Leadership Style And Employee Engagement Management Essay

Published: 2020-07-21 21:55:04
7528 words
27 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Management

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Organizational effectivity is indispensable in todays fast turning organisations where fight is the chief characteristic of the modern-day concern. Leadership is the chief determiner of organisational effectivity and is the major identifier of an engaged work force. The most common leading manner is the Traditional leading manner which is administered in about all companies of the Petroleum Sector in Egypt with its public companies, joint companies and even portion of the investing companies, a leading manner implementing the constructs of power and authorization. The traditional leading manner aims to maintain things the same and does n’t advance the battle of the employees that is non portion of their occupation descriptions and emerges as a consequence of personal picks.
The leading manner applied in the crude oil companies needs to germinate from the traditional attack. It needs to use leading manners where the leader is capable of transforming and developing his employees ‘ behaviours and profiting from their attempts would accomplish positive part to overall organisational effectivity. This should be through following an attitude that supports and enhances motive and public presentation of his followings leting them to transcend their ain outlooks optimising their public presentation to accomplish such effectivity.
In some instances, transactional leading is administered where the leader promotes conformity of his followings through both wagess and penalties and is non looking to alter the hereafter. This type of leading focal points on acquiring the work done by their followings. Transactional leading plants within the organisation civilization through direction by exclusion to keep position quo and stress disciplinary actions to better public presentation.
Whereas, the transformational leading changes the organisation civilization through its behaviours where the leader affects the followings ‘ sense of individuality and motive taking to accomplish public presentation beyond outlooks and employee battle hence lending to the chief aim which is the organisational effectivity. Leadership manner is a strategic tool that needs to be practiced on a big span to guarantee employee battle in order to follow with the environing dynamic environment.
Statement of Research Problem
The leading manner administered in the Egyptian crude oil companies is a traditional one implementing the constructs of power and authorization. This traditional manner does n’t advance the engagement attitudes of the employees that are non portion of their occupation descriptions that emerge as a consequence of personal picks. The leading behaviours need to germinate to back up the behaviours of leaders who are capable of transforming and developing their employees ‘ behaviours and profiting from their attempts would accomplish positive part to overall organisational effectivity.
Therefore, the job of this survey can be stated in the undermentioned statement: What is the relationship between the leading manner and employee battle?
Research Aims
The chief research aim is to look into the leading behaviours that are able to develop employees ‘ battle by:
Analyzing the world of crude oil companies ( country of the survey ) sing the leading manner used in these companies and whether it has a relationship with employee battle or non.
Using the appropriate behavioural methods to get and keep employees ‘ battle.
Supplying some recommendations to the responsible people in the crude oil companies sing what should be done to heighten the relationship between the employees and their supervisors or leaders that would be steering for future surveies on the consequence of leading behaviours both transactional and transformational on employee battle.
Research Importance
The academic importance:
This research will be an add-on to the academic research because there is scarceness in the research subject, transactional and transformational leading, and covering with these leading manners in the crude oil companies.
The empirical importance:
The empirical importance of this research lies in supplying the crude oil companies with the consequences and the recommendations of the research that can be implemented for keeping employee battle taking to accomplish organisational effectivity.
Literature Review
In the last two decennaries, many researches have covered the assorted leading manners and many behavioural attributes one of them is employee battle. Below is a sum-up of the literature reappraisal that the research worker read on the survey variables, transactional leading, transformational leading and employee battle.
Survey
Variables
Sample
Consequences
Lale, Zahide and Giles, Journal of Business Research, 2012
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Committedness
445 forces of R & A ; D
Transformational leading has a important influence on followers’organizational committedness where transformational leaders enhance perceptual experiences of organisational committedness.
Flavia, Valter and Mateus, The Leadership Quarterly, 2012
Mugwump:
Individual Differences
Managerial Performance
Mediator:
Transformational Leadership
Dependant:
Leadership effectivity
134 midlevel directors
Leadership effectivity is a map of transformational behaviours, and besides effectivity is a map of single differences ( experience, intelligence and conscientiousness ) that are working throughtransformational behaviours.
Jonathan, Ontario International Development Agency ISSN: 1923-6654 ( print ) , 2012
Mugwump:
Transactional and transformational leading Behaviors
Dependant:
Governmental Organizational Performance
372
Transformational leading behaviours have an impact on organisational public presentation, as leaders who use transformational leading as their chief leading manner have an impact on organisational public presentation over leaders who use transactional manner.
Xiao-Hua and Jane, The Leadership Quarterly, 2012
Mugwump:
Group Transformational
Leadership Behavior
Individual Transformational Leadership Behavior
Dependant:
Group Performance
Individual Performance
200 squad members
60 leaders
Transformational leading behaviours influence public presentation results at both cross degrees ( Group level & A ; Individual degree ) .
Seyyed, Fatemeh and Farnoosh, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Dependant:
Organizational Learning
120
Transformational leading has a important relation with organisational acquisition.
Karina and Kevin, The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Group-level and Differentiated transformational leading
Dependant:
Well-being
425 followings
56 leaders
Differentiated transformational leading has a relationship with indexs of wellbeing.
Group transformational leading had to be studied more as the consequences did n’t demo important relation.
Yong-Ki et al. , International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2011
Mugwump:
Leadership Style ( transformational and transactional )
Dependant:
Job Performance
Transformational leading has a positive influence on occupation public presentation through eliciting emotions and client orientation in in service employees.
Frank and Heike, The Leadership Quarterly, 2010
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Productive Organizational Energy
125 organisations
Organizational construction ( Centralization and formalisation ) moderate the relationship between the transformational leading happening and effectivity and the productive organisational energy.
Maria, Arnold and Despoina, The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Dependant:
Work Battle
42
Daily transformational leading has a positive relation with employees’daily battle.
Victor, Maria and Leopoldo, Journal of Business Research, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Organizational Performance
170 CEOs
Transformational leading Influences organisational public presentation positively through organisational acquisition and invention.
Jochen et al. , The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
18,094
TFL clime indirectly relate to organisational citizenship behaviour through positive affectional clime under high conditions of trust clime.
YoungHee, Peter and Celeste, The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Emotional Intelligence
Dependant:
Team results
Mediator:
Transformational leading
859
Transformational leading does n’t intercede the relationships between emotional intelligence and squad effectivity
Michael, Arthur and Heike, The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Team public presentation
108
work squads
Transformational leading is positively associated with squad public presentation when consensus is high meanwhile the relation is negative when consensus is low.
Lale and Arzu, Journal of Business Research, 2009
Mugwump:
Transformational leading
Dependant:
Organizational Invention
163
R & A ; D forces
Transformational leading has important effects on creativeness at both the person and organisational degrees.
Jeewon and Fred, The Leadership Quarterly, 2010
Mugwump:
Individualized Consideration
Charisma
( Transformational Leadership Behaviors )
Dependant:
Leader directed Organizational Citizenship Behavior ( OCB )
Group directed OCB
159
Transformational leading behaviours ( Individualized Consideration and Charisma ) have influence on organisational citizenship behaviours of followings in both single and group degrees.
Tahir, Khawar and Naveed, European Journal of Social Sciences, 2012
Mugwump:
Job Stress
Dependant:
Employee Engagement
137
The relationship between Job emphasis and employee battle is negative as occupation emphasis threatens employee battle and has to be eliminated to guarantee the ultimate battle of employees.
Weichun, Bruce and Fred, Group & A ; Organization
Management, 2009
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Dependant:
Employee Work Engagement
140 followings
48 supervisors
Follower ‘s features are a important moderator in the relationship between transformational leading and employee work battle. When follower features are high, the transformational leading has a high influence over the employee work battle.
Fred and Suzanne, Journal of Management Development, 2002
Mugwump:
Employee Engagement
Dependant:
Manager Effectiveness
170
The relationship between employee battle and director effectivity is partly mediated by the director self-efficacy.
Bobby and Kenneth, Industrial Management & A ; Data Systems, 2009
Mugwump:
Goal scene
Mediator:
Employee Engagement
Dependant:
Individual Performance
426
Employee battle mediates the relationship between end scene and high degrees of single public presentation.
Simon, Leadership in Health Services, 2011
Mugwump:
Empowering Leadership
Mediator:
Authorization
Employee Engagement
Dependant:
Employee turnover purposes
139
Authorization mediated the influence of authorising leading on employee battle.
Employee battle partly mediated the influence of authorization on employee turnover purposes.
Alan, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2006
Mugwump:
Ancestors:
Job Features
Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived Supervisor Support
Reward and Recognition
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Mediator:
Employee Engagement
Job Engagement
Organization Engagement
Dependant:
Consequences:
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Committedness
Purpose to discontinue
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
102
There is a difference between occupation battle and organisation battle.
Employee battle, on both degrees, occupation and organisation battle, intercede the relationship between ancestors and all effects ( organisational committedness, Job satisfaction, Organizational citizenship behaviour and purposes to discontinue ) .
Hakan, Journal of Management Development, 2008
Mugwump:
Leadership manner
Dependant:
Organizational committedness
Satisfaction of subsidiaries
60 directors 662 employees
Transformational leading manner has a positive influence on organisational committedness and the subsidiaries ‘ satisfaction.
Other leading manners ( transactional, contingent wages, laissez-faire ) are related to low satisfaction and committedness.
Fred, Cindy and Bani, The Leadership Quarterly,2008
Mugwump:
Contingent Reward Transactional Leadership
Mediator:
Procedural Justice Climate Perceptions and Strength
Dependant:
Organizational committedness
Satisfaction with supervisors
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
212
Procedural justness mediates the relationship between contingent wages leader behaviour and satisfaction with supervisors and organisational committedness.
Procedural justness partly mediates the relationship between contingent wages leader behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Jun, Xiaoyu and Xianju, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2011
Mugwump:
Transactional Leadership
Mediator:
Team-efficacy
Moderator:
Emotional Labor
Dependant:
Team Innovativeness
462 members
90 squad leaders
Team-efficacy mediates the relationship between transactional leading and squad innovativeness.
The relationship between transactional leading and squad innovativeness is negative when emotional labour is high whereas positive when emotional labour is low.
Ologbo and Saudah, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012
Mugwump:
Individual Factors of Employee Engagement:
Employee Communication
Employee Development
Co-employee support
Mediator:
employee battle:
occupation battle
organisation battle
Dependant:
Work Results:
Organizational committedness
Purpose to Discontinue
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
104
Co-employee support, the major single factor, which influences both occupation and organisation battle and the work outcomes.
Employee battle mediates the relationship between single factors of employee battle and work results.
Timothy and Gian, Leadership & A ; Organization Development Journal,2007
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Mediator:
Authorization
Trust
Dependant:
In-role Performance
Satisfaction
109
Both authorization and trust mediate the relationship between transformational leading and in-role public presentation.
Trust mediates the relationship between transformational leading and satisfaction with the leader.
Inbal and Anit, The Leadership Quarterly, 2011
Mugwump:
Leadership Manner:
Transformational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Mediator:
Individual Differences:
Idiocentrism
Allocentrism
Dependant:
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
( OCB )
150
When allocentrism additions, there is a positive relationship between transformational leading and organisational citizenship behaviours whereas when Idiocentrism increases the relationship between transformational leading and OCB is negative.
When Idiocentrism increases, there is a positive relationship between transactional leading and organisational citizenship behaviours whereas when allocentrism increases the relationship between transactional leading and OCB is negative.
Janelle and Jon, Team Performance Management, 2011
Mugwump:
Leadership Behaviors:
Transformational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Mediator:
Satisfaction with the leader
Dependant:
Employee turnover Purposes
208
There is a negative relationship between leading behaviours ( both transformational and transactional ) and the turnover purposes.
Satisfaction with the leader mediates the negative relationship between the leading behaviours and the turnover purposes.
Dong, Chee and Anne, The Leadership Quarterly, 2003
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Mediator:
Authorization
Support for Invention
Dependant:
Organizational Invention
32 companies
There is a positive relationship between transformational leading and organisational invention.
Transformational leading has a positive relation with both go-betweens ( authorization and support for invention ) .
Authorization has a negative relationship with organisational invention whereas the support for invention has a positive relationship with organisational invention.
Millissa and Chi-Sum, Leadership & A ; Organization Development Journal, 2011
Mugwump:
Transformational Leadership
Mediator:
Undertaking Support
Relationss Support
Dependant:
Creativity
There is a positive relationship between transformational leading and followings ‘ creativeness mediated by both leader ‘s undertaking support and dealingss support.
Decision
Transactional and transformational leading are considered contrastive leading manners even though the leader may utilize both manners of leading at different times and different state of affairss. Transactional leading is an exchange procedure where the leader exchanges rewards for attempts of the subsidiaries or followings and this in bend allows the leader to penalize the subsidiaries or followings if the undertaking is non accomplished. Whereas transformational leader encourages his followings to do determination, he empowers them and allows them to turn on the single footing and besides among squads by training and mentoring them.
Transformational leading and the reward attack of the transactional leading have a positive influence on employee behaviours, emotions and public presentation. They have a positive impact on organisational squads, organisational committedness, effectivity and employees satisfaction in add-on citizenship behaviours.
For organisations to last in the rapid viing universe, they have to keep an occupied work force. Employee battle will ensue in high degrees of public presentation and low degrees of turnover in organisations. Employee engagement eliminates occupation emphasis and is strategic tool taking to occupation satisfaction, organisational committedness, less turnover and organisational citizenship behaviours.
As the literature reappraisal shows that the survey variables have been covered in many industries and states around the universe, yet it has n’t been given much consideration in the Arab universe. This is why the research worker finds that it is a must to carry on this survey in the crude oil sector where she works.
Research Variables and Operationalization
1. Research Variables:
Independent Variables
Transformational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Dependent Variables
Employee Engagement
2. Variables Operationalization
Independent Variables
The leading styles in this survey: transformational and transactional leading, are apparent but do n’t replace each other as procedures, and the same leader may utilize both types of leading at different times in different state of affairss. ( Yukl 1998 )
The research worker chooses two of the leading manner for this survey as follows:
Transformational Leadership: efforts to make emotional links with its followings and inspires higher values ( Bass, 1999 ) . Transformational leading meets the higher order demands of employees ( Yusof and Shah, 2008 ) .
Besides, transformational leading refers to the leader actuating the follower beyond opportunisms. It raises the follower ‘s degree of adulthood and ideals for accomplishment and the wellbeing of others, the organisation and the society ( Hakan 2008 ) .
Transactional Leadership: topographic points an accent on interchanging wagess for achievement ( Burton and Peachey, 2009 )
Transactional leading focuses chiefly on the physical and the security demands of followings. The relationship that evolves between the leader and the follower is based on exchange and wages systems ( Bass and Avolio, 1993 ) .
Dependent Variable
Employee Engagement is the ‘benefiting of organisational members themselves to work functions ; in battle, people express themselves physically, perceptually and emotionally during function public presentations ” ( Kahn, 1990 )
Employee battle refers to the ”individual ‘s engagement and satisfaction every bit good as enthusiasm for work ” ( Harter et al. , 2002 ) .
Proposed Research Model
Independent Dependent
Employee Engagement
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Research Hypothesiss
Based on the old theoretical account, we can develop the undermentioned hypotheses that try to show the relationship between survey variables:
H1 There is a strong positive important relationship between transactional leading and employee battle.
H2 There is a strong positive important relationship between transformational leading and employee battle.
Beginning of Research Data ( Sample )
Primary informations
The research worker collected the primary informations from the research sample of 236 employees working in Suez Oil Company by utilizing 30 points questionnaire.
Secondary informations
Secondary information is collected from organisational records from the HR section in the company.
Research Variables Instruments
In this survey, the research worker conducted the questionnaire based on two chief research instruments:
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Transactional and transformational leading was measured utilizing 20 points from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ( MLQ 5X rater signifier ) on a Likert 5 point graduated table.
The constituents of leading dimensions derived from the MLQ 5X rater signifier questionnaire
Leadership Styles/Dimensions
Number Of Items
Transactional
9
Transformational
11
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
Employee battle was measured utilizing 10 points from Utrecht Work Engagement Scale ( UWES ) on a Likert 5 point graduated table.
Research Population and Sample
Population
The population of present survey is 1200 employees of Suez Oil Company, a crude oil company in the Egyptian crude oil sector.
Sample
The present survey sample is a graded random sample of 300 employees from all sections and occupation degrees in the company.
Statistical Methods/Techniques used in Data Analysis
Cronbach ‘s Alpha
Split-half
T-Test
Analysis of variance
Scheffe Test
Correlations
Arrested development Stepwise ”
Research Results and Findings
Validity and Reliability
Questionnaire Cogency:
It means the ability of the questionnaire to mensurate what it is set for.
Reliability of internal consistence:
Calculation of correlativity coefficients between each axis constituent phrases and questionnaire axis entire Markss.
Calculation of correlativity coefficients between questionnaire axis entire Markss and questionnaire entire grade.
First Axis: Transformational Leadership:
Validity was calculated by utilizing internal consistence through ciphering the correlativity coefficient ( Person Correlation Coefficient ) between each phrase grade and the axis grade ( transactional leading ) . The same is shown in the undermentioned tabular array below:
Table ( 1 ) Valuess of correlativity coefficients between each phrase grade and axis grade ( transactional leading )
Sig
Correlations
No
0.01
0.803
1-
0.01
0.854
2-
0.05
0.632
3-
0.01
0.743
4-
0.05
0.604
5-
0.01
0.871
6-
0.01
0.755
7-
0.01
0.906
8-
0.01
0.776
9-
It is apparent from the tabular array that all correlativity coefficients are bespeaking significance at ( 0.05 – 0.01 ) that shows it is close to one which means that questionnaire phrases are valid and consistent.
Second Axis: Transformational Leadership:
Validity was calculated by utilizing internal consistence through utilizing correlativity coefficient ( Person Correlation Coefficient ) between each phrase grade and the axis grade ( Transformational Leadership ) . The same is shown in the undermentioned tabular array below:
Table ( 2 ) Valuess of correlativity coefficients between each phrase grade and axis grade ( Transformational Leadership )
Sig
Correlations
No
0.01
0.723
10-
0.05
0.618
11-
0.01
0.706
12-
0.01
0.846
13-
0.01
0.932
14-
0.01
0.861
15-
0.01
0.765
16-
0.05
0.626
17-
0.01
0.821
18-
0.01
0.784
19-
0.01
0.897
20-
It is apparent from the tabular array that correlativity coefficients are important at ( 0.05-0.01 ) , therefore bespeaking cogency and consistence of the questionnaire phrases.
Third Axis: Employee Battle:
Dependability was calculated by utilizing the internal consistence through ciphering the correlativity coefficient ( Person correlativity coefficient ) between each phrase grade and the axis grade ( Employee Engagement ) .
The following tabular array shows the same below.
Table ( 3 ) Valuess of correlativity coefficients between each phrase grade and axis grade ( Employee Engagement )
Sig
Correlations
No
0.01
0.922
1-
0.05
0.641
2-
0.01
0.833
3-
0.01
0.711
4-
0.01
0.849
5-
0.01
0.913
6-
0.05
0.609
7-
0.01
0.737
8-
0.01
0.813
9-
0.01
0.798
10-
It is apparent from the tabular array that correlativity coefficients are all indicating significance at ( 0.05-0.01 ) which shows it is close to one, therefore bespeaking cogency and consistence of the questionnaire phrases.
Cogency by utilizing internal consistence between axis entire grade and questionnaire entire grade
Validity was calculated by utilizing the internal consistence through ciphering the correlativity coefficient ( Person Correlation Coefficient ) between each axis entire grade ( transactional leadership-transformational leadership-employee battle ) and questionnaire entire grade, the following tabular array shows the same below:
Table ( 4 ) Valuess of correlativity coefficients between each axis entire grade ( transactional leadership-transformational leadership-employee battle ) and questionnaire entire grade
Sig
Correlations
0.01
0.864
Transactional Leadership
0.01
0.819
Transformational Leadership
0.01
0.741
Employee Engagement
It is apparent from the tabular array that correlativity coefficients are all indicating significance at ( 0.01 ) , therefore bespeaking cogency and consistence of the questionnaire phrases.
Dependability:
Dependability means truth of the trial in measuring and observation, non-contradiction to oneself, its consistence and amplification, therefore supplying us of information about the examined individual behaviour, and it is the ratio between the grade discrepancy on the graduated table bespeaking the practical public presentation of the examined individual. Reliability was calculated through:
Cronbach ‘s Alpha
Split-half
Table ( 5 ) Valuess of dependability coefficients of the questionnaire axes
Split-half
Cronbach ‘s Alpha
0.824 – 0.891
0.855
Transactional Leadership
0.886 – 0.943
0.912
Transformational Leadership
0.745 – 0.816
0.776
Employee Engagement
0.775 – 0.842
0.809
Dependability of the whole questionnaire
It is apparent from the above tabular array that all dependability coefficients values: Alpha and Split-half coefficients are bespeaking significance at ( 0.01 ) therefore bespeaking the questionnaire dependability.
Description of the Study
A comprehensive description of the survey sample is shown in the undermentioned tabular arraies ( from 6 to 9 ) and charts ( from 1to 4 ) , as follows:
Gender:
Table ( 6 ) and chart ( 1 ) show distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the gender.
Table ( 6 ) Distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the gender
Percentage
Number
Gender
56.4 %
133
Male
43.6 %
103
Female
100 %
236
Sum
Chart ( 1 ) shows distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the gender
It is apparent from table ( 6 ) and chart ( 1 ) that 133 research sample persons are male at the per centum of 56.4 % , whereas 103 research sample persons are female at the per centum of 43.6 % .
2-Education:
Table ( 7 ) and chart ( 2 ) show distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the instruction.
Table ( 7 ) Distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the instruction
Percentage
Number
Education
30.1 %
71
High School or less
53.4 %
126
University Graduate
16.5 %
39
Post Graduate
100 %
236
Sum
Chart ( 2 ) shows distribution of the research sample harmonizing to the instruction
Table ( 7 ) and Chart ( 2 ) show that 126 persons of the research sample are university grades holders at the per centum of 53.4 % followed by 71 persons of research sample are high school certifications or less holders at the per centum of 30.1 % , and the last 39 persons of the research sample are graduate students at the per centum of 16.1 % .
3-Age:
Table ( 8 ) and chart ( 3 ) show distribution of the research sample harmonizing to age.
Table ( 8 ) distribution of the research sample harmonizing to age
Percentage
Number
Age
22 %
52
Less than 30 old ages
31.4 %
74
From 30 to 39 old ages
28.8 %
68
From 40 to 49 old ages
17.8 %
42
From 50 old ages or more
100 %
236
Sum
Chart ( 3 ) shows distribution of the research sample harmonizing to age
Table ( 8 ) and Chart ( 3 ) show that 74 persons of the research sample whose ages runing between 30 and 39 old ages at 31.4 % , followed by 68 persons whose ages runing between 40 and 49 old ages at 28.8 % , followed by 52 persons whose ages were below 30 old ages at 22 % and coming last 42 persons aged 50 old ages and above at 17.8 % .
4-Years of experience:
Table ( 9 ) and chart ( 4 ) show distribution of the research sample harmonizing to old ages of experience.
Table ( 9 ) distribution of the research sample harmonizing to old ages of experience
Percentage
Number
Work Experience
17.4 %
41
Less than 5 old ages
22.9 %
54
From 5 to 10 Old ages
33.1 %
78
From 11 to 16 Old ages
26.6 %
63
Over 16 old ages
100 %
236
Sum
Chart ( 4 ) shows distribution of the research sample harmonizing to old ages of experience
Table ( 9 ) and Chart ( 4 ) show that 78 persons of the research sample whose figure of old ages of experience runing between 11 to 16 old ages at 33.1 % , followed by 63 persons whose figure of old ages of experience was above 16 old ages at 26.6 % , followed by 54 persons whose figure of old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages at 22.9 % , and the last forty-one persons with less than 5 old ages of experience at 17.4 % .
Figures and per centum of questionnaire axes sample persons ‘ replies
Strongly Agree
Agree
Impersonal
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Item
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
Transactional Leadership
23.3 %
55
46.6 %
110
18.2 %
43
11.9 %
28
0 %
0
Provides aid in exchange for attempt
48.7 %
115
33.1 %
78
13.6 %
32
4.7 %
11
0 %
0
Very clear on the wages if ends are achieved
27.5 %
65
55.9 %
132
16.5 %
39
0 %
0
0 %
0
Express satisfaction when outlooks are met
29.2 %
69
42.8 %
101
13.1 %
31
10.6 %
25
4.2 %
10
Concentrate attending on covering with errors, ailments and failures
22.9 %
54
36 %
85
17.4 %
41
14.4 %
34
9.3 %
22
Keep path of errors
44.5 %
105
33.9 %
80
16.1 %
38
5.5 %
13
0 %
0
Returns disciplinary action on errors
5.1 %
12
18.2 %
43
15.7 %
37
26.7 %
63
34.3 %
81
Fails to interfere when jobs become serious
15.3 %
36
36.9 %
87
18.6 %
44
25.4 %
60
3.8 %
9
If it is n’t broken make n’t repair it
6.8 %
16
27.5 %
65
14.4 %
34
30.5 %
72
20.8 %
49
Delaies for things to travel incorrect earlier taking action
Transformational Leadership
18.2 %
43
54.7 %
129
13.9 %
33
7.2 %
17
5.9 %
14
Goes beyond ego -interest for the good of others
51.7 %
122
30.9 %
73
17.4 %
41
0 %
0
0 %
0
Admired, respected and trusted
19.1 %
45
27.1 %
64
34.3 %
81
4.7 %
11
14.8 %
35
Display sense of power and assurance, willing to take hazard
42.8 %
101
31.4 %
74
16.9 %
40
8.9 %
21
0 %
0
Negotiations about values and beliefs
42.4 %
100
34.3 %
81
23.3 %
55
0 %
0
0 %
0
Negotiations optimistically about the hereafter
41.9 %
99
44.9 %
106
8.9 %
21
4.2 %
10
0 %
0
Motivate and inspire people around
22 %
52
30.1 %
71
18.6 %
44
16.5 %
39
12.7 %
30
No public unfavorable judgment
41.5 %
98
19.5 %
46
17.8 %
42
13.1 %
31
8.1 %
19
Spends clip coaching, mentoring and instruction
35.6 %
84
27.1 %
64
22 %
52
9.7 %
23
5.5 %
13
Considers every employee as holding different demands, aspiration and abilities
35.2 %
83
41.9 %
99
16.1 %
38
6.8 %
16
0 %
0
Develops employees into Leaderships
Strongly Agree
Agree
Impersonal
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Item
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
27.1 %
64
29.7 %
70
24.2 %
57
15.3 %
36
3.8 %
9
Interaction with employees are personalized
Employee Engagement
29.2 %
69
42.8 %
101
20.8 %
49
7.2 %
17
0 %
0
At my work, I feel spliting with energy
30.1 %
71
34.7 %
82
19.5 %
46
12.3 %
29
3.4 %
8
I find the work that I do full of significance and intent
37.3 %
88
30.9 %
73
9.3 %
22
16.5 %
39
5.9 %
14
Time flies when I ‘m working
28.4 %
67
45.8 %
108
15.7 %
37
10.2 %
24
0 %
0
When I am working, I forget everything else around me
24.6 %
58
39.4 %
93
16.5 %
39
12.7 %
30
6.8 %
16
My occupation inspires me
34.3 %
81
35.6 %
84
17.4 %
41
8.9 %
21
3.8 %
9
When I get up in the forenoon, I feel like traveling to work
34.7 %
82
39.8 %
94
25.4 %
60
0 %
0
0 %
0
I am proud of the work that I do
27.1 %
64
36.4 %
86
18.2 %
43
10.6 %
25
7.6 %
18
I can go on working for really long periods at a clip
42.4 %
100
33.5 %
79
14.4 %
34
5.5 %
13
4.2 %
10
To me, my occupation is disputing
35.2 %
83
43.6 %
103
21.2 %
50
0 %
0
0 %
0
I get carried off when I ‘m working
Description of Questionnaire replies
Below is a elaborate treatment ( in figures and per centums ) of sample persons ‘ replies of the phrases in the questionnaire:
Transactional Leadership
1- Provides aid in exchange for attempt:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 55 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 23.3 % , whereas 110 persons of research sample agreed at 46.6 % , and 43 persons of research sample were impersonal at 18.2 % , nevertheless, 28 persons of research sample disagreed at 11.9 % .
2- Very clear on the wages if ends are achieved:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 115 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 48.7 % , whereas 78 persons of research sample agreed at 33.1 % , and 32 persons of research sample were impersonal at 13.6 % , nevertheless, 11 persons of research sample disagreed at 4.7 % .
3- Express satisfaction when outlooks are met:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 65 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 27.5 % , whereas 132 persons of research sample agreed at 55.9 % and 39 persons of research sample were impersonal at 16.5 % .
4- Concentrate attending on covering with errors, ailments and failures:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 69 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 29.2 % , whereas 101 persons of research sample agreed at 42.8 % , and 31 persons of research sample were impersonal at 13.1 % , nevertheless, 25 persons of research sample disagreed at 10.6 % and eventually 10 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 4.2 % .
5- Keep path of errors:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 54 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 22.9 % , whereas 85 persons of research sample agreed at 36 % and 41 persons of research sample were impersonal at 17.4 % , yet, 34 persons of research sample disagreed at 14.4 % , and eventually 22 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 9.3 % .
6- Takes disciplinary action on errors:
It evident from the tabular array that 105 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 44.5 % , whereas 80 persons of research sample persons of research sample agreed at 33.9 % and persons of research sample were impersonal at 16.1 % , however,13 persons of research sample disagreed at 5.55 % .
7- Fails to interfere when jobs become serious:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 12 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 5.1 % , whereas 43 persons of research sample agreed at 18.2 % and 37 persons of research sample were impersonal at 15.7 % , yet, 63 persons of research sample disagreed at 26.7 % , and eventually 81 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 34.3 % .
8- If it is n’t broken make n’t repair it:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 34 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 15.3 % , whereas 87 persons of research sample agreed at 36.9 % and 44 persons of research sample were impersonal at 18.6 % , yet, 60 persons of research sample disagreed at 25.4 % , and eventually 9 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8 % .
9- Delaies for things to travel incorrect earlier taking action:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 16 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 6.8 % , whereas 65 persons of research sample agreed at 27.5 % and 34 persons of research sample were impersonal at 14.4 % , yet, 72 persons of research sample disagreed at 30.5 % , and eventually 49 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 20.8 % .
Transformational Leadership
10- Goes beyond ego -interest for the good of others:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 43 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 18.2 % , whereas 129 persons of research sample agreed at 54.7 % and 33 persons of research sample were impersonal at 13.9 % , yet, 17 persons of research sample disagreed at 7.2 % , and eventually 14 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.9 % .
11- Admired, respected and trusted:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 122 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 51.7 % , whereas 73 persons of research sample agreed at 30.9 % and 41 persons of research sample were impersonal at 17.4 % .
12- Display sense of power and assurance, willing to take hazard:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 45 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 19.1 % , whereas 64 persons of research sample agreed at 27.1 % and 81 persons of research sample were impersonal at 34.3 % , yet, 11 persons of research sample disagreed at 4.7 % , and eventually 35 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 14.8 % .
13- Negotiations about values and beliefs:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 101 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 42.8 % , whereas 74 persons of research sample agreed at 31.4 % and 40 persons of research sample were impersonal at 16.9 % , yet, 21 persons of research sample disagreed at 8.9 % .
14- Talks optimistically about the hereafter:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 100 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 42.4 % , whereas 81 persons of research sample agreed at 34.4 % and 55 persons of research sample were impersonal at 23.3 % .
15- Motivate and inspire people around:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 99 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 41.9 % , whereas 106 persons of research sample agreed at 44.9 % and 21 persons of research sample were impersonal at 18.9 % , yet, 10 persons of research sample disagreed at 4.2 %
16- No public unfavorable judgment:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 52 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 22 % , whereas 71 persons of research sample agreed at 30.1 % and 44 persons of research sample were impersonal at 18.6 % , yet, 39 persons of research sample disagreed at 16.5 % , and eventually 30 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 12.7 % .
17- Spends clip coaching, mentoring and instruction:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 98 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 41.5 % , whereas 46 persons of research sample agreed at 19.5 % and 42 persons of research sample were impersonal at 17.8 % , yet, 31 persons of research sample disagreed at 13.1 % , and eventually 19 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 8.1 % .
18- Considers every employee as holding different demands, aspiration and abilities:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 84 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 35.6 % , whereas 64 persons of research sample agreed at 27.1 % and 52 persons of research sample were impersonal at 22 % , yet, 23 persons of research sample disagreed at 9.7 % , and eventually 13 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.5 % .
19- Develops employees into Leaderships:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 83 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 35.2 % , whereas 99 persons of research sample agreed at 41.9 % and 38 persons of research sample were impersonal at 16.1 % , yet, 16 persons of research sample disagreed at 6.8 %
20- Interaction with employees are personalized:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 64 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 27.1 % , whereas 70 persons of research sample agreed at 29.7 % and 57 persons of research sample were impersonal at 24.2 % , yet, 36 persons of research sample disagreed at 15.3 % , and eventually 9 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8 % .
Employee Engagement
1- At my work, I feel spliting with energy:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 69 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 29.2 % , whereas 101 persons of research sample agreed at 42.8 % and 49 persons of research sample were impersonal at 20.8 % , yet, 17 persons of research sample disagreed at 7.2 % .
2- I find the work that I do full of significance and intent:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 71 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 30.1 % , whereas 82 persons of research sample agreed at 34.7 % and 46 persons of research sample were impersonal at 19.5 % , yet, 29 persons of research sample disagreed at 12.3 % , and eventually 8 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.4 % .
3- Time flies when I ‘m working:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 88 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 37.3 % , whereas 73 persons of research sample agreed at 30.9 % and 22 persons of research sample were impersonal at 9.3 % , yet, 39 persons of research sample disagreed at 16.5 % , and eventually 14 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 5.9 % .
4- When I am working, I forget everything else around me:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 67 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 28.4 % , whereas 108 persons of research sample agreed at 45.8 % and 37 persons of research sample were impersonal at 15.7 % , yet, 24 persons of research sample disagreed at 10.2 % .
5- My occupation inspires me:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 58 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 24.6 % , whereas 93 persons of research sample agreed at 39.4 % and 39 persons of research sample were impersonal at 16.5 % , yet, 30 persons of research sample disagreed at 12.7 % , and eventually 16 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 6.8 % .
6- When I get up in the forenoon, I feel like traveling to work:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 81 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 34.3 % , whereas 84 persons of research sample agreed at 35.6 % and 41 persons of research sample were impersonal at 17.4 % , yet, 21 persons of research sample disagreed at 8.9 % , and eventually 9 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 3.8 % .
7- I am proud of the work that I do:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 82 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 34.7 % , whereas 94 persons of research sample agreed at 39.8 % and 60 persons of research sample were impersonal at 25.4 % .
8- I can go on working for really long periods at a clip:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 64 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 27.1 % , whereas 86 persons of research sample agreed at 36.4 % and 43 persons of research sample were impersonal at 18.2 % , yet, 25 persons of research sample disagreed at 10.6 % , and eventually 18 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 7.6 % .
9- To me, my occupation is disputing:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 100 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 42.4 % , whereas 79 persons of research sample agreed at 33.5 % and 34 persons of research sample were impersonal at 14.4 % , yet, 13 persons of research sample disagreed at 5.5 % , and eventually 10 persons of research sample strongly disagreed at 4.2 % .
10- I get carried off when I ‘m working:
It is apparent from the tabular array that 83 persons of research sample strongly agreed at 35.2 % , whereas 103 persons of research sample agreed at 43.6 % and 50 persons of research sample were impersonal at 21.2 % .
Hypothesiss Testing
There is a correlativity between transactional leading ” and employee battle ” and a correlativity between transformational leading and employee battle ”
To prove the developed hypotheses, a Pearson correlativity method is used for calculating out the relationship between the survey variables. The obtained consequences can be shown in the undermentioned tabular array:
Table ( 10 ) correlativity matrix among transactional leading ” , transformational leading and employee battle ”
Employee Engagement
0.831**
Transactional Leadership
0.924**
Transformational Leadership
** P = a‰¤ 0.01
Table ( 10 ) shows a positive correlativity among transactional leading ” , transformational leading and employee battle ” at significance of ( 0.01 ) map. In other words, the better the transactional leading perceptual experience is the better the employee battle ” which supports H1and the better the transformational leading ” perceptual experience is the better the employee battle ” which supports H2.
Demographic Analysis
Transactional Leadership and Demographics:
There are differences of statistical indicant between the sample persons ‘ Markss average in transactional leading harmonizing to the survey demographics.
T-Test was applied and the sample persons ‘ Markss were calculated by ANOVA in the transactional leading, the undermentioned tabular arraies show the same below:
Table ( 11 ) differences in the sample persons ‘ Markss average in transactional leading harmonizing to the gender
Sig
T
df
Nitrogen
Std. Deviation
Mean
Gender
0.01
20.931
234
133
7.610
21.451
Male
103
4.343
39.019
Female
Chart ( 5 ) differences in the sample persons ‘ Markss average in transactional leading harmonizing to the gender
Table ( 11 ) and Chart ( 5 ) show that T value was ( 20.931 ) , it is a value statistically bespeaking significance at ( 0.01 ) in favour of females, as females ‘ Markss norm was ( 39.019 ) , whereas males ‘ Markss norm was ( 21.451 ) , that means that females consider transactional leading better than males.
Table ( 12 ) discrepancy analysis of the sample persons ‘ Markss in transactional leading harmonizing to instruction
Sig
F
df
Mean Square
Sum of Squares
Education
0.01
31.402
2
6141.345
12282.689
Between Groups
233
195.574
45568.700
Within Groups
235
57851.390
Entire
Table ( 12 ) shows that F value was ( 31.402 ) which is a statistically indicating significance at ( 0.01 ) , that means that there are differences among the sample persons in transactional leading harmonizing to instruction. To verify the way of the indicant, Scheffe Test was applied for multiple comparings. The following tabular array shows the same below:
Table ( 13 ) Scheffe Test for multiple comparings.
Post Graduate
M = 35.205
University Graduate
M = 34.515
High School or less
M = 16.197
Education

High School or less

18.318**
University Graduate

0.689
19.007**
Post Graduate
** P = a‰¤ 0.01
Chart ( 6 ) differences of the sample Markss in the transactional leading harmonizing to instruction
Table ( 13 ) and chart ( 6 ) show no differences in transactional leading between station alumnus surveies holders and university grade holders, whereas there are differences between station alumnus surveies holders and high school certification or less holders in favour of station alumnus surveies holders important at ( 0.01 ) . There are besides differences between university degree holders and high school certification or less holders in favour of university grade holders important at ( 0.01 ) , whereas the norm of Markss of station alumnus surveies holders and university degree holders was ( 35.205 ) and ( 34.515 ) severally, followed by high school certification or less holders sample persons at the norm of ( 16.197 ) , station alumnus surveies holders and university degree holders came foremost as they had better perceptual experience of transactional leading, while high school certification or less holders came 2nd.
Table ( 14 ) analysis of Markss discrepancy of sample persons Markss in transactional leading harmonizing to age
Sig
F
df
Mean Square
Sum of Squares
Age
0.01
39.670
3
5175.456
15526.367
Between Groups
232
130.463
30267.431
Within Groups
235
45793.798
Entire
It is apparent from table ( 14 ) that the value of T was ( 39.670 ) , it is a value bespeaking statistically important at ( 0.01 ) , therefore bespeaking the differences among sample persons harmonizing to age. To specify the map way, Scheffe Test was applied for multiple comparings.The following tabular array shows the same below.
Table ( 15 ) Scheffe Test for multiple comparings
From 50 old ages or more
M = 42.000
From 40 to 49 old ages
M = 32.441
From 30 to 39 old ages
M = 29.540
Less than 30 old ages
M = 13.769
Age

Less than 30 old ages

15.771**
From 30 to 39 old ages

2.900*
18.671**
From 40 to 49 old ages

9.558**
12.459**
28.230**
From 50 old ages or more
** P = a‰¤ 0.01, * p = a‰¤ 0.05
Chart ( 7 ) differences of sample Markss in transactional leading harmonizing to age
Table ( 15 ) and chart ( 7 ) show that there are differences in transactional leading between sample persons aged 50 old ages and above and sample persons aged 40-49 old ages,30-39 old ages and those below 30 old ages in favour of the sample persons aged 50 old ages and above with significance at ( 0.01 ) , whereas there are differences between sample persons aged 40-49 and sample persons aged 30-39 in favour of sample persons aged 40-49 old ages with significance at ( 0.05 ) , whereas there are differences between sample persons aged 40-49 and sample persons aged below 30 old ages in favour of the first with significance at ( 0.01 ) , whereas there are differences between sample persons aged 30-39 old ages and sample persons aged below 30 old ages in favour of the first with significance at ( 0.01 ) .
The mean Markss of the sample persons aged 50 old ages and above were ( 42.000 ) , followed by the sample persons aged 40-49 at the norm of ( 32.441 ) , followed by sample persons aged 30-39 at the norm of ( 29.540 ) , and sample persons aged below 30 old ages at the norm of ( 13.769 ) was last. In other words, sample persons aged 50 old ages and above came foremost as they had a better perceptual experience of transactional leading, followed by sample persons aged 40-49 old ages came second, followed by sample persons aged 30-39 old ages came third, followed by sample persons aged below 30 old ages that came last.
Table ( 16 ) Discrepancy analysis of sample persons in transactional leading harmonizing to old ages of experience
Sig
F
df
Mean Square
Sum of Squares
Work Experience
0.01
27.416
3
4896.561
14689.684
Between Groups
232
178.604
41436.092
Within Groups
235
56125.776
Entire
It is apparent from table ( 16 ) that the value of ( F ) was ( 27.416 ) , it is a value bespeaking statistically important at ( 0.01 ) , therefore bespeaking that there are differences among sample persons ‘ Markss in transactional leading harmonizing to old ages of experience. To specify the indicant way, Scheffe Test for multiple comparings was applied. The following tabular array shows the same below:
Table ( 17 ) Scheffe Test for multiple comparings
Over 16 old ages
M = 36.936
From 11 to 16 Old ages
M = 35.833
From 5 to 10 Old ages
M = 22.000
Less than 5 old ages
M = 13.707
Work Experience

Less than 5 old ages

8.292**
From 5 to 10 Old ages

13.833**
22.126**
From 11 to 16 Old ages

1.103
14.936**
23.229**
Over 16 old ages
** P = a‰¤ 0.01
Chart ( 8 ) Differences of the sample Markss in transactional leading harmonizing to old ages of experience
Table ( 17 ) and chart ( 8 ) show no differences in transactional leading between sample persons whose old ages of experience exceeded 16 old ages and sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 11 and 16 old ages, yet there are differences between sample persons whose old ages of experience exceeded 16 old ages and both sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages and those less than 5 old ages in favour of sample persons whose old ages of experience exceeded 16 old ages important at ( 0.01 ) . Furthermore, there are differences between sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 11 and 16 old ages and both sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages and those less than 5 old ages in favour of sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 11 and 16 old ages important at ( 0.01 ) . There are besides differences between sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages and those less than 5 old ages in favour of sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages important at ( 0.01 ) .
The norm of both sample persons whose old ages of experience exceeded 16 old ages and sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages was ( 36.936 ) and ( 35.833 ) severally, followed by sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages at the norm of ( 22.000 ) , and eventually those less than 5 old ages at the norm of ( 13.707 ) . Both sample persons whose old ages of experience exceeded 16 old ages and sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 11 and 16 old ages came foremost as their transactional leading perceptual experience was better, sample persons whose old ages of experience runing between 5 and 10 old ages came 2nd and those less than 5 old ages of experience came last.
Transformational Leadership and Demographics:
There are differences of statistical indicant among the norm of sample persons ‘ Markss in transformational leading harmonizing to the survey demographics.
T-Test was applied and ANOVA was calculated for sample persons ‘ Markss in transformational leading.The following tabular array shows the same below:
Table ( 18 ) Differences in sample persons ‘ Markss average in transformational leading harmonizing to gender
Sig
T
df
Nitrogen
Std. Deviation
Mean
Gender
0.01
21.395
234
133
7.429
43.669
Male
103
7.173
23.116
Female
Chart ( 9 ) Differences in sample persons ‘ Markss average in transformational leading harmonizing to gender
It is apparent from table ( 18 ) and chart ( 9 ) that the value of ( T ) was ( 21.395 ) it is a statistically indicating Si

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read