Organizational Culture This Chapter Presents

Organizational Culture

This chapter presents a recapitulation of the MLQ instrument's questions together with an analysis of the corresponding responses received. As previously stated in the earlier chapters, the purpose of this study was to examine the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions to develop a leadership-management culture model to which can be adapted as standard operating procedure in the organization with multi-cultural attributes the findings in this chapter are based on data analyses related to the following questions that were adapted using the well tested MLQ instrument; to guide and frame the research process in this study.

A cross-sectional survey was the main source used to collect data. This survey instrument was mailed to all supervisors/administrators and subordinate cafeteria manager/workers. One hundred twenty-nine surveys were distributed and 110 (85.5%) were returned completed and used in the survey data results. Surveys that were returned not completed in their entirety were not used for the purpose of this research project.

For presentational purposes, chapter four will be presented to report the internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument as measured and outlined in the methodology chapter 3. Also covered in this section was the internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument as determined by the data collected during the actual survey. Additionally this chapter will cover categorical variables, both independent and dependent. Demographic characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, country of origin, preferred/native language spoken, and educational background were measured, numerically and graphically. Then each question on the survey was analyzed. Frequency tables were used to display these results, as well as bar charts was used to graphically depict the data results. Finally, results for the continuous scaled variables ranged from 0 to 4 (0= not at all; 1 = once in a while; 2 = sometimes; 3 = fairly often; and 4 = frequently, if not always), were displayed in descriptive statistics and histograms. This display data obtained from the surveys were analyzed quantitatively in support of the proposed hypotheses.

As mentioned in chapter 3 - Methodology, it was the intention of the researcher to present data in respect to t-Test and NOVA, but upon further review, outcomes presented a different view. In support of T-test or ANOVA, regression analysis will not provide any further insights beyond the summary data derived from the MLQ scoring guidelines and the percentile analysis that have been developed question by question.

For the convenience of the readers, the hypotheses/null hypotheses are restated below and were used to guide the direction of the research:

Ho: There is a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

Ha: There is not a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

These hypotheses are not "all-conclusive" in the sense that there exists a high probability of their acceptance. Cultural or cross-cultural research often produces contradicting results, and both culturally-contingent and universalist perspectives provide strong along with some supporting evidence. Nevertheless, the hypotheses have been styled and formulated in such a way that the probability of their being true can be judged as slightly higher than the probability of their not being true. In any case, in this type of research both confirmation and disconfirmation of a particular position are equally interesting, equally important, and represent an equally significant contribution to the body of knowledge.

Of the total responses received to the MLQ, the Hispanic cohort represents the dominate group and is very concentrated in cultural/ethnic and educational attributes. The results of the review of the relevant literature concerning organizational culture and the results of the MLQ administration suggest that most people want to do a good job and are willing to go the extra mile in the workplace when called upon, but there are some important personal considerations involved in the analysis as well that must be taken into account and Simon (2006) supported this assertion. Simon (2006) further posited that if the null hypothesis is not rejected, this does not lead to the conclusion that no association or differences exist, but instead that the analysis did not detect any association or difference between the variables or groups.

The two hypotheses/null hypotheses are important and relevant to the study in order to accomplish the objective of the study. The objective of the study was to determine the extent that a company's management failure to fully understand and appreciate its workers' unique culture is likely the extent to which the company's leadership style will be ineffective in achieving its organizational goals; hence the need to specifically include and measure unique culture attributes.

Data gathered from the survey questionnaires has included demographics (Part I of the survey) such as gender, ethnicity, educational background, and employment and of the respondants. Exploratory testing indicated that participants tend to rate themselves higher on the MLQ scales than their followers' rating of them.

However, as the research involves comparisons of individuals' perceptions, rather than demonstrated behaviors, the data is considered to be an accurate representation of participants' ideas. Simon (2006) recommended that the researcher include a section on the data demographics such as explaining the age, gender, or relevant related information on the population.

Studies

As noted in the preceding chapter, this study used the MLQ instrument (copyright permission provided at Appendix ____) which is reproduced below together with an analysis of the responses received. Because the researcher used an established instrument, the instrument testing was not necessary (Sproull, 2004).

Based on the analysis of the statistical data derived from the survey instrument and an interpolation of the literature review findings, a synthesis and evaluative action plan is provided, followed by relevant recommendations and a summary of the chapter.

All participants were individually asked if they were able and willing to participate in the survey. Before given the questionnaire, each respondent was assured of their anonymity to participating in the MLQ and they were advised they were free to withdraw from participating at any point. They were told that the questionnaire is intended to describe their leadership style as they saw and perceived it. They were told to please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item was irrelevant, or if they were unsure or do not know the answer, leave the item blank.

Each was given forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the MLQ questionnaire in Attachment (_). They were each told to judge how frequently each statement fits them. And finally, they were told that the word "others" may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors and/or all of these individuals.

Important: Which best describes you as a rater (required for processing):

I am at a higher organizational level than the person I am rating:

The person I am rating is at my organizational level:

I am at a lower organizational level than the person I am rating:

do not wish my organizational level to be known:

Participants:

Of the 129 targeted participants who were surveyed, 23 were supervisor/administrators (S) and raters above managers and 87 managers/workers (W) and raters below supervisors; and 19 (O) others who either chose not to respond, questionnaire defective or cared not to be known. Of the 129 questionnaires, 110 (85%) were acceptable to the study.

Of the 110 acceptable responses which are comprised of 23 (21%) supervisor or administrators (S) and 87 (79%) managers or workers (W).

Functions:

Administrators/supervisors (S):

Managers/Workers (W):

Of the 110 acceptable responses 12 (11%) were Male and 98 (89%) were Female.

Gender:

Male:

Female:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 21 (19%) were White, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 20 (18%) were Black and 2 (2%) were Others.

Ethnic background:

White:

Hispanic:

Black:

Other:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 91 (83%) had at least 6 college credits, 12 (11%) have bachelor degrees, 3 (3%) have masters degree and 4 (4%) had other qualifications.

Educational Level:

Bachelors:

Masters:

Other:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 21 (19%) were White, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 20 (18%) were Black and 2 (2%) were Others.

Country of origin:

North America:

South America:

Europe, except Africa and India:

Others - Caribbean, Africa and India:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 31 (28%) were English, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 10 (9%) were French and 2 (2%) were Others.

Preferred/native language spoken/birth:

English:

Spanish:

French/Creole:

Others:

The following summations are the results of the question and outcomes of the MLQ questionnaire administered.

Results

Key:

Administrators/(S)upervisors

W) orkers/Managers

Provide other with assistance in exchange for their efforts. 3.7-3.5.

Re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

Fail to interfere until problems become serious. 0.4-0.5

Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards.

Avoid getting involved when important issues arise. 3.6-0.7

Talk about my most important values and beliefs. 3.2-3.9

Am absent when needed. 0.4-0.8

Seek differing perspectives when solving problems. 3.4-3.5

Talk optimistically about the future. 3.3-3.6

Instill pride in other for being associated with me. 3.4-3.8

Discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets.

Wait for things to go wrong before taking action. 0.2-0.1

Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 3.7-3.9

Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 3.8-3.85

Spend time teaching and coaching. 2.4-3.2

Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.

Show that I am a firm believer in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. 3.9-4.0

Treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group.

Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action.

Act in ways that build others' respect for me. 3.9-3.8

Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures.

Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 3.8-3.5

Keep track of all mistakes. 0.3-0.1

Display a sense of power and confidence. 3.4-3.4

Articulate a sense of power and confidence. 0.7-3.7

Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards. 3.0-3.5

Avoid making decisions. 3.3-0.5

Consider an individual as having different needs, ability, and aspirations from others.

Get others to look at problems from many different angles. 3.7-3.4

Help others to develop their strengths. 3.3-3.5

Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. 3.9-3.9

Delay responding to urgent questions. 0.3-0.3

Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.

Express satisfaction when others meet expectations. 3.9-4.0

Express confidence that goals will be achieved. 3.6-3.5

Am effective in meeting others' job-related needs. 3.7-3.4

Use methods of leadership that are satisfying. 3.7-3.9

Get others to do more than they expected to do. 3.4-2.0

Am effective in representing others to higher authority. 3.7-3.9

Work with others in a satisfactory way. 3.3-3.7

Heighten others' desire to succeed. 3.9-3.4

Am effective in meeting organizational requirements. 3.0-4.0

Increase others' willingness to try harder. 3.6-4.0

Lead a group that is effective. 2.9-4.0

Synthesis and Evaluative Action Plan

As noted in the introductory chapter, the study was guided by a hypothesis and null hypothesis which are reiterated below and answered in the concluding chapter using the general guidance provided in Table __ below.

Table ____.

Interpreting Results of Hypothesis: P-value Interpretation

Level

Outcome

P< 0.01

Very strong evidence against H0

Moderate evidence against H0

Suggestive evidence against H0

Little or no real evidence against H0

Ho: There is a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

Ha: There is not a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

According to the MLQ scoring key, "The MLQ scale scores are average scores for the items on the scale. The score [is] derived by summing the items and dividing by the number of items that make up the scale. All of the leadership style scales have four items, Extra Effort has three items, Effectiveness has four items and Satisfaction has two items" (p. 1). The realms are shown in the tables and figures below.

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

SMLQ

WMLQ

Realm

Idealized influence (attributed)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Idealized influence (behavior)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Inspirational motivation

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Intellectual stimulation

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Individualized consideration

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Contingent reward

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Management-by-Exception (Active)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Management by Exception (Passive)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Extra Effort

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Effectiveness

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Satisfaction

Recommendations summary of the MLQ results is presented in the concluding chapter, but taken together, the results of the review of the relevant literature concerning organizational culture and the results of the MLQ administration suggest that most people want to do a good job and are willing to go the extra mile in the workplace when called upon, but there are some important personal considerations involved in the analysis as well that must be taken into account. There were, not surprisingly, some fundamental differences between the responses of the cafeteria managers and Administrators/Supervisors concerning individual perceptions of fairness, effectiveness and leadership attributes, but the majority of the respondents of both types expressed a sense of being effective on the job and being capable of accomplishing their assigned responsibilities in a timely fashion. It is therefore recommended that the MLQ be readministered on a periodic basis and the results compared to these benchmarks to determine if any of the recommendations provided in chapter five below have achieved the desired effect and to identify opportunities for improving the leadership climate in these cafeterias.

Chapter Summary

Data gathered from the survey questionnaires also included demographics such as gender, ethnicity, educational background, and employment and of the respondants. This chapter presented a percentile analysis of the 45 questions contained in the MLQ in tabular and graphic form, and these findings are narrated in chapter five below.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The MLQ survey data were aggregated and analyzed using an Excel spreadsheet. A percentile analysis of the frequency of individual responses is provided for each of the MLQ question below with the corresponding results being provided in both tabular and graphic form in the preceding chapter. This approach is congruent with Neuman (2003) who advises, "Researchers measure variation in three ways: range, percentile, and standard deviation.... Percentiles tell the score at a specific place within the distribution" (p. 337). A narrative summary of the results is provided below.

In response to the statement, "I provide other with assistance in exchange for their efforts," the average supervisor response was 3.7 compared to 3.5 for the workers surveyed. The responses to the statement, "I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate" were likewise close with 3.6 for supervisors and 3.4 for workers. There was also a very slight difference recorded for the respective responses to the statement, "I fail to interfere until problems become serious," with 0.4 for supervisors and 0.5 for workers. The responses to the statement, "I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards," were identical for both groups at 3.8 each.

There were some significant differences in the responses to the statement, "I avoid getting involved when important issues arise," though, with a 3.6 being recorded for the supervisors compared to just 0.7 for workers. By contrast, the responses to the statement, "I talk about my most important values and beliefs," found a higher level of congruence with 3.2 being reported for supervisors compared to 3.9 for workers. Both groups recorded low scores in response to the statement, "I am absent when needed," with slightly lower responses for supervisors at 0.4 compared with 0.8 for workers. There were almost identical responses reported in response to the statement, "I seek differing perspectives when solving problems" for supervisors and workers, with a 3.4 and a 3.5 respectively. Supervisors, though, reported slightly lower responses to the statement, "I talk optimistically about the future," with a 3.3 compared to 3.6 for workers.

In response to the statement, "I instill pride in other for being associated with me," supervisors also recorded a slightly lower response rate at 3.4 compared with 3.8 for workers. Workers also showed a significantly higher response to the statement, "I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets," with a 3.7 compared to just 2.4 for supervisors. Just as neither group appeared to want to be absent when needed, both groups were viewed as being proactive and recorded very low scores in response to the statement, "I wait for things to go wrong before taking action," with 0.2 for the supervisors and 0.1 for the workers. Workers recorded slightly higher responses to the statement, "I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished," with a 3.9 compared to 3.7 for supervisors.

There were almost identical responses to the statement, "I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose," with 3.8 and 3.85 being recorded for the supervisors and workers, respectively. Supervisors recorded a discernibly lower response to the statement, "I spend time teaching and coaching" than the workers, with a 2.4 score compared to a 3.2, respectively. There was a high level of congruence for the two groups in response to the statement, "I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved," though, with a 3.9 for the supervisor and a 3.8 for the workers. In response to the statement, "I show that I am a firm believer in 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'" the supervisors recorded a 2.6 compared to a significantly higher rate of 3.9 for the workers.

Both groups recorded high - and almost identical -- levels of response to the statement, "I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group," with a 3.9 for supervisors and 4.0 for workers. There were identical response rates recorded for the statement, "I treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group" at 3.8 each. The responses to the statement, "I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action" also reflected a high degree of proactivity, with a 0.4 for the supervisors and a 0.1 for the workers. There was also a high degree of congruence for the responses to the statement, "I act in ways that build others' respect for me," with a 3.9 for supervisors and a 3.8 for workers.

There were some stark differences in the responses to the statement, "I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures," though, with 3.0 for the supervisors compared to just 0.2 to the workers. Supervisors had a slightly higher response rate to the statement, "I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions," with 3.8 compared to 3.5 for workers. Keeping with the adage that to err is human, both groups had very low response rates to the statement, "I keep track of all mistakes," with 0.3 for the supervisors compared to 0.1 for the workers. Interestingly, both groups had identical response rates to the statement, "I display a sense of power and confidence" a 3.4 each. Notwithstanding the identical responses to the foregoing statement, there were some significant differences to the statement, "I articulate a sense of power and confidence" with 0.7 for the supervisors and 3.7 for the workers. In response to the statement, "I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards," supervisors recorded a 3.0 compared to a slightly higher response rate for the workers of 3.5. There were also some significant differences in the responses to the statement, "I avoid making decisions," with 3.3 for the supervisors compared to just 0.5 for the workers. There was a high level of congruence, though, in the responses to the statement, "I consider an individual as having different needs, ability, and aspirations from others, with a 3.8 and a 3.9 for the supervisors and workers, respectively. The responses to the statement, "I get others to look at problems from many different angles," were also very close at 3.7 for the supervisors and 3.4 for the workers. Likewise, the responses to the statement, "I help others to develop their strengths" also showed a high level of congruence with 3.3 for supervisors and 3.5 for workers.

There were identical and relatively high response rates recorded for both groups in response to the statement, "I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignment," with a 3.9 each. There were also identical and relatively low response rates for the statement, "I delay responding to urgent questions," with a 0.3 for both groups, again reflecting a high level of proactivity. The workers recorded a slightly higher response rate to the statement, "I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission," with a 3.7 compared to 3.3 for the supervisors. There were almost identical response rates recorded in response to the statement, "I express satisfaction when others meet expectations," with 3.9 for the supervisors and 4.0 for the workers. In addition, there were almost identical response rates recorded for the statement, "I express confidence that goals will be achieved," with a 3.6 and 3.5 for the supervisors and workers, respectively.

The supervisors recorded a slightly higher response rate to the statement, "I am effective in meeting others' job-related needs," though, with a 3.7 compared to the workers' response rate of 3.4. In response to the statement, "I use methods of leadership that are satisfying," the supervisors recorded a 3.7 compared to a slightly higher rate of 3.9 for the workers. The supervisors, though, recorded a significantly higher response of 3.4 compared to 2.0 for the workers in response to the statement, "I get others to do more than they expected to do." The response rate for the workers was slightly higher for the statement, "I am effective in representing others to higher authority, with a 3.9 compared to 3.7 for the supervisors. Likewise, workers recorded a slightly higher rate of 3.7 to the statement, "I work with others in a satisfactory way" compared to a 3.3 for the supervisors. The supervisors, though, recorded a slightly higher response rate to the statement, "I work with others in a satisfactory way" with a 3.9 compared to a 3.4 for the workers. Likewise, supervisors recorded a slightly higher response rate to the statement, "I heighten others' desire to succeed" with a 3.9 compared to the workers' response rate of 3.4.