equity, inclusion and diversity, in stimulating the changes needed for the embedding of social justice. Such changes can only be effected by people. However, without an adequate supply of effective leaders, these changes simply will not happen. To be effective, they need to be well prepared, trained and developed. This research paper deals with the topic of how educational leaders (autonomy individual Teaching-Staff-Management Member within Schools/Colleges) are, and perhaps might be, prepared and developed for their crucial roles.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Leadership or Management?

Educational leadership and management are fields of study and practice concerned with the operation of schools and other educational organisations.

Bolam (1999: 194) defines educational management as „an executive function for carrying out agreed policy‟. He differentiates management from educational leadership which has „at its core the responsibility for policy formulation and, where appropriate, organisational transformation‟ (p. 194).

Writing from an Indian perspective, Sapre (2002: 102) states that „management is a set of activities directed towards efficient and effective utilization of organisational resources in order to achieve organisational goals‟.

(2)

Glatter (1979: 16) argues that management studies are concerned with „the internal operation of educational institutions, and also with their relationships with their environment, that is, the communities in which they are set, and with the governing bodies to which they are formally responsible‟. In other words, managers in schools and colleges have to engage with both internal and external audiences in leading their institutions. This statement delineates the boundaries of educational management but leaves open questions about the nature of the subject.

The present author has argued consistently (for example, Bush 2003) that educational management has to be centrally concerned with the purpose or aims of education. These purposes or goals provide the crucial sense of direction, which should underpin the management of educational institutions. Management is directed at the achievement of certain educational objectives. Unless this link between purpose and management is clear and close, there is a danger of „managerialism‟, „a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purpose and values‟ (Bush 1999: 240).

„Management possesses no super ordinate goals or values of its own. The pursuit of efficiency may be the mission statement of management – but this is efficiency in the achievement of objectives which others define‟ (Newman and Clarke 1994: 29).

Managing towards the achievement of educational aims is vital but these must be purposes agreed by the school and its community. If managers simply focus on implementing external initiatives, they risk becoming „managerialism‟. Successful management requires a clear link between aims, strategy and operational management.

The process of deciding on the aims of the organisation is at the heart of educational management. In some settings, aims are decided by the principal or head teacher, often working in association with senior colleagues and perhaps a small group of lay stakeholders. In many schools and colleges, however, goal setting is a corporate activity undertaken by formal bodies or informal groups. The school‟s aims are often encapsulated in a „vision‟ or „mission statement‟.

School and college aims are inevitably influenced by pressures emanating from the wider educational environment and this leads to questions about the viability of school

„visions‟. Many countries, including England and Wales, have a national curriculum and such government prescriptions leave little scope for schools to decide their own educational aims. Institutions may be left with the residual task of interpreting external imperatives rather than determining aims on the basis of their own assessment of student need.

Governments have the constitutional power to impose their will but successful innovations require the commitment of those who have to implement these changes. If teachers and leaders believe that an initiative is inappropriate for their children or students, they are unlikely to implement it with enthusiasm. Hence, governments would like schools to have visionary leadership as long as the visions do not depart in any significant way from government imperatives (Bush 2003).

2.2 Educational Leadership

There are many definitions of leadership. However, most definitions of leadership imply that intentional influence is exerted by one person or a group, over other people or groups, to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation. Understood as a social influencing process, leadership concepts differ in terms of who exerts influence, the nature of that influence, the purpose for the exercise of influence and its outcomes.

Educational leadership is usually associated with formal organisational position in

(3)

schools. So discussions about school and college leadership tend to refer to one or more of the following:

Much research therefore focuses on principals (or equivalent) as the main source of leadership in a school and college.

A central element in many definitions of leadership is that there is a process of influence.

Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation. (Yukl 2002: 3)

Leadership may be understood as „influence‟ but this notion is neutral in that it does not explain or recommend what goals or actions should be sought through this process. However, certain alternative constructs of leadership focus on the need for leadership to be grounded in firm personal and professional values. Wasserberg (2000:

158), for example, claims that „the primary role of any leader is the unification of people around key values‟. Day et al.‟s (2001) research in 12 „effective‟ schools in England and Wales concludes that „good leaders are informed by and communicate clear sets of personal and educational values which represent their moral purposes for the school‟ (p. 53).

Vision is increasingly regarded as an essential component of effective leadership. Beare et al. (1992) draw on the work of Bennis and Nanus (1985) to articulate ten „emerging generalization‟s about leadership, four of which relate directly to vision:

1. Outstanding leaders have a vision for their organisations.

2. Vision must be communicated in a way which secures commitment among members of the organisation.

3. Communication of vision requires communication of meaning.

4. Attention should be given to institutionalizing vision if leadership is to be successful.

These generalizations are essentially normative views about the centrality of vision for effective leadership. There is a high level of support for the notion of visionary leadership but Foreman‟s (1998) review of the concept shows that it remains highly problematic.

Kouzes and Posner (1996: 24) say that „inspiring a shared vision is the leadership practice with which [heads] felt most uncomfortable‟, while Fullan (1992: 83) adjoins that „vision building is a highly sophisticated dynamic process which few organisations can sustain‟. It is evident that the articulation of a clear vision has the potential to develop schools but the empirical evidence of its effectiveness remains mixed. A wider concern relates to whether school leaders are able to develop a specific vision for their schools, given government influence on many aspects of curriculum and management.

2.3 Distinguishing Educational Leadership and Management

The concepts of leadership and management overlap. Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest distinctions between leadership and management. He links leadership with change, while management is seen as a maintenance activity. He also stresses the importance of both dimensions of organisational activity:

By leadership, I mean influencing others‟ actions in achieving desirable ends.

Leaders are people who shape the goals, motivations, and actions of others. Frequently they initiate change to reach existing and new goals …Leadership …takes …much ingenuity, energy and skill. (pg. xx)

Managing is maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements. While managing well often exhibits leadership skills, the overall function is toward maintenance rather than change. I prize both managing and leading and attach no special value to either since different settings and times call for varied responses. (pg. xx)

Day et al.‟s (2001) study of 12 „effective‟ schools leads to the discussion of several dilemmas in school leadership. One of these relates to management, which is linked to systems and „paper‟, and leadership, which is perceived to be about the development of people. Bush (1998, 2003) links leadership to values or purpose while management relates to implementation or technical issues.

Leadership and management need to be given equal prominence if schools and

(4)

colleges are to operate effectively and achieve their objectives. While a clear vision may be essential to establish the nature and direction of change, it is equally important to ensure that innovations are implemented efficiently and that the school‟s residual functions are carried out effectively while certain elements are undergoing change.

2.4 Decentralisation and Self-Management

Educational institutions operate within a legislative framework set down by national, provincial or state parliaments. One of the key aspects of such a framework is the degree of decentralisation in the educational system. Highly centralised systems tend to be bureaucratic and to allow little discretion to schools and local communities.

Decentralised systems devolve significant powers to subordinate levels. Where such powers are devolved to the institutional level, we may speak of „self-management‟.

Lauglo (1997) links centralisation to bureaucracy and defines it as follows:

Bureaucratic centralism implies concentrating in a central („top‟) authority decision-making on a wide range of matters, leaving only tightly programmed routine implementation to lower levels in the organisation ... a ministry could make decisions in considerable detail as to aims and objectives, curricula and teaching materials to be used, prescribed methods, appointments of staff and their job descriptions, admission of students, assessment and certification, finance and budgets, and inspection/evaluations to monitor performance.

(Lauglo 1997: 3–4)

Lauglo (1997: 5) says that „bureaucratic centralism is pervasive in many developing countries‟ and links this to both the former colonial rule and the emphasis on central planning by many post-colonial governments. Tanzania is one example of a former colonial country seeking to reduce the degree of centralisation (Babyegeya 2000).

Centralised systems are not confined to former colonial countries. Derouet (2000:

61) claims that France „was the most centralised system in the world‟ in the 1960s and 1970s, while Fenech (1994: 131) states that Malta‟s educational system is „highly centralised‟. Bottery (1999: 119) notes that the UK education system „has experienced a continued and intensified centralisation for the last 30 years‟. In Greece, the public education system is characterised by centralisation and bureaucracy (Bush 2001).

Decentralisation involves a process of reducing the role of central government in planning and providing education. It can take many different forms:

Decentralisation in education means a shift in the authority distribution away from the central „top‟ agency in the hierarchy of authority ... Different forms of decentralisation are diverse in their justifications and in what they imply for the distribution of authority.

(Lauglo 1997: 3)

Where decentralisation is to the institutional level, for example in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and South Africa, this leads to site-based management. „A self-managing school is a school in a system of education where there has been significant and consistent decentralisation to the school level of authority to make decisions related to the allocation of resources‟ (Caldwell and Spinks 1992: 4, emphasis added).

The research on self-management in England and Wales (Bush et al. 1993; Levaic 1995; Thomas and Martin 1996) largely suggests that the shift towards school autonomy has been beneficial. These UK perspectives are consistent with much of the international evidence on self-management and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 1994) concludes that it is likely to be beneficial:

Greater autonomy in schools… [leads] to greater effectiveness through greater flexibility in and therefore better use of resources; to professional development selected at school level; to more knowledgeable teachers and parents, so to better financial decisions, to whole school planning and implementation with priorities set on the basis of data about student [outcomes] and needs. (Quoted in Thomas and Martin 1996: 28)

Site-based management expands the role of school leaders because more decisions are located within schools rather than outside them. Autonomous schools and colleges may be regarded as potentially more efficient and effective but the quality of internal management is a significant variable influencing whether these potential benefits can be realised. Dellar‟s (1998) research in 30 secondary schools in Australia, for example,

(5)

shows that „site based‟ management was most successful where there was a positive school climate and the staff and stakeholders were involved in decision-making.

The significance of self-management for leadership development is that the scope for leadership and management is much greater. While managers in centralised systems are largely confined to implementing policies and decisions made at higher levels in the bureaucracy, leaders of self-managing schools typically have substantial responsibility for budgets, staff and external relations, as well as the interpretation and implementation of what is usually a prescribed curriculum. They necessarily have more opportunities for innovation than leaders working within a tightly constrained centralised framework.

The extra responsibilities mean that it is no longer sensible, if it ever was, to regard leadership as a singular activity carried out by the principal or head teacher. Most self- managing schools now have an extensive leadership apparatus; often including other senior managers (deputy and/or assistant principals) and middle managers (for example, heads of department or section). Young‟s (2006) study of large English primary schools, for example, shows an elaborate leadership pattern with large numbers of staff exercising leadership roles.

The growth in the number of leaders, and the scope of leadership, has led to developing interest in distributed leadership. As Harris (2004: 13) notes, it is „currently in vogue‟. On the other hand, she adjoins that distributed leadership goes beyond formal roles to engage expertise within the organisation‟ (p. 13). The involvement of larger numbers of staff in educational leadership and management enhances the need for effective and appropriate development for leaders.

Theory Behind Educational Leadership

•

Leadership is seen as a prime factor in improving school effectiveness. Leadership makes a difference. Effective leadership improves schools and colleges.

•

Learner achievement in a school rarely exceeds the quality of its leadership. Three (of the many) factors that influence learners‟ achievements are: parental involvement, the quality of teaching, and school leadership. Leadership is strongly associated with school performance. Inspection reports from organisations such as Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children‟s Services and Skills in England) suggest that there are no instances of a failing school being „turned around‟ in the absence of good leadership.

•

Good leadership is not only important in itself; it is also a powerful way to improve classroom teaching.

Challenges Of Educational Leadership

•

Not only is there a diversity of theory about leadership, it also varies according to context. For example, in some countries, schools have high levels of autonomy; in other countries, there may not be as much autonomy. In some systems, principals do not appoint teaching staff; in others they do. Ensuring that leadership is sensitive to context and that leadership development activities reflect local circumstances is important.

•

While leadership is widely understood as making a difference, measuring an individual leader‟s impact is very difficult. This is because their influence is indirect – they work with and through others, most obviously their teacher colleagues.

In this research paper, we are tried to resolve/resolution of Challenges of Educational Leadership through implication of necessitated requisite tasks for Leadership Style within school/ college along with its implication effects on school/college.

3 MODELS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

The present author has presented and classified theories of educational management for over 20 years (Bush 1986, 1995, 2003). This work category the main theories into six major models: formal, collegial, political, subjective, ambiguity and cultural (see below Table 1).

Table 1 Typology of management and leadership models

(6)

Management model Leadership model

Formal Managerial

Collegial Participative Transformational Interpersonal

Political Transactional

Subjective Postmodern

Ambiguity Contingency

Cultural Moral Instructional

Source: Bush 2003

More recently, he has reviewed concepts of educational leadership, notably in work undertaken for the English National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (Bush and Glover 2003). As with educational management, the vast literature on leadership has generated a number of alternative, and competing, models. Some writers have sought to cluster these various conceptions into a number of broad themes or „types‟. The best known of these typologies is that by Leithwood et al. (1999), who identified six „models‟ from their scrutiny of 121 articles in four international journals. Bush and Glover (2003) extended this typology to eight models. These are among the nine leadership models as shown in Table 1, alongside the management models.

3.1 Objectives

1. To analyse the different roles and responsibilities of 21^st century school/college leaders (autonomy individual teaching-staff-management member within schools/colleges) and how have country succeeded in developing effective school/college leaders at scale?

2. To analyze the factors which are influencing the leadership style.

3. To assess the education market share the developing school/college leaders (autonomy individual teaching-staff-management member within schools/

colleges) requires clearly defining their individual and combinatorial responsibilities, providing access to appropriate professional development throughout their careers, and acknowledging their pivotal role in improving school/college and student performance.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Research Design

In order to study the objectives framed to explore the leadership style within school/college and education sector, the present study on defining the developing school‟s/college‟s leader(s) responsibilities, providing access to appropriate professional development throughout their careers, and acknowledging their pivotal role in improving school/college and student performance was carried out using survey research design.

4.2 Data Collection and Tools of Data Collection

Percentage of students in schools/colleges whose Principals/Directors/VCs/Pro-VCs reported that only “Principals/Directors/VCs/Pro-VCs and/or Managers/HODs/

Professors/Teachers”, only “regional and/or national education authority” or both

“Principals/Directors/VCs/Pro- VCs and/or Managers/HODs/ Professors/Teachers” and

“regional and/or national education authority” have a considerable responsibility for the following tasks for Leadership Style.

Table 1 Requisite tasks for Leadership Style within school/college Leadership Style

D3 Is Your University/Institute is Private/Government D4 The age group in which you are

D5 Your Gender

D6 Your maximum educational qualification?

D7 Total years of experience in academics D8 Your designation in the institute D9 What is your pay bracket (Annual)?

LS1 1. I encourage my team to participate when it comes to decision-making time and I try to implement their ideas and suggestions.

LS2 2. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task.

LS3 3. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task.

(7)

LS4 4. I enjoy coaching people on new tasks and procedures.

LS5 5. The more challenging a task is, the more I enjoy it LS6 6. I encourage my employees to be creative about their job.

LS7 7. I find it easy to carry out several complicated tasks at the same time.

LS8 8. I enjoy reading articles, books, and journals about training, leadership, and psychology; and then putting what I have read into action

LS9 9. When correcting mistakes, I do not worry about jeopardizing relationships.

LS10 10. I manage my time very efficiently.

LS11 11. I enjoy explaining the intricacies and details of a complex task or project to my employees.

LS12 12. Breaking large projects into small manageable tasks is second nature to me.

LS13 13. Nothing is more important than building a great team.

LS14 14. I enjoy analyzing problems.

LS15 15. I honor other people's boundaries.

LS16 16. Counseling my employees to improve their performance or behavior is second nature to me.

LS17 17. I enjoy reading articles, books, and trade journals about my profession; and then implementing the new procedures I have learned.

Figure 1 How much autonomy individual teaching-staff-management member within schools/colleges have over resource allocation for leadership style

(8)

(9)

(10)

Table 2 Variable Index of school/college Principal’s/Director’s/VC’s/Pro-VC’s and/or Manager’s/HOD’s/ Professor’s/Teacher’s leadership style based on variables existing

within school/college

VAR00001 1. I encourage my team to participate when it comes to decision-making time and I try to implement their ideas and suggestions.

VAR00002 2. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task.

VAR00003 3. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task.

VAR00004 4. I enjoy coaching people on new tasks and procedures.

VAR00005 5. The more challenging a task is, the more i enjoy it VAR00006 6. I encourage my employees to be creative about their job.

VAR00007 7. I find it easy to carry out several complicated tasks at the same time.

VAR00008 8. I enjoy reading articles, books, and journals about training, leadership, and psychology; and then putting what I have read into action

VAR00009 9. When correcting mistakes, I do not worry about jeopardizing relationships.

VAR00010 10. I manage my time very efficiently.

VAR00011 11. I enjoy explaining the intricacies and details of a complex task or project to my employees.

VAR00012 12. Breaking large projects into small manageable tasks is second nature to me.

VAR00013 13. Nothing is more important than building a great team.

VAR00014 14. I enjoy analyzing problems.

VAR00015 15. I honor other people's boundaries.

VAR00016 16. Counseling my employees to improve their performance or behavior is second nature to me.

VAR00017 17. I enjoy reading articles, books, and trade journals about my profession; and then implementing the new procedures I have learned.

Table 3 KMO and Bartlett's Test on Gross Variable Index for Leadership Style Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .520

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 382.058

df 136

Sig. .000

Table 4 (a) Total Variation through Extraction Method for Gross Analysis of Principal Components of Leadership Style

Component

Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of

Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total % of

% 1 4.200 24.707 24.707 4.200 24.707 24.707 3.713 21.840 21.840 2 2.339 13.758 38.465 2.339 13.758 38.465 2.771 16.300 38.139 3 1.727 10.161 48.625 1.727 10.161 48.625 1.783 10.486 48.625

4 1.411 8.299 56.924

5 1.214 7.139 64.063

6 1.080 6.355 70.418

7 .951 5.595 76.013

8 .900 5.297 81.310

9 .692 4.070 85.380

10 .629 3.699 89.079

11 .514 3.024 92.103

12 .429 2.524 94.628

13 .326 1.917 96.545

14 .237 1.392 97.937

15 .182 1.070 99.006

16 .114 .673 99.680

17 .054 .320 100.000

Table 4 (b) Component Matrix through Extraction Method for Gross Analysis of Principal Components of Leadership Style

Component Matrix^a

Component Team Leader Eigen

Value= 4.200, 24.707%

variance

Task Oriented approach Eigen

Value= 2.339, 13.758% Variance

Problem Solving skill Eigen Value=

1.727, 10.161%

Variance

14. I enjoy analyzing problems. .763

15. I honor other people's boundaries. .707

13. Nothing is more important than building a great team. .649 1. I encourage my team to participate when it comes to

decision-making time and I try to implement their ideas .642

(11)

and suggestions.

12. Breaking large projects into small manageable tasks is

second nature to me. .622

17. I enjoy reading articles, books, and trade journals about my profession; and then implementing the new procedures I have learned.

.596

11. I enjoy explaining the intricacies and details of a

complex task or project to my employees. .568 8. I enjoy reading articles, books, and journals about

training, leadership, and psychology; and then putting what I have read into action

4. I enjoy coaching people on new tasks and procedures.

3. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or

task. .828

2. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or

task. .753

6. I encourage my employees to be creative about their job.

9. When correcting mistakes, I do not worry about jeopardizing relationships.

7. I find it easy to carry out several complicated tasks at

the same time. .834

16. Counseling my employees to improve their performance

or behavior is second nature to me. .679

5. The more challenging a task is, the more i enjoy it 10. I manage my time very efficiently.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 3 components extracted.

Figure 5 ANOVA Analysis on Gross Variable Index for Leadership Style Sum of

Squares df Mean

Square F Sig.

VAR00001

Between

Groups (Combined) .318 1 .318 .612 .438

there is not a statistically significant difference Linear

Term Unweighted .318 1 .318 .612 .438

Weighted .318 1 .318 .612 .438

Within Groups 26.549 51 .521

Total 26.868 52

VAR00002

Between

Groups (Combined) .142 1 .142 .119 .732

Term Unweighted .142 1 .142 .119 .732

Weighted .142 1 .142 .119 .732

Within Groups 60.689 51 1.190

Total 60.830 52

VAR00003

Between

Groups (Combined) .002 1 .002 .003 .957

there is not a statistically significant

difference Linear

Term Unweighted .002 1 .002 .003 .957

Weighted .002 1 .002 .003 .957

Total 38.075 52

VAR00004

Between Groups

(Combined) .002 1 .002 .003 .955

Term Unweighted .002 1 .002 .003 .955

Weighted .002 1 .002 .003 .955

Total 27.245 52

VAR00005

Between

Groups (Combined) .006 1 .006 .009 .923

Term Unweighted .006 1 .006 .009 .923

Weighted .006 1 .006 .009 .923

Total 31.887 52

Between

Groups (Combined) .116 1 .116 .223 .639

there is not a statistically significant difference Linear Unweighted .116 1 .116 .223 .639

(12)

VAR00006 Term Weighted .116 1 .116 .223 .639

Total 26.717 52

VAR00007

Between

Groups (Combined) 1.583 1 1.583 1.202 .278

Term

Unweighted 1.583 1 1.583 1.202 .278 Weighted 1.583 1 1.583 1.202 .278

Total 68.755 52

VAR00008 Between

Groups (Combined) .001 1 .001 .000 .985

Term Weighted .001 1 .001 .000 .985

Total 79.019 52

VAR00009

Between

Groups (Combined) 1.612 1 1.612 1.257 .267

Term Unweighted 1.612 1 1.612 1.257 .267 Weighted 1.612 1 1.612 1.257 .267

Total 67.019 52

VAR00010

Between

Groups (Combined) .169 1 .169 .214 .646

Term

Unweighted .169 1 .169 .214 .646 Weighted .169 1 .169 .214 .646

Total 40.528 52

VAR00011

Between

Groups (Combined) 2.538 1 2.538 3.570 .065

Term

Unweighted 2.538 1 2.538 3.570 .065 Weighted 2.538 1 2.538 3.570 .065

Total 38.792 52

VAR00012

Between

Groups (Combined) .061 1 .061 .069 .793

Term Unweighted .061 1 .061 .069 .793

Weighted .061 1 .061 .069 .793

Total 44.830 52

VAR00013

Between

Groups (Combined) 1.957 1 1.957 1.935 .170

Total 53.547 52

VAR00014

Between

Groups (Combined) .093 1 .093 .095 .759

Term Unweighted .093 1 .093 .095 .759

Weighted .093 1 .093 .095 .759

Total 50.189 52

VAR00015

Between

Groups (Combined) 2.282 1 2.282 2.925 .093

Total 42.075 52

VAR00016 Between

Groups (Combined) .210 1 .210 .186 .668

(13)

Term Weighted .210 1 .210 .186 .668

Total 57.925 52

VAR00017

Between

Groups (Combined) .090 1 .090 .078 .781

Term

Unweighted .090 1 .090 .078 .781 Weighted .090 1 .090 .078 .781

Total 58.755 52

Table 6 KMO and Bartlett's Test on Partial/Rotational Variable Index for Leadership Style

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .732 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 720.084

df 136

Sig. .000

Table 7 (a) Total Variation through Extraction Method for Partial/Rotational Analysis of Principal Components of Leadership Style

Total Variance Explained Component

Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

% Total % of

% 1 5.860 34.471 34.471 5.860 34.471 34.471 3.614 21.258 21.258 2 1.815 10.674 45.145 1.815 10.674 45.145 3.199 18.816 40.075

3 1.425 8.383 53.529 1.425 8.383 53.529 2.287 13.454 53.529

4 1.141 6.714 60.243

5 .973 5.726 65.969

6 .884 5.198 71.167

7 .774 4.555 75.722

8 .707 4.158 79.880

9 .638 3.753 83.633

10 .559 3.291 86.924

11 .525 3.088 90.012

12 .424 2.495 92.507

13 .389 2.285 94.792

14 .261 1.532 96.325

15 .258 1.515 97.840

16 .252 1.481 99.321

17 .115 .679 100.000

Table 7 (b) Rotated Component Matrix through Extraction and Rotation Method for Partial/Rotational Analysis of Principal Components of Leadership Style

Rotated Component Matrix^a

Component

1 2 3

2. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task. .809 3. Nothing is more important than accomplishing a goal or task. .760 1. I encourage my team to participate when it comes to decision-

making time and I try to implement their ideas and suggestions. .640 5. The more challenging a task is, the more I enjoy it .637 4. I enjoy coaching people on new tasks and procedures. .608 14. I enjoy analyzing problems.

10. I manage my time very efficiently.

15. I honor other people's boundaries. .714

12. Breaking large projects into small manageable tasks is second nature to me. .712 8. I enjoy reading articles, books, and journals about training, leadership, and

psychology; and then putting what I have read into action .684

17. I enjoy reading articles, books, and trade journals about my profession; and

then implementing the new procedures I have learned. .673

13. Nothing is more important than building a great team.

9. When correcting mistakes, I do not worry about jeopardizing relationships.

11. I enjoy explaining the intricacies and details of a complex task or project to my employees.

6. I encourage my employees to be creative about their job. .737

(14)

16. Counseling my employees to improve their performance or behavior is second

nature to me. .735

7. I find it easy to carry out several complicated tasks at thesame time. .698 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Figure 8 One Way ANOVA Analysis for Partial/Rotational Analysis of Principal Components of Leadership Style with reference to GENDER

Sum of

Squares df Mean

Square F Sig.

VAR00001

Between

Groups (Combined) .005 1 .005 .006 .941 there is not a statistically

significant difference Linear Term Unweighted .005 1 .005 .006 .941

Weighted .005 1 .005 .006 .941

Total 85.578 101

VAR00002

Between Groups

(Combined) .054 1 .054 .047 .829 there is not a statistically

Weighted .054 1 .054 .047 .829 Within Groups 115.946 100 1.159

Total 116.000 101

VAR00003 Between

Weighted .416 1 .416 .558 .457

Total 74.990 101

VAR00004

Between

Groups (Combined) 1.061 1 1.061 1.143 .288 there is not a statistically

significant difference Linear Term Unweighted 1.061 1 1.061 1.143 .288

Weighted 1.061 1 1.061 1.143 .288

Total 93.814 101

VAR00005

Between

Weighted 1.811 1 1.811 1.472 .228 Within Groups 123.013 100 1.230

Total 124.824 101

VAR00006

Between Groups

(Combined) 1.394 1 1.394 1.886 .173 there is not a statistically

Weighted 1.394 1 1.394 1.886 .173

Total 75.343 101

VAR00007

Between

Total 128.314 101

(15)

VAR00008

Between

Total 116.000 101

VAR00009

Between

Total 119.255 101

VAR00010

Between

Total 120.353 101

VAR00011

Between

Groups (Combined) 1.089 1 1.089 1.030 .313

there is not a statistically

Total 106.794 101

VAR00012

Between

Weighted .434 1 .434 .597 .442

Total 73.255 101

VAR00013

Between Groups

(Combined) .193 1 .193 .187 .666 there is not a statistically

Total 103.373 101

VAR00014

Between

Weighted .471 1 .471 .523 .471

Total 90.676 101

VAR00015

Between

Weighted .317 1 .317 .389 .534

Total 81.814 101

VAR00016

Between