This chapter includes five sections. First, it presents sample characteristics of the respondents. Second, it also presents descriptive statistics of the result which consists of the mean and standard deviation of every item. Third, it follows by the result of common method bias and Reliability analysis. Fourth, correlation analysis is presented. Lastly, Partial Least Square analysis and findings are discussed.
Descriptive Statistics Sample Characteristics
The respondents included 292 employees evaluating 45 leaders making up the top three levels (seniors, middle and first line managers) of Casa Pellas. The target leaders were business unit responsible at different level mentioned above for 1 to 15 business units within the Consortium. The questionnaires (594) were sent out online by the researcher. The company’s chairman asked to the researcher to keep strict confidentially, thus, all participants completed the survey anonymously. The overall response rate were 49 % (n=292).
The sampling characteristics of the respondents in terms of business unit are given in Table 4.1. By using frequencies and percentages and analyzing sampling weight we observe that in relative terms nine business unit were over-represent in relation to the total population (Suzuki car, Toyota car, used car, Hino tracks, car insurance, industrial, Microtec, auto-parts and Yamaha) and six business unit were under-represent in relation to the total population (distributor, industrial equipment, rent-a-car, mechanic shop, Yamaha mechanic shop). The greatest difference between sample and population were in “Mechanic shop”, with a difference of 108 persons indicating it was relatively the least accurately represented business unit. The smallest difference was found in “car insurance” with a difference of 2 persons indicating it as the most accurately represented group.
55 Table 4.1.
Comparing Sampling and Population Characteristics
Population Respondents A Sampling Category Options Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Weight 1 into categories of gender, age, education, length of employment, job type, evaluated leader’s position and business unit. The big majority (76 %) were male. Employees ranged in ages between 20-50 years old with the majority of responses from employees between ages of 21-30 (54%). Most of the participants attained a bachelor degree (72.9 %), followed by high school degree (21.2%), Junior high school and Master degree 0.3% and 5.5 % respectively.
They had worked in the company a range from less than 1 year to more than 10 years.
Employment service between 1-3 years was the greater part of the responses (40.1%).
Regarding leader positions, middle manager (68.5 %), senior manager (27.4 %) and first line manager (4.1 %) were evaluated. The business unit participation ranged from 1.7 % to 37.3
56
%. One branch did not yield answer whereby fourteen branches were included and the participation was ranged from 0.3 % to 43.2 %.
Table 4.2.
Sample Characteristics Based on Demographic Variables
Demographic Variable Entries Percent
Gender Female 70 24
Male 222 76
Age Younger 20 years 3 1
21-30 years old 158 54
31-40 years old 91 31
41-50 years old 30 10
Above 50 years 10 3
Education Junior High School 1 0.3
High School 62 21.2
Bachelor’s Degree 213 72.9
Master’s Degree 16 5.5
Had Worked Less than 1 year 26 8.9
More 1-3 years 117 40.1
More 3-5 years 29 9.9
More 5-7 years 33 11.3
More 7-10 years 31 10.6
More than 10 years 56 19.2
Job Type Supervisor 45 15.4
Salesman 105 36.0
Administrative 83 28.4
Technician 15 5.1
Operative 40 13.7
Other 4 1.4
(continued)
57 Table 4.2. (continued)
Demographic Variable Entries Percent
Leader's Position Senior Manager 80 27.4
Middle manager 200 68.5
First line manager 12 4.1
Business Unit Suzuki car 8 2.7
Toyota car 20 6.8
Used car 8 2.7
Hino Track 6 2.1
Car Insurance 6 2.1
Industrial Equipment 7 2.4
Industrial 16 5.5
Distributors 31 10.6
Microtec 5 1.7
Rent a Car 16 5.5
Auto parts 109 37.3
Mechanics shop 34 11.6
Body shop 9 3.1
Yamaha shop 6 2.1
Yamaha 11 3.8
Note. N=292
After a brief description of the sample characteristics, the researcher now proceeds to provide descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items in order to identify how the sample responded to the questions under study.
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The next section provides a summary of the responses collected for the researcher.
Table 4.3 reflects the mean and standard deviation of each item. All variables used 5-point-Likert scale measurement, ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
However, only those items that were not dropped from analysis would be further elaborated.
58
Perceptions of Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Perceived transformational leadership behaviors were measured using a 20-item scale.
Four items measured individualized consideration, four items measured intellectual stimulation, four items measured inspirational motivation, four items measured idealized influence attributes and four items measured idealized influence behaviors.
Table 4.3 represents the characteristics of transformational leadership construct, in terms of their mean and standard deviation. As an overview of transformational leadership construct, the respondents showed high agreement in TLIIB7 (M=4.15), which represents
“My direct supervisor specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose”. This indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item. On other hand, the lowest score are TLIC8 (M=3.54) and TLIC10 (M=3.54) which represent “My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching” and “My direct supervisor treats others as an individual rather than just as a member of a group” respectively. This indicates that on average the respondents were fairly “neutral” on this item.
Participants were more consistent in answering item TLIM14 “My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the future”, since this item had the lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.96). Persons were also the least consistent in answering item TLIC8 “My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching”. (SD = 1.19).
Finally, Inspirational Motivation had the highest mean score (M = 4.00) indicating that is could possibly be the more dominant leadership behavior.
Table 4.3.
Perceptions of Transformational Leadership behaviors by Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
TLIC8 My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching. 3.54 1.19 TLIC10 My direct supervisor treats others as an individual rather than
just as a member of a group. 3.54 1.15
TLIC15 My direct supervisor considers an individual as having
different needs, abilities and aspirations from others. 3.83 1.05 TLIC17 My direct supervisor helps others to develop their strengths. 3.71 1.09
Average mean 3.65
(continued)
59 Table 4.3. (continued)
TLIS1 My direct supervisor re-examines critical assumptions to
question whether they are appropriate. 3.65 1.02
TLIS3 My direct supervisor seeks differing perspectives when
solving problems. 3.98 1.06
TLIS16 My direct supervisor gets others to look at problems from
many different angles. 3.70 1.04
TLIS18 My direct supervisor suggests new ways of looking at how to
complete assignments. 3.85 1.02
Average mean 3.79
TLIM4 My direct supervisor talks optimistically about the future. 3.99 1.09 TLIM6 My direct supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs
to be accomplished. 4.02 1.05
TLIM14 My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the
future. 3.92 0.96
TLIM20 My direct supervisor expresses confidence that goals will be
achieved. 4.06 1.04
Average mean 4.00
TLIIA5 My direct supervisor instills pride in me for being associated
with me. 3.59 1.18
TLIIA9 My direct supervisor goes beyond self-interest for the good of
the group. 3.75 1.13
TLIIA11 My direct supervisor acts in ways that builds her/his respect. 3.99 1.05 TLIIA13 My direct supervisor displays a sense of power and
confidence. 3.87 0.97
Average mean 3.80
(continued)
60 Table 4.3. (continued)
TLIIB2 My direct supervisor talks about their most important values
and beliefs. 3.89 1.09
TLIIB7 My direct supervisor specifies the importance of having a
strong sense of purpose. 4.15 0.99
TLIIB12 My direct supervisor considers the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions. 3.91 1.06
TLIIB19 My direct supervisor emphasize the importance of having a
collective sense of mission. 3.96 1.04
Average mean 3.97
Note. TFLIC= transformational leadership individualized consideration;
TLIS=transformational leadership-intellectual stimulation; TLIM= transformational leadership-inspirational motivation; TLIIA=transformational leadership-idealized influence attributes; TLIIB=transformational leadership idealized influence behaviors.
Perceptions of Empowerment
Perceived empowerment was measured using a 12-item scale. Three items measured meaningfulness, three items measured competence, three items measured self determination, and three items measured impact.
Table 4.4 represents the characteristics of empowerment construct, in terms of their mean and standard deviation. As an overview of empowerment construct, the respondents showed high agreement in EMPM22 (M=4.67), which represents “The work that I do is important to me”. This indicates that on average the participants were fairly “strongly agree”
to this item. On other hand, the lowest score is EMPD26 (M=3.75) which represent “I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department”. This indicates that on average the respondents were fairly “agree” on this item.
Participants were more consistent in answering item EMPC32 “I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.”, since this item had the lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.58). Respondents were also the least consistent in answering items EMPD26 and EMPD27 “I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department” and “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my own work” both items with SD = 1.00.
Finally, meaningfulness had a higher mean score (M = 4.54) indicating that is could possibly be the more dominant dimension of empowerment.
61 Table 4.4.
Perception of Empowerment by Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
EMPM30 The work I do is meaningful to me. 4.55 0.69
EMPM22 The work that I do is important to me. 4.67 0.69
EMPM25 My job activities are personally meaningful to me. 4.41 0.68
Average mean score 4.54
EMPC21 I am confident about my ability to do my job. 4.52 0.64 EMPC32 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my
work activities. 4.65 0.58
EMPC29 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job. 4.41 0.63
Average mean score 4.52
EMPD27 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my own
work. 3.81 1.00
EMPD28 I have considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my job. 3.79 0.97
EMPD26 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my
department. 3.75 1.00
Average mean score 3.78
EMPI24 My impact on what happens in my department is large. 4.27 0.73 EMPI31 I have significant influence over what happens in my
department. 3.87 0.95
EMPI23 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my
job. 4.16 0.82
Average mean score 4.10
Note. EMPM=empowerment-meaningfulness; EMPC=empowerment-competence;
EMPD=empowerment-determination; EMPI=empowerment-impact.
62 Perception of Climate for Innovation
Table 4.5 represents the characteristics of climate for innovation construct, in terms of their mean and standard deviation. As an overview of climate for innovation construct, the respondents showed high agreement in CLIS38 (M=4.05), which represents “Our business unit can be described as flexible and continually adapting to change”. This indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item. Moreover, the lowest score is CLIR51 (M=2.88) which represent “Our business unit gives me free time to pursue creative ideas during the workday”. This indicates that on average the respondents were fairly “neutral” on this item.
Respondents were more consistent in answering item CLIS36 “In our business unit the main function of members is to follow orders which come down through channels.”, since this item had the lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.82). Respondents were also the least consistent in answering item CLIS43 “In our business unit, the people in charge usually get credit for others' ideas” (SD = 1.17).
Finally, Supply of resources had a higher mean score (M = 3.36) indicating that is could possibly be the more dominant dimension of climate for innovation.
Table 4.5.
Perception of Climate for innovation by Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Item Obs. Mean SD
CLIS33 In our business unit creativity is encouraged. 3.97 0.90 CLIS34 In our business unit our ability to function creatively is
respected by the leadership. 3.91 0.86
CLIS35 In our business unit, people are allowed to try to solve
the same problems in different ways. 3.83 0.87
CLIS36 In our business unit the main function of members is to
follow orders which come down through channels. RC 2.02 0.82 CLIS37 In our business unit, a person can get in a lot of trouble
by being different. RC 3.17 1.12
CLIS38 Our business unit can be described as flexible and
continually adapting to change. 4.05 0.87
CLIS39 In our business unit, a person can't do things that are too
different without provoking anger. RC 3.20 0.98
(continued)
63 Table 4.5. (continued)
Code Item Obs. Mean SD
CLIS40 In our business unit the best way to get along is to think
the way the rest of the group does. RC 2.98 1.13
CLIS41 In our business unit, people around here are expected to
deal with problems in the same way. RC 2.87 1.04
CLIS42 Our business unit is open and responsive to change. 4.03 0.87 CLIS43 In our business unit, the people in charge usually get
credit for others' ideas. RC 2.93 1.17
CLIS44 In our business unit, we tend to stick to tried and true
ways. RC 2.37 0.90
CLIS45 In our business unit seems to be more concerned with
the status quo than with change. RC 3.18 1.05
CLIS52 In our business unit, the reward system here encourages
innovation. 3.42 1.14
CLIS53 Our business unit publicly recognizes those who are
innovative. 3.89 1.05
CLIS54 In our business unit, the reward system here benefits
mainly those who don't rock the boat. RC 3.32 1.05
Average mean score 3.32
CLIR46 In our business unit, assistance in developing new
ideas is readily available. 3.73 0.96
CLIR47 In our business unit, there are adequate resources
devoted to innovation. 3.80 1.04
CLIR48 In our business unit, there is adequate time available
to pursue creative ideas here. 3.34 1.09
CLIR49 In our business unit, lack of funding to investigate
creative ideas is a problem. RC 3.11 1.07
CLIR50 In our business unit, personnel shortages inhibit
innovation. RC 3.32 1.04
(continued)
64 Table 4.5. (continued)
Code Item Obs. Mean SD
CLIR51 Our business unit gives me free time to pursue
creative ideas during the workday. 2.88 1.14
Average mean score 3.36 Note. RC: Reverse coded. CLIR=climate supply for resources; CLIS=climate-support for innovation.
Perception of Innovation
Table 4.6 represents the characteristics of innovation construct, in terms of their mean and standard deviation. As an overview of innovation construct, the respondents showed high agreement in INNP55 (M=4.06), which represents “Compare to other companies, our business unit promote employee’s work efficiency through process innovation”. This indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item. On other hand, the lowest score is INNT60 (M=3.85) which represent “Compare to other companies, our business unit can get better total sales through technical innovation”. This also indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item.
Respondents were more consistent in answering item INNP56 “Compare to other companies, our business unit provides new services through process innovation”, since this item had the lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.85). Respondents were also the least consistent in answering item INNT60 “Compare to other companies, our business unit can get better total sales through technical innovation” (SD = 0.91).
Finally, Process innovation had a higher mean score (M = 4.03) indicating that is could possibly be the more dominant dimension of innovation.
Table 4.6.
Perception of Innovation by Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
INNP55 Compare to other companies, our business unit promote
employee’s work efficiency through process innovation. 4.06 0.86 INNP56 Compare to other companies, our business unit provides new
services through process innovation. 4.01 0.85
Average mean score 4.03
(continued)
65 Table 4.6. (continued)
INNO57 Compare to other companies, our business unit can enhance the efficiency of communication through organizational innovation.
3.88 0.90
INNO58 Compare to other companies, our business unit can improve
market leadership through organizational innovation. 3.91 0.90
Average mean score 3.89
INNT59 Compare to other companies, our business unit can bring high
profits through technical innovation. 3.86 0.89
INNT60 Compare to other companies, our business unit can get better
total sales through technical innovation. 3.85 0.91
Average mean score 3.85
Note. INNP=innovation-process; INNO=innovation-organizational; INNT=innovation-technical.
Perception of Business Performance
Table 4.7 represents the characteristics of business performance construct, in terms of their mean and standard deviation. As an overview of business performance construct, the respondents showed high agreement in OPS61 (M=4.24), which represents “Our business unit’s sales have grown over the past three years”. This indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item. On other hand, the lowest score is OPA65 (M=3.89) which represent “Return on assets of our business unit has increased over the past three years”. This also indicates that on average the participants “agree” to this item.
Respondents were more consistent in answering item OPS61 “Our business unit’s sales have grown over the past three years”, since this item had the lowest standard deviation (SD = 0.81). Respondents were also the least consistent in answering item OPP64 “Our business unit’s profits have grown over the past three years” (SD = 0.91).
66 Table 4.7.
Business Performance by Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Item Mean SD
BPS61 Our business unit’s sales have grown over the past three years. 4.24 0.81 BPM62 In our business unit, the market share has grown over the past
three years. 4.14 0.84
BPI63 Our business unit’s operating income has grown over the past
three years. 4.00 0.87
BPP64 Our business unit’s profits have grown over the past three
years. 3.98 0.91
BPA65 Return on assets of our business unit has increased over the
past three years. 3.89 0.88
Note. BPS=business performance sales; BPM=business performance-market share;
BPI=business performance-operating income; BPP=business performance-profits;
BPA=business performance-assets.
Common Method Bias (CMB)
Harman’s Single-Factor Test
Harman‘s single-factor test is a statistical procedure to be used in an attempt to control for common method variance. In this procedure, all the variables of interest are entered into a factor analysis. Following this, the results of the unrotated factor solution are examined to determine the number of factors that are necessary to account for the variance in the variables. The basic assumption of this technique is that if a substantial amount of common method variance is present, either (a) single factor will emerge from the factor analysis, or (b) one “general” factor will account for the majority of the covariance in the independent and criterion variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Nineteen variables were involved in this research (5-dimensions Transformational leadership, 4-dimension Empowerment, 2-dimensions of climate, 3-dimensions of innovation, 5-dimensions of business performance). By running EFA on the 19 variables of this study, four factors with en eigenvalue above than 1 emerged. Following Kaiser’s criterion, factors with an eingenvalue of less than 1 are excluded (Kinnear & Gray, 1999). The variance explained for those four factors were 44.58%, 15.58%, 9.72% and 7.14%. The first factor explained 44.58% of the
67
variance, although it is a lot of variance to be explained by a single factor it not a majority, so this results could be acceptable.
Correlations Analysis
The assumptions for using Pearson were met. Scatter plots were constructed and inspected for all variables and tended to be homoscedastic and liner, refer to scatterplot showing linearity (Appendix B) and residual plot showing homoscedasticy (Appendix C).
The assumptions were also confirmed by using curve estimation in SPSS 17. Therefore, the researcher proceeded to use a Pearson product moment correlation. The descriptors used by Davis (1971) were used in this study to interpret the magnitude of the correlations.
Pearson coefficient correlation as shown in Table 4.8 was performed to examine the direction and the strength of linear relationship between variables. According to the result, perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors, perceived empowerment, perceptions of climate for innovation dimension, perceived innovation and perceived business performance showed positive relationship. As expected, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, idealized influence attributes and idealized influence behaviors were positively and highly intercorrelated. These measures of transformational leadership were also positive and moderately correlated with empowerment, climate for innovation, and innovation measures. Perceptions of empowerment were also moderately and positively correlated with innovation measures. Perceptions of climate for innovation were positive and substantial correlated with innovation measures. Innovation showed positive and moderately correlated with business performance measures.
68 Table 4.8.
Correlation Analysis
Mean SD TLIC TLIS TLIM TLIIA TLIIB EMPM EMPC EMPD EMPI CLIS CLIR INNP INNO INNT BPS BPM BPI BPP BPR
TLIC 3.652 .970 1.000
TLIS 3.795 .908 0.883** 1.000
TLIM 3.999 .947 0.812** 0.829** 1.000
TLIIA 3.801 .930 0.876** 0.865** 0.868** 1.000
TLIIB 3.977 .939 0.861** 0.873** 0.895** 0.899** 1.000
EMPM 4.556 .596 0.344** 0.386** 0.428** 0.399** 0.436** 1.000
EMPC 4.543 .540 0.313** 0.353** 0.369** 0.358** 0.379** 0.698** 1.000
EMPD 3.736 .858 0.464** 0.493** 0.437** 0.421** 0.444** 0.363** 0.384** 1.000
EMPI 4.061 .670 0.527** 0.533** 0.499** 0.515** 0.524** 0.543** 0.553** 0.774** 1.000
CLIS 3.450 .552 0.389** 0.413** 0.419** 0.393** 0.420** 0.227** 0.168** 0.412** 0.389** 1.000 CLIR 3.615 .871 0.478** 0.452** 0.446** 0.412** 0.445** 0.170** 0.208** 0.403** 0.402** 0.573** 1.000 INNP 4.024 .796 0.365** 0.377** 0.341** 0.344** 0.374** 0.192** 0.204** 0.345** 0.371** 0.508** 0.610** 1.000 INNO 3.899 .828 0.410** 0.418** 0.387** 0.389** 0.417** 0.211** 0.227** 0.429** 0.456** 0.497** 0.628** 0.820** 1.000 INNT 3.846 .868 0.363** 0.368** 0.307** 0.312** 0.344** 0.191** 0.242** 0.375** 0.406** 0.365** 0.530** 0.733** 0.813** 1.000 BPS 4.205 .832 0.272** 0.282** 0.277** 0.277** 0.307** 0.303** 0.286** 0.331** 0.356** 0.204** 0.269** 0.330** 0.364** 0.348** 1.000 BPM 4.130 .848 0.279** 0.289** 0.276** 0.273** 0.293** 0.310** 0.245** 0.334** 0.327** 0.220** 0.304** 0.428** 0.423** 0.408** 0.819** 1.000 BPI 3.966 .853 0.248** 0.268** 0.237** 0.224** 0.244** 0.225** 0.262** 0.277** 0.324** 0.165** 0.289** 0.363** 0.377** 0.388** 0.688** 0.710** 1.000 BPP 3.979 .873 0.211** 0.224** 0.210** 0.180** 0.201** 0.209** 0.247** 0.237** 0.265** 0.151** 0.270** 0.332** 0.316** 0.370** 0.701** 0.719** 0.724** 1.000 BPR 3.863 .871 0.260** 0.286** 0.234** 0.218** 0.247** 0.185** 0.222** 0.349** 0.350** 0.261** 0.344** 0.451** 0.491** 0.538** 0.594** 0.639** 0.716** 0.720** 1.000
Note. N=292 ** p < .01
69
Partial Least Square (PLS) Analysis
First, the researcher provided evidence which assessed the assumption to run multiple linear regressions. The assumptions were: normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, absence of multicollinearity and removal of outliers.
To check normality, a histogram was done, which appeared normal distributed, refer to Histogram showing normality (Appendix D). The assumptions related to linearity and homoscedasticity were previously validated in the correlation analysis. In the diagnosis of the
To check normality, a histogram was done, which appeared normal distributed, refer to Histogram showing normality (Appendix D). The assumptions related to linearity and homoscedasticity were previously validated in the correlation analysis. In the diagnosis of the