Dr. Claude Tanoe

Determining the effects of Attrition
on Leadership Competency and
Organizational Effectiveness: A
Quantitative Study
Claude B. Tanoe
DOC 734 – Oral Defense
May 14, 2010

1

Introduction
• Doreen M. McGunagle, Ph.D., Mentor
• Katheen M. Dominick, Ph.D., Committee Member
• Dolores Coles, Ph.D., Committee Member
• Claude B. Tanoe, Doctoral Candidate

2

Outline
• Introductions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Theoretical framework
• Research Design
• Research Questions
• Population and Sample
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Findings
• Conclusion and Implications
• Limitations
• Recommendations
• Significance to leadership
• Concluding Remarks
• Questions 3

Problem Statement
Sixty percent of senior leaders will be eligible in 2010
for retirement and 90% will be eligible by 2019
leaving a critical gap of organizational competencies
in the federal government
Loss in pool of leadership talent may result in critical
gap of competencies
(Ludwick, 2007; Hendrix, 2007; Nuschler, 2005; Tierney, 2006)

Loss of competencies over time may be damaging to
the Federal government’s ability to sustain its daily
obligation and operation
(Manning, 2003; Young, 2005; Blair, 2005)

4

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative method study with
correlational research design was to examine the
extent of the relationships among senior leaders’
attrition; senior leaders’ competency, and
organizational effectiveness. The study further
investigated the relationship between senior leaders’
attrition and demographic characteristics (gender
and level of pay) as these leaders enter the
preretirement phase of employment.

5

Theoretical Framework
• Leadership competency model
(Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007)

• The model of organizational effectiveness
(Sparks & Gentry, 2008; Gaertner and Ramnarayan, 1983)

• Organizational withdrawal
(Adams & Beehr, 1998)

• Approach taken in the current study derived from
above model: Constituency model organizational
effectiveness

6

Research Design
• Quantitative method study with correlational research design
Variables: senior leaders’ attrition (senior leaders’ self-reported years to
retirement), leader’s competency, and organizational effectiveness

• Factorial design using a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA)
Independent variables: Gender, level of pay
Dependent variable: Attrition

• Standardized survey instrument
Leadership Practice Inventory (Self & Observer)

• Researcher –constructed demographic questionnaire 7

Research Questions
RQ1: To what degree is attrition related to leadership
effectiveness?
RQ2: To what degree is attrition related to
organizational effectiveness?
RQ3: To what degree are there differences in attrition
rates due to gender and level of pay of senior
leaders?

8

Population and Sample
Study population: Federal Managers Association which
constitutes 10% of the total federal employee
workforce.
Number of senior and managers estimated at 25%.
Sample sized required was 333 (e=.05).
Number of participants to surveyed (assuming 10%
increase to redress for non-responses) was 367.

9

Data Collection
• Senior executives and managers population from the Federal Managers
Association
• Administered via electronic mean
• Informed consent
• Data Collection packet
• Informed Consent form
• Survey Instruments
• Online survey
• Response rate: 91%

10

Data Analysis
Descriptive Information Relating to Each Hypothesis Presented and
Associated Statistical Test
Hypothesis Variables Variable Statistical test

H1o Attrition Leadership Bivariate correlation
effectiveness coefficient (Pearson
Product Moment)

H2o Attrition Organizational Bivariate correlation
effectiveness coefficient (Pearson
Product Moment)

H3o Attrition Gender/Level of pay Two-Way ANOVA

11

Findings
• The findings are presented in order of the hypotheses associated with
each research question.

12

RQ1: To what degree is attrition related
to leadership effectiveness?

• H1o: A relationship does not exist between attrition
and observed leadership competencies.
• H1a: A relationship exists between attrition and
observed leadership competencies.

13

Findings: Research Question 1 and Hypothesis 1
Attrition and leadership competency
Correlation coefficients of .1 or less, and p values of .3 or higher – Fail to reject null
hypothesis. No relationship between attrition and leadership competency
detected.

Table 10
r p

Modeling the Way -.1 -.3

Inspiring a Shared Vision -.1 .3

Challenging the Process .0 .5

Enabling Others to Act .0 .7

Encouraging the Heart -.1 .3

Mean -.1 .3
14

RQ2: How To what degree is attrition
related to organizational effectiveness?
(leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and
organizational effectiveness.
• H2a: A relationship exists between attrition and

15

Attrition and leadership competency
modeling the way, r = -.12, p = .02; (b) challenging the process, r = -.11, p = .05;
and (c) enabling others to act, r = -.11, p = .04
None significant 008 level (α/6 = .008) applying Bonneferroni correction.
Table 11

r p
Modeling the Way -12 .02

Inspiring a Shared Vision -.05 .34

Challenging the Process -.11 .05

Enabling Others to Act -.11 .04

Encouraging the Heart -,07 .19

Mean -.10 .07
16

RQ3: To what degree are there differences in
attrition rates due to gender and level of pay of
senior leaders?
(leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and
• H3a: A difference exists in attrition rates and in level
of pay between male and female senior leaders.

17

Attrition rates due to Gender and Level of pay
Main effect of gender is not significant, F (1, 324) = .04, p = .84.
Interaction between gender and pay is not significant, F (5, 324) = .98,
p = .43. The results indicate a significant effect for pay, F (6, 324) =
1198.91, p = .05.
Source df F P
Corrected Model 12 1.56 .10
Table 12

Intercept 1 373.61 <.001

Gender 1 .04 .84

Pay 6 2.14 .05

Gender * Pay 5 .98 .43
324
Error
337
Total
18
Corrected Total

Conclusions and Implications
RQ1 - To what degree is attrition related to leadership
effectiveness?

• No relationship detected
• “Lame ducks” assumption not supported
(Dobson Jr., 2006)

• Efficacy or inefficacy in the workplace determines leadership legacy not
attrition
• Environmental factors may also contribute in enhancing efficacy or
inefficacy
(Lopez, 2004)

19

RQ2 - To what degree is attrition related to organizational
effectiveness?

• No significant relationship detected
• Moderate negative relationships detected for three components: modeling
the way (r=-.02, p=.02), challenging the process (r=-.11, p=.05), and
enabling others (r=-.11, p=.04)
• Results point to personal leadership behavior and skills most important
factors influencing organizational effectiveness than attrition

20

RQ3 -To what degree are there differences in attrition rates due to
gender and level of pay of senior leaders?
• No significance in relationship detected due to gender and level of pay
• Homogeneity in the attitude of various group toward retirement

21

Limitations
• Members of a single professional organization surveyed
• Did not seek to establish causation due to the nature of the design of the
method of analysis
• Cross-sectional nature of the study did not allow to explore insight over
time using longitudinal survey
• Validity may be of concern due to personal bias of survey participants

22

Recommendations
Study Replications
• Larger population
• Allow for generalization
Methodology: Mixed method approach
Call for leadership legacy practice
Call for leadership mentoring
Call for research on mentorship and attrition rates among
managers

23

Significance to Leadership
• Gap in literature inconsistent with baby boomers’ impending retirement
• Senior leaders assume critical role in leveraging human resources
• Understanding core assumptions surrounding issues of competency and
impending retirement can help make constructive strategic decision

24

Concluding Remarks
While conducting a research study on attrition, competency, and organizational
effectiveness, the goal of any researcher is to provide the type of definitive
framework that could result in the formulation of responses to the issues of
sustainability and responsiveness to market changes, with respect to business
continuity, responsiveness to stakeholders’ demand. Other concerns relate to
decision-making, increased emphasis of public value, the effect of public
organization senior leader attrition has on level of effectiveness, and the
leveraging of core competencies. The current research provides a foundational
trail for future researches and it is my hope additional works might offer useful
insights for figuring out the right mixed of policies and decision-making from
public officials

25

References
Adams, G., & Beehr, T. (1998). Turnover and retirement: A comparison of their
similarities and differences. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 643-665
Balogun, J., Gleadle, P., Hailey, V., & Willmott, H. (2005). Managing change
across boundaries: boundary-shaking practices. British Journal of Management,
16(4), 261–278.
Bass, B.M. (1990, Winter). From transactional to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Benitez-Silva, H., Buchinmsky, M., Man Chan, H., Cheidvasser, S., & Rust, J.
(2004). How large is the bias in self-reported disability. Journal of Applied
econometrics, 19, 649-670. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from ProQuest
database.
Blair, B. G. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession planning. Security
Management, 49(9), 94–101 .
27

References (Continued)
Boseman, G. (2008). Effective leadership in a changing world. Journal of
Financial Service Professionals
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cyert, R., M., March, J., G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Delong, D. (2005). A changing American workplace, as boomers retire. Retrieved January
25, 2008. from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857792
Erickson, A., Shaw, J. B., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the
antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies,
1(3), 26-43.

28

Federal Managers Association. (2009). About FMA. Retrieved December 2,
2008, from http://www.fedmanagers.org/public/about.cfm
Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (2005). How to conduct Surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gaertner, G. H., & Ramnarayan, S. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: An
alternative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 97–107.
• Giberson, T., R., Resick, C., J., Dickson, M., Mitchelson, J., Randall, K., &
Clark, M. (2009). Leadership and Organizational Culture: Linking CEO
Characteristics to Cultural Values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2)
• Gorber, C., Tremblay, M., & Gorber, B. (2007). A comparison of direct
vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight, and body mass
index: a systematic review. The International Association for the Study of Obesity
reviews, 8, 307-326 29

Goliath. (2007). Uncle Sam Wants Fresh Talent: As baby boomers near
retirement, the U.S. government confronts a daunting challenge:
replenishing its ranks of employees and senior managers. Retrieved
December 16, 2008, from
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0198-399704_ITM
Hanisch, K. (2009). Industrial and organizational psychology. Wadsworth
Psychology Module. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from
http://4ltrpress.cengage.com/Intro_IO%20Module%20049559489X%20
_GENERAL_site.pdf
Helman, R., Copeland, C., VanDerhei, J. (2009). The2009 Retirement
Confidence Survey: economy drives confidence to record lows; many
looking to work longer. Employee Benefit Research Institute

30

Hopkins, W., G. (2009). A new view of statistics. Retrieved October 20, 2009
from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html
Israel, G. (2009). Determining sample size. University of Florida. IFAS
Extension. Retrieved October 18, 2009 from
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD00600.pdf
Keeley. M., F. (1978). A social justice approach to organizational evaluation
Administrative Science. Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 272-292
Kouzes, J., M., & Posner, B., Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lahaie, D. (2005). The impact of corporate memory loss: What happens when
a senior executive leaves? International Journal of Health Care Quality
Assurance, 18(4/5), p.R35, (13 pages).
31

López, A. (2004). The legacy leader. Leadership with a purpose. Business Book
Review Library, 21(19), p1-8,
Ludwick, P. (2007). The boomers are already gone. Journal of Housing &
Community Development, 64(1), 22-26. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from
EBSCOHost database.
Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership Across Cultures: Attachment Style
Influences. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.
20-30
Mermin, G., Johnson, R., & Murphy, D. (2007). Why Do Boomers Plan to
Work Longer? The Journals of Gerontology, 62B(5), S286- S294
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership
skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels.
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154–166. 32


Nash, J. (2010). Public-pension tab in Ohio: $4.1 billion -- and growing.
Retrieved April 3, 2010 from
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/public-
pension_tab_in_ohio_41.html
Newman, Jerry L. (2009). Building a creative high-performance R&D culture.
Research Technology Management, 52(5), p21-31.
Nuschler, D. (2005, September 20) Social security reform: IB98048.
Congressional Research Service: Issue Brief. Retrieved August 29, 2009,
from EBSCOhost database
Pagon, M., Banutgai, E., & Bizak, U. (2008). Leadership competencies for
successful change management: A preliminary study report. Retrieved
May 20, 2009, from
http://www.eupan.si/uploads/media/LEADERSHIP_COMPETENCI
ES.pdf 33


Pennings, J., M., Goodman, P., S. (1977). Toward a workable framework in
Goodman, P., S., Pennings, J., M. (Eds). New perspectives on organizational
effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA pp. 142-192
Rodsutti, M., & Swierczeck, F. (2002). Leadership and organizational
effectiveness in multinational enterprises in Southeast Asia. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 23(5), 250-259.
Scott, W. & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and
open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shamas-ur-Rehman, T., Ogunlana, S. (2009). Ineffective leadership:
Investigating the negative attributes of leaders and organizational
neutralizers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(3), pp.
254 - 272
34


Vathanophas, V. (2007). Competency requirements for effective job
performance in that Thai public sector. Contemporary Management Research,
3(1), 47-70
Wuensch, K., L. (2004). Independent variables and dependent variables.
Retrieved December 4, 2009 from
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/IV-DV.htm
Young, M. B. (2005). Building the leadership pipeline in local, state, and
federal government. CPS Resource Services. Retrieved August 28, 2009,
from http://www.ipma-
hr.org/files/leadership_pipeline_research_study.pdf
Zinkeviciute, V. (2007). Evaluation of business strategic decision under
changing environment conditions. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, VIII(4), 267-274. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from
EBSCOHost database. 35

Sparks, T., E. Gentry, W., A. (2008). An exploratory study of what is
important now and what has changed since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 22-35.
Stepanikova, I. (2004). False discovery rate methods for multiple comparisons:
Utility for sociology. The annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p110480_index.html
Tierney, T. J. (2006, March). The nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit.
Retrieved August 28, 2009, from
http://www.bridgespangroup.org/PDF/LeadershipDeficitWhitePaper.p
df
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership,
and evolution. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.
36

Table 8: Status of participants’ Finances

Frequency Percent

Poor 8 2.3

Fair 43 12.5

Good 163 47.2

Very Good 100 29.0

Excellent 24 7.0

Subtotal 338 98.0

Missing 7 2.0

Total 345 100.0

39

Table 13: Multiple Comparisons (Dependent
Variable: Attrition Rate (in months)
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference
vel of Pay (J) Level of Pay (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
$50,000 $50,000-$59,999 19.33 13.636 1.000 -22.42 61.09
$60,000-$69,999 33.90 12.937 .193 -5.71 73.51
70,000-$79,999 20.83 12.505 1.000 -17.45 59.12
80,000-$89,999 16.41 12.302 1.000 -21.25 54.08
$90,000-$99,999 26.25 12.247 .688 -11.24 63.75
$100,000 and above 20.21 11.949 1.000 -16.38 56.79
00-$59,999 Under $50,000 -19.33 13.636 1.000 -61.09 22.42
$60,000-$69,999 14.57 8.624 1.000 -11.84 40.97
70,000-$79,999 1.50 7.962 1.000 -22.88 25.88
80,000-$89,999 -2.92 7.639 1.000 -26.31 20.47
$90,000-$99,999 6.92 7.551 1.000 -16.20 30.04
$100,000 and above .87 7.058 1.000 -20.74 22.48
00-$69,999 Under $50,000 -33.90 12.937 .193 -73.51 5.71
$50,000-$59,999 -14.57 8.624 1.000 -40.97 11.84
70,000-$79,999 -13.07 6.693 1.000 -33.56 7.43
80,000-$89,999 -17.49 6.306 .123 -36.79 1.82
$90,000-$99,999 -7.65 6.198 1.000 -26.62 11.33
$100,000 and above -13.69 5.587 .310 -30.80 3.41
0-$79,999 Under $50,000 -20.83 12.505 1.000 -59.12 17.45
$50,000-$59,999 -1.50 7.962 1.000 -25.88 22.88
$60,000-$69,999 13.07 6.693 1.000 -7.43 33.56
80,000-$89,999 -4.42 5.364 1.000 -20.84 12.01
$90,000-$99,999 5.42 5.237 1.000 -10.61 21.46
$100,000 and above -.63 4.497 1.000 -14.40 13.14
0-$89,999 Under $50,000 -16.41 12.302 1.000 -54.08 21.25
$50,000-$59,999 2.92 7.639 1.000 -20.47 26.31
$60,000-$69,999 17.49 6.306 .123 -1.82 36.79
70,000-$79,999 4.42 5.364 1.000 -12.01 20.84
$90,000-$99,999 9.84 4.732 .806 -4.65 24.33
$100,000 and above 3.79 3.897 1.000 -8.14 15.72
00-$99,999 Under $50,000 -26.25 12.247 .688 -63.75 11.24
$50,000-$59,999 -6.92 7.551 1.000 -30.04 16.20
$60,000-$69,999 7.65 6.198 1.000 -11.33 26.62
70,000-$79,999 -5.42 5.237 1.000 -21.46 10.61
80,000-$89,999 -9.84 4.732 .806 -24.33 4.65
$100,000 and above -6.05 3.721 1.000 -17.44 5.34
000 and above Under $50,000 -20.21 11.949 1.000 -56.79 16.38
$50,000-$59,999 -.87 7.058 1.000 -22.48 20.74
$60,000-$69,999 13.69 5.587 .310 -3.41 30.80
70,000-$79,999 .63 4.497 1.000 -13.14 14.40
80,000-$89,999 -3.79 3.897 1.000 -15.72 8.14
$90,000-$99,999 6.05 3.721 1.000 -5.34 17.44
Based on observed means.

40

Table 14; The Five LPI Components and Summed Mean
Scores
Modeling the Inspiring a Challenging the Enabling Encouraging the Mean

way shared vision process others to act heart

9.17 9.00 8.00 9.83 9.67 9.13

8.17 7.17 6.83 8.00 8.17 7.67

9.17 8.17 9.17 8.83 9.17 8.90

9.67 9.17 9.50 9.83 9.83 9.60

9.00 8.67 8.50 9.00 9.00 8.83

8.50 8.83 9.00 8.67 8.50 8.70

9.50 8.00 7.50 9.50 9.33 8.77

9.00 8.17 8.83 9.33 9.17 8.90

9.00 8.50 8.17 9.50 9.17 8.87

7.67 6.33 7.17 7.83 7.83 7.37

6.67 3.50 4.83 7.67 6.33 5.80

8.17 7.83 8.17 9.00 8.17 8.27

9.17 6.83 9.00 9.50 9.00 8.70

9.00 8.67 3.67 8.17 8.50 7.60

7.00 5.67 6.00 7.00 6.67 6.47

9.50 7.67 7.33 9.67 10.00 8.83

9.00 9.00 8.67 8.83 8.67 8.83

10.00 10.00 9.67 10.00 9.83 9.90

9.33 9.50 9.00 9.33 9.33 9.30

8.33 8.50 8.67 8.83 8.50 8.57

8.83 7.83 8.00 9.17 9.17 8.60

8.83 7.67 7.50 8.83 8.67 8.30

9.67 9.00 7.17 10.00 10.00 9.17

8.80 7.00 8.00 10.00 9.00 8.56

9.17 7.00 8.17 9.50 8.83 8.53

9.67 7.00 8.83 9.50 9.17 8.83
41

Dr. Claude Tanoe

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Dr. Claude Tanoe

Similaire à Dr. Claude Tanoe (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Dr. Claude Tanoe