Significance of Effective Leadership - Coursework Example

? Business and Management Research PART I - Evaluating Published Research In today’s increasingly globalized professional arena, business houses are transiting through extreme uncertainties and hesitancies (Furnham, 2009; Drucker, 2012; Kasunic, 2009). In light of this extreme turbulence, the significance of effective leadership is growing at a rapid rate (Moyles, 2006; Panega, 2006; John, 2002). Leadership is therefore considered as an important function of an organization (Avolio, 2010; Farabi, 2012; Gitlow, 2004). It not only assists in maximizing the efficiency of the organization but also aid in the process of achieving organizational goals (Jennifer, 2009; Daft, 2008; Silverthorne, 2005). According to several eminent authors around the world, leadership activity plays critical roles in initiating the actions of the organization, motivating the workforce, providing guidance to the team followers, building a proper working environment and also coordinating with the upper management in order to ensure smother work flow (Duke, 2009; Mackay, 2007; Harrell, 2008). This segment of the study will undertake a critical review of the article, “Combinative aspects of leadership style and the interaction between leadership behaviours” by Gian Casimir and Yong Ngee Keith Ng. This journal article was published in the year 2010 in Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, and can be found in pages 501-517. The authors carried out this study for the principal purpose of testing an alternative standpoint of interaction, which is purely based on the technique or way leaders amalgamates various leadership behaviours (Casimir and Ng, 2009). The two principal leadership behaviours considered by the authors are socio-emotional leadership and task oriented leadership. The subsequent section of the study will enumerate brief summary and review the findings of the paper. In addition, this paper will also critically review the study by Gian Casimir and Yong Ngee Keith Ng in the context of its weaknesses and strengths. Review and Summary of the Paper The study by Gian Casimir and Yong Ngee Keith Ng was about examining the interaction between socio-emotional leadership and task-oriented leadership. According to the authors, there were two major underlying principles for which the subject of study was opted. The first and most important reason was that these two leadership styles have always been the centre of attention when it came to test of interaction in the field of leadership literature. The second reason was that the authors identified that a number of day-to-day organizational leadership involve attitudes and behaviour that can be articulated as task oriented behaviour or socio emotional behaviour (Luthans, Hodgetts and Rosenkrantz, 1988; Judge, Piccollo and Ilies 2004; Komaki, 1986). Lastly the topic of interaction is also considered to be significant (Blalock, 1965; Cronbach, 1987). In the meantime, it is also necessary to define the two leadership style being discussed here in the study. A proper definition will help in better understanding of the subject and will also help in reviewing and summarising the paper. Task oriented leadership is often deemed as multifaceted and encompass wide range of behavioural traits (Glass, 2010; B. Bass and R, Bass, 2009; Northouse, 2011). Some of the typical function of task oriented leadership is allocation of resources, assigning the particular job to the followers, emphasizing on the deadlines, to cross check whether the followers are actually following the rules and regulation and maintaining the decorum of the organization and pressurizing the followers to work hard towards the achievement of the goals (Delamater, 2006; Heinemann and Zeiss, 2002; Lussier and Achua, 2009). Therefore, from the perception of the authors, it is evident that one of the most vital features of a task oriented leader is pressurizing the followers to accomplish the task in timely manner by delegating the tasks as per the capabilities of the followers (Misumi, 1985). On the contrary, socio-emotional leadership is another form of leadership that encompasses wide behavioural ranges (Dyck and Neubert, 2008; Goethals, Sorenson and Burns, 2004; Crisp and Turner, 2010). Some of the common functions of socio-emotional leadership are encouraging the followers for the purpose of maintaining a cordial relationship between the leaders and the followers (Seabury, 2010; Bass, 1985). This is characterized by the admiration of the ideas presented by the followers, believing in the feelings of the followers (Laermans, Wilson and Billiet, 1998). Therefore it is evident that socio-emotional leadership involves fair treatment of the employees thereby reducing their stress levels and articulating appreciation for the efforts put in by the followers (Misumi and Peterson, 1985; House, 1971). Hence, in this context one of the vital aspects is support. From the above discussion it is evident that the two aforementioned leadership styles can be deemed as the two poles of a magnetic field. In order to test the alternative perception of interaction, pertaining to the way leaders unite different styles of leadership, their study had undertaken primary research. The sample was 191 white collar employees. They obtained data by the help of self-administered questionnaire. They tried to measure the satisfaction level of the followers with their leaders. In addition, assessment of satisfaction pertaining to how “leaders combine leadership behaviours” was also calculated using single-item measure. The study found that the level of satisfaction among the followers with the way by which leaders unite or amalgamates socio-economic and task oriented leadership gets amplified. However, the study also found non-significant interaction among the two variables, pressure and support, which were the two distinct characteristics of task oriented and socio-emotional leadership respectively. In order to identify, the type of interaction among the two chosen variables the authors employed product-term method. The product term has been carried out with the help of multiple linear regressions. Traditionally, the concept of interaction was that “an interaction is that the effect on the dependent variable (i.e. Y) of changing one variable (sayX1), depends on the level of another variable (say X2)” (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Hence, an assessment of the interactive effect i.e. product term matrix can be determined by the multiplication of the scores of the independent variables that are proposed to have interactive impact on the variable which is dependent. In relation to this study, one of the major findings was that the effect of socio-emotional leadership and task oriented leadership depends on the way they are being combined. Therefore it is evident that the type of interaction is greatly dependent upon the premise i.e. whether it was temporarily spaced or sequenced. As a result of that it can also be concluded that combinative facets of leadership seems to have significant impact on the perception of the followers or employees as well as their reaction pertaining to leadership behaviour. Critically Review of the Paper Evaluating its Weaknesses and Strengths The paper tried to asses “combinative impact of leadership style and the interaction between leadership behaviours” and it successfully established a relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The major findings were that the satisfaction of the followers greatly increases when socio-emotional leadership and task emotional leadership is combined and practised by an author. However, the way they are combines and the premise has a strong dependence. One of the major strengths of this project was that this study has chosen a subject of concern which has been hardly explored before. Moreover, this study showed how it is critical for the leaders who are managing diversified group of people to amalgamate the various type of leadership and practise a new type of leadership that is more effective that the individual styles. Despite that the study has a number of limitation and some of the major ones are enumerated below. One of the major limitations of the study was that it only encompassed 191 samples and moreover each one of them is involved in white collar job. As a result of that the assess remains incomplete as the study does not considered people who are involved in blue collar jobs. In addition, the sample size was also comparatively less. Apart from that the study only addressed satisfaction of the employees and ignored other vital factors. The information was obtained from the participants and thus mono-source issues would have been into play. Lastly, researchers need basic research design in order to sense true effects of interaction (Hartmann and Moers, 1999; Tjosvold, 1984). Ways and Opportunities to Improve the Paper The paper attempted to address an area of study which is very rarely addressed by other scholars and hence this paper can be termed as important in the field of research. However, still there are areas that can be focused in order to improve the eminence and value of the paper. The study had the opportunity to use both white collar and blue collar employees as the respondents. Unfortunately, it only concentrated on the white collar employees. Furthermore, the sample size of the study could have been increased which would have helped in increasing the authenticity of the findings. Lastly, a correlation among the chosen independent variable with that of the dependent variable can be shown, which will help in understanding and comparing the significance of chosen variables. PART II - Mini Report Executive Summary There have been always debates over the impact of leadership in an organization and its impact on the overall health of the organization. The debate has encompassed both private sector and public sector organizations of the world. Studies have shown that in general the type of leadership being pursued by an organization acts as the determinant of the impact in organization. This study tried to find whether the interaction of two leadership style increases employee satisfaction. The study made us of statistical tools and secondary research, and it found that interaction of leadership style positively impacts the satisfaction level of the employees. Introduction In today’s unstable and tumultuous business environment, organizations around the world are experiencing high instability. As a result of that companies are also focusing on the ways to gain competitive advantage and improve the business process (Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson, 2010). In such scenarios, companies have relied heavily on the leadership activities to effectively manage people and increase the productivity of the company (Sayle and Kumar, 2006). Several studies have shown that the impact of leadership style on the organization have profound impact on the organization’s business process (Brady and Spence, 2010). However, it is essential to ensure that the best leadership practise is being pursued by the organization. In this report, a critical analysis of the combinative aspects of leadership style and the interaction between leadership behaviours will be carried out. The leadership styles to be considered in this context are task-oriented leadership and socio-emotional leadership. The study will try to assess the combinative impact on the satisfaction level of employees when these two leadership styles will be combined. In simple words, it will try to uncover whether combinative effect of leadership increases the satisfaction level of the employees or not. Literature Review The literature review for this study will be carried out with the help of journal articles, books, and authentic electronic sources. In addition to that, the study will also consider the use of online data bases from where data about the subject of concern will be collected. Leadership and its Significance in Organization Leadership is one of the crucial activities of an organization. It not only acts as a driver of business but also ensures harmony within the company. As a result of that it is often deemed as an act of mentoring a guiding a set of people or company. According to Olmstead (2012) and Lee (2002) leadership is something which is highly essential for any organization or a group. Although leadership is an integral part of an organizational function, but the reliability is greatly dependent on the style of leadership being pursued by the organization. There are several leadership styles namely autocratic leadership, bureaucratic leadership, laissez-faire leadership style, socio-emotional leadership style and task oriented leadership style to name a few. Since this study intends to focus on the socio-emotional leadership style and task oriented leadership style, brief over view of the chosen leadership styles will be enlightened. Effect of Combined Leadership The interaction between the different leadership styles has a profound effect on the leadership practise of the manger. However, more than the frequency and intensity, the significance is more on the way they are combined. The interaction between the types of leadership can also be underpinned with the help of product-term approach. In this milieu, the impact of socio emotional leadership and task oriented leadership is dependent on the way they were combined. Eminent scholars such as Falbe and Yukl (1992) have stated that the combinative effect is also greatly dependent upon the way they are combined i.e. temporal spacing and sequencing of the leadership behaviours (Casimir, 2001). This combination of the different leadership style also impact the overall satisfaction level of the employees. This is principally because of the fact that different leadership traits combines and the resultant is an effective and more influencing leadership style. The combination of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership style is best for exemplifying the impact on satisfaction on employees due to combined leadership practices. According to number of scholars, interactive effect of leadership always has positive effect on the followers. However, the similar statement has been contradicted by another set of practitioners, where the authors have mentioned that combination of leadership behaviours with low consideration and high structure has strong statistical relation and generally it reveals that such combinations have negative impact on the employee morale. In the similar backdrop, Seltzer et al. (1988) have suggested that loss of sovereignty mostly comes from high structuring supervision and coupled with low consideration it acts as a significant contributor to suffer exhaustion (Singh, 2005). One of the most critical findings on the subject of the combinative impact of leadership on the morale and satisfaction level of employees is that active management by exception has been also found to be creating increased exhaustion level among the consumers. In this type of leadership, the managers of the company actively monitors the subordinates so as to ensure the work performed is superior and as per the requirement. Furthermore, leaders often use corrective method for the purpose of ensuring the work gets completed within the specified time frame and matches with the standards. Another study Price and Weiss (2000) made it evident that athletes have less negative physiological impact but high satisfaction and morale when their coaches or instructors provide positive feedbacks, offer social support, and makes democratic decision without stressing more on the autocratic style. Hence, from this discussion it is evident that socio-emotional leadership style will most of the time have positive impact on the satisfaction level and morale of the employees. On the contrary, leadership styles resembling task-orientation tend to have a negative impact on the employee morale. Nevertheless, the combined effect of two different leadership style on the staff more and satisfaction depends upon certain factors. This is because different studies have found different results. One of the major factors is the way the leadership styles have been combined. Hence, it can be concluded that the scenario has great impact on the interaction of two leadership style. Thus, the hypothesis developed for this study which will be tested with the help primary research, is as follows: - H0 (Null Hypothesis): - Integration of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership does not increases the motivation level, morale and satisfaction of the employees. H1 (Alternate Hypothesis): - Integration of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership greatly augments the motivation level, morale and satisfaction of the employees. Methodology Research methodology is an integral part of a study. It is also responsible for providing accurate direction to the study (Aswathappa, 2010; Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2006). This study will select a sample size of 50 people (Raosoft, 2004). The sampling will be done on the basis of stratified sampling technique (Thompson, 2012). Most of the study which was previously carried out has used white collared employees as the sample, but this study will encompass a mix of white and blue collared employees so as to ensure a comprehensive findings. The employees will be selected from private organizations of UK and work in the areas of administration, factory labour, or any type of field work. One of the major reasons for selecting respondents from different areas of business is that it will help in evaluating the impact of integration of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership on every group of employees. Since most of the studies carried out previously considered only single group employees, this study attempted to uncover the impact on every employee group. The data collection instrument will be pre-coded questionnaire and the questionnaire set will have 5 questions. Each question will have 4 options and will be in either likert scale or will be ordinal scale. The data will be analysed by using SPSS software and to test the hypothesis Anova will be used. Among the 5 questions, 4 will be independent variable and 1 will be dependent variable (Bryman, 2008; Deming, 1996). Findings/Results The study has undertaken a primary research with the chosen respondent group. As mentioned earlier the respondent group of the study was employees from private organizations of UK and work in the areas of administration, factory labour, or any type of field work. The first task is to test the reliability of the chosen questions and to do the same Cronback’s alpha value will be tested. From the reliability analysis it has been found that the questionnaire high level of internal consistency and therefore can be used to address the solution (see appendix II). In the similar way, the Item-Total Statistics table also reveals that the internal reliability will not increase deleting any of the questions. The response of the respondents is presented in the appendix. Hence, the questions selected for the study is appropriate and has the ability to address the research questions. The total number of respondents for the study was 50 and none of the respondents have skipped questions. The valid response rate was 100%. The next task is to identify the pattern of relation among the dependent and independent variables. In this context Anova test will be carried out to test the validity of the hypothesis. In order to test the hypothesis the study conducted Anova test so as to identify whether the hypothesis holds valid or not. In addition, the study will also try to identify the pattern of the relationship between the dependent and independent variable. It has been observed that each of the variables chosen for this study has a strong correlation with the dependent variable. As a result, this is evident that most of the factors that were selected for the study strong impact the dependent variable. The independent variables were influence of socio-emotional leadership, autonomy increasing harmony, similar impact of each leadership style and influence of task oriented leadership, whereas the dependent variable was combined effect of leadership on the employees. The analysis shows the Anova test. From the above table it is evident that F –value is good and the level of significance is less than 0.5, which implies that the null hypothesis be rejected (see appendix II). As a result of that it can be established that integration of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership greatly augments the motivation level, morale and satisfaction of the employees. Conclusion The study was about analysing whether interaction of leadership style increases their level of satisfaction. The study made it evident that majority of the people gets positively influenced by the interaction or combinative effect of leadership and hence the alternate hypothesis holds true. Therefore it can be concluded that integration of socio-emotional and task oriented leadership greatly augments the motivation level, morale and satisfaction of the employees. Reference List Aswathappa, K., 2010. International Business. 4th ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Avolio, B. J., 2010. Full Range Leadership Development. London: SAGE. Baron, R. and Kenny, D., 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, pp. 1173-82. Bass, B, M. and Bass, R., 2009. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: Simon and Schuster. Bass, B. M., 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press. Blalock, H. M., 1965. Theory building and the concept of interaction”, American Sociological Review. 30, pp. 374-80. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M., 2006. How to Research. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Brady, D. W. and Spence, M., 2010. Leadership and Growth. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications. Bryman, A., 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Casimir, G. and Ng, Y. N. K., 2009. Combinative aspects of leadership style and the interaction between leadership behaviours. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 31 (6), pp. 501-517. Casimir, G., 2001. Combinative aspects of leadership style: the ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 12, pp. 245-78. Crisp, R. J. and Turner, R, N., 2010. Essential Social Psychology. London: SAGE. Cronbach, L., 1987. Statistical Tests for Moderator Variables: Flaws in Analyses Recently Proposed. Psychological Bulletin. 102, pp. 414-7. Daft, R. L., 2008. The Leadership Experience. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Delamater, J., 2006. Handbook of Social Psychology. Berlin: Springer. Deming, W. E., 1996. Some Theory of Sampling. New York: Courier Dover Publications. Drucker, P., 2012. Managing in Turbulent Times. London: Routledge. Duke, D. L., 2009. Differentiating School Leadership: Facing the Challenges of Practice. London: SAGE. Dyck, B. and Neubert, M. J., 2008. Management: Current Practices and New Directions: Current Practices and New Directions. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Falbe, C. and Yukl, G., 1992. Consequences for Managers of Using Single Influence Tactics and Combinations of Tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp. 638-52. Farabi, Y., 2012. In what key ways is leadership important to delivering successful projects? What leadership methods, theories and/or concepts are most helpful in understanding effective project leadership, and why? Munich: GRIN Verlag. Furnham, A., 2009. People Management in Turbulent Times. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gitlow, A. L., 2004. Being the Boss: The Importance of Leadership and Power. Washington D.C.: Beard Books. Glass, S. D., 2010. The Practical Handbook of Group Counseling: Group Work with Children, Adolescents, and Parents. 2nd ed. Victoria: Trafford Publishing. Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J. and Burns, J. M., 2004. Encyclopedia of Leadership. London: SAGE. Harrell, M, M., 2008. The Relationships Between Leader Behavior, Follower Motivation, and Performance. Michigan: ProQuest. Hartmann, F. and Moers, F., 1999. Testing Contingency Hypotheses In Budgetary Research: An Evaluation of the use of Moderated Regression. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, pp. 291-315. Heinemann, G. D. and Zeiss, A. M., 2002. Team Performance in Health Care: Assessment and Development. Berlin: Springer. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, D. and Hoskisson, R. E., 2010. Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization, Concepts. 9th ed. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. House, R. J., 1971. A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, pp. 321-38. Jennifer, G., 2009. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. John, D., 2002. Organisational Learning and Effectiveness. London: Routledge. Judge, T., Piccollo, R. and Ilies, R., 2004. The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 33-51. Kasunic, F. T., 2009. Supersize Your Small Business Profits!: How to Survive the Current Recession and Manage Your Small Business Profitably During Turbulent Economic Times. Victoria: Trafford Publishing. Komaki, J. L., 1986. Toward Effective Supervision: An Operant Analysis and Comparison of Managers at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp. 270-9. Laermans, R., Wilson, B. R. and Billiet, J., 1998. Secularization and Social Integration: Papers in Honor of Karel Dobbelaere. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Lee, D. K., 2002. Who Am I? Fairfax: Xulon Press. Lussier, R. N. and Achua, C. F., 2009. Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. and Rosenkrantz, S., 1988. Real Managers. Massachusets: Mass Ballinger. Mackay, A., 2007. Motivation, Ability and Confidence Building in People. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Misumi, J. and Peterson, M. 1985. The Performance-Maintenance (PM) Theory of Leadership: Review of a Japanese Research Program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, pp. 198-223. Misumi, J., 1985. The Behavioral Science of Leadership: An Interdisciplinary Japanese Research Program. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Moyles, J., 2006. Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Northouse, P. G., 2011. Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice. London: SAGE. Olmstead, J. D., 2012. Executive Leadership. London: Routledge. Panega, L., 2006. Positive Psychology: Implications for Leadership Development. Michigan: ProQuest. Price, M. S. and Weiss, M. R., 2000. Relationship among Coach Burnout, Coach Behaviours and Athletes ? Psychological Responses. Sport Psychologist. 14 (4), pp. 391-409. Raosoft, 2004. Sample size calculator. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 July 2013]. Sayle, B. and Kumar, S., 2006. Riding the Blue Train: A Leadership Plan for Explosive Growth. London: Portfolio. Seabury, B., 2010. Foundations of Interpersonal Practice in Social Work: Promoting Competence in Generalist Practice. London: SAGE. Seltzer, J. and Numerof, R. E., 1988. Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of management Journal. 31(2), pp. 439-446. Silverthorne, C., 2005. Organizational Psychology in Cross Cultural Perspective. New York: NYU Press. Singh, N., 2005. Motivation: Theories and Practical Applications. Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications. Thompson, S. K., 2012. Sampling. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Tjosvold, D., 1984. Effects of Leader Warmth and Directiveness on Subordinate Performance on a Subsequent Task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 422-7. Appendices Appendix I - Questionnaire for Respondents I. Do you think task oriented leadership is good for organizational productivity? 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree II. Do you think socio-emotional leadership negatively influences the satisfaction level? 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree III. Do you think more autonomy increase help promote harmony within the organization? 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree IV. Do you think every leadership style to be having similar impact on organization’s health? 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree V. Do you think combination of two leadership style has a positive impact on the satisfaction level? 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree Appendix II – SPSS Results Reliability Test Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 50 100.0 Excludeda 0 .0 Total 50 100.0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .834 .838 5 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Influence of task oriented leadership 12.0600 8.139 .537 .320 .832 Influence of socio emotional leadership 12.1000 8.663 .648 .484 .800 Autonomy increasing harmony 12.2000 8.531 .635 .426 .802 Similar impact of each leadership style 12.2200 8.175 .607 .495 .808 Combined effect of leadership 12.0600 7.078 .776 .648 .756 Response Validity Statistics Influence of task oriented leadership Influence of socio-emotional leadership Autonomy increasing harmony Similar impact of each leadership style N Valid 50 50 50 50 Missing 0 0 0 0 Frequency of the Responses Influence of task oriented leadership Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 5 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.00 7 14.0 14.0 24.0 3.00 16 32.0 32.0 56.0 4.00 22 44.0 44.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Influence of socio-emotional leadership Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.00 7 14.0 14.0 18.0 3.00 27 54.0 54.0 72.0 4.00 14 28.0 28.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Autonomy increasing harmony Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 14 28.0 28.0 30.0 3.00 21 42.0 42.0 72.0 4.00 14 28.0 28.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Similar impact of each leadership style Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.00 5 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.00 7 14.0 14.0 24.0 3.00 24 48.0 48.0 72.0 4.00 14 28.0 28.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Anova Test Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson 1 .805a .648 .617 .61560 2.103 a. Predictors: (Constant), Influence of task oriented leadership Influence of socio-emotional leadership Autonomy increasing harmony Similar impact of each leadership style, b. Dependent Variable: Combined effect of leadership ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 31.447 4 7.862 20.745 .000b Residual 17.053 45 .379 Total 48.500 49 a. Dependent Variable: Combined effect of leadership b. Predictors: (Constant), Influence of task oriented leadership Influence of socio-emotional leadership Autonomy increasing harmony Similar impact of each leadership style Read More