Leadership Training Program – Impact On Managerial Efficiency
- December 21, 2023/ Uncategorized
Hypothesis on the Impact of Leadership Training Program on Managers
Question:
Describe about participants in a Leadership Training Program Rated as Better Managers Compared to Those Who do Not?
Leadership training program is actually a major professional training which actually helps individuals to grow the leadership qualities to actually perform on a dignified position with adequate supervision to guide the employees to their dedicated work. But, there is always a question that basically arise that is are the participants in a leadership training program rated as better mangers compared to those who do not. In fact it is a serious and an important aspect that needs major research. It has been prolifically noticed that the there is a vast difference between leaders and management. In every aspect both are different from each other. But managers those who don’t take part in the leadership training program are they not so efficient to those who take part. This study actually states the basic needs and wants of comparing the better managers (Burns, 1978). The article clearly explains every single details about the how leadership training actually differentiate the managers those who have not taken the training program. Experience also plays a key role making managers a prolific leader who can actually take the leader’s role to boost the employee’s motivation and morale and help them to dedicate them towards their work. So, the module clearly states each and every pros and cons that is needed in the managerial sector and will potentially clear out the major doubts on better managers. It actually cooperates and significantly executes major roles and procedures of how without the help of leadership training program better managers are also made by experience. Experience is one major factor that increases the potential of an individual rather than training procedures and the potential of being a leader cum manager without the training program is stated in this module.
A Hypothesis is a research made on a given topic. It is of different nature based on the requirement of the research conducted by the researcher. It can be of descriptive in nature or may be of quantitative in nature. In other words it is said to have an analysis done on a given topic. Here in this report a hypothesis is done on a given topic of Participants in a leadership training program rated better managers from those who do not participates in the leadership. For completing this hypothesis several studies were made and questionnaires were prepared to collect data regarding the given topic. A fictitious data set is prepared that shows how fifty employees of several organizations were interview and several different results were formulated from the employees (Flynn & Stack, 2006). The employees interviewed were of several positions in the organizations ranging from employee level to management level. For conducting this hypothesis a fictional topic was chosen that raised several questions regarding the usefulness of the leadership training program for the managers to be expert in their field and compete people of the same rank in performing a better duty. The entire report is discussed in a descriptive manner and a statistical analysis is done in the section later on.
Research Design
The study or report deals with the main question that how the leadership training program is helpful for the students to become efficient managers (Tracy, 2014). The entire study in the report deals with the questionnaires presented to the employee and managers of few organizations. The main questions that are discussed in this report are as follows:
- How often are the training members chosen as a manager?
- Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?
- Personal skill development Scheme
- Is the Study useful?
- How this study is useful for the students?
- Is Leadership training program helpful?
- Effect of leadership program on the managers.
- Effect of Leadership program on the company.
Research design is the blue print of the report that is made on a research study. It is a method of representing the research in a report manner. Different methods of research are done. Some of them are descriptive research, explanatory and exploratory research. In this report the descriptive method is use to represent the report because it requires a huge base of knowledge to complete this research work (Giuliani & Kurson, 2002). The report represents how the data are collected and how it is used to complete the analysis as required completing the hypothesis.
Data collection is one of the most important methods of a hypothesis. It increases the knowledge base of the research to complete the required work. In this method the secondary data collection technique is used to collect data to increase the knowledge base (Safire & Safir, 1990). The data set prepared for completing the research is fictitious in nature but deals with a real world’s issue. For completing the research several questions were prepared based on the given topic and fifty cases were taken in consideration as samples for creating variables to complete the analysis.
Data analysis is the most complicated task for any researcher. It is the most difficult part of any research. In completing this study the variables from the data set are used to complete the statistical analysis to get the outcome of the research on the given topic (Krueger, 2004). For conducting the statistical analysis SPSS software is used were the variables are represented in tables and the statistical analysis is done with the help of the data set. Here, in this report the correlation between the variables are found and the results are represented in tabular form and with the help of graphs.
Every research work has certain limitation. A researcher needs to follow the guidelines that are related to the research work. The most important limitation of a research work is the time constraint for completing the work. The time must be kept in mind while conducting a research study.
Data analysis is the most important part of any study done on a particular topic. It is important make the analysis as per the requirement to get correct result for the variables collected from the data set. For completing the analysis in this report SPSS software is used and the data are manipulated from the data set to complete the analysis. The analysis done on the data set is given below:
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
Age |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.24 |
.938 |
|
Sex |
50 |
1 |
2 |
1.28 |
.454 |
|
Salary |
50 |
2 |
4 |
2.90 |
.839 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.38 |
1.086 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.68 |
1.096 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.74 |
.922 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.60 |
.969 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.72 |
1.031 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.88 |
1.118 |
|
Effects on the employees |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.26 |
1.084 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.32 |
.891 |
|
Help in communication |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.44 |
.907 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.76 |
1.041 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.46 |
1.164 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.62 |
1.048 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
50 |
Crosstabs
Age * Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program
Crosstab
Count
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
12 |
17 |
12 |
8 |
1 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
10.869a |
12 |
.540 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.716 |
12 |
.469 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.608 |
1 |
.436 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
-.111 |
.153 |
-.777 |
.441c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.121 |
.152 |
-.848 |
.401c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Data Collection
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Is Leadership training program helpful?
Crosstab
Count
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
7 |
16 |
16 |
8 |
3 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
13.410a |
12 |
.340 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.036 |
12 |
.526 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.014 |
1 |
.907 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. 18 cells (90.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .12.
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.017 |
.161 |
.116 |
.909c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.003 |
.156 |
-.021 |
.983c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Effect of leadership program on the managers
Crosstab
Count
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
0 |
12 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
2 |
21 |
17 |
8 |
2 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
20.508a |
12 |
.058 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
15.992 |
12 |
.192 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.266 |
1 |
.606 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.074 |
.164 |
.512 |
.611c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
.046 |
.152 |
.320 |
.750c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Effect of Leadership program on the company
Crosstab
Count
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
0 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
6 |
17 |
20 |
5 |
2 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
27.455a |
12 |
.007 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
30.165 |
12 |
.003 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
6.972 |
1 |
.008 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.377 |
.106 |
2.822 |
.007c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
.342 |
.127 |
2.522 |
.015c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Salary * Personal skill development Scheme
Crosstab
Count
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Salary |
10000-20000 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
20 |
|
20000-30000 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
|
30000-40000 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
15 |
|
|
Total |
7 |
12 |
18 |
12 |
1 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
10.513a |
8 |
.231 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.258 |
8 |
.188 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
1.386 |
1 |
.239 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
-.168 |
.138 |
-1.182 |
.243c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.183 |
.143 |
-1.287 |
.204c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
|
Regression Model Summary |
||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.393a |
.155 |
-.120 |
.480 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), How often are the training members chosen as a manager?, Effect of leadership program on the managers, Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program, Effect of Leadership program on the company, Help in communication, Are the Subject useful?, How this study is useful for the students, Is Leadership training program helpful?, Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?, Effects on the employees, Effect of leadership program on the industry, Personal skill development Scheme.
|
ANOVAa |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
1.559 |
12 |
.130 |
.564 |
.856b |
|
Residual |
8.521 |
37 |
.230 |
|||
|
Total |
10.080 |
49 |
a. Dependent Variable: Sex
b. Predictors: (Constant), How often are the training members choosen as a manager?, Effect of leadership program on the managers, Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program, Effect of Leadership program on the company, Help in communication, Are the Subject useful?, How this study is useful for the students, Is Leadership training program helpful?, Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?, Effects on the employees, Effect of leadership program on the industry, Personal skill development Scheme
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
1.016 |
.722 |
1.406 |
.168 |
|
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
-.040 |
.073 |
-.096 |
-.549 |
.586 |
|
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
.105 |
.068 |
.255 |
1.544 |
.131 |
|
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
.073 |
.084 |
.148 |
.870 |
.390 |
|
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
-.009 |
.073 |
-.020 |
-.128 |
.899 |
|
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
.010 |
.075 |
.022 |
.127 |
.900 |
|
|
How this study is useful for the students |
-.034 |
.067 |
-.084 |
-.512 |
.612 |
|
|
Effects on the employees |
.017 |
.074 |
.041 |
.232 |
.818 |
|
|
Is the Subject useful? |
-.046 |
.080 |
-.091 |
-.579 |
.566 |
|
|
Help in communication |
.010 |
.078 |
.020 |
.127 |
.899 |
|
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
-.070 |
.078 |
-.160 |
-.894 |
.377 |
|
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
.044 |
.065 |
.112 |
.670 |
.507 |
|
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
.040 |
.068 |
.092 |
.588 |
.560 |
a. Dependent Variable: Sex
|
T-Test One-Sample Statistics |
||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
Age |
50 |
2.24 |
.938 |
.133 |
|
Sex |
50 |
1.28 |
.454 |
.064 |
|
Salary |
50 |
2.90 |
.839 |
.119 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
50 |
2.38 |
1.086 |
.154 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
50 |
2.68 |
1.096 |
.155 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
50 |
2.74 |
.922 |
.130 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
50 |
2.60 |
.969 |
.137 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
50 |
2.72 |
1.031 |
.146 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
50 |
2.88 |
1.118 |
.158 |
|
Effects on the employees |
50 |
2.26 |
1.084 |
.153 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
50 |
2.32 |
.891 |
.126 |
|
Help in communication |
50 |
2.44 |
.907 |
.128 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
50 |
2.76 |
1.041 |
.147 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
50 |
2.46 |
1.164 |
.165 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
50 |
2.62 |
1.048 |
.148 |
|
One-Sample Test |
|||||
|
Test Value = 0 |
|||||
|
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|
|
Lower |
|||||
|
Age |
16.885 |
49 |
.000 |
2.240 |
1.97 |
|
Sex |
19.956 |
49 |
.000 |
1.280 |
1.15 |
|
Salary |
24.438 |
49 |
.000 |
2.900 |
2.66 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
15.498 |
49 |
.000 |
2.380 |
2.07 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
17.288 |
49 |
.000 |
2.680 |
2.37 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
21.022 |
49 |
.000 |
2.740 |
2.48 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
18.975 |
49 |
.000 |
2.600 |
2.32 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
18.656 |
49 |
.000 |
2.720 |
2.43 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
18.210 |
49 |
.000 |
2.880 |
2.56 |
|
Effects on the employees |
14.737 |
49 |
.000 |
2.260 |
1.95 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
18.417 |
49 |
.000 |
2.320 |
2.07 |
|
Help in communication |
19.020 |
49 |
.000 |
2.440 |
2.18 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
18.744 |
49 |
.000 |
2.760 |
2.46 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
14.941 |
49 |
.000 |
2.460 |
2.13 |
|
How often are the training members chosen as a manager? |
17.684 |
49 |
.000 |
2.620 |
2.32 |
|
One-way ANOVA |
||
|
Sig. |
||
|
Age |
Between Groups |
.120 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Salary |
Between Groups |
.824 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
Between Groups |
.214 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
Between Groups |
.062 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
Between Groups |
.829 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
Between Groups |
.898 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
Between Groups |
.378 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
How this study is useful for the students |
Between Groups |
.355 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effects on the employees |
Between Groups |
.918 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are the Subject useful? |
Between Groups |
.606 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Help in communication |
Between Groups |
.774 |
|
Within Groups |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
||
|
Help in communication |
Total |
40.320 |
49 |
||
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Between Groups |
.691 |
1 |
.691 |
.633 |
|
Within Groups |
52.429 |
48 |
1.092 |
||
|
Total |
53.120 |
49 |
|||
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
Between Groups |
.650 |
1 |
.650 |
.474 |
|
Within Groups |
65.770 |
48 |
1.370 |
||
|
Total |
66.420 |
49 |
|||
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
Between Groups |
1.093 |
1 |
1.093 |
.996 |
|
Within Groups |
52.687 |
48 |
1.098 |
||
|
Total |
53.780 |
49 |
|
ANOVA |
||
|
Sig. |
||
|
Help in communication |
Total |
|
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Between Groups |
.430 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
Between Groups |
.494 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
How often are the training members chosen as a manager? |
Between Groups |
.323 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
Here in this report data analysis is done on the variables manipulated from the fictitious data set that helps to complete the statistical analysis on the given topic. All data and reports are presented in tabular form to make it easier to understand for the readers. Graphical representation of the data and results are also provided along with the results to make it understandable and interesting for the audience. Here in the analysis section the dependent variables are compared with the independent variables to find the correlation among the variables. The mean, standard deviation, regression analysis is done with the help of the variables and the results are represented in the analysis section. It can be seen that how the T-test have been conducted with the variables and an ANOVA analysis is also done in the above section. The above section deals with the statistical analysis of the data manipulated from the fictitious data set. It shows how the data are interrelated with each other and how they are different from each other to solve the problem arises in the questionnaires. All types of required statistical analysis is been done in the report to meet the requirement of the given topic.
Data Analysis
Conclusion
The module clearly states about the does and don’t that are basically need to be prolific manager at an executive or administrative level. Training is always not important in acquiring to be the best manager in any level. If we see on a wider basis we can easily conclude that rather than training experience also plays a key and significant role in becoming a major and well established manager to carry out or to carry forward the tasks that are incorporated in an organization. Basically managers are good leaders. Managers play a key role in establishing the firm’s orientation along with its main motive, aim and objectives. These prolific features can only be identified and taken into consideration when an individual as a manager has wide perspective of thinking to grow (Lawriwsky, 1984). The tactics, strategies, implementation of plan are all leadership qualities that actually a good manager persists which actually help them to execute major projects, works on wider basis thinking about the growth of the organization. Leadership tactics are essential in every sector. The leadership role must be well performed to bring out the major necessities from an employee making the employee motivated to keep its focus and dedication towards the work. A manager can easily acquire the leadership quality by gaining experience from different fields and sector. A manager can easily be a leader by prolifically boosting up the employees morale and motivate them and help them in their major works to help them to achieve the goal along with the organizational objectives and specific goals. Leadership and management are quite different from each other in the organizational structures to execute great plans and objectives. But it is not necessary for a manager to take any professional or any prolific training to become a dignified leader. Sometimes even experience also matters and counts which actually makes individuals better manager cum leaders without a leadership training program.
References
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Flynn, J., & Stack, M. (2006). The role of the preceptor. New York: Springer Pub.
Giuliani, R., & Kurson, K. (2002). Leadership. New York: Hyperion.
Krueger, G. (2004). Enterprise restructuring and the role of managers in Russia. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Lawriwsky, M. (1984). Corporate structure & performance. London: Croom Helm.
Safire, W., & Safir, L. (1990). Leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Tracy, B. (2014). Leadership. New York: American Management Association.
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
Age |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.24 |
.938 |
|
Sex |
50 |
1 |
2 |
1.28 |
.454 |
|
Salary |
50 |
2 |
4 |
2.90 |
.839 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.38 |
1.086 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.68 |
1.096 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.74 |
.922 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.60 |
.969 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.72 |
1.031 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.88 |
1.118 |
|
Effects on the employees |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.26 |
1.084 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.32 |
.891 |
|
Help in communication |
50 |
1 |
4 |
2.44 |
.907 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.76 |
1.041 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.46 |
1.164 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
50 |
1 |
5 |
2.62 |
1.048 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
50 |
Crosstabs
Age * Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program
Crosstab
Count
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
12 |
17 |
12 |
8 |
1 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
10.869a |
12 |
.540 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.716 |
12 |
.469 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.608 |
1 |
.436 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
-.111 |
.153 |
-.777 |
.441c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.121 |
.152 |
-.848 |
.401c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Age * Is Leadership training program helpful?
Crosstab
Count
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
3 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
7 |
16 |
16 |
8 |
3 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
13.410a |
12 |
.340 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.036 |
12 |
.526 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.014 |
1 |
.907 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.017 |
.161 |
.116 |
.909c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.003 |
.156 |
-.021 |
.983c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Age * Effect of leadership program on the managers
Crosstab
Count
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
1 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
0 |
12 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
2 |
21 |
17 |
8 |
2 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
20.508a |
12 |
.058 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
15.992 |
12 |
.192 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.266 |
1 |
.606 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.074 |
.164 |
.512 |
.611c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
.046 |
.152 |
.320 |
.750c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Age * Effect of Leadership program on the company
Crosstab
Count
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
|
40-50 |
0 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
23 |
|
|
50-60 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
Total |
6 |
17 |
20 |
5 |
2 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
27.455a |
12 |
.007 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
30.165 |
12 |
.003 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
6.972 |
1 |
.008 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.377 |
.106 |
2.822 |
.007c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
.342 |
.127 |
2.522 |
.015c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Age * Effect of leadership program on the industry
Crosstab
Count
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Age |
20-30 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
15 |
|
30-40 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
10 |
Salary * Personal skill development Scheme
Crosstab
Count
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Salary |
10000-20000 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
20 |
|
20000-30000 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
|
|
30000-40000 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
15 |
|
|
Total |
7 |
12 |
18 |
12 |
1 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
10.513a |
8 |
.231 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
11.258 |
8 |
.188 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
1.386 |
1 |
.239 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
-.168 |
.138 |
-1.182 |
.243c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
-.183 |
.143 |
-1.287 |
.204c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
Salary * Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?
Crosstab
Count
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
Total |
||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|||
|
Salary |
10000-20000 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
20 |
|
20000-30000 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
15 |
|
|
30000-40000 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
15 |
|
|
Total |
10 |
20 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
50 |
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||
|
Value |
df |
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) |
|
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
11.492a |
8 |
.175 |
|
Likelihood Ratio |
14.938 |
8 |
.060 |
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
.036 |
1 |
.849 |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Symmetric Measures |
|||||
|
Value |
Asymp. Std. Errora |
Approx. Tb |
Approx. Sig. |
||
|
Interval by Interval |
Pearson’s R |
.027 |
.125 |
.188 |
.851c |
|
Ordinal by Ordinal |
Spearman Correlation |
.062 |
.131 |
.429 |
.670c |
|
N of Valid Cases |
50 |
|
Regression Model Summary |
||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.393a |
.155 |
-.120 |
.480 |
|
ANOVAa |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
1.559 |
12 |
.130 |
.564 |
.856b |
|
Residual |
8.521 |
37 |
.230 |
|||
|
Total |
10.080 |
49 |
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
1.016 |
.722 |
1.406 |
.168 |
|
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
-.040 |
.073 |
-.096 |
-.549 |
.586 |
|
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
.105 |
.068 |
.255 |
1.544 |
.131 |
|
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
.073 |
.084 |
.148 |
.870 |
.390 |
|
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
-.009 |
.073 |
-.020 |
-.128 |
.899 |
|
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
.010 |
.075 |
.022 |
.127 |
.900 |
|
|
How this study is useful for the students |
-.034 |
.067 |
-.084 |
-.512 |
.612 |
|
|
Effects on the employees |
.017 |
.074 |
.041 |
.232 |
.818 |
|
|
Are the Subject useful? |
-.046 |
.080 |
-.091 |
-.579 |
.566 |
|
|
Help in communication |
.010 |
.078 |
.020 |
.127 |
.899 |
|
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
-.070 |
.078 |
-.160 |
-.894 |
.377 |
|
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
.044 |
.065 |
.112 |
.670 |
.507 |
|
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
.040 |
.068 |
.092 |
.588 |
.560 |
|
T-Test One-Sample Statistics |
||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
|
Age |
50 |
2.24 |
.938 |
.133 |
|
Sex |
50 |
1.28 |
.454 |
.064 |
|
Salary |
50 |
2.90 |
.839 |
.119 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
50 |
2.38 |
1.086 |
.154 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
50 |
2.68 |
1.096 |
.155 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
50 |
2.74 |
.922 |
.130 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
50 |
2.60 |
.969 |
.137 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
50 |
2.72 |
1.031 |
.146 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
50 |
2.88 |
1.118 |
.158 |
|
Effects on the employees |
50 |
2.26 |
1.084 |
.153 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
50 |
2.32 |
.891 |
.126 |
|
Help in communication |
50 |
2.44 |
.907 |
.128 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
50 |
2.76 |
1.041 |
.147 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
50 |
2.46 |
1.164 |
.165 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
50 |
2.62 |
1.048 |
.148 |
|
One-Sample Test |
|||||
|
Test Value = 0 |
|||||
|
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|
|
Lower |
|||||
|
Age |
16.885 |
49 |
.000 |
2.240 |
1.97 |
|
Sex |
19.956 |
49 |
.000 |
1.280 |
1.15 |
|
Salary |
24.438 |
49 |
.000 |
2.900 |
2.66 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
15.498 |
49 |
.000 |
2.380 |
2.07 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
17.288 |
49 |
.000 |
2.680 |
2.37 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
21.022 |
49 |
.000 |
2.740 |
2.48 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
18.975 |
49 |
.000 |
2.600 |
2.32 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
18.656 |
49 |
.000 |
2.720 |
2.43 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
18.210 |
49 |
.000 |
2.880 |
2.56 |
|
Effects on the employees |
14.737 |
49 |
.000 |
2.260 |
1.95 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
18.417 |
49 |
.000 |
2.320 |
2.07 |
|
Help in communication |
19.020 |
49 |
.000 |
2.440 |
2.18 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
18.744 |
49 |
.000 |
2.760 |
2.46 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
14.941 |
49 |
.000 |
2.460 |
2.13 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
17.684 |
49 |
.000 |
2.620 |
2.32 |
|
One-Sample Test |
|
|
Test Value = 0 |
|
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|
|
Upper |
|
|
Age |
2.51 |
|
Sex |
1.41 |
|
Salary |
3.14 |
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
2.69 |
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
2.99 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
3.00 |
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
2.88 |
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
3.01 |
|
How this study is useful for the students |
3.20 |
|
Effects on the employees |
2.57 |
|
Are the Subject useful? |
2.57 |
|
Help in communication |
2.70 |
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
3.06 |
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
2.79 |
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
2.92 |
|
One-way ANOVA |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
||
|
Age |
Between Groups |
2.136 |
1 |
2.136 |
2.502 |
|
Within Groups |
40.984 |
48 |
.854 |
||
|
Total |
43.120 |
49 |
|||
|
Salary |
Between Groups |
.036 |
1 |
.036 |
.050 |
|
Within Groups |
34.464 |
48 |
.718 |
||
|
Total |
34.500 |
49 |
|||
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
Between Groups |
1.851 |
1 |
1.851 |
1.589 |
|
Within Groups |
55.929 |
48 |
1.165 |
||
|
Total |
57.780 |
49 |
|||
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
Between Groups |
4.166 |
1 |
4.166 |
3.655 |
|
Within Groups |
54.714 |
48 |
1.140 |
||
|
Total |
58.880 |
49 |
|||
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
Between Groups |
.041 |
1 |
.041 |
.047 |
|
Within Groups |
41.579 |
48 |
.866 |
||
|
Total |
41.620 |
49 |
|||
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
Between Groups |
.016 |
1 |
.016 |
.017 |
|
Within Groups |
45.984 |
48 |
.958 |
||
|
Total |
46.000 |
49 |
|||
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
Between Groups |
.846 |
1 |
.846 |
.792 |
|
Within Groups |
51.234 |
48 |
1.067 |
||
|
Total |
52.080 |
49 |
|||
|
How this study is useful for the students |
Between Groups |
1.093 |
1 |
1.093 |
.872 |
|
Within Groups |
60.187 |
48 |
1.254 |
||
|
Total |
61.280 |
49 |
|||
|
Effects on the employees |
Between Groups |
.013 |
1 |
.013 |
.011 |
|
Within Groups |
57.607 |
48 |
1.200 |
||
|
Total |
57.620 |
49 |
|||
|
Are the Subject useful? |
Between Groups |
.217 |
1 |
.217 |
.270 |
|
Within Groups |
38.663 |
48 |
.805 |
||
|
Total |
38.880 |
49 |
|||
|
Help in communication |
Between Groups |
.070 |
1 |
.070 |
.083 |
|
Within Groups |
40.250 |
48 |
.839 |
|
ANOVA |
||
|
Sig. |
||
|
Age |
Between Groups |
.120 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Salary |
Between Groups |
.824 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program |
Between Groups |
.214 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Is Leadership training program helpful? |
Between Groups |
.062 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of leadership program on the managers |
Between Groups |
.829 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of Leadership program on the company |
Between Groups |
.898 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effect of leadership program on the industry |
Between Groups |
.378 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
How this study is useful for the students |
Between Groups |
.355 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Effects on the employees |
Between Groups |
.918 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are the Subject useful? |
Between Groups |
.606 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Help in communication |
Between Groups |
.774 |
|
Within Groups |
|
ANOVA |
|||||
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
||
|
Help in communication |
Total |
40.320 |
49 |
||
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Between Groups |
.691 |
1 |
.691 |
.633 |
|
Within Groups |
52.429 |
48 |
1.092 |
||
|
Total |
53.120 |
49 |
|||
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
Between Groups |
.650 |
1 |
.650 |
.474 |
|
Within Groups |
65.770 |
48 |
1.370 |
||
|
Total |
66.420 |
49 |
|||
|
How often are the training members choosen as a manager? |
Between Groups |
1.093 |
1 |
1.093 |
.996 |
|
Within Groups |
52.687 |
48 |
1.098 |
||
|
Total |
53.780 |
49 |
|
ANOVA |
||
|
Sig. |
||
|
Help in communication |
Total |
|
|
Personal skill development Scheme |
Between Groups |
.430 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? |
Between Groups |
.494 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
||
|
How often are the training members chosen as a manager? |
Between Groups |
.323 |
|
Within Groups |
||
|
Total |
