Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty Deans in the ...
111
Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty Deans in the University of Kuwait and their relation to the level of administrative transparency / 2014
Transcript of Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty Deans in the ...
Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty Deans in the University of
Kuwait and their relation to the level of administrative transparency
/2014
.
.
.
.
....
...
....
..
..
..
..
..
..
1
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
38
45
47
47
48
49
49
50
51
52
53
64
69
70
75
77
47 1.
48 2.
53
3.
54
4.
56
5.
58
)(
6.
60
7.
62 8.
77
1.
86
2.
94
3.
95
4.
96 5.
97 6.
:
-
-
- )0.05(
)240(
.
:
-
-
-
)(
-
- )0.05(
.
:
.
Abstract
Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty Deans in the University of
Kuwait and their relation to the level of administrative transparency
Prepared by:
mesaid Oqab Al-Shammari
Supervised by:
Dr. abdul-jabbar Tafiq al-byati
This study aimed to know the Prevailing Leadership styles of faculty
Deans in the University of Kuwait and their relation to the level of
administrative transparency through answering the following questions:
What are the prevailing leadership styles of the faculty deans at the
university of Kuwait from the teaching staff members view point?
What is the level of the prevailing administrative transparency of the
faculty deans at the university of Kuwait from the teaching staff
members view point?
Is there statistically significance at significant relation level ( 0.05)
between the prevailing leadership styles of the faculty deans at the
university of Kuwaiti and the administrative transparency?
Study sample consisted of (240) teaching staff members Selected
by randomly stratified method, the questionnaire is used as the instrument
to collect the data.
The study reached the following results:
The degree of the prevailing leadership styles of the faculty deans at
the university of Kuwait from the teaching staff members view point
in the authoritarian style was high.
The degree of the prevailing leadership styles of the faculty deans at
the university of Kuwait from the teaching staff member view point in
the democratic style was medium.
The degree of the prevailing leadership style of the faculty deans at the
university of Kuwait from the teaching staff members view point in
the Lazier-Faire style was medium.
The level of the prevailing administrative transparency of the faculty
deans at the university of Kuwait from the teaching staff members
view point was high.
The presence of negative relation with statistically significance of
level ( 0.05) between the prevailing leadership styles of the faculty
deans at the university of Kuwait and the administrative transparency.
This relation was negative with the authoritative and Lazier-Faire
styles, and positive with the democratic style.
The study recommended number of recommendations according to
the results:
The prevailing leadership style is the authoretaritive style, so it is
necessary for the Candidate dean for one of the faculties to have training
seminars to assure the use of the democratic administrative style.
1
:
.
.
.
)2006.(
.
)2008.(
2
)2006(.
)Pierce & Newstory,2006.(
)2007.(
)2005.(
.
.
3
)2005.(
)Bogus
Empowerment(
)2008(.
)
2005.(
.
4
)Monks & Minow, 2001. (
.
.
:
:
.
.
5
)2009()2011(
)2006(
.
:
.
:
:
-
-
- )0.05(
:
.
6
-
.
:
-
.
-
.
- .
:
:
:
)2003(.
:
.
1. )(autocratic :"
.
")2006:5-6.(
7
2. democratic):("
."
)2000:233.(
3. ):(Laize-Faire"
")Newstrom, and
Davis,1993,228.(
:
)2005.(
.
:
2013/2014.
:
-
.
- .
8
:
::
"
"
)2006(
.
:
:
:
"")Arendt()2007(
)Archein()Agere(
.
9
)2010:(
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
)(
.
:
10
)2004.(
:
)1994(
)2010:(
:
)2003(
" :
")2002:7(" :
11
")Martini, 1999(.
" :
")2001:12(.
":
")2002.(
:
- ).(
- ).(
- .
- .
)2000.(
)2005:(
-:.
-.
12
-.
-:
.
:
1-.
2-.
3-.
4-.
5-.
:
.
.
:
)X) (2004:(
)(Douglas Mc.Gregor
)X()Y.(
Mc.Gregor)()2004(
:
13
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
)X(
)One Best Way(
)1999(.
)(Y:
,
X)((Y)
)2003(.
)(Mc.Gregor
)Y()2003(:
1. .
2.
.
14
3. .
4. .
5.
.
)X()Y(
)Y(
.
(Two Dimension Theory of Leadership):
)–Andrew Halpin(
)Flood, 2000(:
1. :(X).
2. :)(Y.
)(
.
15
)(Three Dimension Theory of leadership)(
)1999(
)Reddin()1999(
:
1. :
.
2. :
.
3. :
.
)either-
or(,)
Reddin(.)(
)2000(:
)(
(Separated).
)(
)(Related.
16
)(
) (Dedicated.
)(
) (Integrated.
)(Managerial Grid of Leadership:
)–Black()–Mouton(
)1999(:
1. .
2. .
)2006:(
)1.9(.
)5.5(.
)9.1(.
)9.9()Y(
)9 9(.
)4()1997:(
)Likert(
:
17
1. :
.
2. :
.
3. :
.
4. :
)-Likert(
.
.
)(Fiedler Contingency Theory
)Rebolloso2005(:
18
:
1. ,
.
2.
.
3. ,
.
)()2000:(
)(
Blanchard)&(Palu Hersey
:
1. .
2. .
)1999(
.
19
.
–
.
..
)2005.(
:
Burns)(""
.
Burns
20
)2002.(
.
:
).2013(
)Bass & Avolio(
)2008(
.
)2002(.
21
)krich & kitshfeld,
1999()Holden , Bardwell, 2001 (:
1( :
.
2( :
.
3( :
.
4( :
.
5( :
.
6( :
.
7( :
.
8( :.
9( :.
10( :.
22
:
:.
:
.
:,
.
:,
)2000.(
)2002()2004(
:
1.
.
2.
.
3. )(
.
23
4. .
5.
,
)2000.(
)Sources of Heading Power:(
)KRICH & KITSHFELD, 1999()2003(
:
1. )Reward Power:(
.
2. )Coercive Power:(
.
3. )Legitimate Power :(
.
4. )Expert Power:(
.
24
5. )Referent Power:(
.
.
:
.
:
1- ):(
:
.).(
.
.).(
.
25
.).(
.
,
:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5.
)1995(.
.
.
..
26
)
2004.(
2- :
.
.
)2005(.
:
1(.
2(.
3(.
4(.
3- ):(
.
27
.
.
.
.
.
)2002(:
1. .
2.
.
3.
.
4. .
5. .
:
.
28
)
2005.(
:
)Huque, 2011.(
)2011(
:
.
:
:
:
29
)2011.(
)2012.(
:
.
:
.
.
.
.
)Garsten and
Montoya,2008 .(
30
:
)Bagad, 2009.(
1. :
....
2. :
.
3. :
.
.
31
4. :
.
5. :
.
6. :
.
7. :
.
.
8. :
.
9. :
.
32
.
:
1.
.
2.
.
3.
.
4.
.
33
.
5.
)Bagad, 2009.(
6.
.
.
7.
.
8. :
.
9.
34
)
2010.(
10.
.
11. :
.
12.
.
.
13.
)Norman, , Mark, 2010.(
35
:
.
1. :
.
.
2. :
..
36
.
.
.
)2005.(
:
)2010(:
1. :
:
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
37
..
..
..
..
2. :
:
..
.:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
::
:
1-:
)2002(
)40(
.
:
1.
).(
2.
.
3.
"":
- .
- .
39
4.
:
)2002(
)32(
.
)Stumpf, 2003(
)232(
.
)Wegener, 2004(
.
)200(.
.
40
.
.
.
)2004(
.
)264(.:
.
.
.
.
)2006(
)
()200(
50%
41
.
2-:
)2005(
.
:
.
)306(
.
:
.
.
)Li-Chiu Chi, 2009(
.
)60(
.
Tobin's Q) .Tobin's Q
2005.(
42
.
.
.
)2009(
.
)
(.)381(.
)80(.
:
.
)2010(
.
)503()355(.:
.
.
43
)Norman, Mark 2010(
304
.
.
)2010(
.
)661()6(
.)1653(
)51(.
:
.
.
)2011(
44
.
.
)
(.
)2011(
"."
)186(
.:
.
.
.
45
:
)2002(
)2002(
)Stumpf, 2003(
)Wegener, 2004(
.
)2004(
.)2005(
.)2006(
46
)
.
.
)2002) (40()2002) (32(
)2004(264
)306()240(
.
)2002()2002()2004(
)2005()2006(
.
:
.
47
:
:
.
:
.
)1(
273663
244266
223860
233558
234063
334578
364884
483987
48
453883
403474
423577
433376
424284
454893
334881
335184
384987
597 701 1298
:
:
1.
)2(.
)2(
91221
81422
111526
121628
141428
49
161329
151631
111728
111627
107133240
2.
Bartketl, Kotils and Hager (2001)
:
:
1.
:)2002()2006(
)2004.(
2.
)2005()2009(
)Li-Chiu chi, 2009.(
:
:
1. :
)3(
)48(
50
)1(
)40()2.(
2. :
)3(
)32()1(
)24(
)2.(
:
:
1. :-
)20(
)0.87(
)2002(
)2006(
)0.88.(
2. :-
)20(
)0.89.(
51
:
:
1.
.
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8.
SPSS.
9. .
10. :
=
5-1 4
3 =
3 =1.33
1+1.33=2.33
1-2.33
2.34-3.67
3.685
52
:
SPSS:
1.
.
2.
.
3. .
53
:
:
)3(.
)3(
1
3.74 0.58 1
2
3.58 0.62 2
3 )( 3.51 0.62 3
)3(
)3.74-3.51(""
)3.74()0.58(
"")3.58()0.62(
54
")"()3.51(
)0.62(.
:
1.:
)4(.
)4(
1 . 4.14 1.05 1
3 .
4.04 1.08 2
2 .
4.02 1.07 3
5
3.98 1.06 4
15 .
3.97 0.86 5
6
3.92 1.13 6
4
3.75 1.19 7
55
11 .
3.63 0.83 8
14 .
3.60 0.60 9
13 .
3.58 0.61 10
10
3.57 0.79 11
8
3.53 1.02 12
9
3.50 0.91 13
12 .
3.45 0.67 14
7
3.39 1.08 15
3.74 0.58
)4(
)3.74()0.58(
)4.14-3.39(
)1("")4.14(
)1.05()3(
""
)4.04()1.08(
56
)12(""
)3.45()0.67(
)7("".
)3.39()1.08(.
2. .:
)5(.
)5(
18
3.99 0.84 1
29
3.96 0.99 2
27
3.66 1.04 3
23
3.64 1.35 4
17 .
3.60 0.79 5
20
3.60 0.73 5
57
21
3.60 1.21 5
28
.
3.60 0.94 5
19 . 3.59 0.74 9
16 .
3.58 0.80 10
22 . 3.45 1.18 11
24
3.32 1.22 12
26 .
3.31 1.08 13
25 .
3.21 0.92 14
3.58 0.62
)5(
)3.58()0.62(
)3.99-3.21(
)18(""
)3.99()0.84(
)29(""
)3.96()0.99(
)26("
58
")3.31()1.08(
)25(""
)3.21()0.92(.
3.):(
)6(.
)6(
)(
34 . 3.80 0.90 1
35 . 3.76 1.13 2
33
3.70 0.98 3
39 .
3.69 0.95 4
30 .
3.60 0.80 5
32 .
3.47 0.84 6
38 .
3.37 0.97 7
36 .
3.36 1.00 8
59
31 .
3.35 0.48 9
40 . 3.30 1.15 10
37 .
3.26 0.79 11
3.51 0.62
)6(
)(
)3.51()0.62(
)3.80-3.26(
)34("
")3.80()0.90(
)35(""
)3.76()1.13(
)40(""
)3.30()1.15(
)37("".
)3.26()0.79(.
:
)7(.
60
)7(
13 .
4.16 0.52 1
11 .
4.15 0.59 2
14 . 4.10 0.82 3
8
.
4.08 0.88 4
12 .
4.07 0.75 5
15 .
4.03 0.88 6
19 .
3.96 0.92 7
7 . 3.92 0.78 8
9 .
3.83 0.85 9
10 .
3.83 0.70 9
2
3.82 1.21 11
3 .
3.76 1.13 12
17 . 3.73 0.89 13
61
23 .
3.73 0.84 13
6
. 3.70 1.01 15
16
.
3.70 0.97 15
18 .
3.63 0.85 17
22 .
3.63 0.86 17
1 .
3.62 0.77 19
5 . 3.56 1.08 20
21 .
3.48 0.87 21
24
3.46 0.87 22
20 . 3.30 0.84 23
4 .
3.25 0.97 24
3.77 0.30
)7(
)3.77()0.30(
)4.16-3.25(
)16("
62
.")4.16()0.52(
)11("
")4.15()0.59(
)20(""
)3.30()0.84(
)4(""
)3.25()0.97(.
:)0.05(
)=0.05(
)8(:
)8(
* *)0.05(
-0.384**
0.000
0.089
0.169
-0.095
0.142
63
)0.384-()0.05.(
)0.089()0.05(
)-0.0095(
)0.05.(
64
:
::
:
.
:
1.:
65
.
)2006(
)2002(
.
2. .:
.)2002(
.)2006(
.
66
3.):(
.
.
.
.
)2009(
)2002(
.
:
67
.
:
.
)2011(
:
.
)2005(
.
)2009(
.
:)0.05(
68
)11()
0.05(
.
.
69
::
:
1.
.
2.
.
3.
.
4.
.
70
:
:
)2002(1.
:
20112-50.
)2005.("
")(.
)2005.(2
.
)2002.(.
)2001(:
)
(.
)2006.(
)7()1(
12-46.
)2011(
)(.
71
)2012(
)1(
67-47.
)2004.("
"8:.
)2002(":
")
(.
)1994(:
16120-60.
)2013.(.
)1993(::
.
)2010(
)(
)2003(1.
)2009(
)(.
72
)2007.(1
.
)2010(
6
11-35.
)1999.(:) .1.(:
.
)2004(
1.
)2010.(
.
)2002(2.
)2004.(
)(:
.
)2006" .(":
.
73
)2000.(
""""
.)(.
)2003(
)(
.
)1997(.1
.
)2004(2
.
)1985(1.
)2007.(1.
)2002(1
.
)2003(."":.
)2000(1
.
)2008" .(
")
(.
74
)2006" .(
")(
.
)2006(
1512-37.
)1995(:
1995.
)1999(
101
17-55.
)2003(
)(
.
)2000(:.1
.
75
:
Bagad. B. S.,(2009) Management Information System, 4th Edition,
Technical Publications pun, India,.
Bardwell, L & Holden
L. Human Resources A contemporary
Approach.3rd Ed, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 2001.
Chi, Li-Chiu, Do Transparency and Disclosure Predict Firm Performance?
Taiwan Market, (2009) National Formosa University, Elsevier,
Science Direct, PP 11198-111203,.
Flood, Patrick. C, (2000) Chief Executive Leadership Style, Consensus
Decision Making and Top Management Team Effectiveness.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 9
(3),.
Garsten, Christina & Montoya Lindh de, (2008) Transparency in a New
Global Order: Unveiling Organizational Vision, Edward Elgar
Publishing limited, Britain,.
Henriques, Adrian, (2007) Corporate Truth: The Limits To Transparency,
Earth scan, 1st Edition, USA and UK,.
Huque, Ahmed Shafique (2011). Accountability and Governance:
Strengthening extra-bureaucratic mechanisms, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, Vol.60, No.1, pp.59-74, available at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0404.html.
Huque, Ahmed Shafique (2011). Accountability and Governance:
Strengthening extra-bureaucratic mechanisms, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, Vol.60, No.1, pp.59-74, available at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0404.html.
Martini, William, (1999) An Exploratory Study of the Relationship
between Leadership Style, Formal Education, Managerial
76
Experience and Project Manager Effectiveness DAI, 59 (10)
3883,.
Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W. (2001). A Dynamic model of entrepreneurial
learning 5-14. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Baylor
University.
Monks, Robert, A. G. & Minow, Nell, (2001). Corporate governance, 2nd
Ed, Blackwell Publisher, Inc_.
Newstrom , J. & Davis , K., (1993) Organazitional Behavior ; Human
Behavior at Work : team work NNTn Edition ,Von Hoffman Press ,
North America.
Norman, Steven, Mark, souwr (2010), The Impact of Positivity and
Transparency on Trust in Leaders and their Perceived Effectiveness,
the leadership quarterly, Elsevier, Science Direct, United States,
350-364,.
Pierce, J. L & Newstory, J. W. (2006). Leaders and the leadership
process. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill International Edition.
Rebolloso, E. The Influence of Evaluation on Changing Management
Systems in Educational Institutiens. Education Evolution. 11(4),
2005.
Stumpf, Mitzi Nichole (2003), The Relationship of Perceived
Leadership styles of North Carolina Extension Directors to Job
Satisfaction of Country Extension Professionals. Dissertation
[online abstract].
Wegener, Lori, L. (2004). Organizational leaders and empowered
employees: the relationship between leadership styles, perception of
styles, and impact on organizational outcomes. Dissertation
Abstracts International A 65/01, p.222. jul. 2004.
77
)1(
/.....................................................)(
:
"
"
.
)
.(
.
78
:
:
:
)2003.(
:
.
:
)2005.(
.
79
:
)×(:
1- :
2- :
3- :
5510
10
4- :
)()
(
)(
80
:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.
11.
.
12.
.
13.
.
81
14.
.
15.
.
16.
.
17.
.
18.
.
19.
.
20.
21.
.
22.
23.
24.
.
25.
26.
82
27.
.
28.
.
29.
30.
.
31.
32.
.
33.
.
34.
.
35.
.
)(
36.
.
37.
.
38.
39.
.
40.
.
41.
83
.
42.
.
43.
.
44.
.
45.
.
46.
.
47.
.
48.
.
84
1. .
2.
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8. .
9. .
10.
.
11.
.
12.
.
13.
.
14.
.
15.
.
16.
.
17.
.
18.
.
19.
85
.
20.
.
21.
.
22.
.
23.
.
24.
25.
.
26.
.
27.
.
28.
.
29.
.
30.
.
31.
.
32.
.
86
)2(
:..............................................
:............................................
:
"
"
.
)(
.
87
:
:
:
)2003.(
:
.
:
)2005.(
.
88
:
)×(:
5- :
6- :
7- :
5510
10
8- :
)()
(
)(
89
:
1.
.
2.
.
3.
.
4.
5.
.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
.
12.
.
13.
.
14.
.
15.
.
16.
90
.
17.
.
18.
19.
.
20.
21.
22.
.
23.
24.
25.
.
26.
.
27.
28.
.
29.
)(30.
.
31.
.
32.
.
33.
34.
.
91
35.
.
36.
.
37.
.
38.
.
39.
.
40.
.
92
1.
.
2.
3.
.
4.
.
5.
.
6.
.
7.
.
8.
.
9.
.
10.
.
11.
.
12.
.
13.
.
14.
.
15.
.
16.
.
17.
.
18.
.
93
19.
.
20.
.
21.
.
22.
.
23.
.
24.
94
)4(
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
)4(
96
)5(
97
)6(
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.
