1

Determining the effects of Attrition on Leadership Competency and Organizational Effectiveness: A

Quantitative Study Claude B. Tanoe

DOC 734 – Oral Defense

May 14, 2010

2

• Doreen M. McGunagle, Ph.D., Mentor

• Katheen M. Dominick, Ph.D., Committee Member

• Dolores Coles, Ph.D., Committee Member

• Claude B. Tanoe, Doctoral Candidate

Introduction

3

• 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

Outline

4

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)

5

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.

Purpose Statement

6

• 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

Theoretical Framework

7

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

8

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?

9

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.

10

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%

11

Data Analysis Descriptive Information Relating to Each Hypothesis Presented and

Associated Statistical Test

Hypothesis Variables Variable Statistical test

H1o Attrition Leadership effectiveness

Bivariate correlation coefficient (Pearson Product Moment)

H2o Attrition Organizational effectiveness

Bivariate correlation coefficient (Pearson Product Moment)

H3o Attrition Gender/Level of pay Two-Way ANOVA

12

Findings • The findings are presented in order of the hypotheses associated with

each research question.

13

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.

14

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.

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

Table 10

15

RQ2: How To what degree is attrition related to organizational effectiveness?

• H2o: A relationship does not exist between attrition (leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and organizational effectiveness.

• H2a: A relationship exists between attrition and organizational effectiveness.

16

Findings: Research Question 2 and Hypothesis 2 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.

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

Table 11

17

RQ3: To what degree are there differences in attrition rates due to gender and level of pay of senior leaders? • H3o: A relationship does not exist between attrition

(leaders’ self-reported years to retirement) and organizational effectiveness.

• H3a: A difference exists in attrition rates and in level of pay between male and female senior leaders.

18

Findings: Research Question 3 and Hypothesis 3 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

1

6

5

324

337

1.56

373.61

.04

2.14

.98

.10

<.001

.84

.05

.43

Intercept

Gender

Pay

Gender * Pay

Error

Total

Corrected Total

Table 12

19

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)

20

Conclusions and Implications 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

21

Conclusions and Implications 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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

QUESTIONS?

27

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 .

28

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.

29

References (Continued)

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

30

References (Continued)

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

31

References (Continued)

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).

32

References (Continued)

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.

33

References (Continued)

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_COMPETENCIES.pdf

34

References (Continued)

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

35

References (Continued)

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.

36

References (Continued)

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.pdf

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.

37

Backup Slides

38

39

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

40

Table 13: Multiple Comparisons (Dependent Variable: Attrition Rate (in months)

95% Confidence Interval

vel of Pay (J) Level of Pay

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound $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

$50,000

$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 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

00-$69,999

$100,000 and above -13.69 5.587 .310 -30.80 3.41 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

0-$79,999

$100,000 and above -.63 4.497 1.000 -14.40 13.14 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

0-$89,999

$100,000 and above 3.79 3.897 1.000 -8.14 15.72 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

00-$99,999

$100,000 and above -6.05 3.721 1.000 -17.44 5.34 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

000 and above

$90,000-$99,999 6.05 3.721 1.000 -5.34 17.44 Based on observed means.

41

Table 14; The Five LPI Components and Summed Mean Scores Modeling the

way

Inspiring a

shared vision

Challenging the

process

Enabling

others to act

Encouraging the

heart

Mean

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