Textiles utilizados para el trastorno sensorial

9.1.3 Relationship between Leadership and Organizational Performance

In order to link each of the organizational performance measures with each of the leadership

subscales, I considered the operationalized value for each of them. For all participant companies

with uptrend lines for profitability, productivity, plant efficiency, and sales volume, I counted

the number of high scores achieved by each leader in each leadership subscale. For example, I

found four companies with uptrend profitability line (others had no-trend or downtrend

profitability), and the number of leaders of those four companies found to be fifty-four (54). Out

of those fifty-four leaders:

 Forty nine (49) leaders achieved a high score in leadership subscale 1 (LMX), i.e. number of 3’s is 49.

 Five leaders achieved a moderate score in leadership subscale 1 (LMX), i.e. number of 2’s is 5.

 No leader achieved a low score in leadership subscale 1 (LMX), i.e. number of 1’s is 0.

Plant

Plant Efficiency

Trend

Sales Volume Operationalized Value

1 Uptrend 3 2 Uptrend 3 3 Uptrend 3 4 Downtrend 1 5 Uptrend 3 6 Downtrend 1 7 Downtrend 1 8 Uptrend 3

180

It can be concluded that percentages of 3’s, 2’s, and 1’s to the total number of leaders are

91%, 9%, and 0% respectively. A complete calculation of percentages of 3’s, 2’s, and 1’s for

the total number of leaders under each leadership subscale for uptrend profitability, productivity,

plant efficiency, and sales volume lines, is presented in table - 9.7. It is important to stress that

the low scores of leadership associated with subscales 9 and 10 are the appropriate or preferable

scores, rather than a high score. Subscale 9 is “transformational-management-by-exception (passive)”, and subscale 10 is “transformational-laissez-faire”.

The percentage of the shaded cells of table - 9.7 are more than 50% (considering that the 1’s

of subscales 9 and 10 are the appropriate scores). It can be noticed that:

1. The number of shaded cells for profitability is 14,

2. The number of shaded cells for productivity is 18,

3. The number of shaded cells for plant efficiency is 14,

4. The number of shaded cells for sales volume is 18.

This means that:

1. For the uptrend profitability line, more than 50% of the 3’s occurred in 70% of the cells, and

this means that, for 70% of the subscales, the number of leaders who achieved a high score

is more than 50% of the total number of leaders in the examined subscale. This indicates

that there is a positive relationship between leadership and profitability. It is clear that some

of those subscales have a strong or even a very strong relationship with performance, when

181

Table - 9.7

Percentage of 3’s, 2’s, and 1’s scores having uptrend line for each organizational performance measure, achieved by all leaders in the eight companies

Uptrend Profitability Line

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 % of 3's 91% 78% 72% 81% 72% 41% 70% 9% 0% 0% 74% 76% 67% 46% 46% 65% 13% 59% 33% 78%

% of 2's 9% 20% 26% 17% 26% 57% 28% 80% 4% 4% 24% 22% 30% 54% 52% 35% 87% 41% 63% 22%

% of 1's 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 11% 96% 96% 2% 2% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%

Uptrend Productivity Line

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 % of 3's 92% 72% 84% 87% 82% 52% 81% 24% 0% 0% 82% 83% 77% 56% 67% 75% 25% 72% 56% 86%

% of 2's 8% 27% 15% 12% 17% 46% 17% 69% 7% 7% 17% 16% 19% 43% 31% 25% 75% 27% 40% 14%

% of 1's 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 7% 93% 93% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0%

Uptrend Plant Efficiency Line

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 % of 3's 92% 68% 66% 80% 68% 44% 67% 15% 0% 0% 72% 74% 69% 40% 46% 61% 20% 58% 36% 73%

% of 2's 8% 29% 32% 19% 29% 55% 32% 78% 6% 6% 26% 24% 29% 59% 51% 39% 80% 41% 59% 27%

% of 1's 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 7% 94% 94% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0%

Uptrend Sales Volume Line

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20

% of 3's 92% 73% 84% 89% 84% 53% 82% 25% 0% 0% 83% 84% 78% 58% 70% 77% 25% 73% 56% 87%

% of 2's 8% 26% 15% 11% 15% 45% 16% 68% 7% 7% 16% 15% 18% 41% 28% 23% 75% 26% 39% 13%

182

2. For the uptrend productivity line, more than 50% of the 3’s appeared in 90% of the cells.

This means that, for 90% of the subscales, the number of leaders who achieved a high score

is more than 50% of the total number of leaders in the examined subscale. This can give,

again, a good indication that there is a positive relationship between leadership and

productivity. It is clear, as well, that some of those subscales have a strong or even a very

strong relationship with performance, where the percentage of 3’s is more than 70% or 90%.

3. The same holds for the rest of the performance measures, i.e. plant efficiency and sales

volume.

At this stage of data analysis, it can be concluded that there is a positive relationship between

leadership and organizational performance, and consequently this research main hypothesis is

supported. Looking at table - 9.7 closely, we observe that the percentages for the four measures

(profitability, productivity, plant efficiency, and sales volume) on the intersection between 3’s

and some subscales are always high, e.g. subscale L1 where the percentages are 91%, 92%,

92%, and 92% respectively. This is a very good indicator that there is a positive relationship

between L1, or Leader-Member Exchange LMX leadership style and the four measures of

organizational performance. The same holds for L4, as another example, where the percentages

are 81%, 87%, 80%, and 89%, this leads to another indication that there is a positive relationship

between L4, i.e. Transformational-inspirational motivation leadership style and all

organizational performance measures.

9.2 Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate analysis examines whether two variables are related or not. When identifying such

183

the same time with the variation in the other one (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

The strength of relationship between the two variables can be measured by using correlation

coefficient statistics (Field, 2009). This test can return a value between -1 and +1, and depending

on this value the relationship between the two variables can be described as perfect negative (if

the value is -1), or perfect positive (if the value is +1). Any value greater than -1 or less than +1

gives the strength of the relationship between the two variables a different interpretation. Table

- 9.8 shows these relationships. A positive value of the correlation coefficient means that, when

the values of one variable increase, the values of the second variable increase, too. A negative

value of the correlation coefficient means that, when the values of one variable increase, the

values of the second variable decrease (Saunders et al., 2016).

There are many techniques for examining the relationship between two variables, depending

on their nature. If the two variables contain numerical data, or:

- Both are interval or ratio

- One of them is interval and the other is ratio, or vice versa,

Then the technique to be used is Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (Field, 2009, Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders et al., 2016).

As shown earlier in section - 8.1, the data explored here are of this form, and consequently,

the appropriate test to examine the relationship between the two variables, the independent

variable (leadership) and the dependent variable (organizational performance) is Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Pearson’s correlation coefficient or “r” usually used to quantify the

strength of linear relationship between two variables, when both variables contain numerical

data. The sample from which the data collected should be selected randomly, and the data should

184

2009). Pearson’s correlation coefficient r can have a value between -1 and +1 as mentioned at the beginning of this section. This means that the value of r will describe the strength of the