0 _whole issue

1,346 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,346
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

0 _whole issue

  1. 1. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Studying Efficacy of Organizational and Conceptual Factors on Manager’s Decision Amalendu Bhunia Reader, Department of Commerce Fakir Chand College, Diamond Harbour and IGNOU, Kolkata Chapter, India South 24-Parganas – 743331 West Bengal, India bhunia.amalendu@gmail.comReceived: 2011-10-23Accepted: 2011-10-29Published:2011-11-04AbstractThe purpose of the present research is to investigate the impact of organizational factors on the styles ofmanager’s decision makings and the difference between the perception of managers and employees of thestyles used by managers in India. On this basis, 100 manager and 500 employees has been chosen asstatistical sample. The analytical model of this study is based on General Decision Making Style by Scottand Bruce. Questionnaire validity, content validity and compatibility based on 10 experts and professors aswell as the experimental implementation of the questionnaire between 20 managers and 100 employees andalso analyzing exploratory factor for both questionnaires were checked. According to the Kolmogorov -Smirnov test results have confirmed the normal distribution of the data thus confirmed chi-square test,one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and the two samples T of Friedman were used.Keywords: General decision-making style, organization’s size, position of manager, perception difference,government organizations1. IntroductionDecision making in fact is the most difficult practice and sometimes the most dangerous work everymanager should do. A manager by an incorrect decision may cause irreparable damage to the body of his orher organization (Atayi, 2010). Environmental changes and shifts results in that organizations look at theirmanagers as an important factor to overcome alterations, demands and environmental challenges ahead. Insuch circumstances, managers need endless skills and capabilities (Gholi pour, 2008). Decisions are takenalong with achieving goals and by considering the available resources. Decisions determine the kind ofgoals and the way to achieve them. Therefore decision making is a mechanism which encompasses all theactivities of the organization, and indeed affects all members of the organization as an individual or as amember of the group. Organization collapsed without any mechanism to decide and to set its own target1|Pagewww.iiste.org
  2. 2. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011individuals who are looking for (Moorhead and Griffin, 2007).Stephen P Robbins thinks of decision as something present and relevant in all tasks. According to HerbertSimons decision means management and management means decisions for efficient use of energy andresources of an organization, which is essential for the manager. Kountz said the existence of plan; programand policies depend on the existence of the decisions. Studying of decision making processes is not a newtopic. In recent years, numerous studies in various fields and surrounding areas took place about decisionsmaking as a subject that results in offering several classifications so far in relation to style anddecision-making models which have been presented by experts (Olivera, 2007). Each of theseclassifications according to which categories of individual, organizational and environmental factors areimportant in the kind of reaction and behavior on how people face decision making situations are differentfrom one another (Karls et al, 2003). Corporate managers considering various influential factors such astheir personal details and their workplace organizational structure and cultural backgrounds of theenvironment use different decision making methods (Mortazavi, 2000).Hafstead (1980) believes the continuing use of a method of decision making to a considerable degreedepends on the subordinates. According to Hafstead classification from the field of culture, managerspracticing in the collectivist culture use different decision making methods in comparison to individualistculture. According to another study, four important environmental pressure factors, interaction with othermembers of the organization, responsibility requirements and characteristic peculiarities is effective inselecting the decision making method (Comer and Becker) decide how to respond to these four determiningfactors of the style by his decisions making. (Gholi Pour, 2008). Scott and Bruce paid great attention in hisstudies about decision-making styles of individuals and factors affecting its internal characteristics andindividual differences of the people. On this basis they introduced five styles of decision making as generaldecision making styles. These five styles are: rational decision-making styles, decision making style ofintuition, dependent decision making style, instantaneous decision-making style and avoidance style ofdecision making (Hadyzadh Moghaddam 2009).Its aim is to find checking the effect of organizational factors like (size, position in the organizationalhierarchy) and the difference of perception between staff and managers about decision making.2. Review of Related LiteraturesOn the subject of this study, the definition of decision making, decision making styles and empirical studiesof decision making are described as follows:2.1 Decision makingHarrison (1987) defines decision making in this way: ((.... a moment in a continuous process of evaluationoptions to achieve the goal of different expectations about how certain actions to decision makers choose theoption that is highly likely to achieve the goal one seeks)) (Roshandel 2009). Prediction, evaluation andcomparing the outcome of solutions available and choosing the available solution for certain to be able toreach an optimal outcome is called decision (Atayi 2010). Decision making is a process which according tothat a specific way of practicing for problem solving is chosen (Astuner, 1982). Munday assigndecision-making process to find various aspects, evaluate and select one among them. This process isobvious in all responsibilities of the manager and helps him in doing all those tasks. (Gholi Poor, 2008).2.2 Decision making Style2|Pagewww.iiste.org
  3. 3. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011Decision making Style has been defined as a habitual pattern that people use when deciding (Driver, 1971)or is called special way of individuals to receive and respond to the decision-making tasks (Harn, 1979).Drive, Bursiue and Mansakar (1990) have noted that the style of decision-making is defined by the amountof information collected and the number of other solutions when the decision is considered. Althoughothers suggest that it is called the differences that people collect data (Hunt, Criztokhiat, Mindel, Viusery,1989, Mackenny and Kane, 1974, 1983 Bruce and Scott 1995). In other words, each individualdecision-making style approach and procedure shows his personality and his reaction to the decision task(Thunholm, 2003). Style of decision-making behavior from a perceptional point of view indicate the kindof behavior and the way people encounter situations when the decision is made (Spicer and Smith, 2005).2.3 Rational Decision Making StyleRational decision-making style conceptually represents a decision to follow a completely logical processwhen it is going to be made. According to rational style objectives are defined clearly, all possible solutionsare selected according to identified goals and finally the best solution is implemented. (Singh, Greenhouse1, 2004).2.4 Intuitive Decision Making StyleIntuitive decision-making style from a perceptual point of view shows the individual’s trust to hisawareness and internal intuition when deciding. Managers of the intuitive style when deciding withoutneeding rational reasons to be a just solution chosen, based on insights into consciousness and instinctschose a solution that seems to fit.(Falloup and et al, 2006).2.5 Dependent Decision Making StyleDependence decision making style from a conceptual point of view represents the mere reliance of thedecision maker to help and guidance from others when faced with decision situations. People, who enjoy thisstyle due to weakness in consciousness and inability to receive information from their environment, aretotally dependent upon others while taking decisions. (Singh and Greenhouse, 2004)2.6 Instantaneous Decision making StyleInstantaneous decision making style conceptually represent decisions as fast and short as possible andinstantly when facing decision situations.2.7 Avoidance Decision Making StyleAvoidance decision making style from a conceptual point of view means dodge any persons decision toadopt when faced with decision situations. In other words people who have this style when confronted withissues and topics that require decisions on their behalf delay the decision as far as possible (Spicer andSmith, 2005).2.8 Difference between managers and staff perceptions of the style used by the managerIt means the existing level of disagreements about the usage of general decision making styles amongemployees and managers. Style in terms of operational decisions is a score that a person gets on thequestionnaire of decision making style. Different perceptions of managers and staff in the style manager usein the organization: The difference from the operational point of view would be the amount of disagreementbetween two questionnaire of management and staff.3. MethodologyThis study made use of a quantitative research approach, and from the viewpoint of relationship between the3|Pagewww.iiste.org
  4. 4. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011variables (dependent and independent variables) is a type of correlation research.3.1 Population and SampleThe population for this study includes all employees and managers in the counties, governorships and in thegeneral-governor of India in the years 2010.Which according to 2010 statistics is 920 people among which352 are selected including 60 managers and 290 employees which have been classified through a randomsampling method with a simple proportional allocation.3.2 Research InstrumentThe measuring instrument used was a structured questionnaire which was developed and validated byBruce and Scott (1995); Hadyzadeh and Tehrani(2008) Of course with the help of this questionnaire thecontent validity were also approved by professors and managers too where for the structural validity ofexploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and the KMO index was used. The KMO value equals 0.852and the Bartlett test, even at a meaningful level of 0.99% (Sig = 0.000) is rejected. Note that the variancesare equal to 55.21 and specific values of each factor were greater than one, we conclude that the credibilityfactor of this variable is appropriate.3.3 ReliabilityReliability of questionnaires to measure the Cronbachs alpha was calculated that 0.817 of the reliability ofCronbachs alpha showed good general decision-making style questionnaire. Regarding the use ofKolmogorov – Smirnov test the normality of data distribution was confirmed and the appropriate tests wereused as follows. Chi-square test is used to check for the study of relationship status in decision making style.MANOVA or multivariate one-sided is used to investigate the relationship between style of decision-makingmanagers and size of organization. The two sample T test was used to check for homogenization of stylesused by managers and the style diagnosed used by the staff for managers. Friedman test was used for showingthe ranking of decision-making from the perspective of managers and employees and Pearson correlation testwas used to determine correlation between the styles used by managers. Using two software SPSS 18 andLISREL 8.5 analysis was developed and answers were codified with Likert’s range of five options.The collections of questions are offered in two questionnaires. The first questionnaire for managers andofficials, and the second questionnaire for employees and manager’s assistant. Each questionnaire includedtwo set of questions, the first part of the questions related to demographic data of the respondent and thesecond Part of the questionnaire to measure decision-making styles of managers and directors from theperspective of staff which includes 25 questions. 5 of 25 questions are related to the rational style, 5 tointuitive style, 5 to dependent style, 5 to instant style and 5 to avoidance style.3.4 ValidityWhen assessing validity, researchers determines whether a measure used in the study actually does measurewhat the researchers in tends in to measure. As already indicated, the measurement instrument developedby Bruce and Scott (1995); Hadyzadeh and Tehrani (2008) was used in this study. The instrument wasconsidered valid for the purpose of the present study.3.5 Research frameworkResearch framework developed in this study has used the theoretical principles which have been taken fromthe ideas and opinions of experts, scholars and scientists in management science. In designing variables andtheir dimensions we used Tanenbaum and Schmitt, path - goal theory, Heller theory, Fiedler leadership4|Pagewww.iiste.org
  5. 5. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011contingency theory and also to evaluate them in three stages by a number of university professors and anumber of senior managers. Dependent variables from general decision making styles that were introducedby Bruce and Scott (1995) were used because of completeness and relative comprehensiveness to theclassification with highest usage of in internal and external research was.Theories that have been mentioned above have been used as following in choosing the independent variables.From Tanenbaum and Schmidt theory, largeness and smallness (the size of the organization), nature oforganizational tasks (institutional status and hierarchy) and the theory of perception were used. From thepath-goal theory (House and Mitchell) in order to determine the environmental variables such as position inthe hierarchy, variable and size like the perception of the style used for this theory. This theory has been usedin this context that differences in decision-making skills exists among managers and subordinates(employees). Also under this theory, the leader and director’s responsibility is to match his actions to coupwith the contingency situations. But with using these cases, we recognize the importance of views andperceptions of employees and managers with decision-making styles. we choose it as the independentvariable and from the theory of Heller the position of manager as variable is emphasized. Because,according to Heller theory the importance of decision for the organization is crucial for choosing the style andthis related to the decision maker and his position.According to Heller another effective cases for choosing the style is the gaps in the hierarchy whichemphasis manager’s position.Heller mentions span of control as another important factor in choosing decision making style (Heler, 1998).This will confirm the size and position variable because the position in the hierarchy and the size andposition as a place that can monitor more or Less effectively (In the general-governor example according tothe size and position success of surveillance area is larger than the county governor and the governors staffand area monitoring is more than the county administrator. According to Heller who conceded that the timeand place specific requirements is very important in selecting the style of decision making procedure andalso the nature of the tasks (Project and Association Managers) has been noticed again and place has beenemphasized.3.6 Research HypothesesHypothesis IH0: There is relationship between organizational factors and management decision-making styles.H1: There is relationship between the position of managers in organizational hierarchy and decision makingstyles.Hypothesis IIH0: There is relationship between organization size and the style of decision making.H1: There is difference between managers and staff perceptions of decision-making styles4. Empirical ResultsAccording to chi-square test (Table 1) statistics and P-value = 0.015 which α = 0.05 is smaller, assumptionof zero meaning the independent position of managers and the tendency the type of decision making stylesrejected and meaningful correlation between these two will be accepted. Considering the above table it isobserved that most managers who are employed in the Governor-General (nearly 50 percent) use rationalstyle. It is seen that the dominant style in the governors management style used is intuitive. In the county it5|Pagewww.iiste.org
  6. 6. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol 3, No.7, 2011 is also observed that the dominant style used by managers is dependent style Links to organization sizeManager’sManager’s Position Governor-General Governor County Total Decision making Style Rational 50.0 20 20 41.7 Intuitive 44.1 53.6 25 36.7 Dependent 5.9 16.4 50 21.7 Sum 200 200 100 100 Chi-Square results 12.327 df = 4 P =0.017 Table-1: Adaptive table and chi-square test to evaluate relationship of the position of managers and decision-making style 6|Page www.iiste.org
  7. 7. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-2: Descriptive Statistics; Effect of Size of Organization on Decision Making Styles Organization Mean Standard Deviation Governor-General 2.71 0.64 Governor 3.30 0.63 Intuitive County 2.58 0.70 Total Sum 2.86 0.68 Governor-General 2.84 0.69 Governor 2.93 0.83Dependency County 3.55 0.69 Total Sum 3.53 0.71 Governor-General 3.46 0.76 Governor 2.24 0.98 Rational County 2.11 0.94 Total Sum 2.26 0.84 Governor-General 2.29 1.08 Governor 2.31 1.02 Instant County 2.17 0.72 Total Sum 2.38 1.00 Governor-General 1.65 0.77 Governor 1.76 1.03 Avoidant County 1.50 0.52 Total Sum 1.67 0.80 Table 2 indicates descriptive statistics based on the organization. It can be seen for each style based on organizations means are not equal and a difference between them is observed. According to Table 2 it can be seen that the rational style scores is greater for Governor-General, therefore it is said that Governor-general Managers have greater tendency to use a rational style. For intuitive style mean scores is greater for governor office, consequently it is said that governor managers have greater tendency to use intuitive style. For dependent style mean scores for the county is larger, therefore it is said that county managers have greater tendency to use the dependent style. For two style of avoidant and instantaneous we can’t say which organizations uses this kind of style more because approximately they have equal means. Table 3 show the homogeneity of variance tests indicated that homogeneity of variance test here will be accepted with regard to Sig = 0.142. Most often this test is rejected, in which the statistical population is non-normal; but data in this study is normal. Two indexes of Pillais Trace and Wilks Lambda are used to show this matter that weather the mean for the group offered are equal or not. Most social science studies use Wilks Lambda index. The Pillais Trace is also a good substitute for this. 7|Page www.iiste.org
  8. 8. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-3: Homogeneous variance test Boxs M 53.769 F 1.490 df1 30 df2 3658.630 Sig .142 Table-4: Multivariate analysis of one way variance to evaluate the relationship between the kind of management decisions style and size of organization Coefficients Coefficients F Valence Sig. Coefficient of Degree relationship between two factors aConsta Pillais Trace .987 811.083 5.000 .000 .987 a nt Wilks Lambda .013 811.083 5.000 .000 .987Amoun t Age Pillais Trace 1.202 8.212 10.000 .002 .401 a Wilks Lambda 1.802 7.238 10.000 .006 .405In this section it can be seen that the Wilks Lambda is equal to 1.802 and Sig = 0.006 showing that this testis statistically meaningful. (F (10, 106) = 7.24, P <0.05) shows that the hypothesis of equality between theaverage of three organizations for the styles used by managers can be rejected and it can be shown that inany organization of which style is used more. Also according to the last column of Table 4 (the relationshipbetween two factors) can be seen this ratio is equal to 0.405 which show a good relationship betweenorganization size and type of style management use.Hypothesis II: There is difference between managers and employees perception in the organizationdecision-making styles.To investigate this hypothesis, we first check it completely to decide if there is difference betweenmanager’s and the style of its managers told by the employees that there is a difference or not? If thedifference was meaningful we would use Friedman test and the gaps would be identified.If in this test α = 0.05 P-value < the assumption of equal means is rejected and the assumption of existingdifferences is accepted.8|Pagewww.iiste.org
  9. 9. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-5: Two sample T test to evaluate homogeneity of style used by managers and the style diagnosed by the employees for the managers p-value T Valence Mean Standard Mean Number Group Title Degree differences Deviation and confidence interval 0.001 3.32 384 .21, (.086 , .69786 3.24 100 Managers Homogeneity of 0.34) Style used by .38379 3.03 500 Employees managers and the distinguished style used by Employees for managersAccording to Table 5 and test results it can be seen that according to values for t = 3.32 and P-value = 0.001 andthe value of the mean difference equaled to 0.21 the result is a meaningful difference between the style used bymanagers and the type style used by Managers from employees viewpoint. As it is observed, the style managershave offered about their decisions is different from the employees recognize for their managers.To show this difference it was acted as follows:Table-6: Friedman test ratings of decision-making styles from the viewpoint of managers and employees Style Used with Managers from Employees Style Used with managers Perspective Decision making Style Rank Coefficient Rank Coefficient 3 2.99 1 3.98 Rational 1 3.97 2 3.84 Intuitive 2 3.52 3 2.98 Dependent 4 2.70 4 2.13 Instant 5 1.83 5 2.07 A Table-7: Friedman test as a meaningful one on prioritizing the style used by managers and the style used by managers through employee’s viewpoint Style Used by Managers from Employees Viewpoint Style Used by managers 290 60 Number 319.291 102.385 4 4 Valence Degree .000 .000 9|Page www.iiste.org
  10. 10. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011The test results used for the styles of managers with value of chi-square = 102.385 and on the two-star level(sig = 0.000) is meaningful. Also test to see the style used by managers from employees viewpoint werechecked. The test result value chi-square = 319.29 and with the value of 0.001 at the two stars level ismeaningful.According to the coefficient table of Friedman test we can show the gap in the T-Test as indicated.Considering the table it can be concluded that the rational style is of the first priority or the dominant styleused by the managers. So it is observed regarding the employees opinion that is given if the test result inthe desired employee is observed that this style is located in the third rank. Intuitive style is ranked secondin place by manager’s opinion but it is in the first place by employee’s. Also it can be seen that the directorshave declared that their third priority in the decision making process is the dependency style, whileaccording to employees in management decision making process this style is in the second priority. Forinstant and avoidance style managers and employees ideas are the same, and they are given the same rank.Now that the overall gap and the difference between the viewpoints of employees were identified in thissection we investigate the difference and gap between the viewpoints of staff and managers in differentorganizations separately. In this test if α = 0.05 >P-value supposing equal means is rejected and theassumption of existing data is accepted.According to Table 8 and the test results, it is observed for the Governor-general according to t = 4.9 andP-value = 0.000 and mean difference in the amount equal to 0.46, we can conclude that there is ameaningful differences between the mean type of model used by managers and the average type of modelUsed by managers from employees viewpoint. A model that managers offer for their decision makingprocess is different from what employees distinguished for their managers.To show this gap and difference as before we use Friedman test as follow Table-8: The two-sample T test to evaluate the homogeneity of style of manager’s used and distinguished style used by employees for managers of Governor-General Decision making Style used by Decision making Style used by Governor-General managers through Governor-General managers Employee’s Viewpoint 144 34 Number 141.945 63.130 4 4 Valence Degree .000 .00010 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  11. 11. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-9: Friedman rank test, decision styles from the viewpoint of managers and employees of the Governor-General Style used by managers From Style used by managers Governor-General Decision Employees perspective making Style Rank Coefficient Rank Coefficient 3 2.92 1 4.34 Rational 2 3.48 2 3.71 Intuitive 1 3.97 3 2.75 Dependent 4 2.69 4 2.65 Instant 5 1.94 5 1.56 Avoidant Table-10: Meaningfulness of Friedman test on prioritizing the style used by managers and the style offered for manager’s from employee’s viewpoint Decision making Style used by Decision making Governor-General managers through Style used by Employee’s Viewpoint Governor-General managers 144 34 Number 141.945 63.130 e 4 4 Valence Degree .000 .000The test results used for the styles of managers with much chi-square = 63.13 and at the two-star level (sig= 0.000) is meaningful. Also test for the style used by managers from employees viewpoint were checked.The test result value chi-square = 141.95 and 0.001 at the two star level is meaningful. According to thecoefficient table of Friedman test we can show the gap that was offered in the difference of T-Test indicated.By viewing the table it is concluded that the prevailing style of management used and to have the first priorityallocated to is the rational style. As with the following test result about the employee’s opinion, it can be seenthat the rational style for managers from employee’s viewpoint is located in the third place. From manager’sviewpoint dependency style have the third place in their decision making process; which employees in thisprocess are putting priority on dependency style for their managers. Intuitive style of the managers in theirdecision making process and from the viewpoint of employees in the process of decisions is in second place.There is no difference of opinion between managers and employees in both style avoidance and instantaneousone and both groups have put them in the fourth and fifth priority.In this test if α = 0.05> P-value, the assumption of equal means is rejected and the assumption of existingdifferences will be accepted11 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  12. 12. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-11: Two sample T test to evaluate homogeneity of style used by managers and the style diagnosed to be used by employees for their managers in the governorshipp-value t Valence Mean Standard mean Number Group Title Degree differences and Deviation confidence interval .003 2.99 127 .288, (0.097, .35 3.2857 14 Managers Homogeneity of Style 0.48) used by managers and the .34 2.9974 115 Employees distinguished style used by Employees for managers in the County According to Table 11 and test results, it can be seen that the results for governorship according to t = 2.99 P-value = 0.003 and mean difference equal to 0.288, we can conclude that there is a meaningful difference between the mean type of model used by managers and the average type style used by managers through the employees viewpoint. To show this gap and difference like the previous part we use Friedman test as follows. Table-12: Friedman test for the ranking of the decision styles of managers and employees in the governorship Styles used by managers through Styles used by managers Decision making Style employees viewpoint Governor Rank Coefficient Rank Coefficient 3 3.06 3 2.54 Rational 2 3.61 1 4.07 Intuitive 1 4.02 2 3.86 Dependent 5 1.66 4 2.34 Instant 4 2.65 5 2.00 Avoidant Table-13: Meaningfulness of Friedman test on prioritizing style intended for managers; the intended style for managers by the employee’s viewpoint Styles used by managers Styles used by managers through employees viewpoint (Governor-General) (Governor-General) Number 14 115 18.964 158.019 V 4 4 .001 .000 12 | P a g e www.iiste.org
  13. 13. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011The test results used for the styles of managers with value of chi-square = 18.96 and two-star level (Sig =0.000) is meaningful. Also the test used for managers model used from the viewpoint of employees waschecked. The test result value is meaningful for chi-square = 158.019 0.001 in the two stars. According toTable 13 Friedman coefficients test gap that has been indicated in T-Test exists a difference.With observing table 12 we can conclude that the dominant style used by managers with the first priority isthe intuitive style. While by considering the outcome of this test about the opinion of the employees it canbe seen that employee’s intuitive style of the managers from employee’s viewpoint is ranked second. On theother hand stuff believes dependence style to be in the first place, while the managers own opinion saw thedependency style in the second place.Managers have placed rational decision making style in the third priority and this is the same for employees.Managers in their process of decision making have placed instant style in the fourth place and theavoidance style in the last. In this test if α = 0.05> P-value the assumption of equal means is rejected andthe one related to existing differences will be accepted. Table-14: The two sample T test to evaluate homogeneity of style used by managers and the style distinguished by the employees for managers in the county p-value t Valence Mean differences Standard Mean Num Group Title Degree and confidence Deviatio ber interval n .013 -2.58 41 -.36, (.064-, -.07) .57 2.7 12 managers Homogeneity of style used by .33 3.03 31 Employees managers and styles diagnosed by employees for managers in the countyAccording to the above table 14 and test results we can observe that for the county according to t =- 2.58,and P-value = 0.013 and mean difference in the amount equal to 0.36-the result is a meaningful differencebetween the mean type of model used by managers and mean type of model used by managers throughemployee’s point of view.To show this gap and difference as part of the Friedman test like before we act as follow13 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  14. 14. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Table-15: Meaningfulness of Friedman test on prioritizing the style used by managers and the style used by managers from employee’s point of view Styles used by Managers through Employees Styles used by managers County’s Decision Perspective making Styles Rank Coefficient Rank Coefficient 3 3.02 3 2.79 Rational 1 3.76 2 3.50 Intuitive 2 3.39 1 4.67 Dependent 5 1.97 4 2.58 Instant 4 2.87 5 1.46 Avoidant Table-16: Friedman test for ranking decision making styles from the view point of managers and employees in the countyStyles Used by Managers from the view Styles Used by point of Employees (Governor General) Managers 31 12 Number 23.747 28.157 4 4 Valence Degree .000 .000The results of this test is meaningful for the styles used by managers with value of chi-square = 28.16 andtwo-star level (sig = 0.000). Also the test was checked for the model used by managers through employee’sviewpoint. The test result is meaningful with the value chi-square = 23.75 and 0.001 in the two star model.According to the Friedman coefficient table test we can show the gap that exists in different outcomes ofT-Test.By observing this table we can conclude that most important and the first style in managers claimed to beimportant in their decision making style is the dependency one. While this styles enjoys the second placein the decision making process of the employees. Managers have stated that using intuitive style is in thesecond priority in which employees have given it the first priority. At the county managers and staff haveplaced the rational style in the third priority and in this case there is no difference of opinion betweenmanagers and employees. Managers have placed the instant style in the fourth priority but employees claimthat managers use the as their last priority. Also managers have placed the avoidance style in the last placebut employee stated that they use this style as their fourth priority.5. Discussion and ConclusionThe purpose of the present research is to investigate the impact of organizational factors on the styles ofmanager’s decision makings and the difference between the perception of managers and employees of thestyles used by managers in the Governor-General Office in India. Finding this research indicate there arerelationship between position of managers in organizational hierarchy and decision-making style. Thefollowing research results indicated that organizational factors such as size of the organization and position of14 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  15. 15. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011director of the organization in organization’s hierarchy influence the style of overall decision makings by themanager. Also there is a meaningful difference between the perception of managers and staff about the styleof manager’s decisions.To testing the hypothesis, both Chi Square and one sample t is checked and is used in the status of eachorganization. Results of Chi Square test both with ((017 / 0 = P and 72 3 / 12 = X_14 ^ 2) showed that there ismeaningful relationship between the position of managers in organizational hierarchy and decision models.According to the table of results it can be seen the largest percentage of managers in the Governorate-generaluse rational style (50 percent) and the largest percentage of managers in the governors use intuitive style (6 /53) and the highest percentage for styles used by the managers in the county is the dependent style .(50percent).The t test results for each organization confirmed the chi-square test results. The average scores for theGovernor-General has the highest mean, which shows that in the governor-general rational style is usedwhich is the prevailing style. For the governor in the second row it shows that the majority of managers useintuitive style. Also for the county it can be seen that the mean of opinion offered was less than averagewhich shows the usage of managers from the next style or the dependent one.We survey relationship between the size of the organization (Governor – General, Governor and county) anddecision making styles. We used multivariate analysis of variance or MANOVA and due to this case that theseen meaningful is smaller than acceptable meaningful level of value (005 / 0). Therefore supposing equalmeans for all styles in any organization is rejected. So according to table results we can conclude that for therational style the highest mean is in the governor-general and for the governor the highest mean belong tointuitive style and for dependent style the highest mean can be seen in the county section of the study. But fortwo style of instantaneous and avoidant the meaningful difference between the organizations is not found. Inthis regard, I couldn’t find a research to compare the finding with. Also this research indicates there isdifference between managers and the staff perception of decision-making models in different organizations.To testing the above hypothesis in general the two-sample independent t-test and Freidman test was used.Then these tests were repeated separately to incorporate organizational hierarchy to identify differentperspectives of each organization and the following results be obtained.In the overall test the difference between the perception of management and staff from decision making stylewith values (001 / 0 = p and 32 / 3 = (348) t) were meaningful. Friedman test result showed that frommanager’s viewpoint the rational style has the highest priority, intuitive style second priority and the thirdpriority belongs to dependent style. While from staff viewpoint intuitive style highest priority, dependentstyle second priority and rational style is in the third priority. From the viewpoint of managers and employeesinstantaneous and avoidant style are in the fourth and fifth place respectively.Test results for the Governor-General with values (001 / 0> p and 9 / 4 = (76 / 0) t) has shown a meaningfuldifference for management and staff perception. Friedman test results indicated in this regard, rational stylefor managers in the highest priority, intuitive style in the second place and the dependence style on the thirdpriority. While from employee’s perspective dependent style in the highest priority, intuitive one in thesecond and rational is placed in the third priority. In instantaneous and avoidant style from the perspectiveof managers and employees are in the fourth and fifth place respectively.15 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  16. 16. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011The test for governor with a value of (003 / 0 = P and 99 / 2 = t127) show a meaningful difference betweenmanagement and staff perceptions of the decision model.Freidman test result in this case shows from manager’s perspective intuitive style has the highest priority,second priority belongs to dependent style, the third priority goes to rational style and instantaneous andavoidance styles have the fourth and fifth priorities respectively. While the results of this test from theperspective of employees showed that; dependent style in the highest priority, intuitive style in the secondpriority, rational style in the third, avoidant fourth and instantaneous style is in the fifth priority. The resultsshowed that the in the governor, from the perspective of both managers and employees the dominant style(rational) is in the third priority.Test results for the county with values (05 / 0 = α> 013 / 0 = P and 58 / 2 - = t41 showed that there ismeaningful relationship between manager’s and staff perceptions of the managers decision models. Freidmantest results in this regard showed that from the perspective of managers in the county dependency style hasthe highest priority, intuitive style in the second priority, rational style in the third priority, fourth priority goesto instantaneous style and the fifth priority belongs to avoidance style. While from the perspective ofemployees, the intuitive style has the highest priority, dependence one second, rational style third, avoidancefourth and instantaneous style has the fifth place.The results showed that in the county like governor, the dominant style used from the viewpoint of both staffand managers is in the third priority.ReferencesAtayi, M. (2010). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Shahrood, Deghat printing Company. Organizationalbehavior, Grid Publishing, Columbus, OH.Behling, o, Gifford, W.E, & Tlliver, J. M. (1980). Effects of Grouping Formation on Decision Makingunder Risk. Decision Sciences, 11, pp. 272-283.Driver, M.J. (1979). Individual Decision Making and Creativity, in Kerr, S. (Ed.), Harper Collins, pp.61-62.Driver, M.J., Brousseau, K.E. and Hunsaker, P.L. (1990). The Dynamic Decision-maker, Harper Collins, pp.9-11.Falop.janos, David, Roth, Sehweik, Charles (2006). What is Mean Decision Making in the Content of Eco– Infarmatic, www. Google.comGholipoor Rahmatullah, (2008). Organizational Decision-Making and General Policy, Tehran, publisherSamt.Harren, V.A. (1979). A Model of Career Decision Making for College Students, Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 14, pp. 119-33.Harn, Michael and M. Ramesh (2002). The Study of Public Policy Translated by Mansourian, Abbas andEbrahim Golshan Tehran, Government publications Education Center., pp. 76-81.Hadyzadeh Moghaddam, Akram and Tehrani, Maryam (2008). Studying the Relationship between GeneralDecision Making Style in Governmental Organizations. Public Research Office, Pub 1, No. 1, Autumn andWinter, From Page 123 to 138Hatch, Mary Joe, Organization theory (2006). Translated by Danaifard Hassan, Termeh Publishing Company,16 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  17. 17. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011first published in Tehran, pp. 6-7.Heler,Frank ; Drenth,Pieter ; Koopman Pool & Rus ,Velijko.(1988) .”Decision in Organization: A ThreeCountry Comparative Study” London, Sage Publication, P: 250Jean Lublan Veex,Silvi George, Holyfield C N, Lisi Stephen, Broodrick Sun Ardis (2009). Translated By Dr.Tahir Roshandel Arbtany, Tehran, Neil Printing Company.Koontz, Harold & Weirich Heinz, (1998), "Management", 9th, ed, pp. 51-54.Keen.P.G.W. (1973). The Implications of Cognitive Style for Individual Decision Making. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Harvard University Graduate School of Business, pp. 13-21.Loizos Th. Haracleous, (1996). Rational Decision Making: Myth or Reality? Management DevelopmentReview, vol 7, No 4, p 16.Moreheadd and Griffin (2006). (Translated by Dr. Seyed Mehdi Alvani – Dr. Gholam Reza Memar Zadeh)Twelfth Edition, Organizational Behavior, Tehran, Golshan Printing Company.McKenney,J,.&Keen,P (1974). How Managers Minds Work. Harvard Business Review, 52, pp. 79-90Mitroff, I.I. (1983). Stake-holders of the Organizational Mind, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.New man, Seer, (1994). Strategic, Information Systems Competition through Information Technologies,New york: Macrmillan colleges,Oliveira, Arnaldo, (2007). A Discussion Of Rational And Psychological Decision Making Theories AndModels: The Search For a Cultural-Ethical Decision Making Model, Electronic Journal of Business Ethicsand Organization Studies, Vol 12, No 2, pp 12-13P. Robbins, Stephen, (2005). Organizational Behavior, Concepts, Theories and Applications, Translated byParsaiian, Ali, Mohammed, Arabi, Cultural Research Office, Eighth Edition, preface.Spicer, David P. & Sadler-Smith, Eugene (2005). An Examination of the General Decision Making Style,Journal or Managerial Psychology, Vol 20, No 2, pp 137-138.Singh, Romila and Greenhouse jeffryh. (2004). The Relation between Career Decision Making Strategiesand Person-Tohfit, journal of vocational behavior Bruce and Scott, pp. 1995 -15Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1995). Decision Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a NewMeasure, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55, pp. 818-831.Tehrani, Maryam (2006). Studying the Effect of Emotional Intelligence and General Style of DecisionMaking for Managers in Iranian Oil Company, Masters thesis, University of Shaheed Beheshti.Tatum, Charles B., Eberlin, Richard, Kottraba, Crin, Bradberry, Travis, (2003). Leadership, DecisionMaking and Organization Justice, Journal of Management Decision, p 1007, The current issue and full textof this journal is available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747- htmlThunholm, Peter (2004). Decision-Making Style: Habit, Style or both?, Journal of Personality andIndividual Differences, pp 932-933.17 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  18. 18. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 Healthcare Management and Leadership: Managerial Challenges Facing Healthcare Professionals Vincent Sabourin GRES, University of Qué in Montreal (UQAM) bec School of Management, University of Qué in Montreal (UQAM) bec Correspondence: UQAM, ESG School of Management, 315 east St-Catherine Montreal Qc. Canada H3C 4P2. Suggestions are welcome: sabourin.vincent@uqam.caReceived: 2011-10-23Accepted: 2011-10-29Published:2011-11-04AbstractThis paper sought to study issues which may hinder leadership management by health care managers whenexecuting their management functions and objectives in practice. The managerial drivers included: rules,initiatives, emotions, immediate action and integrity. This paper describes the drivers of managementleadership by managers in healthcare institutions to implement their organizational objectives. The findingson perception towards delivery, performance and professional satisfaction by healthcare managers has put alot of emphasis on resistance to change and the lack of commitment of employees (the dimension ofemotions) to explain the obstacles faced by healthcare managers. The finding of our data suggests that adriver of emotions is the most critical obstacle to healthcare management .Purpose: This research was carried out to investigate on the impediments facing healthcare practioners withregard to their delivery, performance and professional satisfaction. The study involved effective drivers ofmanagement, which constituted individual obstacles that healthcare administrators and physicians faceduring their leadership and managerial execution.Materials and Methodology: A mixed method of qualitative (focus group discussion) and quantitative (asurvey with a questionnaire) approaches was applied to this study. These involved group discussion ofhealthcare employees and administrators in public healthcare hospitals in a Canadian province. The totalnumber of surveyed healthcare managers was 182.Results: The years of practice for most healthcare mangers was found to be a factor in delivery. Young andfresh graduates though are very productive cannot deliver not unless they have accumulated relevantexperience to master those disciplines of healthcare management and administration. Additionally it wasalso found that those managers who had held management position for over twenty years become lessproductive. Thus from the responses of healthcare managers, there should be rotational leadership andemployee growth to prepare young but able future leaders. With regards to the drivers of management, itwas established that the driver of emotions holds the highest consideration to delivery, performance andprofessional satisfaction with the kind of leadership exercised by healthcare managers. This driver had85.67% of the respondents who agreed, 11% were neutral and 10% disagreed. Other drivers were; driversof rules, which after analysis, was found to have 80% respondents who agreed with it, 8.33% were neutral18 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  19. 19. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011while 11.57% disagreed with the driver. The driver of initiatives had 74.33% responses from agreeingmanagers, 20% were neutral while 17% disagreed. The driver of integrity had 75.33% respondents whoagreed with the driver, 20.67% were neutral while 4% disagreed. The driver of immediate action had66.67% of the respondents agreeing, 27.33% were neutral while 6% disagreed. The summary of the reporthas been presents in table 4.Conclusion: Our research discusses the significance of understanding the managerial obstacles faced byhealthcare managers when exercising their leadership roles so as to have effective delivery, performanceand professional satisfaction. We also discussed how the nature of healthcare managers’ measures variesbetween the managers employed in government and private institutions. Using descriptive Analysis, ourresearch studied the managerial obstacles that hamper the healthcare managers in implementing theirobjectives to achieve defined leadership. The findings supported our hypothesis that the main obstaclesfaced by healthcare managers are related to the drivers of emotions. Further this study also indicates thatthe category of immediate action such as too many emergencies and urgent issues going unresolved withoutsolutions would be perceived by healthcare managers as obstacles.Keywords: Healthcare leadership, Managerial execution, Professional satisfaction,1. IntroductionHealth care systems in most countries are under pressure to deliver better healthcare services to widepopulation of people. An improvement in healthcare services in any country requires a clear understandingof the human resources characteristics as well as the current working of the healthcare systems. As recentlydescribed by Fleishman et al., (1991), provision of an adequate health care workforce is now consideredone of the most pressing global human resource issues worldwide. To recruit and retain health care workersattention to the professional satisfaction of these workers is essential. Professional satisfaction is nowassociated with roles and responsibilities, interdisciplinary relationship, remuneration issues, and otherimportant factors like the public recognition of the health care discipline (Fielder 1967; Fiedler 1996).The healthcare system in any country depends highly on how well its managers and administrators areconstantly working with their employees to improve the quality of their services, which in turn helps in theimprovement of the quality of the life of the citizens (Fleishman 1953; Fairholm 1996). This is to mean thatjunior employees should be involved in key sectors of the hospital management despite having beenassigned routine tasks of treatment. This will help foster the morale of such usually less motivated staff(Fleishman & Harris 1962).A number of countries including Canada are hugely faced by staff turnover to other countries, and this iswidely contributing to a number of challenges in key areas such as healthcare systems. This therefore callsfor the healthcare administrators to understand, key employee factors such as push factors and pull factors(Pointer et al., 1988). They ought to understand what motivates employees, in terms of morale, supervision,career development and paths for growth, and job security (Morrissey et al., (1990). Accordingly, they alsoneed to be fully aware of pull factors such as better opportunities offered by other countries and NGOs soas to retain their well qualified personnel. A clear orientation with the managerial drivers such rules,initiatives, integrity, immediate action and emotions will be relative to administrators to better understandthe various obstacles that they face in their discipline (Becker & Huselid, 1998).Healthcare management is an immediate task that is currently facing modern professionals in that field ofhuman perpetuity and sustainability against premature deaths and other health contingencies. Thesemanagers have been faced with numerous challenges and obstacles which in management could be termedas managerial obstacles facing healthcare leaders as argued by Zuckerman (1989). It is evident in anyorganization that in order to achieve the organizational set goals and objectives, then effective strategyexecutions have to be formulated.19 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  20. 20. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 20111.1 Aims of the studyThis research was carried out to investigate on the impediments facing healthcare practioners with regard totheir delivery, performance and professional satisfaction. The study involved effective drivers ofmanagement, which constituted individual obstacles that healthcare administrators and physicians faceduring their leadership and managerial execution. The researchers employed managerial drivers whichincluded; rules, initiatives, integrity, immediate action and emotions to better identify key obstacles thatface healthcare managers and administrators.1.1.1 Conceptual FrameworkOur conceptual framework is inspired by the work of Kolb (1984) and Kolb and Boyatzis (1995) onexperiential learning and additional work on the topic (Richard and Sabourin, 2009a; Sabourin, 2009a). Wefound that the conceptual model of Kolb (1984) provided us with a completed spectrum of perspective onthe topic of strategy execution. Based on this perspective, our conceptual framework suggests that fivedifferent, but complementary drivers could be obstacles faced by managers when executing their strategy. Areview of the literature in management and of the Kolb model (1984) and subsequent work (Richard andSabourin, 2009; Sabourin 2009) has led us to develop a conceptual framework of five drivers adapted tomanagement leadership in healthcare domain. We labeled these drivers as follows:The first driver of rules deals with the clarification and alignment of the manager’s objectives. The firstdriver gathers variables that refer to factual and rational analysis of given situations. This perspective leadsto concept forming and formulation of generalizations that integrate the observations and the reflections.The economic planning and the analysis are prevailing in this dimension. Obstacles deal with figures,figures and protocols. Decision-making is based on facts and abstract principles.The second driver of emotions deals with getting a commitment to the manager’s objectives by itsemployees. This driver gathers variable dealing with topic such as fetching a commitment, clarifyingproblems, reconciling the divergent points of view and establishing consensus. In this second situation, wemake a thoughtful observation that consists of making observations on the experience lived by the personsand of thinking about their meaning.The third driver of initiatives deals with translating managerial objectives into concrete projects foremployees. It gathers variables dealing with introduction of new projects and ideas that results in morewilling and more capable employees. This third driver relies on the active experiment of initiatives; realizeprojects and continuous improvements to the existing activities.The fourth driver of immediate action gathers variables that reflect creating value-added action orimmediate actions in response to urgent matters in the execution of objectives. It addresses concrete actionand those that allows rapid actions on small scale to obtain quick results. Thus, the variables deal withquick decision taking without respect to an established plan.The fifth dimension of integrity deals with executing objectives in the context of integrity of values andprinciples. It gathers variables associated with executing objectives in respecting organizational values andprinciples. These variables refer to obstacles faced concerning organizational values. This is the capacity torealize the organization objectives in the respect of the integrity under pressure. The summary of the drivershas been presented in fig 3.1.1.2 Hypothesis formulationBased on the preceding research model developed from the conceptual framework of Kolb (1984), fivehypotheses are formulated.20 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  21. 21. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011With the assessment of the Kolb (1984) experiential learning model, there are a number of obstacles thatmanagers in any organization or institution would face while aiming to achieve their objectives and goals.These therefore would lead to the formulation of the following hypothesis.Hypothesis 1: In the context of management leadership in healthcare administration, healthcare managerswould face five categories of management obstacles while executing their objectives.Managers are always on the move to ensure that their employees are committed towards achieving set goalsand objectives. This involves reconciling divergent needs and ensuring that only organizational goals are ofpriority as opposed to individual goals and interests. This therefore leads to the formulation of the followinghypothesis.Hypothesis 2: With regards to the management obstacles faced by healthcare managers, the mostsignificant obstacle perceived would be the drivers of emotions.Besides stimulating commitments, managers have an overall role of ensuring that all the obstacles faced bytheir organization and employees in particular are given an equal measure and treatment so to have abalanced performance in their work and objective attainment. This therefore leads to the followinghypothesis formulation.Hypothesis 3: With the exception of drivers of emotions, the other categories of obstacles would beperceived and given equivalent weight age in terms of importance among healthcare managers.Managers have a greater role in taking immediate action and steps to settle urgent matters and decisionswhen striving to achieve their objectives. These steps involve rather rapid decisions to meet whatever is tobe realised in the shortest time possible. This statement therefore leads to the formulation of the followinghypothesis.Hypothesis 4: Given the volatility in healthcare environment, in the driver of immediate action, healthcaremanagers would perceive a number of emergencies.Managers dealing with their employees are at times forced to clarify their objectives in line with theanticipated actual results. This clarity of issues helps to develop focus and attention and even highercommitment by the employees, which are involved in the overall performance and execution of the setgoals. This therefore leads to the formulation of the following hypothesis.Hypothesis 5: Given the perception that no singular performance measure exist for healthcare managers ingovernment healthcare institutions compared to healthcare managers in private practice, lack of clarity inthe actual results expected would be perceived as a key obstacle under the driver of rules.1.1.3 Research Methodology and DesignThis study is a part of a broader research on managerial strategy implementation and implementation wasconducted in four major steps. In our study the dependent variable was strategy implementation andimplementation and the independent variables: (a) Dimension of rules, (b) dimension of emotions, (c)dimension of initiatives, (d) dimension of immediate actions and (e) dimension of integrity. We presentbriefly each of the major steps before examining them in details:Firstly, in a previous research and before undertaking the study of this article, we surveyed a sample of 182managers in organizations. This first step was completed to empirically support the four dimensions ofKolb (1984) using its measurement instrument. These four dimensions had a significant degree of varianceexplained.21 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  22. 22. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011Secondly, before undertaking this study, we developed a specific instrument capable of measuringmanagement leadership within their organization. To do so we completed a set of 12 focus groups withmanagers working to survey from a qualitative perspective, the set obstacles that they faced. They weregathered under the 4 categories of the conceptual framework of Kolb (1984). However, following thisqualitative survey of obstacles faced by managers, a fifth category of obstacle that did not fit within theconceptual framework of Kolb (1984) was added: that is the one of integrity of values.Thirdly, we used the qualitative survey of these 25 obstacles to develop a measurement instrument underthe form of a questionnaire to survey empirically the relative importance of the various categories ofobstacles. This questionnaire was previously validated with a sequential set of 5 small samples of managersto improve the formulation of the various questions and insure its statistical reliability.The following sections explain the details of each of these four methodological stepsStep 1: Empirical validation of the four dimensions of Kolb (1984)The objective of this first step before undertaking our study was to validate empirically the four dimensionsof the conceptual framework of Kolb (1984). The validation was based on the Learning Style Inventory ofKolb (1984) with some adjustments to the managerial context.1. Data was collected by managers through structured training in the countries of the Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Three regions of the world, namely, Europe, NorthAmerica and Australia, were randomly selected. 168 respondents completed the questionnaire.2. The measuring instrument of (Kolb1984), which is the Learning Style Inventory, has been used since theinitial variables were related to the modes of learning. Our questionnaire was adapted to answer thequestions on the strategies of transformation, and we validated the questions during executive seminar withthe managers of the organization.3. To make sure that each of the questions was understood, the validation was preceded by a pre-testconducted on 15 referees of the Belgian Management Training Association. All questions were suitablyunderstood and adjustments were made with one to clarify its understanding from the respondents.4. Descriptive analyses were completed to identify certain characteristics of the sample. Frequency analysisand the test of Cronbach Alpha were completed. The results of R-square (degree of explained variance bythe model) and factorial analyses were used to verify the hypotheses. As shown in table 2, reference ismade to the Cronbach Alpha, an indicator of reliability with the measuring scale between 0 (not reliable ofthe whole) and 1 (reliable).5. Four of the five dimensions of our conceptual framework have been validated in previous research. Thefirst four dimensions had a positive Cronbach alpha and the fifth dimension (integrity) was addedafterwards following the qualitative research focus groups. Table 2 below presents the concept definitionalong with the variance and reliability obtained as shown in the next table. Each dimension (with theexception of the fifth one) was supported by a significant variance explained and a significant Cronbachalpha.Step 2: Focus groups with managers to identify managerial obstaclesIn the second step, and before undertaking this specific study, we completed focus groups with managers tolist the various obstacles they face for each of the dimensions previously identified. Twelve focus groupswere conducted with an average of 15 managers per group to identify obstacles faced by managers. Weidentified 5 obstacles for each of the 5 dimensions for a total of 25 obstacles. The obstacles were selected22 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  23. 23. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011based on the frequency among the participants for each of the focus groups. The obstacles identified wereused as input to elaborate the measurement instrument related to obstacles.Step 3: Development of a measurement instrumentWe further developed an instrument tool to measure the role of the 25 obstacles that were identified withmanagers in focus groups. We used the verbatim of the focus group to elaborate a survey to validate theseobstacles. A pre-test of questionnaire was administered and the questions were sequentially adjusted withfive groups of approximately 25 managers per group before being rolled out to a larger sample of managers.Several adjustments were made in these 5 pre-test to insure the statistical behavior of each questions. Thetable below presents each of the 25 questions that were completed by the participants.The step 4 consisted of surveying a group of 322 managers in a governmental Department of a Canadianprovince. The participants were all managers and project managers with an information technologybackground and were in charge of supervising information technology projects. The group was selected toinsure the homogeneity of the respondents in terms of origins, task and functions.In the specific context of this research, we surveyed this specific group of managers to better understandobstacles facing managers.In our sample, an average of 36% of managers was responsible for 5 to 19 employees working under them.Median years of service at the current organization have been 5 to 10 years of which a majority (76%)having spent less than 5 years at their current managerial position. Majority of the respondents (80%) were49 years old or younger. There were no significant differences between this sample of 182 and the broadersample of managers (n=322) used in previous research.A selection of other methods was used in an attempt to interpretation. The investigators had no vestedinterest in the enhance response rates, including: 1) ensuring that the survey specific outcomes of the survey,was user-friendly, 2) ensuring anonymity and uncensored responses from our neutral academic unit, 3) theuse of several contact methods (meeting, telephone, fax, email, newspaper articles) to solicit participation,4) ensuring timely respondent access to survey results, and 5) promoting the potential benefits of the resultsto the profession within the country. This was a voluntary anonymous survey. Completion of the survey wasconsidered consent for the participant.1.1.3.1 Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures for this study were professional demographics and the extent of agreement topositively phrased statements regarding their delivery, performance and professional satisfaction withemphasis on the management drivers.1.1.3.2 Data analysisFor the purpose of this research, data analysis was unfunded assessment solicited by the Canadian SupremeCouncil of Health. To minimize any perception of potential bias and loss of anonymity, the researcherswere solely responsible for the administration of survey questionnaires, data collection, analysis andinterpretation. The researchers had no vested interest in the specific outcomes of the survey.1.1.4. Findings and ResultsOne hundred and seventy two online survey accesses were recorded during the designated survey collectionperiod. This represents 58% of all healthcare managers practicing in Canada. Twenty two of the surveyswere found to contain no responses or respondent duplicated survey attempts and were thus neglected. The23 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  24. 24. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011remaining two hundred and fifty surveys contained responses to one or more questions and were includedin the analysis. We noted that not all participants provided responses to all the survey questions.1.1.4.1 Respondent demographicsThe socio-demographic and years of practice characteristics are summarized in table 2. This was based inthe years of practice in administrative and management positions since commencing the employment. 90respondents reported to have held management position for a period of less than 5 years. This represented aresponse rate of 30%. 100 respondents reported to have been in management position for periods rangingfrom 6 to 10 years, thus netting a response rate of 40%. Between 11 to 15 years, there were 50 respondentswho scored a response rate of 14.67%. 32 respondents reported having held an administrative role inhealthcare institution for period of 16-20 years, and had a response rate of 10.67%. Those who had heldthose positions for periods of over 20 years were 14 respondents, netting a response rate of 4.67%. Thisinformation is summarized in table 2.1.1.4.2 The perception towards delivery, performance and professional satisfaction and managementobstaclesTable 3 shows the extent of agreement with perception towards delivery, performance and professionalsatisfaction with healthcare management under the different variables of the respective drivers ofmanagement adopted from the previous researches and as outlined in the conceptual framework. In thisresearch, views and opinions were solicited from 182 hundred respondents who were in management oradministrative positions in healthcare institutions selected for study. The drivers were:1) rules, 2) emotions,3) initiatives, 4) integrity and 5) immediate action.Under the driver of rules, there were variables labeled; V 1, V2, V3, V4, V5 respectively. From the descriptiveanalysis of variable V1, 92% of the respondents agreed with this variable, 2.67% were neutral and 5.53%disagreed with this variable. With respect to variable V 2; 70.67% agreed, 9.33% were neutral while 20%disagreed. V3; had 85% agreeing, 10.67% undecided and 4.35% disagreeing. V4 recorded 67.33% agreeingrespondents, 11.33% were neutral while 21.33% disagreed. Variable V 5 had 85.67% agreeing, 7.67%neutral respondents and 6.67% disagreeing respondents.Under the driver of emotions, there were variables labeled; V6, V7, V8, V9 V10 respectively. As per thefindings from the descriptive analysis, V6 had 84.67% respondents agreeing with the variable, 12% wereneutral while 3.33% disagreed. With regards to V 7, 87.33% agreed, 9.33% were neutral while 3.33%disagreed. V8 recorded 87% agreement, 8% neutral and 5% disagreement. V 9 had 80% agreeingrespondents, 16.67% neutral and 3.33% disagreeing. V 10 had 87% agreeing, 8.33% were neutral while4.67% were recorded as disagreed.Under the driver of initiatives, there were variables labeled; V11, V12, V13, V14, V15 respectively. From thedescriptive analysis, V11 recorded 79% respondents agreed with this variable, 16.33% were neutral while4.67% disagreed. V12 had 75.33% respondents agreed, 19.67% were neutral while 5% disagreed. V13 wasnoted to have 78% of the respondents agreed, 18% were neutral while 4% disagreed. V 14 was found to have65.67% respondents who agreed, 23.33% were neutral while 11% disagreed. Lastly V 15 had 73.33%agreeing, 19.33% neutral and 7.33% disagreeing with the variable.Concerning the driver of integrity, there were variables labeled as; V 16, V17, V18, V19, V20. V16 had 79%respondents agreeing, 16% were neutral, and 5% disagreeing. V 17 recorded 72% respondents who agreed,25% were neutral while 3% disagreed. V18 had 80% of the respondents agreeing, 16% of the respondentswere neutral while 4% disagreed. V19 scored 70% agreeing respondents, 27.33% were neutral while 2.67%disagreed. V20 had 75% of the respondents agreeing, 19% were neutral while 6% disagreed.24 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  25. 25. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011With regards to the drivers of immediate action, there were five variables labeled as; V 21, V22, V23, V24 andV25. As from the descriptive analysis, V21 was noted 73.33% of the respondents agreed, 21% were neutralwhereas 5.67% disagreed. V22 had 48% agreeing while 52% were neutral. No disagreement was recorded.V23 had 89% of the respondents agreeing while 11% disagreed. V 24 had 42% of the respondents agreeing,58% disagreed. V25 was after analysis found to have 81% agreeing respondents, 4.67% of the respondentswere neutral, while 14.33% disagreed.1.1.4.3 Perception of healthcare managers and administrators towards the managerial driversThe researchers developed five managerial drivers that were separately investigated to find out theircontribution towards effective delivery, performance and professional satisfaction. The managerial driversof rules, was after analysis, found to have 80% respondents who agreed with that driver, 8.33% wereneutral while 11.57% disagreed with the driver. As for the driver of emotions, 85.67% of the respondentsagreed, 11% were neutral and 10% disagreed. The driver of initiatives had 74.33% responses from agreeingmanagers, 20% were neutral while 17% disagreed. The driver of integrity had 75.33% respondents whoagreed with the driver, 20.67% were neutral while 4% disagreed. The driver of immediate action had66.67% of the respondents agreeing, 27.33% were neutral while 6% disagreed. The summary of the reporthas been presents in table 4.1.1.5 DiscussionThe discussion presents an overview of the nature and behavior of healthcare managers and administratorswith respect to the various management obstacles encountered while discharging their leadership roles. Thispart is divided into two parts; the specific section and the general discussion section.1.1.5.1 General discussion sectionGenerally, well educated and nurtured employees will be very productive. Their delivery will be fostered ifmanagement consider making junior employees part of management. The essence of employee engagementis to provide a positive environment where employees are free to contribute, and desire to contribute, moreof their energy, efforts and thought processes in ways that significantly and favorably impact the goals ofthe organization. People, who engage other people on behalf of their employer, as employees are requiredto do in many service jobs, are expected to be courteous and pleasant to others. How can any leader ormanager expect such behavior from subordinates without, in turn, treating subordinates well?In addition, it doesn’t make sense to treat subordinates poorly and expect them to become intrinsicallymotivated. However, creating intrinsic motivation requires something different than merely a lack ofnegative treatment. The key issue becomes one of how to inspire people to provide positive andproductive engagement toward their organization. We have learned that valuing the talents of subordinatesreaps better results. By ensuring that subordinates know we appreciate their thoughts, ideas, skills andknowledge, we communicate a feeling of respect and importance. In doing so, it is not necessary to handover the reigns of authority or decision-making power. Yet situational leadership theory might indicatethat, at times, a participation in decisions by group members yields the optimal outcome.Many managers think if they want positive employee engagement, then all they have to do is pay higherwages. In other words, if an organization wants higher dedication from employees, all it has to do is giveworkers more money. However, some studies have shown this is not true.Herzberg’s hygiene motivator theory suggests that the absence of certain elements in the workplace willserve to de-motivate employees, but the presence of these same elements does not serve to motivateemployees in the workplace. Therefore, Herzberg described particular elements as “hygiene” elements,as opposed to true motivators. These hygiene elements include pay, security, status, peer relationships,25 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  26. 26. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011subordinate and supervisor relationships, company policy and administration, work conditions, andsupervision. In other words, according to Herzberg’s theory, the hygiene factors only affect jobdissatisfaction but do not improve job satisfaction.Our analysis therefore brings to light, the contemporary perspective of five drivers of management forhealthcare managers. The analysis of the data highlights how healthcare management gathersmultidimensional practices with varying complementary facets. The following is a brief discussion of thedrivers.The driver of emotions is considered as the foremost healthcare management driver. In other words,motivated and engaged managers and employees contribute to the successful execution of management andobjective achievement. The findings related to the driver of initiatives can be applied in the area ofidentification of training and developmental needs of healthcare managers and employees, to fulfill thecompetency gap. Conversion of goals into concrete projects, techniques used for team based management,techniques used as self resolution for solving healthcare managerial dilemmas all need a set of uniquecompetency.The findings related to the driver of rules also have managerial and administrative implications. This driverfocuses on the clarity of communicating the expectations, systems to evaluate the results and supportiveparameters and the process used for regular reviews and it calls for precise identification, design andimplementation of communication systems, evaluation systems and monitoring systems respectively. Hencethe management should design perfect systems to ensure that the dimensions of rules are followed.Though not all management skills has deadlines and contingencies, preparing for crisis and planning for thesame will also ensures the support of the driver of immediate actions. Though the driver of integrity wasnot widely commented, with regards to this study on healthcare management and administration, there isneed that managers ensure that their actions are clean and focused on the overall attainment of theorganization’s objectives and goals.1.1.5.2 Specific discussion sectionThis section examines and discusses all our five hypotheses formulated earlier. With respect to the findingson the subject of exploring the obstacles faced by healthcare managers while executing their objectives, weintend to examine to what extent each of our hypothesis was supported. The results of the empiricalanalyses have provided answers to our research questions. Apart from examining the hypotheses formulatedwe also wish to elucidate other potential observations of our research to existing literature on healthcaremanagement and administration.Hypothesis 1: In the context of management leadership in healthcare administration, healthcare managerswould face five categories of management obstacles while executing their objectives.Our first hypothesis refers to the five categories of obstacles developed in the conceptual framework onmanagement leadership in healthcare management and administration and emerged out of the conceptualframework of Kolb (1984). The data analysis done supported this hypothesis. Though it is consistent to ourconceptual model, additional research with large samples would be needed to support the external validityand to generalize all the five categories in different levels of healthcare management and administrationacross geographic locations. In fact in different times, managers will be faced with management obstacles,which can be detrimental to their leadership and work performance. This hypothesis is therefore provingthe previous findings about obstacles faced by healthcare leaders and other managers in general.Hypothesis 2: With regards to the management obstacles faced by healthcare managers, the mostsignificant obstacle perceived would be the drivers of emotions.26 | P a g ewww.iiste.org
  27. 27. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)Vol 3, No.7, 2011 In the context of management leadership in healthcare management and administration, our secondhypothesis states that the most significant category of obstacles faced by healthcare managers among thefive categories found in the conceptual framework is the driver of emotions and the factors related to itincluding lack of commitment to goals, lack of trust and lack of awareness of the importance of objectives.The descriptive analysis supports this hypothesis. In order to stimulate employees to focus on theorganizational goals, it is relative that senior managers be leaders, who can communicate necessaryobjectives to their juniors. There should be trust and respect among employees and between seniors andtheir juniors. This will help stimulate effective management approach and realizable tangible results. Hypothesis 3: With the exception of drivers of emotions, the other categories of obstacles would beperceived and given equivalent weight age in terms of importance among healthcare managers.Our descriptive analysis did not support this hypothesis. In contrast to the hypothesis set based on ourconceptual framework, we found that the four other drivers excluding the driver of emotions did not havean equal weight in their relative importance. Some drivers are applicable or appropriate at different timesand in different scenarios. So the hypotheses could not be supported since not all drivers will be exhibitingsimilar variability or effects regarding management.Hypothesis 4: Given the volatility in healthcare environment, in the driver of immediate action, healthcaremanagers would perceive a number of emergencies.Under the drivers of immediate action, our hypothesis states that healthcare managers would perceive manyemergencies and last minutes requests and changes as a key obstacle since there is volatility in thehealthcare environment. The descriptive analysis supported this hypothesis. It is always impossible to avoidemergencies in an organization. Some decisions will always be made without having to settle for formalmeetings. This is what has made the hypotheses an important value in our research. Hypothesis 5: Given the perception that no singular performance measure exist for healthcare managers ingovernment healthcare institutions compared to managers in private practice, lack of clarity in the actualresults expected would be perceived as a key obstacle under the driver of rules.Our fifth hypothesis states that healthcare managers would perceive lack of clarity in their actual resultsexpected to be the key obstacle under the drivers of rules. It is consistent with the previous research studiesindicating that clear priorities and objectives. Our descriptive analysis supports this hypothesis. Thecertainty with any management decisions is that managers whether in public or private, have to ensure thatthe results to achieved are clearly defined to their employees. 1.1.5.3 Practical and Theoretical ImplicationsMotivated and engaged employees will be more committed to the goals. Out of the five obstacle categories,driver of emotions and its factors such as; lack of commitment to the goals, trust, and awareness about theimportance of objectives are perceived as the most significant obstacles. It is an important observation forthe management in the sense that they have to adopt practices and policies to develop and sustain employeeengagement in healthcare sector.Healthcare managers are expected to perform efficiently with multiple management measures since thedynamics of performance and the competencies required for that are quite unique for professionalsatisfaction. Their performance is expected to go beyond profit or wealth maximization when compared totheir counterparts. Given this scenario, the obstacles perceived by healthcare managers also would beunique and different when compared to their counterparts. Research has to identify those set of obstaclesthat are exclusively felt by healthcare managers. Our descriptive research confirms the existence of fivecategories of obstacles faced by healthcare managers while discharging their healthcare goals and27 | P a g ewww.iiste.org

×