Ten of the original set of 29 items on executive behaviours contributed to executive behaviour II. This executive trait was labelled Interpersonal Sensitivity and included the following subconstructs:
Regular Meeting with Subordinates; Being Sensitive to Others; Taking Initiative in Tasks; Caring for Others; Communicating Effectively; Providing Feedback to Others; Playing Sport with Colleagues; Energising Others; Having a Sense of Humour; and Providing Emotional Support.
The results of the 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance of the executive behaviour Interpersonal Sensitivity are included in Table 9.2.
168
Table 9.2. Factorial Analysis of Variance for the Variable Interpersonal
Sensitiv ity Selected descripti ve statistics that were essential for assessing homogeneity of variance and analysing interaction among the various subsets of scores for the trait Interpersonal Sensitivity and that were attributed to statistical manipulation of the primary, secondary, and tertiary independent variables, were:
Executives with Long-Term Contracts: 24.97 ± 11.75, and n = 76 Executives with Short-Term Contracts: 24.07 ± 10.35, and n = 52
Male executives: 25.07 ± 10.84, and n = 86 Female executives: 23.65 ± 11.89, and n = 42
Executives in the Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 25.92 ± 11.23, and n = 54 Executives in the Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 23.39 ± 10.21, and n = 41 Executives in the Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 23.97 ± 12.27, and n = 33 Male executives with Long-Term Contracts, 25.64 ± 11.43, and n = 53 Female executives with Long-Term Contracts, 23.42 ± 12.56, and n = 23 Male executives with Short-Term Contracts, 24.16 ± 9.91, and n = 33 Female executives with Short-Term Contracts, 23.93 ± 11.36, and n = 19
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 27.30 ± 11.53, and n = 29
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 23.02 ± 10.19, and n = 27
Type III Sum Degrees of Mean Level of
Source of Squares Freedom Square F Ratio Significance
Corrected Model 975.192 11 88.654 0.692 0.744 Intercept 46 934.504 1 46 934.504 366.289 0.000 Contract Term 18.439 1 18.439 0.144 0.705
Gender 1.072 1 1.072 0.008 0.927
Age Cohort Group 16.598 2 8.299 0.065 0.937 Contract * Gender 171.203 1 171.203 1.336 0.250 Contract * Age 144.232 2 72.116 0.563 0.571 Gender * Age 343.986 2 171.993 1.342 0.265 Contract * Gender *
Age Cohort Group 330.707 2 165.353 1.290 0.279 Error Factor 14 863.669 116 128.135
Total Sum of
Squares 93 341.512 128 Corrected Sum of
169
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 24.23 ± 13.87, and n = 20
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 24.32 ± 10.88, and n = 25
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 24.11 ± 10.59, and n = 14
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 23.57 ± 9.84, and n = 13
Male executives in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 28.29 ± 9.46, and n = 25 Male executives in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 23.77 ± 10.00, and n = 33 Male executives in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 23.74 ± 12.58, and n = 28 Female executives in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 23.87 ± 12.36, and n = 29 Female executives in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 21.85 ± 11.59, and n = 8 Female executives in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 25.25 ± 11.60, and n = 5
Sizeable differences in arithmetic means were encountered in the data set. The central values varied in magnitude from 21.85 to 28.29. The standard deviations fell in the range 9.46 to 13.87. The reported parameters of dispersion pointed to reasonable homogeneity of variance among scores on the trait Interpersonal Sensitivity that was extracted from the data set. While the subsets of scores on the trait were interpreted as having equal variance, the reported arithmetic mean-standard deviation ratios pointed to overestimation of parameters of dispersion in this equation.
The three main effects were next evaluated. Contrast 1: The F ratio of 0.144 for the Length of Contract Term comparison was less than the required F critical value with a level of
significance of 0.705 was greater than p equal to 0.05. The outcome was insignificant; Contrast 2: The observed F ratio of 0.008 for the Gender comparison, too, was less than the F critical value, with a probability of 0.927 in excess of p equal to 0.05. This outcome was insignificant; and Contrast 3: The Age Cohort Group comparison produced a F ratio of 0.065 that was less than the F critical value, with a probability of 0.937 that exceeded the p
value of 0.05. The outcome, therefore, was insignificant; Interpretation: All of the main
effect contrasts were statistically insignificant.
The two-way interaction was next investigated. Contrast 4: The F ratio of 1.336 for Length of Contract Term x Gender interaction was less than the F critical value and its level of
significance of 0.250 exceeded p equal to 0.05. The result thus was insignificant; Contrast 5: The F ratio of 0.563 for the Length of Contract Term x Age Cohort Group analysis also was less than the F critical value and yielded a probability of 0.571 that was greater than p
equal to 0.05. This result was insignificant; and Contrast 6: The computed F ratio of 1.342 for the Gender x Age Cohort Group interaction, too, was less than the F critical value and had
170
a probability of 0.265 in excess of the p value of 0.05. The subsequent result was
insignificant. Interpretation: All observed two-way interactions of main effects on the
dependent variable Interpersonal Sensitivity were statistically insignificant.
Lastly, the three-way interaction was assessed. Contrast 7: The Length of Contract Term x Gender x Age Cohort subgroup comparison yielded a F ratio of 1.290 that was less than the F critical value and generated an associated level of significance of 0.279 that exceeded p =
0.05. Interpretation: The three-way interaction effects were insignificant. The sets of mean scores of participants on the attribute Interpersonal Sensitivity were not in any noticeable way influenced by the main effect variables, neither when considered singularly or jointly. 9.4.3 Executive Task I: Executive Capability
The first executive task was extracted from items 1 to 10 of the original set of twenty-nine executive tasks that the researcher had compiled for the purpose of the study. This specific trait of the executive task was designated Executive Capability.
The following initial executive task items contributed to this extracted principle component: Strategic Planning I, Organising and Planning, Strategic Execution, Communication with Units, Subordinate Development, Delegation of Authority I, Coaching Others, Team Building, Innovation, and Succession Planning I.
The results of the 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance of the task trait Executive Capability are included in Table 9.3.
171
Selected descriptive statistics reported below were all essential for determining the homog eneity of varian ce and compr ehensi ve analys is of interac tion among the variou s subset s of scores for the trait Executive Capability and that could be attributed to statistical manipulation of the primary, secondary, and tertiary independent variables:
Executives with Long-Term Contracts: 24.27 ± 8.17, and n = 76 Executives with Short-Term Contracts: 22.28 ± 8.81, and n = 52 Male executives: 23.65 ± 8.19, and n = 86
Female executives: 23.10 ± 9.08, and n = 42
Executives in the Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 24.39 ± 8.02, and n = 54 Executives in the Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 24.53 ± 7.59, and n = 41 Executives in the Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 20.63 ± 9.70, and n = 33 Male executives with Long-Term Contracts, 23.89 ± 7.83, and n = 53 Female executives with Long-Term Contracts, 25.14 ± 9.03, and n = 23 Male executives with Short-Term Contracts, 23.25 ± 8.85, and n = 33 Female executives with Short-Term Contracts, 20.61 ± 8.72, and n = 19
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 26.05 ± 7.71, and n = 29
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 24.62 ± 6.78, and n = 27
Executives with Long-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 21.23 ± 9.92, and n = 20
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 22.47 ± 8.11, and n = 25
Type III Sum Degrees of Mean Level of
Source of Squares Freedom Square F Ratio Significance
Corrected Model 1 922.537 11 174.776 2.829 0.003 Intercept 38 631.038 1 38 631.038 625.235 0.000
Contract Term 10.288 1 10.288 0.167 0.684
Gender 34.437 1 34.437 0.557 0.457
Age Cohort Group 178.339 2 89.169 1.443 0.240 Contract * Gender 21.500 1 21.500 0.348 0.556 Contract * Age 323.037 2 161.519 2.614 0.078
Gender * Age 181.628 2 90.814 1.470 0.234
Contract * Gender
* Age Cohort Group 997.844 2 498.922 8.075 0.001 Error Factor 7 167.225 116 61.786
Total Sum of
Squares 79 565.670 128
Corrected Sum of
172
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 24.34 ± 9.24, and n = 14
Executives with Short-Term Contracts in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 19.71 ± 9.68, and n = 13
Male executives in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 24.26 ± 7.17, and n = 25 Male executives in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 25.60 ± 7.08, and n = 33 Male executives in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 20.79 ± 9.63, and n = 28 Female executives in Age Cohort Group 21-40 years: 24.50 ± 8.83, and n = 29 Female executives in Age Cohort Group 41-50 years: 20.09 ± 8.52, and n = 8 Female executives in Age Cohort Group > 50 years: 19.73 ± 11.18, and n = 5
Minor differences in arithmetic means were recorded for the categories, with arithmetic means ranging from 19.71 to 26.05. The standard deviations covered the range 6.78 to 11.18. The range of indices of dispersion for the subgroups, to some extent, suggested heterogeneity of variance on the attribute Executive Capability. As in earlier Sections of Chapter 10, the reported arithmetic mean-standard deviation ratios suggested probable overestimation of the dispersion parameters.
The one-way analysis of the main effects on the attribute Executive Capability required three statistical comparisons. Contrast 1: The F ratio of 0.167 for the Contract Term Groups was less than the F critical value and its computed level of significance was 0.684, which exceeded
p equal to 0.05. The result was insignificant; Contrast 2: The F ratio of 0.557 for the independent variable Gender was less than the relevant F critical value with a probability of
0.457 that exceeded the 0.05 level of probability. The result was insignificant; and Contrast 3: The independent variable Age Cohort Group, likewise, did not produce a significant difference. Its F ratio of 1.443 was less than the F critical value with a probability of 0.240 in
excess of p = 0.05. Interpretation: The categories of the separate main effect variables did
not in any way influence the sets of mean scores that were generated as measures of the dependent variable Executive Capability.
The two-way analysis of interactions involved three statistical comparisons. Contrast 4: The F ratio of 0.348 for Contract Term x Gender comparison was less than the F critical value and
produced a level of significance of 0.556 that exceeded the 0.05 limit. This result was
insignificant; Contrast 5: The Contract Term x Age Cohort Group comparison yielded a F ratio of 2.614 that was less than the F critical value and that generated a level of significance
equal to 0.078. The result was insignificant; and Contrast 6: The Gender x Age Cohort Group comparison generated a F ratio of 1.470 that was less than the F critical value, with a
resultant level of significance of 0.234 in excess of the p value of 0.05. The result was
173
effects, did not yield statistically significant computations and research outcomes. The probability of 0.078 for Contrast 5 approximated the 0.05 level. A replication of the current study with an improved sample probably would yield a statistically significant outcome for this specific contrast.
The three-way interaction was also evaluated. Contrast 7: The comparison of Length of Contract Term x Gender x Age Cohort Group produced a F ratio of 8.075 that exceeded the F critical value of 3.06, for 2 and 127 degrees of freedom, with a significance level of 0.001 that
was less than p equal to 0.05. The latent patterns of three-way interactions are graphically illustrated in Figure 9.1.
The detection of significant three-way interaction required of the researcher to do a statistical analysis of between group differences in Executive Capability that could be ascribed to joint influence by the main effect variables. The researcher opted for Fisher’s least significant difference test (also designated as the LSD or protected t test) for this purpose (refer to Subsection 6.7.10 of Chapter 6). The subsample data that is used and the t values that the data set produce appear in Table 9.4. As is indicated in section 9.2, only significant multiple comparison results were analysed and interpreted in depth. All Fisher’s protected t values had 116 degrees of freedom (that of the MS error in Table 9.3) while the associated t critical
174 Statisti cal data that include s relevan t descrip tive statistic s and t values comput ed with Fisher’ s LSD test for the purpos e of multiple compar ison analysi s in respon se to the significant F ratio of 8.075 and which will be used to study the influence of Length of Contract Term x Gender x Age Cohort Group on the attribute Executive Capability, is provided
in Table 9.4.
Figure 9.1 Length of Contract Term x Gender x Age Cohort Group Effects on Executive Capability 31.0 30.0 Female L-T C 29.0 F Male L-T C 28.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 Female S-T C Male S-T C 21.0 20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0
21-40 Years 41-50 years > 50 years Age Cohort Group
175
Table 9.4. Descriptive and Multiple Comparison Statistics for the Three- Way Analysis of Variance for the Variable Executive Capability
Note: The Mean Square error for the above calculations is 61.768.
Reporting of Length of Contract Term x Gender x Age Cohort Group contrasts was split up in terms of Age Cohort Group, since the latter main effect variable, for the purpose of three- way analysis of variance, was preceded by Gender that was preceded by Length of Contract Term. Contrast 7(a): The comparisons were restricted to the younger executives in
Number Contrast Mean1 N1 = Mean2 N2 = T value Signific
7(1) LMA1 & LFA1 22.81 14 29.35 14 -2.201 P < 0.05 7(2) LMA1 & SMA1 22.81 14 26.11 11 -1.042 P > 0.05 7(3) LMA1 & SFA1 22.81 14 19.62 14 1.074 P > 0.05 7(4) LFA1 & SMA1 29.35 14 26.11 11 1.023 P > 0.05 7(5) LFA1 & SFA1 29.35 14 19.62 14 3.275 P < 0.05 7(6) SMA1 & SFA1 26.11 11 19.62 14 2.049 P < 0.05 7(7) LMA2 & LFA2 25.76 23 21.71 6 1.124 P > 0.05 7(7) LMA2 & SMA2 25.76 23 25.93 11 -0.059 P > 0.05 7(9) LMA2 & SFA2 25.76 23 18.52 3 1.500 P > 0.05 7(10) LFA2 & SMA2 21.71 6 25.93 11 -1.058 P > 0.05
7(11) LFA2 & SFA2 21.71 6 18.51 3 0.576 P > 0.05
7(12) SMA2 & SFA2 25.93 11 18.51 3 1.449 P > 0.05 7(13) LMA3 & LFA3 22.16 16 12.38 3 1.978 P < 0.05 7(14) LMA3 & SMA3 22.16 16 17.70 11 1.449 P > 0.05 7(15) LMA3 & SFA3 22.16 16 30.76 2 -1.459 P > 0.05 7(16) LFA3 & SMA3 12.38 3 17.7 11 -1.039 P > 0.05 7(17) LFA3 & SFA3 12.38 3 30.76 2 -2.561 P < 0.05 7(18) SMA3 & SFA3 17.70 11 30.76 2 -2.161 P < 0.05
176
the Age Cohort Group 21-40 years. Three significant interactions were detected. Contrast 7.1: Male executives with Long-Term Contracts, from this Age Cohort Group, yielded a
significantly lower arithmetic mean (22.81, n =14) on the attribute Executive Capability than
Female executives with Long-Term Contracts, from the same Age Cohort Group did (29.35, n = 14). The t value of – 2.201 exceeded the t critical value of 1.645 while the level of
significance was less than p equal to 0.05 [number 7(1) in Table 9.4]; Contrast 7.2: Female executives with Long-Term Contracts, from the Age Cohort Group 21-40 years generated a
statistically significant higher group mean in Executive Capability than Female executives
with Short-Term Contracts from the same Age Cohort Group (19.62, n = 14). The t value of 3.275 exceeded the t critical value of 1.645 while the level of significance was less than 0.05
[number 7(5)]; Contrast 7.3: Male executives with Short-Term Contracts and from the Age Cohort Group 21-40 years yielded a statistically significantly higher group mean (26.11, n =11) for the attribute Executive Capability than Female executives with Short-Term Contracts from the same Age Cohort Group did (19.62, n = 14). The t value of 2.049 exceeded the t critical value of 1.645 while the significance level was less than 0.05 [number
7(6)]; Contrast 7(b): The second series of contrasts investigated executives assigned to the intermediate category of Age Cohort Group 41-50 years. The Fisher tests applications did
not trace any statistical significant differences in any of the six multiple comparisons. The
insignificant t values ranged from -0.059 to 1.449; and Contrast 7(c): The final interaction analysis focused on senior executives from the Age Cohort Group > 50 years. Three more significant multiple comparisons were found: Contrast 7.4: The group mean on the dependent variable Executive Capability of Male executives with Long-Term Contracts (22.16, n =16) was significantly higher than the group mean for Female executives with Long-Term Contracts: from the same Age Cohort Group (12.38, n = 3). The t value of 1.978 was greater than the t critical value while the level of significance was less than 0.05 [number
7(13)]; Contrast 7.5: The group mean on Executive Capability of Female executives with Long-Term Contracts In the Age Cohort Group > 50 years (12.38, n = 3) was significantly
lower than that of their Female counterparts with Short-Term Contracts, from the same Age
Cohort Group (30.76, n = 2). The t value of -2.561 exceeded the t critical value while the level
of significance was lower than p equal to 0.05 [number 7(17)]; and Contrast 7.6 Male executives with Short-Term Contracts, from the Age Cohort Group > 50 years, produced a
significantly lower group mean (17.70, n = 11) for the trait Executive Capability than Male
executives with Short-Term Contracts, from the same Age Cohort Group did (30.76, = 2). The t value of -2.161 exceeded the t critical value of 1.645 while its level of significance was
less than p equal to 0.05 [number 7(18)]. Interpretation: Executives from the Age Cohort
177 Executive Capability. The results were reliable and plausible. In contrast, executives from
the Age Cohort Group 41-50 years, irrespective of Length of Contract Term or Gender, did
not generate any significant differences in Executive Capability. Executives from the Age Cohort Group > 50 years yielded three more statistically significant results. The statistical
results that were derived for executives from Age Cohort Group 41-50 years and Age Cohort Group > 50 years [contrasts 7(4), 7(5), and 7(6)] had to be handled with caution as minimal
sample sizes of 2 and 3 compromised all three significant comparisons.