O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
] The Original Framework [CoachingAffiliativeDemocraticPacesettingCommandingVisionaryLeadership2
Commanding Visionary Affiliative Democratic Pacesetting CoachingThe leader’sModus operandiDemands immediatecomplianceMobilizes peopletoward a visionCreates harmonyand buildsemotional bondsForgesconsensusthroughparticipationSets highstandards forperformanceDevelops peoplefor the futureThe style in aphrase“Do what I tellyou.”“Come withme.”“People comefirst.”“What do youthink?”“Do as I do,now”“Try this.”UnderlyingemotionalintelligencecompetencyDrive to achieve,initiative, selfcontrolSelf-confidence,empathy, changecatalystEmpathy,buildingrelationships,communicationCollaboration,team leadership,communicationConscientiousness,drive toachieve,initiativeDevelopingothers, empathy,self-awarenessWhen the styleworks bestIn a crisis, tokick start aturnaround, orwith problememployeesWhen changesrequire a newvision , or when aclear direction isneededTo heal rifts in ateam or tomotivate peopleduring stressfulcircumstancesTo build buy-inor consensus, orto get input fromvaluableemployeesTo get quickresults form ahighly motivatedand competentteamTo help anemployeeimproveperformance ordevelop long-term strengthsOverall impacton climateNegative Most stronglypositivePositive Positive Negative Positive] Leadership Style Grid [
• Earlier 20th century focused on great man and trait theories• R. M. stogdill identified 10 traits and skills of effective leadersthrough two meta analytical surveys of 124 previous studies in 1948and 163 others in 1974.• 1939 – Lewin identified behavioural leadership style whileevaluating performance of 11 year old boys• Fiedler proposed Contingency theory of Leadership. Developedleast Preferred coworker scale to establish whether a particularmanager-supervisor was a good match or not• Likert’s Leadership theory (1967) – measurement on Likert Scale;Exploitative authoritative, Benevolent Authoritative, Consultive,participative• Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by DrBernard Bass (1985) – 65 items for transformational leadership4] Literature Review [
• Avolio & Bass (1990 &95) – 45 item questionnaire fortransformational & transactional leadership styles• Authentic leadership questionnaire – newest leadership styleproposed in 2008 by Dr. Avolio.• All the previous theories stated that leadership styles can’t bechanged• David Goleman’s Leadership styles based on Emotional Intelligenceis based on premises that these 6 Leadership styles should bechanged according to situations• Higher the variety of Leadership style on uses, better leader he/sheis• Hay/McBer Research on 3871 executives found 6 leadership styles,each springing from different components of emotionalintelligence. (leadership that gets results, HBR, 2000)5] Literature Review Contd.. [
] Methodology [Sample DetailsSample Size 126Description B-School Students (Future Managers)Average Age 23 Years 9 MonthsAverage Work Experience 1 Year 7 MonthsNumber of Males 72Number of Females 510%Male59%Female41%6
] Methodology Contd.. [Sampling Technique Used: Convenient Random SamplingProcedure of Data Collection:Spreadsheet floated Online.Data downloaded in Excel sheet.Excel data imported to SPSS fordata analysis.7
] Description of Tool [Number of factors: 06Number of items: 35Rating Scale used: Forced 4 point rating scale1-Strongly Agree2-Agree3-Disagree4-Strongly Disagree8
] Data Analysis [Item AnalysisCorrected Item Total Correlation:•A value greater than 0.2 is desirable for an item tobe retained.•Was found to be greater than 0.2 for 14 items afterthree repeated reliability analysis.Mean: The average for each item’s response-Was found to be greater than 3 for 12 items afterand greater than 2 for 2 items on a four pointscale.9
] Reliability Analysis [Cronbach’s Alpha: Tests the overall reliability of the test.For 35 Items: 0.569For 17 Items: 0.654For 14 Items: 0.70610
] Factor Analysis [Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test (KMO):•It measures the adequacy of sample, whether wecan proceed with factor analysis or not.•Minimum value should be 0.5•KMO 0.634Bartlett’s test of Sphericity•To know whether the items are correlated with eachother or not•Significance level .00 >>> Strong correlation11
] Factor Analysis Contd.. [Varimax Rotation:•How grouping of items measure the same factor•Each item tends to be associated with one factor•Acceptable value of factor loadings: 0.5Principle component Analysis:•All five factors have Eigen values greater than 1•Number of Factors are 5•All items in Factors are with factor loadings >0.55 factors cumulatively account for 60.43% of varianceBased on factor loadings, item are grouped and factors are labeledFactor 1: CommandingFactor 2: VisionaryFactor 3: PacesettingFactor 4: AffiliativeFactor 5: Coaching 12
] Limitations of The Study [Online data collection affected the sincerity ofrespondents.Number of responses were less than expected.Test completion time was not limited.13
] Learnings from the Project [•Importance of Psychometric testing in HR domain.•Item Construction.•Getting hands on experience and importance of itemanalysis and reliability in data analysis.•Detailed understanding of factor analysis.Importance of-a) Sample selectionb) Test Administrationc) Rating Scale14