Dr. Claude Tanoe
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Dr. Claude Tanoe

on

  • 718 views

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense - 2010

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense - 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
718
Views on SlideShare
718
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Dr. Claude Tanoe Dr. Claude Tanoe Presentation Transcript

  • Determining the effects of Attrition on Leadership Competency and Organizational Effectiveness: A Quantitative Study Claude B. Tanoe DOC 734 – Oral Defense May 14, 2010 1
  • Introduction• Doreen M. McGunagle, Ph.D., Mentor• Katheen M. Dominick, Ph.D., Committee Member• Dolores Coles, Ph.D., Committee Member• Claude B. Tanoe, Doctoral Candidate 2
  • Outline• Introductions• Problem Statement• Purpose Statement• Theoretical framework• Research Design• Research Questions• Population and Sample• Data Collection• Data Analysis• Findings• Conclusion and Implications• Limitations• Recommendations• Significance to leadership• Concluding Remarks• Questions 3
  • Problem StatementSixty percent of senior leaders will be eligible in 2010 for retirement and 90% will be eligible by 2019 leaving a critical gap of organizational competencies in the federal government Loss in pool of leadership talent may result in critical gap of competencies (Ludwick, 2007; Hendrix, 2007; Nuschler, 2005; Tierney, 2006) Loss of competencies over time may be damaging to the Federal government’s ability to sustain its daily obligation and operation (Manning, 2003; Young, 2005; Blair, 2005) 4
  • Purpose Statement The purpose of this quantitative method study with correlational research design was to examine the extent of the relationships among senior leaders’ attrition; senior leaders’ competency, and organizational effectiveness. The study further investigated the relationship between senior leaders’ attrition and demographic characteristics (gender and level of pay) as these leaders enter the preretirement phase of employment. 5
  • Theoretical Framework• Leadership competency model (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007)• The model of organizational effectiveness (Sparks & Gentry, 2008; Gaertner and Ramnarayan, 1983)• Organizational withdrawal (Adams & Beehr, 1998)• Approach taken in the current study derived from above model: Constituency model organizational effectiveness 6
  • Research Design• Quantitative method study with correlational research design Variables: senior leaders’ attrition (senior leaders’ self-reported years to retirement), leader’s competency, and organizational effectiveness• Factorial design using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) Independent variables: Gender, level of pay Dependent variable: Attrition• Standardized survey instrument Leadership Practice Inventory (Self & Observer)• Researcher –constructed demographic questionnaire 7
  • Research QuestionsRQ1: To what degree is attrition related to leadership effectiveness?RQ2: To what degree is attrition related to organizational effectiveness?RQ3: To what degree are there differences in attrition rates due to gender and level of pay of senior leaders? 8
  • Population and SampleStudy population: Federal Managers Association which constitutes 10% of the total federal employee workforce.Number of senior and managers estimated at 25%.Sample sized required was 333 (e=.05).Number of participants to surveyed (assuming 10% increase to redress for non-responses) was 367. 9
  • Data Collection• Senior executives and managers population from the Federal Managers Association• Administered via electronic mean• Informed consent• Data Collection packet • Informed Consent form • Survey Instruments • Online survey• Response rate: 91% 10
  • Data AnalysisDescriptive Information Relating to Each Hypothesis Presented and Associated Statistical Test Hypothesis Variables Variable Statistical test H1o Attrition Leadership Bivariate correlation effectiveness coefficient (Pearson Product Moment) H2o Attrition Organizational Bivariate correlation effectiveness coefficient (Pearson Product Moment) H3o Attrition Gender/Level of pay Two-Way ANOVA 11
  • Findings• The findings are presented in order of the hypotheses associated with each research question. 12
  • RQ1: To what degree is attrition relatedto leadership effectiveness?• H1o: A relationship does not exist between attrition and observed leadership competencies.• H1a: A relationship exists between attrition and observed leadership competencies. 13
  • Findings: Research Question 1 and Hypothesis 1Attrition and leadership competencyCorrelation coefficients of .1 or less, and p values of .3 or higher – Fail to reject nullhypothesis. No relationship between attrition and leadership competencydetected.Table 10 r p Modeling the Way -.1 -.3 Inspiring a Shared Vision -.1 .3 Challenging the Process .0 .5 Enabling Others to Act .0 .7 Encouraging the Heart -.1 .3 Mean -.1 .3 14
  • RQ2: How To what degree is attritionrelated to organizational effectiveness?• H2o: A relationship does not exist between attrition (leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and organizational effectiveness.• H2a: A relationship exists between attrition and organizational effectiveness. 15
  • Findings: Research Question 2 and Hypothesis 2Attrition and leadership competencymodeling the way, r = -.12, p = .02; (b) challenging the process, r = -.11, p = .05;and (c) enabling others to act, r = -.11, p = .04None significant 008 level (α/6 = .008) applying Bonneferroni correction.Table 11 r p Modeling the Way -12 .02 Inspiring a Shared Vision -.05 .34 Challenging the Process -.11 .05 Enabling Others to Act -.11 .04 Encouraging the Heart -,07 .19 Mean -.10 .07 16
  • RQ3: To what degree are there differences inattrition rates due to gender and level of pay ofsenior leaders? • H3o: A relationship does not exist between attrition (leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and organizational effectiveness. • H3a: A difference exists in attrition rates and in level of pay between male and female senior leaders. 17
  • Findings: Research Question 3 and Hypothesis 3 Attrition rates due to Gender and Level of pay Main effect of gender is not significant, F (1, 324) = .04, p = .84. Interaction between gender and pay is not significant, F (5, 324) = .98, p = .43. The results indicate a significant effect for pay, F (6, 324) = 1198.91, p = .05. Source df F P Corrected Model 12 1.56 .10Table 12 Intercept 1 373.61 <.001 Gender 1 .04 .84 Pay 6 2.14 .05 Gender * Pay 5 .98 .43 324 Error 337 Total 18 Corrected Total
  • Conclusions and ImplicationsRQ1 - To what degree is attrition related to leadershipeffectiveness?• No relationship detected• “Lame ducks” assumption not supported (Dobson Jr., 2006)• Efficacy or inefficacy in the workplace determines leadership legacy not attrition• Environmental factors may also contribute in enhancing efficacy or inefficacy (Lopez, 2004) 19
  • Conclusions and ImplicationsRQ2 - To what degree is attrition related to organizationaleffectiveness?• No significant relationship detected• Moderate negative relationships detected for three components: modeling the way (r=-.02, p=.02), challenging the process (r=-.11, p=.05), and enabling others (r=-.11, p=.04)• Results point to personal leadership behavior and skills most important factors influencing organizational effectiveness than attrition 20
  • Conclusions and ImplicationsRQ3 -To what degree are there differences in attrition rates due togender and level of pay of senior leaders?• No significance in relationship detected due to gender and level of pay• Homogeneity in the attitude of various group toward retirement 21
  • Limitations• Members of a single professional organization surveyed• Did not seek to establish causation due to the nature of the design of the method of analysis• Cross-sectional nature of the study did not allow to explore insight over time using longitudinal survey• Validity may be of concern due to personal bias of survey participants 22
  • RecommendationsStudy Replications • Larger population • Allow for generalizationMethodology: Mixed method approachCall for leadership legacy practiceCall for leadership mentoringCall for research on mentorship and attrition rates among managers 23
  • Significance to Leadership• Gap in literature inconsistent with baby boomers’ impending retirement• Senior leaders assume critical role in leveraging human resources• Understanding core assumptions surrounding issues of competency and impending retirement can help make constructive strategic decision 24
  • Concluding RemarksWhile conducting a research study on attrition, competency, and organizationaleffectiveness, the goal of any researcher is to provide the type of definitiveframework that could result in the formulation of responses to the issues ofsustainability and responsiveness to market changes, with respect to businesscontinuity, responsiveness to stakeholders’ demand. Other concerns relate todecision-making, increased emphasis of public value, the effect of publicorganization senior leader attrition has on level of effectiveness, and theleveraging of core competencies. The current research provides a foundationaltrail for future researches and it is my hope additional works might offer usefulinsights for figuring out the right mixed of policies and decision-making frompublic officials 25
  • QUESTIONS? 26
  • ReferencesAdams, G., & Beehr, T. (1998). Turnover and retirement: A comparison of their similarities and differences. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 643-665Balogun, J., Gleadle, P., Hailey, V., & Willmott, H. (2005). Managing change across boundaries: boundary-shaking practices. British Journal of Management, 16(4), 261–278.Bass, B.M. (1990, Winter). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.Benitez-Silva, H., Buchinmsky, M., Man Chan, H., Cheidvasser, S., & Rust, J. (2004). How large is the bias in self-reported disability. Journal of Applied econometrics, 19, 649-670. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from ProQuest database.Blair, B. G. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession planning. Security Management, 49(9), 94–101 . 27
  • References (Continued)Boseman, G. (2008). Effective leadership in a changing world. Journal of Financial Service ProfessionalsCreswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Cyert, R., M., March, J., G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Delong, D. (2005). A changing American workplace, as boomers retire. Retrieved January 25, 2008. from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857792Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 26-43. 28
  • References (Continued) Federal Managers Association. (2009). About FMA. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.fedmanagers.org/public/about.cfm Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (2005). How to conduct Surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gaertner, G. H., & Ramnarayan, S. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: An alternative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 97–107. • Giberson, T., R., Resick, C., J., Dickson, M., Mitchelson, J., Randall, K., & Clark, M. (2009). Leadership and Organizational Culture: Linking CEO Characteristics to Cultural Values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2) • Gorber, C., Tremblay, M., & Gorber, B. (2007). A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight, and body mass index: a systematic review. The International Association for the Study of Obesity reviews, 8, 307-326 29
  • References (Continued) Goliath. (2007). Uncle Sam Wants Fresh Talent: As baby boomers near retirement, the U.S. government confronts a daunting challenge: replenishing its ranks of employees and senior managers. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0198-399704_ITM Hanisch, K. (2009). Industrial and organizational psychology. Wadsworth Psychology Module. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://4ltrpress.cengage.com/Intro_IO%20Module%20049559489X%20 _GENERAL_site.pdf Helman, R., Copeland, C., VanDerhei, J. (2009). The2009 Retirement Confidence Survey: economy drives confidence to record lows; many looking to work longer. Employee Benefit Research Institute 30
  • References (Continued)Hopkins, W., G. (2009). A new view of statistics. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.htmlIsrael, G. (2009). Determining sample size. University of Florida. IFAS Extension. Retrieved October 18, 2009 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD00600.pdfKeeley. M., F. (1978). A social justice approach to organizational evaluation Administrative Science. Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 272-292Kouzes, J., M., & Posner, B., Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Lahaie, D. (2005). The impact of corporate memory loss: What happens when a senior executive leaves? International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 18(4/5), p.R35, (13 pages). 31
  • References (Continued)López, A. (2004). The legacy leader. Leadership with a purpose. Business Book Review Library, 21(19), p1-8,Ludwick, P. (2007). The boomers are already gone. Journal of Housing & Community Development, 64(1), 22-26. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from EBSCOHost database.Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership Across Cultures: Attachment Style Influences. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 20-30Mermin, G., Johnson, R., & Murphy, D. (2007). Why Do Boomers Plan to Work Longer? The Journals of Gerontology, 62B(5), S286- S294Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154–166. 32
  • References (Continued)Nash, J. (2010). Public-pension tab in Ohio: $4.1 billion -- and growing. Retrieved April 3, 2010 from http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/public- pension_tab_in_ohio_41.htmlNewman, Jerry L. (2009). Building a creative high-performance R&D culture. Research Technology Management, 52(5), p21-31.Nuschler, D. (2005, September 20) Social security reform: IB98048. Congressional Research Service: Issue Brief. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from EBSCOhost databasePagon, M., Banutgai, E., & Bizak, U. (2008). Leadership competencies for successful change management: A preliminary study report. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.eupan.si/uploads/media/LEADERSHIP_COMPETENCI ES.pdf 33
  • References (Continued) Pennings, J., M., Goodman, P., S. (1977). Toward a workable framework in Goodman, P., S., Pennings, J., M. (Eds). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA pp. 142-192 Rodsutti, M., & Swierczeck, F. (2002). Leadership and organizational effectiveness in multinational enterprises in Southeast Asia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5), 250-259. Scott, W. & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shamas-ur-Rehman, T., Ogunlana, S. (2009). Ineffective leadership: Investigating the negative attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(3), pp. 254 - 272 34
  • References (Continued)Vathanophas, V. (2007). Competency requirements for effective job performance in that Thai public sector. Contemporary Management Research, 3(1), 47-70Wuensch, K., L. (2004). Independent variables and dependent variables. Retrieved December 4, 2009 from http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/IV-DV.htmYoung, M. B. (2005). Building the leadership pipeline in local, state, and federal government. CPS Resource Services. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://www.ipma- hr.org/files/leadership_pipeline_research_study.pdfZinkeviciute, V. (2007). Evaluation of business strategic decision under changing environment conditions. Journal of Business Economics and Management, VIII(4), 267-274. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from EBSCOHost database. 35
  • References (Continued) Sparks, T., E. Gentry, W., A. (2008). An exploratory study of what is important now and what has changed since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 22-35. Stepanikova, I. (2004). False discovery rate methods for multiple comparisons: Utility for sociology. The annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p110480_index.html Tierney, T. J. (2006, March). The nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://www.bridgespangroup.org/PDF/LeadershipDeficitWhitePaper.p df Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196. 36
  • Backup Slides 37
  • 38
  • Table 8: Status of participants’ Finances Frequency PercentPoor 8 2.3Fair 43 12.5Good 163 47.2Very Good 100 29.0Excellent 24 7.0Subtotal 338 98.0Missing 7 2.0Total 345 100.0 39
  • Table 13: Multiple Comparisons (DependentVariable: Attrition Rate (in months) Mean 95% Confidence Interval Difference vel of Pay (J) Level of Pay (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound $50,000 $50,000-$59,999 19.33 13.636 1.000 -22.42 61.09 $60,000-$69,999 33.90 12.937 .193 -5.71 73.51 70,000-$79,999 20.83 12.505 1.000 -17.45 59.12 80,000-$89,999 16.41 12.302 1.000 -21.25 54.08 $90,000-$99,999 26.25 12.247 .688 -11.24 63.75 $100,000 and above 20.21 11.949 1.000 -16.38 56.79 00-$59,999 Under $50,000 -19.33 13.636 1.000 -61.09 22.42 $60,000-$69,999 14.57 8.624 1.000 -11.84 40.97 70,000-$79,999 1.50 7.962 1.000 -22.88 25.88 80,000-$89,999 -2.92 7.639 1.000 -26.31 20.47 $90,000-$99,999 6.92 7.551 1.000 -16.20 30.04 $100,000 and above .87 7.058 1.000 -20.74 22.48 00-$69,999 Under $50,000 -33.90 12.937 .193 -73.51 5.71 $50,000-$59,999 -14.57 8.624 1.000 -40.97 11.84 70,000-$79,999 -13.07 6.693 1.000 -33.56 7.43 80,000-$89,999 -17.49 6.306 .123 -36.79 1.82 $90,000-$99,999 -7.65 6.198 1.000 -26.62 11.33 $100,000 and above -13.69 5.587 .310 -30.80 3.41 0-$79,999 Under $50,000 -20.83 12.505 1.000 -59.12 17.45 $50,000-$59,999 -1.50 7.962 1.000 -25.88 22.88 $60,000-$69,999 13.07 6.693 1.000 -7.43 33.56 80,000-$89,999 -4.42 5.364 1.000 -20.84 12.01 $90,000-$99,999 5.42 5.237 1.000 -10.61 21.46 $100,000 and above -.63 4.497 1.000 -14.40 13.14 0-$89,999 Under $50,000 -16.41 12.302 1.000 -54.08 21.25 $50,000-$59,999 2.92 7.639 1.000 -20.47 26.31 $60,000-$69,999 17.49 6.306 .123 -1.82 36.79 70,000-$79,999 4.42 5.364 1.000 -12.01 20.84 $90,000-$99,999 9.84 4.732 .806 -4.65 24.33 $100,000 and above 3.79 3.897 1.000 -8.14 15.72 00-$99,999 Under $50,000 -26.25 12.247 .688 -63.75 11.24 $50,000-$59,999 -6.92 7.551 1.000 -30.04 16.20 $60,000-$69,999 7.65 6.198 1.000 -11.33 26.62 70,000-$79,999 -5.42 5.237 1.000 -21.46 10.61 80,000-$89,999 -9.84 4.732 .806 -24.33 4.65 $100,000 and above -6.05 3.721 1.000 -17.44 5.34 000 and above Under $50,000 -20.21 11.949 1.000 -56.79 16.38 $50,000-$59,999 -.87 7.058 1.000 -22.48 20.74 $60,000-$69,999 13.69 5.587 .310 -3.41 30.80 70,000-$79,999 .63 4.497 1.000 -13.14 14.40 80,000-$89,999 -3.79 3.897 1.000 -15.72 8.14 $90,000-$99,999 6.05 3.721 1.000 -5.34 17.44 Based on observed means. 40
  • Table 14; The Five LPI Components and Summed MeanScoresModeling the Inspiring a Challenging the Enabling Encouraging the Meanway shared vision process others to act heart 9.17 9.00 8.00 9.83 9.67 9.13 8.17 7.17 6.83 8.00 8.17 7.67 9.17 8.17 9.17 8.83 9.17 8.90 9.67 9.17 9.50 9.83 9.83 9.60 9.00 8.67 8.50 9.00 9.00 8.83 8.50 8.83 9.00 8.67 8.50 8.70 9.50 8.00 7.50 9.50 9.33 8.77 9.00 8.17 8.83 9.33 9.17 8.90 9.00 8.50 8.17 9.50 9.17 8.87 7.67 6.33 7.17 7.83 7.83 7.37 6.67 3.50 4.83 7.67 6.33 5.80 8.17 7.83 8.17 9.00 8.17 8.27 9.17 6.83 9.00 9.50 9.00 8.70 9.00 8.67 3.67 8.17 8.50 7.60 7.00 5.67 6.00 7.00 6.67 6.47 9.50 7.67 7.33 9.67 10.00 8.83 9.00 9.00 8.67 8.83 8.67 8.83 10.00 10.00 9.67 10.00 9.83 9.90 9.33 9.50 9.00 9.33 9.33 9.30 8.33 8.50 8.67 8.83 8.50 8.57 8.83 7.83 8.00 9.17 9.17 8.60 8.83 7.67 7.50 8.83 8.67 8.30 9.67 9.00 7.17 10.00 10.00 9.17 8.80 7.00 8.00 10.00 9.00 8.56 9.17 7.00 8.17 9.50 8.83 8.53 9.67 7.00 8.83 9.50 9.17 8.83 41