Sedibeng Group Final Group Assignment- Change Mangement

7/23/2019 Sedibeng Group Final Group Assignment- Change Mangement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sedibeng-group-final-group-assignment-change-mangement 1/23

1. Problem Statement

A good leader understands the importance of employees in achieving

organisational goals and that motivating employees is of paramount importance in

achieving these goals. Organisational performance can be used to measure how theenterprise is doing in terms of profitability, market share and product quality in

comparison which consequently reflects on the productivity of the work force.

(Obiwuru et al, 20!0". #ost employees$ production performance in many

organi%ations is depended on the type of leadership style the management is

portraying. &esearch has stated that when employees decide to leave a company,

they leave their managers, not the company which highlights the assumption that

leadership practices have strong implications on employee intention to quit. 'histherefore means that there is a relationship between certain leadership practices and

employee engagement, and the ultimate direct or indirect influence thereof on

employee intentions to quit. e can therefore assume that there is a relationship

between transformational leadership and intention to quit. )n addition, individual$s

self*esteem, formed around work and organi%ational e+periences, plays a significant

role in determining employee motivation, work*related attitudes and behaviours.

ersonality attribute such as self esteem indicate the success of leadership styles

especially transformational leadership.

According to -ass 0!2, transformational leaders emphasi%e and drive capacity

development to ensure higher levels of follower commitment to organisational

ob/ectives. 'he author further asserts that this leadership style occurs when leaders

broaden and elevate the interest of their employees, when they generate awareness

and acceptance of the purpose and mission of their group, and when they stir

employees to look beyond their own self*interest for the good of the group.'ransformational leaders influence their employees to higher levels of commitment to

their organisational mission, a willingness to work harder, greater levels of trust in

their leader, and higher levels of cohesion (-erson Avolio, 2001!23".

Organisations therefore could seem to benefit from the prevalence of leaders with

transformational skills and employees high on self*esteem. 'his paper therefore

attempt to answer the question! hat is the e+tent and impact of the relationship

between leadership style, self* esteem, organisational commitment and turnover

intentions for both public and private enterprises in 4outh Africa5

1



2. Literature study

2.1. Introduction

6eadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing

plans, and motivating people, 7lark (2008" and (O/okuku! 209". According to :otler

(0", leadership is comple+, it is not easily defined, nor can it be e+plained by

simple gimmicks. (;orthouse 200< &obbins 7oulter, 200 and 6ussier, 0"

further e+plained leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group

of individuals to achieve a common goal. -ased on this definition, leadership can be

described as what you do and how you do it to affect change.

)n various organisations every leader applies a particular leadership style in the

manner they manage their organisations. 6eadership style is described by O/okuku

(202! 209" as a set of behavioural patterns that frequently occur during the constant

organisational working and which others know the leader for. =e cited (#orturano

>osling 2008, ?eremy et al., 20"$s view of leadership style as a combination of

traits, characteristics, skills and behaviour that leaders use when interacting with

their subordinates.

A leader is a person who influences, directs and motivates others to perform specifictasks and inspire other people to perform sufficiently for the achievement of

corporate ob/ectives, O/okuku et al (202! 202". 6eadership is a key factor for the

improvement of organisational performance, and therefore organisational

effectiveness determines the successes or failures of an organi%ation,

4hafie et al (209! 22". 'he reflection of these characteristics makes leadership the

life blood of any organisation whose importance cannot be underestimated. @ifferent

leadership styles may affect organisational effectiveness or performance differently,

;an/undeswaraswamy 4wamy (201! 3".

radeep rabhu (20!8" says BA good leader understands the importance of

employees in achieving the goals of the organisation and that motivating employees

is of paramount importance in achieving these goalsC. 'he style which the leader

employs to lead the organisation may create a desire on the part of employees to

give their best or reduce the workers to nothing in the organisation and is critical for

organisational performance. Organisational performance can be used to measure

2



how the enterprise is doing in terms of profitability, market share and product quality

in comparison which consequently reflects on the productivity of the work force,

Obiwuru et al (20!0".

6eadership research has been focused on various types of leadership styles, namely

transformational leadership which affect followers in such a way that they develop

trust, admiration towards leadership and e+hibit loyalty to the organi%ation<

transactional leadership whose focus is about rules and standards to protect the

status quo and involves closely in monitoring and correcting followers$ errors to

ensure short*term success< autocratic style in which the leadership cluster is

described as authoritarian, directive, production centered, coercive, punitive, cold,

task*oriented, persuasive, charismatic, and closed (-ass, 0"< democratic style in

which decision making has been decentralised and shared amongst subordinate

whereas autocratic leadership is an e+treme form of leadership where the leader

e+erts e+treme power on the subordinates with limited opportunities of any say on

the manner in which activities develop within the organisation as (OA!21" and

other researches has concentrated on task versus relation oriented leadership style.

'he focus of this assignment will be on transformational leadership style

2.1. Transformational Leadership style

According to illiams et al., 200!90, transformational leadership style encourages

followers to question assumptions and think about new ways of doing tasks

'ransformational leadership is one that inspires followers to transcend follower$s

self*interest for the good of the organi%ation and is capable of having a profound and

e+tra ordinary effect on the followers concern (&obbins, ?udge, 4anghi, 200!

1". )t begins with the leader Dfollower relationship with a sense of responsibility for

the development of followers and enhances the relationship that arouses and

maintains trust, confidence and desire of subordinates. A transformational leader$s

bottom line goal is to bring followers up to the level of confidentially accomplishing

organisational task without direct leader intervention.

'ransformational leadership creates and sustains a conte+t that ma+imi%es human

and organi%ational capabilities. 'he style facilitates multiple levels of transformation

and aligns them with core values and a unified purpose. 'he transformational

leadership make change happen in self, others, groups, and organi%ations. Obiwuru

3



et al view transformational leadership as the raising of followers consciousness

levels about the importance of and value of designated outcomes and how to

achieve them. 'ransformational leadership focuses on the development of followers

and their needs. )t serves as a bridge between the leaders and followers in the

development of employees$ interests, values and motivation, (O/okuku". )n this

regard employees can adapt to new and improved practices and helped to achieve

the ob/ectives while working within the settings of the organisation. 'he leadership

style is one of the most modern and most successful styles of leadership in which

the leader plays a role model and inspires the followers to participate fully in their

work, (OA".

'ransformational leader has easy communication with followers and delegate

responsibility to them. 'he leaders are always ready to go an e+tra mile in attempt to

improve their relationship with followers and to give support where employees are

weaker in characters. Another form of transformational leadership is that the leader

has charisma. 7harismatic leadership style is defined by O/okuku as a trait driven

leadership whereby a leader has vision and personality that motivate follower to

e+ecute the vision. 7harismatic leader always strives to provide a fertile environment

that nourishes subordinates$ creativity, innovation and motivation. 7harisma which is

e+tremely powerful and e+tremely hard to teach is a special leadership style that is

commonly associated with transformational leadership.

2.2. Characteristics of Transformational Leadership

'he following characteristics of transformational leadership will be discussed briefly.

'hese include! ideali%ed influence, inspirational motivation, intellectually stimulation

and individuali%ed consideration.

a. Idealized influence

According to them -ass &iggio, 2008! 3,)deali%ed influence is the behaviour that

reflected by leaders showing charismatic personality, they serve as role models for

their subordinate and they build trust in people because those who work for them

4



know they are working toward the common good making the leaders trustworthy,

with an attraction to emulate.

b. Inspiration Motivation

)nspiration motivation attracts people toward the vision of the organi%ation with their

effective communicating personality through encouragement to raise the

consciousness of workers about the organi%ation$s mission, vision and committing to

the vision is a key theme of this factor (-ass &iggio, 2008! 3".

c. Intellectual Stimulation

)ntellectual stimulation referred to leaders who challenged their follower$s ideas and

values for solving problem (-ass &iggio, 2008! 8".

d. Individualized consideration

)ndividuali%ed considerate leaders pay special attention to each individual follower$s

needs for achievement and growth by acting as an advisor (-ass &iggio, 2008!

8".

2.. Impact of leadership style in the !or"place on employee self#esteem

and employee attitudes $commitment% productivity%

counterproductive behaviour at !or" and intentions to leave&.

&esearch has shown that, transformational leadership style in the workplace has an

impact on employee self esteem and employee attitudes such as commitment,

productivity, counterproductive behaviour at work and intentions to leave. On

numerous occasions it has been suggested that an individual$s self*esteem, formed

around work and organi%ational e+periences, plays a significant role in determining

employee motivation, work*related attitudes and behaviours. ersonality attribute

such as self esteem indicate the success of leadership styles especially

transformational leadership. According to -aumeister et al (2009" the concept of self*

esteem refers to an individual$s evaluation of the self. 4elf*esteem has also been

described as a type of defence mechanism. :wan et al (2003" identify four aspects

of self*esteem! personal standard is when achievements and goals are in harmony

showing high self*esteem< /udgement by others< through people comparing their own

5



attributes and accomplishments with the way they perceive other people< and from

comparing their current self to past or future.

&osenberg, 8, defined self*esteem as a /udgment of one$s self*worth ositive

self*esteem, also sometimes referred to as self*concept, self*perception, or self*

worth is related to academic achievement, occupational success ,positive

relationships with others, good coping skills, and a sense of well *being

('r%esniewski, @onnellan &obins, 2009". ?ackson #othobi undertook a recent

study where they demonstrated that self*esteem is associated with organisational

commitment and /ob satisfaction.

ith leadership styles such as 'heory ED'heory F! #c>regor, 0 and

transactional and transformational leadership, -urns (38" assumes that the

management behaviours associated with different roles will have different effects on

Organisational -ased 4elf Gsteem (O-4G", which is a personal sense of

organi%ational worthiness. 6ord et al. (!3" stated that Bleaders can profoundly

influence subordinates$ self*concepts, and thereby influence follower behaviours and

other social processesC and O-4G is a significant factor in most employees$ self*

concept.

A recent study (?ackson submitted" has also argued that transformational leadership

skills increase the e+periences of self*esteem and sub/ective e+periences of work

success. 'he author maintains that self*esteem serves as a mediator in the relation

between transformational skills and sub/ective e+periences of work success. Hurther

the findings of (?ackson, submitted" confirmed the role of transformational leadership

characteristics in self*esteem and sub/ective e+periences of work success. 'his

therefore means that leaders who communicate high performance e+pectations for

subordinates and e+hibits confidence in their ability to meet such e+pectations are

more likely to enhance subordinates self*esteem and to affect the goals subordinates

accept or set for themselves (?ackson, submitted".

Autocratic leadership style which is dominant in controlled social environments lead

to lower levels of global self*esteem. 'hese highly structured leadership styles

suggest to employees that their ideas are not valued and that they are incapable of

effective self*regulation, >ardner and ierce (200". 'he absence of opportunities for successful self*regulation is likely to lead employees to believe that they are not

6



trusted Baround hereC and question their ability to successfully engage in self*

direction and self*control. As such, manager*imposed barriers to the development of

a sense of competency, trustworthiness, and organi%ational importance lead to the

emergence of low self. @emocratic styles involve social systems that allow for more

autonomy and influence (i.e. opportunities for involvement, effective self*direction,

and self*control" tend to promote perceptions of one$s trustworthiness, competence,

and capability and the development of higher levels of O-4G, Glloy, (200". )ntention

to quit is the strength of a person$s view that heDshe wishes not to stay with a

specific organisation and represents a cognitive manifestation of the behavioural

decision to quit, (-oshoff et al.,2002< Glangoven, 200". 'here is also evidence in the

literature of the impact of leadership behaviours on intention to quit (@ewettinck

Ian Amei/de, 2003< :elty, 200< 6ee, 2000< 4iong et al., 200". 7ommitment has

consistently been found in the literature to have a negative relationship with intention

to quit, (4omers, and #eyer et al., 2002". Iarious studies indicate that

transformational leadership, when compared to laisse% faire leadership and

transactional leadership, results specifically in higher levels of satisfaction,

commitment and performance (Alam #ohammad, 200< #ester et al., 2009<

4omers, ". As high levels of satisfaction and commitment have also been

proven to have a negative relationship with employee intentions to quit, it is logical

assuming that there is a similar relationship between transformational leadership and

intention to quit. According to hillips and 7ornell (cited in ienaar -ester, 2008",

indicators such as challenging and meaningful work, autonomy and independence,

participation in decision making, empowerment, feedback and competitive financial

packages all result in higher levels of commitment. 'ransformational leadership

particularly relates to this by way of activities such as challenging the status quo

(challenge the process and intellectual stimulation" and empowerment through team

work, shared power and discretion, development and coaching (enabling others to

act and individual consideration", and also earning the right and respect to lead

through direct involvement (modelling the way and idealised influence".

&esearch has shown that there is significant relationship between leadership,

employees and the performance of the organisation. radeep rabhu cited (-urns

38< -ass 0< =ater and -ass 88< =owell and Avolio 9" asserting on the

empirical evidence demonstrating that leadership behavioural influence on

7



performance that strong leaders outperform weak leaders, and the fact that

transformational leadership in comparison generates higher performance than

transactional leadership.

radeep rabhu reported a study on preferences of leadership styles in select

enterprises which found that both middle managers and subordinates prefer

transformational leadership style to all other forms with autocratic leadership ranked

lowest in >arret$s scores in private and public enterprises. ells eachy in (6ong

'hean" has conducted a study to investigate the relationship between leadership

behaviours and turn*over intentions which found that there is significant negative

relationship between transformational leadership and the intentions to leave the

organisation. 'his also has implications on the /ob satisfaction of the employees

which eventually also equates turnover intensions to /ob satisfaction which have a

positive relationship.

A successful leader must be able to establish trust by giving employees more

freedom to act autonomously and make decisions. )n addition, leaders must clarify

the direction towards the attainment of goals to the employees through

communication and encourage them to feel confident and able to take risks in work

completion.Gffective leadership is a key factor in the life and success of an organi%ati

on. 6eadership transforms potential into reality.

. 'esearch (b)ectives

'he research primary ob/ective is to assess the relationship between

transformational leadership style, self*efficacy or self*esteem and sub/ective

e+periences of work success or organisational commitment, counterproductive

behaviour or intentions to quit. 'he secondary ob/ectives of this study were to

determine!

• 'he e+tent of the relationship between leadership style and subordinate

self*esteem or self*efficacy<

• 'he e+tent of the relationship between leadership style and organisational

commitment<

• 'he e+tent of the relationship between leadership style and employees

intentions to quit<

8



• 'he impact of the relationships amongst the concept on the organisations$

performance.

*. 'esearch Methods

'he research methodology which was used for this research is the qualitative

research because we were analy%ing the real life and allow us to e+amine how the

employees e+perience is created and given meaning. )t includes a search for

underlying themes or patterns which emerge during the research process. 'he

research focuses on obtaining a truthful description of how a problem or a situation is

e+perienced by those who are affected. 'he value of this research lies in the

diversity and the depth of the data collected and analy%ed and the comple+

understanding attained of the conte+t and conditions under which particular findings

appear.

'he data was collected through a questionnaire which supplied by the lecture as part

of the assignment and was distributed in a direct approach. A target of 0

respondents per group member was required and a randomly selected sample of 0

individuals was chosen which included participants from various organi%ations. A

favourable return rate of 00J was achieved. Additional characteristics of thesample are presented in Appendi+ A.

*.1. Statistical analysis

'he data collected from the selected sample was analysed through the statistical

program, IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (444 )nc" version 22 and

e+cel spreadsheet. 'he following descriptive statistic techniques were used for the

data analysis! Hactor analysis< the :aiser*#eyer*Olkin measure of sampling

adequacy< Gffect si%es< 7ronbach Alpha coefficients< means and -artlett$s test of

sphericity. earson product*moment correlation was used to identify the relationships

between the variables.

+. 'esults and data analysis

&esults of the study are presented for descriptive statistics, the correlational

analyses of all the measures used in the study, regression analysis and lastly, testing

for the mediating effect of self*efficacy or self*esteem in the relationship between

9



transformation leadership characteristics and sub/ective e+periences of work

success.

+.1. ,escriptive statistics and correlational analyses 'he descriptive statistics of the variables in the study are presented in Appendi+ -.

)nternal consistency calculated for the research data using 7ronbachKs alpha. 'he

7ronbach alpha of all some scales falls within the acceptable range of 0.30 and

above (;unnally -ernstein, 1" required for data to be useable in research of a

similar nature. 'he 7ronbach alpha below than 0.30 indicates that some items are

inappropriate.

Appendi+ 7 summarises the correlation coefficients between the constructs.

Articulation of vision is practically significantly related (large effect si%e" with role

modelling, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance e+pectation,

and intellectual stimulation. &ole modelling is statistically and practically significantly

related (large effect si%e" with fostering of group acceptance, high performance

e+pectations, and intellectual stimulation. Hostering of group goals acceptance is

statistically and practically significantly related (large effect si%e" with high

performance e+pectations, and intellectual stimulation. =igh performance

e+pectations is practically significantly related (large effect si%e" with intellectual

stimulation and individualised support. )ndividualise support is statistically and

practically significantly related (large effect si%e" with intellectual stimulation.

)ntellectual stimulation is statistically and practically significantly related (medium

effect si%e" with work success. )ntellectual stimulation is statistically and practically

significantly related (small effect si%e" with self* efficacy and positive self*esteem.

+.2. 'e-ression analysis to determine the impact of transformational

leadership characteristics as predictors of self#efficacy% self#esteem%

sub)ective eperiences of !or" success and or-anisational

commitment

Appendi+ 7 revealed that transformational leadership characteristics account for 1J

small practical significance. 'he significant predictors identified from the study for

7ounterproductive behaviour at work are fostering goal acceptance< =igh

performance e+pectations and 4ub/ective e+perience of work success. 'he

10



significant predictors for )ntentions to quit are )ntellectual stimulation and 4elf*

efficacy. 'he significant predictors for Organisational 7ommitment are &ole

modelling< Hostering goal acceptance and Autocratic leadership.

'he results of the multigroup structural model analysis assuming invariant

associations for #ales and Hemales are presented in Higure (below".

/i-ure 1 The 'esult of the Model analysis

+.. 0roup differences in the eperiences of the dimensions of

transformational leadershipHrom Appendi+ @, males compared to females e+perienced statistical and practical

significant higher levels of performance e+pectations, higher goal acceptance andintellectual stimulation while females compared to males e+perienced statistical and

practical significant high performance e+pectations.

. ,iscussion

'he research primary ob/ective was to assess the relationship between

transformational leadership style, self*efficacy or self*esteem and sub/ective

e+periences of work success or organisational commitment, counterproductive

behaviour or intentions to quit. 'he secondary ob/ectives of this study were to

11



determine! the e+tent of the relationship between leadership style and subordinate

self*esteem or self*efficacy< the e+tent of the relationship between leadership style

and organisational commitment< the e+tent of the relationship between leadership

style and employees intentions to quit< the impact of the relationships amongst the

concept on the organisations$ performance.

'he aim of the study was firstly to assess the relationship between transformational

leadership style, self*efficacy or self*esteem and sub/ective e+periences of work

success or organisational commitment, counterproductive behaviour or intentions to

quit. Our results indicate that all transformational leadership characteristics were

statistically significantly related to one another (with large practical significance". 'he

findings seem to agree with previous empirical results in that transformational

leadership characteristics were significantly, positively related to one another

(?ackson Ian de Ii/ver, 20". 'his is because transformational leaders foster high

levels of personal commitment from their supporters or team to shared goals,

whether those goals are for an organi%ation or a movement. >oals are set with high

standards in mind, and transformational leadership has been shown to often e+ceed

more typical achievements. 'his makes an incredibly strong case why

transformational leaders support that change should happen to promote a commonvision, leads change in an organi%ed manner and successfully integrates the

change.

'he second ob/ective of the study was to determine the impact of transformational

leadership on self*efficacy and self*esteem. 'ransformational leadership e+plained

1J and J of the variance in self*efficacy and self*esteem respectively. revious

empirical results are close to the study e+plained J and 2J of the variance in self*

efficacy and self*esteem respectively. (?ackson Ian de Ii/ver, 20". Iision

articulation and 4ub/ective e+perience of work success proved to be the only

statistical significant predictors of self*efficacy. -erson and Avolio (2001!23"

suggested that these effects of transformational leadership would be e+pected to

create better conditions for understanding and disseminating strategic visions,

missions, and goals and their acceptance by employees. Our study was in addition

to previous study, the predictors were performance e+pectations and intellectual

stimulation (?ackson Ian de Ii/ver, 20". 'his means that transformationalleadership style attracts people toward the vision of the organi%ation with their

12



effective communicating personality through encouragement to raise the

consciousness of workers about the organi%ation$s mission, vision and committing to

the vision is a key theme of this factor (-ass &iggio, 2008! 3".

A hypothetical model consisting of self*efficacy and self*esteem mediates the

relationship between transformational leadership and employee attitudes such as

sub/ective e+periences of work success, organisational commitment and intentions

to quit. &egression analysis suggests that there is significance influence of self*

efficacy and self*esteem on employee attitude and is also shown on the 4G#

analysis. 'ransformational leadership characteristics have significance influence on

efficacy and self*esteem. 'his means that transformational leadership style equates

turnover intensions to /ob satisfaction which have a positive relationship. hen

employees feel good about themselves and the /ob they are doing, their self esteem

will be raised.

)t was seen that gender differences e+ist in the e+periences of transformational

leadership. As in previous studies, females compared to males e+perienced

statistical and practical significant high performance e+pectations. 'his could be

e+plained through females having to do more to prove gender role stereotypes

wrong (?ackson Ian de Ii/ver, 20". #ales compared to females e+perienced

statistical and practical significant higher levels of performance e+pectations, higher

goal acceptance and intellectual stimulation. As suggested by -ass and Avolio

(0" who concluded that women were more likely to be trusted and respected and

show greater concern for individual needs. omen tend to be more nurturing, caring

and sensitive than men and that these characteristics are more aligned with

transformational leadership. Other studies since have found no significant

differences in transformational leadership and gender in managers in equivalent

positions. =owever, the question still remains on whether women are now being

promoted by taking on male attributes or that men today are changing5

. Limitations

• Hirstly the research was conducted using different organi%ations which

might not give a correct picture of the leadership style which the research

wanted to reveal.

13



• #ost of the questionnaires responded were males because they are

predominately more than the females in the workplace.

• 'he methods used for responding to the questionnaires were hardcopies

which might have negative impact to the results due to the fact that it is

time consuming to tick the hardcopy.

• 'he questionnaires does not provide an opportunity for the participants to

make comments, therefore they limited to respond to questionnaires

provided.

3. Conclusion and recommendations

'his paper described the notion that transformational leaders who communicate high

performance e+pectations for subordinates and e+hibits confidence in their ability to

meet such e+pectations are more likely to enhance subordinates self*esteem,

improving organisational commitment thereby reducing the intention to quit. 'he

results of this study indicate that there is a significantly positive relationship between

transformational leadership and intention to quit. 'his leaves a question in terms of

the circumstances under which the intended (low turnover" as opposed to the

unintended outcome (high turnover" would be achieved. Huture research should

therefore focus on determining to what e+tent all aspects of the transformational

leadership scale will impact on the intention to quit.

e recommend the following suggestions to leaders of organisations where this

study was conducted<

• 6eaders should attempt to make followers feel and think better about

themselves to enhance self*esteem and improve organisational commitment

thereby reducing their intentions to quit. 'his can be done through assisting

employees to develop self*assertiveness .Gvery employee must be taught to

stand up for himself or herself and to defend their own ideas while at the

same time, learning to implement self*assertiveness effectively and

appropriately. )n addition leaders and subordinates should be encouraged to

practice personal integrity. 'his means that everyone, from the front*line

employee to senior management, must Lwalk the talk.L )n other words,

behaviour within the organi%ation must demonstrate a personal integrity

among the standards and beliefs and the behaviour. ;o matter what,

employee behaviour and practices cannot conflict with values.

14



• #ost importantly leaders should be able to provide for career management to

enable employees understand who they are, what they like to do and what

their skills are so that they en/oy a much higher level of personal self*esteem.

6eaders should provide career management training programs that allowemployees to e+plore and understand themselves and to develop a long*term

career plan.

'eferences

Alam, #.#., #ohammad, ?.H. (200". 6evel of /ob satisfaction and intent to leave

among #alaysian nurses. Business Intelligence Journal, 3(1), 23-137.

-ass, -. #., (0". =andbook of leadership! theory, research and managerial

applications. ;ew Fork! 'he Hree ress.

-aumeister, &. H., 7ampbell, ?. @., :rueger, ?. ). and Iohs, :. @. (2009" M@oes high

self*esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or

healthier lifestyles5$, Psycological Science in te Pu!lic Interest "(1)# 1-"".

-erson, F., and Avolio, -., (2001". 'ransformational leadership and the dissemination

of organisational goals! a case study of a telecommunication firm. 'he leadership

Nuarterly, !2*1.

7lark, @. 2008.http!DDwww.nwlink.comDdonclarkDleaderDleadstl.html. @ate of access

. 4ept.20

@ewettinck, :., Ian Amei/de, #. (2003". 6inking leadership empowerment

behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions! 'esting the mediatingrole of psychological empowerment. Ilerick 6euven >ent orking aper 4eries

15



2003D2, Ilerick 6euven >ent #anagement 4chool. http!DDwww.vlerick.beDenD2.

@ate of access! 4ept 20

Glloy, @. H. 200. 'he effect of super leader behaviour on autonomous work groups

in a government operated railway service. Pu!lic Personnel Manage$ent Journal,

2%(2)# 2&7'272.

>ardner, @. >., ierce, ?. 6. 200. 4elf*esteem and self*efficacy within the

organi%ational conte+t! A replication. Journal of Manage$ent Syste$s, 13(")# 31'".

?ackson, 6. '. -. #uthobi, I. (4ubmitted". 'he #ediating role of self *esteem in the

relationship between a multicultural climate at work and employee attitudes. Acta

7ommerci

:otter, ?.. (0". A force for change! =ow leadership differs from management.

;ew Fork! Hree ress! 21 *2.

:wan, I. 4. F. and ?ohn, O. . and 'hein, 4. #. (2003" M-roadening the research on

self*esteem! A new scale for longitudinal studies$, 4elf and )dentity ! 20*10.

6ong, 4.6. 'hean, 6.F. (20" &elationship between 6eadership 4tyle, ?ob

4atisfaction and Gmployees$ 'urnover )ntention! A literature &eview. esearc

Journal of Business Manage$ent.

6ussier, &.;. (0". =uman relations in organisations. @ow ?ones )rwin, )6.

#ester, 7., Iisser, @., &oodt, >., :ellerman, &. (2009". 6eadership style and its

relation to employee attitudes and behaviour. S* Journal of In+ustrial Psycology,

2(2), 72-2.

;an/undeswaraswamy, '.4 4wamy, @.& (201" 6eadership 4tyles. *+ances in

Manage$ent. 7(2)

;orthouse, . >. (200". 6eadership! theory and practice (thGd.". 'housand Oaks!

4age ublications

Obiwuru, '.7, Okwu, A.', Akpa, I.O. ;wankwere, ).A. (20" Gffective 6eadership

4tyle on Organisational erformance! A survey of selected small scale enterprise in

16

http://www.vlerick.be/en/6291

http://www.vlerick.be/en/6291



)kosi*:etu council development area of 6agos 4tate, ;igeria. *ustralian Journal of

Business an+ Manage$ent esearc. 1(7), 1 -111.

O/okuku, &.#, Odetayo, '.A, 4a/uyigbe, A.4. (202" )mpact of 6eadership 4tyle on

Organisational erformance! A 7ase 4tudy of ;igerian -anks. *$erican Journal of

Business an+ Manage$ent. 1("). 22 ' 27 .

ienaar, 7., -ester, 7.6. (2008". 'he retention of academics in the early career

phase. S* /y+skrif ir Menslike 0ul!ronne!estuur, %(2), 32-"1.

OA, -.#. 'he &elationship between 6eadership Gffectiveness and Organisational

erformance.

radeep, @.>., rabhu, ;.&.I. (20" 'he &elationship between Gffective

6eadership and Gmployee erformance. )nternational 7onference on Advancements

in )nformation 'echnology.

-ernard #.-ass &onald G.&iggio.2008.'ransformational 6eadership (2nd Gd"!

'aylor Hrancis e*6ibrary

&obbins, 4.. 7oulter, #.:. (200". #anagement (3 th Gd", rentice =all

illiams, =. #., arker, 4. :., 'urner, ;. (2003". erceived dissimilarity and

perspective taking within work teams. >roup and Organi%ation #anagement, 92(.",

*3.

17



4ppendi 45 ,emo-raphics data from the study

Code ,escription Sub-roup /re6uency Percenta-e

O>G; >ender of respondentsK #ale 90 J

Hemale 29 19J

#issing 2J

#>G; >ender of manager #ale 93 J

Hemale 9 21J

#issing 1 3J

A>G &espondentsK age 8*2 9 J

2*90 3 9J

9*10 9J

1*0 8 J

* 3J

#issing 8 J

O&A7G &espondentsK &ace hite 3 9J

-lack 13 83J

7oloured 0 0J

)ndian 0 0J

Other 0 0J

#&A7G &ace of manager hite J

-lack 98 30J

7oloured 2J

)ndian 1 3J

Other 0 0J

#issing J

ONPA6 &espondentsK Nualification 6ess than >rade 2 2J

>rade 2 9 21J

7ertificate 20J

@iploma 1 2J

@egree 3 9J

ost graduate 8 J

>NPA6 Average Nualifications of work>roup 6ess than >rade 2 2J

>rade 2 0 22J

7ertificate 1 J

@iploma 9J

@egree 21J

ost graduate 1 J

#issing 8 J

#A;6 #anager$s level 'op management 8 J

#iddlemanagement 2 18J

4upervisor 0 J

#issing 0 J

4G7 4ector >overnment 9 3J

18



#anufacturing 9 J

#ining 2J

Gngineering J

Agriculture 0 0J

&etail 0 0J

4ervice 1 3J

#issing 3J

>7O# >roup composition Only male J

Only female 2J

redominantly male 92 J

redominantlyfemale 3J

#issing 3 9J

>4)QG >roup si%e 6ess than 0 8 J

6ess than 0 9 3J

6ess than 00 8 J

6ess than 200 0 0J

#ore than 200 9 J

#issing 1 3J

HP;7'A Hunctional area of work group #anagement 1 2J

Hinance J

#arketing 0 0J

roduction 21 11J

&O 2 1J

=& 2J

)' 0 0J

urchase 0 0J

#issing 8 J

A;;PA6' Annual turnover of theorganisation 6ess than & mil 3J

6ess than &20 mil 9 J

6ess than &0 mil 2J

&0 mil and above 9 J

#issing J

4ppendi 75

19



Cronbach alpha8s% means% and standard deviations for the various constructs

Questions Construct/DimensionCronbach Alpha

Mean

StdDev

1 to 5 Vision articulation 0.7597 4.6 1.7

6 to 8 Role modelling 0.6522 4.7 1.89 to 12 Fostering goal acceptance 0.7265 4.9 1.8

13 to 15 Hig per!ormance e"pectations 0.6162 5.1 1.6

16 to 19 #ndi$iduali%ed support 0.0084 4.1 1.9

20 to 23 #ntellectual stimulation 0.6932 4.7 1.7

24 to 28 &ransactional leadersip 0.7840 4.8 1.9

29 to 38 'utocratic leadersip 0.7772 3.4 2.0

39 to 52(u)*ecti$e e"perience o! +or,success 0.8022 4.0 0.9

53 to 62 (el!-ecac/ 0.7758 4.0 0.8

63 64 66 6869 ositi$e sel!-esteem 0.4558 4.2 0.865 67 70 7172 egati$e sel!-esteem 0.6124 2.2 1.2

73 to 79ounterproducti$e )ea$iour at+or, 0.7149 2.0 1.2

80 to 84 rganisational ommitment 0.6644 3.9 1.0

85 to 87 #ntentions to uit 0.5178 2.5 1.3

4ppendi C5 'e-ressions

Predictors

Counter product

ivebehavio

ur at work

Intentions toquit

Organisational

Commitment

Self-eca

c!

Self-estee

m

ultiple R 0.6546 0.5863 0.76940.634

70.678

8

R (uare 0.0428 0.0344 0.05920.040

30.046

1

(ignicance F 0.0686 0.0530 0.02000.177

50.025

7

P-value P-value P-value

P-

value

P-

value

Vision articulation 0.0705 0.1847 0.37510.481

40.636

3

Role modelling 0.1708 0.1576 0.80770.323

60.074

1

Fostering goal acceptance 0.3232 0.1679 0.86480.716

70.005

2

Hig per!ormance e"pectations 0.5375 0.1226 0.53190.975

70.706

2

#ndi$iduali%ed support 0.1174 0.1554 0.5604

0.608

2

0.592

3#ntellectual stimulation 0.1952 0.2871 0.9856 0.245 0.122

20



8 6

'utocratic leadersip 0.0481 0.0268 0.88790.881

50.192

4(u)*ecti$e e"perience o! +or,success 0.3776 0.1572 0.2105

0.0001

0.0008

(el!-ecac/ 0.3006 0.6936 0.3911(el!-esteem 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000

21



4ppendi C5 Correlations

4ppendi ,5 Mean Scores $S,& Per Scale for the Male and /emale 0roup Males

22



Males "emales

Construct/DimensionMean

StdDev Mean Std Dev

Vision articulation 4.57 1.48 4.7 1.6

Vision articulation 4.57 1.48 4.71 1.65

Role modelling 4.66 1.75 4.67 1.82

Fostering goal acceptance 4.90 1.58 4.89 1.77

Hig per!ormance e"pectations 5.04 1.52 5.18 1.33

#ndi$iduali%ed support 4.14 0.84 4.03 1.14

#ntellectual stimulation 4.72 1.46 4.63 1.56

&rans!ormational leadersip 4.64 1.84 5.01 1.78

'utocratic leadersip 3.67 1.27 2.88 1.24(u)*ecti$e e"perience o! +or,success 4.10 0.45 3.98 0.66

(el!-ecac/ 4.05 0.49 3.99 0.54

ositi$e sel!-esteem 4.15 0.53 4.23 0.47egati$e sel!-esteem 2.26 0.74 2.13 0.95ounterproducti$e )ea$iourat +or, 2.07 0.71 2.03 0.96

rganisational ommitment 4.07 0.77 3.69 0.79

#ntentions to uit 2.29 1.01 2.81 1.11

23

Sedibeng Group Final Group Assignment- Change Mangement

Documents

Transcript of Sedibeng Group Final Group Assignment- Change Mangement