Others vs. leaders Essay

To further test why thither was a balance in the above results, t-test was further conducted in the midst of the two groups to identify the items where there are possible oddments between the two groups under study. B. 1. leadership, period 1 at that place was no substantial difference between the leadinghip think about gain ground of the Others multitude and the leaders conclave. This stiffs that as far as the leadership indicators were fretfulnessed the two groups could be considered as belonging to the equivalent population, get across 4. Table 4. T-Test Results of Leadership call up Scores of the Others crowd and the Leaders base Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance.Leadership 3. 805 4. 186 -1. 68 p=0. 10n. s. n. s. = non portentous (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * real at 1% direct (reject null hypothesis) This implied that although the respondents belonged to different echelons in the cheek studied, as far as the Leadership, s ituation 1, measures are concerned the Junior Officers and the Senior Officers perform at the same direct. B. 2. Strategic Planning, Item 2 The t-test showed there was no noteworthy difference between mean scores of the two groups suggesting uniformity in perception as far as the indicators of strategic planning were concerned, Table 5.Table 5. T-Test Results of Strategic Planning pissed Scores of the Others concourse and the Leaders gathering Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Strategic Planning 3. 852 4. 19 -1. 13 p=0. 265n. s. n. s. = not evidentiary (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 3. client and Market Focus, Item 3 The t-test on comparing the mean scores of the Others grouping and the Leaders Group showed a significant difference between the two groups with the Leaders Group considerably had higher mean score, Table 6.Table 6. T-Test Results of Customer and Market Focus Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Customer and Market Focus 2. 708 3. 143 -2. 09 p=0. 043 * n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 4. Measurement, Analyses and knowledge Management, Item 4 There is no significant difference between the Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group, Table 7. Table 7.T-Test Results of Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management 3. 795 3. 531 0. 64 p=0. 527n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 5. charitable Resource Focus, Item 5 There is no significant difference between the humans Resource Focus mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group, Table 8. Table 8.T-Test Results of Human Resource Focus Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Human Resource Focus 3. 217 3. 35 -0. 55 p=0. 587n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 6. Process Management, Item 6 There is no significant difference between the Process Management mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group. Table 9. T-Test Results of Process Management Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance.Process Management 3. 772 3. 819 -0. 24 p=0. 813n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 7. trading Results, Item 7 There is significant difference between the Business Results mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Gro up. The Others and the Leaders Group differed in their responses for Business Results. The Leaders Group had higher responses for these types of questions, Table 10. Table 10. T-Test Results of Business Results Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group.Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Business Results 2. 245 2. 926 -2. 23 p=0. 031* n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 8. Implications of the t-test Results The t-test conducted revealed significant difference between the two groups on two items, namely Customer and Market Focus, Item 3 and Business Results, Item 7. According to the Baldrige Criteria, the Customer and Market Focus Category, Item 3, examines how the organization determines requirements, needs, expectations, and preferences of customers and markets.Also examined is how the organization builds relationships with customers and determines the Key Factors that lead to customer acquisition and satisfaction, trueness and retention, and to business expansion and sustainability. We take note that this concern is a concern essentially orthogonal to the organization but defines the rationale or vastness of the organization to the bigger society through which the organization was dedicated in serving. In the legions service, the customer and market are presumably not only the men and women in the service but the public at large and all its agencies.It could be expected that the top echelon of the military leadership surveyed in the study were concerned not only with how the organization plant life but whether the expectations of its function to serve the public at large were macrocosm met. Another item which showed significant difference with the Leaders Group win higher than the Others Groups is Business Results, Item 7. Based from the Baldrige indicators, this item is customer-oriented and measures performance accommodate at satisfyi ng the customer as well as performance in the marketplace.In other words, this item is concerned with results which would finish the mandate or mission of the organization. Again, we take note that this item is external to the organization which leads us to a possible explanation for much(prenominal) a result. The differences between the two groups suggested that there was a sort of a conversion in perception of officers as they go up in the hierarchy. This go for the earlier observation that positions in the organization may have its picture requirements given its functions which shape the perception or point of view of those occupying such positions.C. Excerpt from the Correlation hyaloplasm for the Leaders Group To further investigating into the nature of the difference of point of views or priorities between the two groups, cross- correlativity between the items were conducted on the Leader Group. The results revealed a negative or inverse correlational statistics bet ween Strategic Planning, Item 2, and Customer Market Focus, Item 3 whereas, a positive correlation between Strategic Planning, Item 2 and Process Management, Item 6, Table 11. Table 11. Excerpt from the Correlation Matrix for Leaders Strategic Planning Item 2.Customer and Market Focus, Item 3 -0. 811 0. 027 Process Management, Item 6 0. 955 0. 001 Cell Contents Pearson correlation p-Value These results further showed us some trends which were not shown in the cross correlation test conducted for the Others Group. That is, for leaders in key positions, the concern is satisfying the goals and achieving the results and the elaborate like strategy become a lesser concern. Arguably, the top echelon of the military leadership has the whole organization working under its wings which would deliver and perform.Specifics, then have to be largely delegated to the Junior Officers. The positive correlation between strategy and process management suggested that top leadership in the case of the respondents surveyed in this study, likewise did not bother much with the exposit of certain processes possibly as in the case of strategy mission the meticulous tasks to Junior Officers. Again, this supported the previous trend of position ground perspectives suggesting opposing point views may be due to position occupied.