Preliminary analyses were conducted in this section to provide information about the characteristics of respondents and the results of relevant research variables.
4.1.1
Data Collections
The data were gathered via questionnaire form over three month period. Due to limited time and resources we used convenient sampling and delivered the questionnaire through the relatives and friends. Totally 254 questionnaires were collected, and 254 of those were answered. The study sample consisted of 254 individuals working in Taiwan Public Sector. Respondents work in different sectors such as police agency of ministry of the interior, civil servants in township office, city government, forest bureau, coast guard administration and the unit of judiciary. Two hundred and seventy-nine questionnaires were distributed and 254 were returned for a response rate of 91.04%. After data cleaning, 4 incomplete questionnaires were abolished, due to incomplete answers or because it was clear that the respondents had
not treated the questionnaire seriously. For instance, some of them chose the same answer (score) for every question. There were no missing data among the 250 questionnaires, hence there are 250 effective samples participated in the study and valid retrieving rate is 89.61%. It is listed in Table 4-1
Table 4-1
Summary of Questionnaires and Response Rates
Questionnaire Distributed Collected Valid Response rate%
Total 279 254 250 91.04 %
4.1.2 Characteristics of the Respondents
Table 4-2 show the basic attributes of the respondents, including 3 major items in this study: (1) gender, (2) age, and (3) tenure. Data were collected by convenience sampling. From the graph below, we notice that 72.8% of respondents were male.
There is an imbalance of male gender representation in our sample. However, due to the conservative cultural conception of man are breadwinner and women are homemakers in Chinese society; there was nothing that could be done to correct this imbalance. According to Ken (2007) assumed that there may be lingering societal prejudice to assume that policing is “man’s work”, and that when help is needed “we want a policeman”. The age of collected sample is also quite young (37.6%) ranging from 27-36 and 34% ranging from 37-46 years old and the less of older in age (10.4%). The majority (20%) of the sample has a tenure that falls under the category of 10-15 years. Most of the tenure of respondents has a long working history and the less of the respondents have the short working history (7.6%).
Table 4-2
Characteristics of the Respondents for Taiwan Public Sector
4.1.3 Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha
Table 4-3 provides descriptive statistics by questionnaire items for the respondents of Taiwan public sector. These include 33 items of paternalistic leadership, 15 items of organizational ethical climate.
The results of means and standard deviations as shown in Table 4-3 indicated that, for the construct of paternalistic leadership, respondents identified the presence of authoritative leadership (mean= 3.84). This was followed by the moral leadership (mean= 3.73) and benevolent leadership (mean= 3.44). According to the high means of authoritative leadership (3.84), this is tally with the research of Chen & Farh (1996):
Authoritative leadership is one of the three main components of PL. While benevolence and moral leadership are integral, authoritarianism stands out, at least in
Question Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 182 72.8%
Female 68 27.2%
Age
18-26 26 10.4%
27-36 94 37.6%
37-46 85 34 %
47-56 38 15.2%
More than56 7 2.8%
Tenure
Less than 1 19 ..7.6%
1-5 (below) 43 17.2%
5-10 (below) 34 13.6%
10-15 (below) 50 20%
15-20 (below) 40 16%
20~25 (below) 45 18%
More than25 19 7.6%
the assessment by Western researchers, as the most prominent and most representative of the Chinese leadership tradition.
Table 4-3
Descriptive Analysis and Reliability for Paternalistic Leadership Types
Finally, for the construct of organizational ethical climate, Table 4-4 shows that respondents were identified the presence of organizational ethical climate, egoistic climate (mean=4.95). This was followed by the principle climate (mean=4.89) and benevolent climate (mean=4.11). If the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7, the factor is reliable (Nunnally, 1978). These findings suggest that the majority of the respondents believed that their organizations major concern is about what is best for itself and subordinates are expected to comply with the law and professional standards, and to stick by organization rules and procedures.
Table 4-4
Descriptive Analysis and Reliability for Organizational Ethical Climate Types Taiwan Public Sector
(0.000)
Table 4-5 displays the pearson correlation coefficients for the model constructs of Taiwan public sector. According to Sharma and Patterson (1999), comparing the alpha coefficients of each construct and its correlation coefficients with other constructs aids in assessing discriminant validity. If the alpha coefficient is greater than the across correlations coefficient, evidence of discriminant validity has been demonstrated.
Table 4-5
Pearson Correlation for All Constructs
This study finds that dimensions of PL (paternalistic leadership) and dimensions of organizational ethical climate are significantly correlated. From the Table 4-5, except for H5, all of the Pearson coefficients are significant so hypotheses are supported, and the coefficient of authoritative leadership and egoistic climate, benevolent leadership and benevolent climate, moral leadership, principled climate
Authoritative
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
─
and authoritative leadership and benevolent climate are 0.602 (p<0.05), 0.694(p<0.05), 0.267(p<0.05), and -0.445(p<0.05) respectively. Therefore, H1, H2, H3, and H4 are established.
Validity is the degree to which a measure accurately represents what it is supposed to. Different validity terms are used to illustrate various aspects of construct validity (Sureshchandar et al., 2002). Ensuring validity starts with a thorough understanding of what is to be measured and then making the measurement as
“correct” and accurate as possible. There are two most widely accepted forms of validity and these two validity analyses would be used in this study.
1. Convergent validity. It is the degree to which two measures of the same concept are correlated. Each item in a scale can also be treated as a different approach to measure the construct (Ahire et al., 1996)
2. Discriminant validity. It is the assessment of the correspondence of the variables to be included in a summated scale and its conceptual definition. It is ensured by showing that a measure does not correlated very highly with other measures from which it is supposed to differ.
4.3 Partial Least Squares (PLS) for the Interrelationships among Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Ethical Climate
A partial least squares (PLS) analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between multidimensional constructs of paternalistic leadership and organizational ethical climate. PLS was selected to analyze the overall model because:
˙ it is able to model multiple dependent as well as multiple independence variables;
˙ it is appropriate when multicollinearity is present;
˙ it can robust despite data noise and missing data;
˙ Creates independent latents directly on the basis of cross products involving response variable(s) = stronger predictions
˙ Allows for reflective and formative latents;
˙ Applied to small sample;
˙ it can distributional free; and
˙ it can handle range of variables: nominal, ordinal, continuous (Pirouz, 2006).
Because this study have multiple dependent as well as multiple independent, hence, we used WarpPLS 1.0 (Kock, 2009) to conduct a PLS (partial least squares) regression for examining our research hypotheses. WarpPLS is a powerful new structural equation modeling (SEM) software. Since most relationships between numeric variables are nonlinear, one could argue that WarpPLS finds the “real”
relationships between latent variables in an SEM analysis. Typically path coefficients are increased, in some cases going from non-significant to significant at the p lower than 1 percent level. The underlying algorithm employed by WarpPLS is PLS regression, whose main characteristic is its ability to minimize multicollinearity among latent variables (even in the presence of overlapping manifest variables, or indicators) (Kock, 2009).
It cannot distributed by types of variable and limited by sample size and it has a better ability of predictor and explanatory. Specifically, WarpPLS simultaneously assesses the psychometric properties of the measurement model (i.e. the reliability and validity of the scales used to measure each variable), as well as estimates the parameters of the structural model (i.e. the strength of the path relationships among the model variables). The measurement model and the structural model results are discussed below.
Table 4-6
Note: AVA=authoritative leadership; AVB= benevolent leadership; AVM=moral leadership; AVEC=egoistic climate; AVBC=benevolent climate; AVPC=principled climate
Reliability results from testing the measurement model are reported in Table 4-6.
The data indicates that the measures are robust in terms of their internal consistency reliabilities as indexed by the composite reliability. The composite reliabilities of the different measures in the model range from 0.81 to 0.94, which exceed the recommended threshold value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, consistent with guidelines promulgated by Fornell & Larcker (1981), the average variance extracted (AVE) for each measure well exceeds 0.50 (the minimum AVE is 0.52).
Table 4-7
Discriminant Validity (Intercorrelations) of Variable Constructs
Latent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Authoritative Leadership 0.72
2. Benevolent Leadership -0.44 0.76
3. Moral Leadership -0.27 0.59 0.81
4. Egoistic climate 0.54 -0.25 0.01 0.77
5. Benevolent Climate -0.40 0.63 0.40 -0.14 0.79
6. Principled climate 0.17 0.10 0.29 0.33 0.11 0.85
Note: Diagonal elements (bold) are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) between the constructs and their indicator(s). Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For convergent and discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be at least .707 (i.e., AVE>.50) and larger than off-diagonal elements in the same row and column.
Table 4-7 provides evidence of the discriminant validity of the measures used in the study. As strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, the bolded elements in the matrix diagonals, representing the square roots of the AVEs, are greater in all cases than the off-diagonal elements in their corresponding row and column, supporting the discriminant validity of our scales. In short, the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than 0.707 (i.e., AVE> .50) and greater than the correlation between that construct and other constructs, without exception (Chin 1998; Compeau et al., 1999; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Table 4-8:
Factoring Loadings (Bolded) and Cross Loadings
Note: AVA: authoritative leadership; AVB: benevolent leadership; AVM: moral leadership; AVEC: egoistic climate; AVBE: benevolent climate; AVPC: principled climate.
We tested convergent validity using WarpPLS by extracting the factor loadings (and cross loadings) of all indicator items to their respective latent constructs. These results, presented in Table 4-8, indicate that all items loaded: (1) on their respective construct (i.e. the bolded factor loadings) from a lower bound of 0.53 to an upper bound of 0.93, with the exception of AVB8 (the loading was below threshold of 0.5, so we deleted it), all of these reliabilities far exceed the recommended threshold of 0.5 suggested by Hair et al., (1987); and (2) more highly on their respective construct than on any other construct (i.e. the non-bolded factor loadings in any one row).
Furthermore, each item’s factor loading on its respective construct was highly significant (p < 0.001). The loadings presented in Table 4-8 confirm the convergent validity of the measures for these latent constructs. Overall, the measured scales show excellent psychometric properties with high reliability and appropriate convergent and discriminant validity.
The Structural Model
Note: AVA: authoritative leadership; AVB: benevolent leadership;
AVM: moral leadership; AVEC: egoistic climate; AVBE: benevolent climate;
AVPC: principled climate
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level.
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
Figure 4-6 Result from the PLS Analysis
Figure 4-6 visually presents the results of the structural model. The beta values of the path coefficients, indicating the direct influences of the exogenous constructs on the endogenous constructs, are presented. Each path’s significance was estimated by a bootstrapping procedure (Ravichandran & Rai, 2000) using 500 resamples, which tends to provide reasonable standard error estimates (Chin, 2001).
Authoritative leadership (AVA) exhibited a strong positive direct influence (beta =
0.54, p < 0.01) on egoistic climate (AVEC). Benevolent leadership (AVB) exhibited a positive direct influence on benevolent climate (AVBC) (beta = 0.56, p < 0.01). Moral leadership exhibited a strong positive direct influence (beta= 0.35, p<0.01) on
principled climate. AVA exhibited a strong negative direct influence (beta=-0.15,
p<0.01) on AVBC. The effect of AVB on AVPC (beta=-0.11, p=0.43) was not significant and is therefore not represented in the structural model results.
The direct influences of AVA, AVB, and AVM, accounted for 29%, 41%, and 9%
of the variance in AVEC, AVBC, and AVPC, respectively. Although not all of the goodness of fit measures met the guidelines, overall fit for each measurement model was considered acceptable.
TABLE 4-9
Conclusions with Respect to the Hypotheses
HYPOTHESIS CONCLUSION
H1: There is a positive relation between authoritative leadership on organizational egoistic climate.
Supported (beta = 0.54, p < 0.01) AVA found to affect AVEC significantly H2: There is a positive relation between
benevolent leadership on organizational benevolent climate.
Supported (beta = 0.56, p < 0.01)
AVB found to affect AVBC significantly H3: There is a positive relation between
moral leadership on organizational principled climate.
Supported (beta= 0.35, p<0.01)
AVM found to affect AVPC significantly H4: There is a negative relation between
benevolent leadership on organizational principled climate.
Not Supported
AVB did not affect on AVPC
Table 4-9 presents the conclusions with respect to the five hypotheses. The last column indicates whether or not the hypotheses were supported. The beta coefficient and p values are also reported. We should note that a direct comparison of our findings to those of Venkatesh & Davis (2000) and Venkatesh (2000) must be made with caution. These findings are discussed in the next section.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This major objective of this study is to identify the relationships among paternalistic leadership, ethical climate in Taiwan public sector. Based on the results of this study, several conclusions can be draw.
5.1 Discussions
The current study extends Erben & Güneser (2008) work, and the framework they discussed were as the unidimensional constructed, we though they ignored the importance of multidimensional constructs, as well as we provide support for the relationship he reports between paternalistic leadership and organizational ethical climate. More specifically, the current study indicates that additional damage of enhanced authoritative leadership result in egoistic climate and increased a benevolent climate, and a harmonious work atmosphere might be gained by establishing higher levels of benevolence leadership. Furthermore, our preliminary evidence also suggests benevolent ethical climate were declined when organizations recruit an authoritative leader.
Notice that benevolence leadership will have no effect on principled climate (hypothesis 5); we can infer that the sample is extracted from public sector, however, the principles are made by law and hard to change it arbitrarily. Although, from the PLS result we can find they have exists negative relations but hard to find an significantly relationship, in other words, although benevolence leadership have more flexible in leader relatively, but do not have enough flexibility to affect principle made by law. Our explains are similar to conception of Treviño et al., (1998) for rules are the perceived importance the organization places on complying with company
rules and regulations and law is the perceived importance the organization places on complying with laws and professional standards. Nevertheless, rules and laws of public sectors are made by law and it cannot inadvisable to be change arbitrarily.
This study re-emphasized the importance for multidimensional constructs connected. We consider that multidimensional frameworks fit better with the organization’s reality because there are many different leaders whose come from different background can be manifested. Moreover, because there is no single path for leadership, the consequences of implementing leadership ways may be diverse.
We also believed that if the questionnaires were sampled from the family business (private sectors), may be the relations of benevolence leadership and principled climate are significant on the contrary. Because the rules, norms, and principles do not concern law and it was made by leaders, based on the point, we provide a possible directions for future research.
Leaders teach organizational values to every new member of the organization.
These values establish the foundation of the leaders' character. Once members learn these values, their leaders enforce adherence. Adhering to the principles that the organizational values embody is essential, for the organization cannot tolerate unethical behavior. Unethical behavior destroys morale and cohesion and undermines the trust and confidence essential to teamwork and goal accomplishment.
Ethical conduct must reflect beliefs and convictions, not just fear of punishment.
Over time, organizational members adhere to the company's values because they want to live ethically and profess the values because they know it is right to do so. Once people believe and demonstrate these values, they become persons of character.
Ultimately, leaders are charged with the essential role of setting the conditions for
character development by shaping the organization's ethical climate.
5.2 Limitations
Limitation of the Cross-Section Study
This study use the cross section data as the evidence, hence, it cannot use the way of longitudinal, collecting the data and explore the relation between cause and effect between the variables in the long-term, so we just only can observe the phenomenon of point and may be exist the biased of result of sampling, therefore it had limited the inference of causality. Future studies might use longitudinal approaches to examine how organizational ethical climate evolves over time.
Sample
With limited ability of the research, convenience sampling is used in quantitative research, hence most of all Taiwan public sectors were successfully contacted; if only a few public sectors were successfully acquired (e.g., Investigation Bureau of Ministry Justice, Judicial Yuan or Examinations Yuan) that the explanation will be high. The advantage of a convenience sample is that it is easy to access and have lower cost. The disadvantage is that it is not an accurate representation of the population, which can skew the results quite radically. In fact, convenience sampling is regarded as a form of sampling bias, meaning that the results from a study conducted with such a sample cannot be generalized to the population as a whole.
Summary of convenience sample is presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Non-Probability Sampling Methods
Data size
In this study, the data size is relatively small. The larger the sample size, the greater the power and the more sensitive the research in detecting the relationships under investigation. Subsequent studies could include samples of civil servants in other public sectors than those surveyed here. This limitation restrained the researchers to generalize the results of the study. The method used in this study was a survey method and data were gathered for both the independent and dependent variables from the same source. This may lead to the issue of same source bias or common method variance. When respondents fill in a survey at one point time, items from one scale prime them to answer items from other scales and they strive for consistency in marking their response. Future research may use interviews in addition to questionnaires to overcome this problem.
5.3 Conclusions
This study which is based on the analysis of paternalistic leadership and organizational ethical climate, applying Chinese society culture conception, and focuses on the dependence of subordinates on their supervisors and leader generalize to program target population
˙Subjectivity can make it difficult to measure changes in indicators over time
˙No way to assess precision or reliability of data
competence to explore the model of paternalistic leadership. According to the analysis results with suitable research training but without adequate training in leadership research activity may fail to flourish, consequently there is a need to have suitable leadership skills (Lee et al., 2004). Various models of leadership are available, in other words, depending on the situation, one has to choose between the different leadership styles and settle on an effective leadership style.
Research shows that the most successful leaders have strengths in the following emotional intelligence competencies: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. There are six basic styles of leadership; each makes use of the key components of emotional intelligence in different combinations. The best leaders don’t know just one style of leadership—they’re skilled at several, and have the flexibility to switch between styles as the circumstances dictate (Rosing, 2008).
Hence, a leader should decrease the authoritative leadership, when the organizations existing the egoistic climate, or if a leader hope the organization exist principled climate continually then, showing the moral leadership rather than other PL (Paternalistic Leadership) behaviors. According to various authors (Colvin, 2006;
Hogan & Fernandex, 2002; Tudor, Trumbel, & Diaz, 1996) reasons of failure organizations are: The line of authority is not clear and/or the structure of the team is obscure.
Finally, the outstanding benevolent leader has mastered the interpersonal
Finally, the outstanding benevolent leader has mastered the interpersonal