Leader Values and Actions: An Exploratory Study of School Principals in Mainland China more

Values and Actions Values and Actions: An Exploratory Study of School Principals in Mainland China John Pisapia Professor, Leadership and Policy Studies Florida Atlantic University 777 Glades Road, Bldg #47 Boca Raton, Florida USA jpisapia@fau.edu (561) 367-7832 Ying Lin Associate Professor China Executive Leadership Academy, Pudong 99 Quabcgebg /riadm Pudong New Area Shanghai 201204, P.R. China Shanghai, China ylin@celap.org.cn 862128288965 Leader Values and Actions Values and Actions: An Exploratory Study of School Principals in Mainland China ABSTRACT This paper explores the link between leader values and actions in the Chinese context. The Strategic Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) and the Chinese Value Instrument (CVI) were the primary data collection tools. The CVI measures the presence of ten values - social harmony, benevolence and honesty, deploitation and innovation, achievement and power, zhongyong, stability, familism, happiness, renqing and guanxi, freedom and equity. The findings indicate that achievement and deploitation formed the low end of the values continuum. Familism, social harmony, benevolence anchored the other end of the values continuum. The SLQ measures the use of managing, transforming, bonding, bridging, and bartering actions leaders use to mobilize and gain support from followers. The findings indicate that the Chinese school principal management prototype is formed around transforming and bonding. This prototype changes depending on role assignment and school type. A link between leader values and action was established between achievement and power, benevolence and honesty, and stability values and leader actions. Key words: Strategic leader actions, value orientations, school principals, China Values and Actions: An Exploratory Study of School Principals in China Leadership is value laden (Burns, 1978; Fairholm, 1998; Price 2003; Li & Shi, 2005; Ling, Zhao & Baron, 2007). It is also assumed that values are the anchors that leaders use values to make difficult decisions and guide their actions (Covey, 1991; Fairholm, 1998; Leonard, 1991). Theoretically, this values action link was crystallized by Schwartz (1992) who defines values as, “desirable states, objects, goals, or behaviors transcending specific situations and applied as normative standards to judge and to choose among alternative modes of behavior” (p. 2). Values in his way of thinking provide coherence and sense of purpose to actions. Yet, the link between leader values and leader actions has not been soundly secured empirically (Lord & Brown, 2001). This paper builds a foundation to secure the link in the Chinese context by looking at leader actions and the values that guide them. The Chinese Context The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has experienced and is experiencing Page 2 of 34 Leader Values and Actions major social, economic and technological changes. With these changes has come different ways of looking at the world and life such as the need to maximize one’s own ability and gaining material wealth. In such contexts, leaders who operate from a limited set of strategies and tactics are challenged to find new ways of leading. In other ways these new thoughts have threatened the relevancy of core Chinese philosophy and values which historically have guided their leaders. Purpose of the Study The lessons extracted from the preceding paragraphs led us to consider if leader values, thinking, and actions were related to each other. This paper reports on two parts of the hypothesized framework: values and actions. We chose to begin studying these phenomena using school principals as our managerial population. If this line of research is found useful then it can be expanded to other sectors of managerial work in China and to the relationship of values, thinking and actions. The purpose of this study was to determine if values, and what type of values, influenced the use of leader actions by school principals. Five questions guided the study. What are the most important values held by principals? Are principals’ value orientations moderated by their position, gender, degree held or school type? What is the level of the principal’s use of strategic leader actions? Do contextual variables of position, age, gender, school type, modify the use of strategic leader actions? Do principal’s values influence their leader actions? The implications of this study for leadership and management are significant. First, it sheds light on the types of influence tactics Chinese school principals use in their work. Then it begins to address the link between leader values and leader actions by determining what values currently guide leader action in a complex context which requires leaders to both adapt and conform. Additionally, these findings allow us to Page 3 of 34 Leader Values and Actions discover if core Chinese philosophy and values are still relevant to the way leaders attempt influence followers (Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, & Yu, 1999; Redfern & Crawford, 2004). Finally, it provides new insights into what values guides school principals’ actions as they pursue their role objectives. The Educational Context The educational context like the economic and social context in China is in flux. School enrollments have dramatically risen since 1990. Other than sheer size, there are several significant features of the manner in which educational services are conceived and managed in China which require multiple talents and skills from school principals. The responsibility for providing educational opportunities in China is layered which creates situational complexity for educational leaders. Basic education is primarily the responsibility of local government (towns and villages) for primary-junior secondary, and cities and provinces for senior secondary schools. The trend, as reported by the Chinese Ministry of Education (2003), is toward education being run by the local people. In fact, the national long-term Education Reform and Development Plan (20102020) made it clear that school autonomy is to be implemented and expanded. Purposes, policy, and curricula are primarily formed at the national and local levels of government (Bush, Coleman, & Xiaohong, 1998; Bush & Hyain, 2002). There are several features stemming from this manner of governing public schools that require leaders to act in a strategic way. At the governmental level, financing provisions require that many schools have to secure their own financial resources to operate. This feature led to school run enterprises to supplement limited governmental funding (Fouts & Chan, 1997). This feature requires that school principals be entrepreneurial and create or find opportunities to gain more resources for their school. Those principals’ whom are successful in Page 4 of 34 Leader Values and Actions capturing additional resources have the ability to reward superior performance and thus gain support for their work. At the school level, a dual system of authority and control exists: the local communist party secretary and professional educators. These dual authorities normally come together through a school management committee comprised of the different entities which normally meet weekly to review performance. This feature requires that school principals consult with local government and party officials as well as teachers regularly to develop a close relationship between political and educational aspects of school management (Bush & Hyain, 2002; Lewin, Xu, Lrftle, & Zheng, 1994; Tang, & Wu, 2000). However, principals are still responsible to make sure that the specified educational objectives are reached no matter what levels of authority are granted to the position. Another significant structural feature of Chinese schools is high class sizes which allow for a significant level of non-contact time to be available for school based professional development. These teacher led groups [jiaoyanzu] focus on how to conduct a good lesson including reviewing research that supports pedagogy (Tsui & Wong, 2010). In addition to fostering collaborative work, individual teacher preparation and grading responsibilities can be completed during the school day. While this feature is thought to be an important contributor to high achievement, it also impacts managerial action and necessitates a team approach toward curricula and teaching; requiring that principals negotiate rather than dictate and implement rather than create policy. These unique features - financing levels - dual authority structures - teacher led groups - limit the principal’s ability to infuse their particular vision for the school but put a premium on entrepreneurial, facilitative and managerial skills. Faced with resource inequities and the need to be knowledgeable in curriculum and pedagogy, assessment, Page 5 of 34 Leader Values and Actions management and leadership, school principals in China need a multifaceted set of skills and abilities to work in such a complex multifaceted social milieu. Conceptual / Theoretical Framework The conceptual framework guiding this study is composed of the following elements, leader value orientations, leader actions, and contextual factors. The study begins by identifying the values school principals hold. Then it detects the use of actions school principals employ in pursuing their role objectives. Finally, contextual variables are introduced to detect their influence on the relationship previously established. This framework suggests that school principal value orientations influence the way they act. The Value Framework In the management literature, values have been studied in various ways. One line of research investigates cultural values and attempts to extract values indigenous to a country (Hofstede, 1993, 2001). At the organization level, the Competing Values Framework (CVF), one of the most important organizational analysis models available (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981), helps leaders identify the ability of the organization to support change and high performance. Both Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and Quinn’s competing values framework are based on values but they seldom have been applied to determine individual differences at the level of leader practice in given contexts. More germane to this study are Chinese traditions which emphasize benevolent and moral leadership. Tradition would demand that the leader serve the collective without seeking personal benefits; be the first to work, but the last for enjoyment and put the collective interests in front of personal interests (Li & Shi, 2005, pp. 805-806). This tradition of leadership was formed from beliefs of several Chinese thought leaders. For example, Sun Tzu’s Art of War (1993) though written more than 2,500 years ago identifies five traits the leader should possess: wisdom, humanity, integrity, Page 6 of 34 Leader Values and Actions courage and discipline. De Bettignies & Kheong (2007) suggest that all of these traits stem from a noble character. Another strong philosophical force on responsible leaders were the principles espoused by the Chinese scholar Confucius. At the center of his social philosophy is ren -”loving of others” – putting the needs of others before one’s own. He also emphasized self restraint, less individualism, benevolence, self interests, personal relations [guanxi] as vital to getting things done, and respect for ones elders and ritual in a way that balances ones needs with those of family and society (Tu 1991; Whitcomb, Erdener, & Li, 1998, Pye, 2000; Liu & Tang, 2003; Su, Sirgy & Littlefield, 2003) The relevance of Confucian values to leadership has been questioned by some who view it as a philosophy that impedes change, advocates hierarchical and vertical society, emphasizes learning over thinking, and limits innovativeness and creativity (De Bettignies & Kheong, 2007; Vogel, 1991 cited in Hayhoe, 2004, p, 324). However, In the Confucian’ way, the leader attempts to practice virtue through self-cultivation and convince people by principle or “virtuous rule” (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 195). The third major influence on Chinese values stems from Chinese political ideology such as personal morality (Hui & Tan, 1999); loyalty to party dictates even when they conflict with one's own personal views (Ling, 1989; Hui & Tan, 1999), responsiveness to suggestions from workers (Littrell, 2002). Although participative leadership is generally thought of as a Western influence, Fu and Tsui (2003) found that the following attributes are consistent with communist ideologies: action oriented, abiding by principles, collectivistic, corruption resistant, democratic, determined, devoted, and hardworking. The pattern of the Chinese management prototype can be teased out of the writing of Sun Tzu, Confucius, Mao, and others such as Lao Tse (see Fu & Tsui, 2003; Page 7 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Tsui et al., 2004; Cheung & Chan, 2005; Javidan et al., 2006). The elements of the prototype: self cultivation, influencing others, and playing by the strategy and tactics adopted by the organization are gained through reflection, imitation, and experience. The lessons learned from these thought leaders yields the underlying principles of current Chinese management thought: respect for authority, benevolence, moral character, reciprocity, interpersonal harmony, familism, combining the brain with the heart, emphasizing keen judgment, circular and continuous time orientation, contributing to society, and flexibility and balance. Several Chinese researchers have interpreted traditional Chinese values in the modern context. For example, Li and Shi (2005, pp. 805-806) suggest that values of nation, enterprise workgroup and family dominance enables Chinese managers to serve the collective without seeking personal benefits. They also enable managers to work the fault line between central planning and decentralized highly autonomous work groups by “letting the bamboo bend with the wind.” Lin and Su (2005, pp. 66-73) emphasized that autonomy was becoming a characteristic of organization in the flux context, and that self-organization, self-reflection and self-regulation are fundamental to success. Lin (2005, pp. 30-31) hypothesized that the top managers would construct a feedback system to maintain and inspire the collective self-efficacy of the organization members, if they were dominated by self-efficacy values. Fu, Tsui, Liu, and Li (2009) also explored the self-transcendence values and the self-enhancement values among Chinese CEOs. They identified the dominance of self-transcendence values - broad-minded, equality, forgiving, helpful, honest, loyal, protecting the environment, responsible, selfdisciplined, social justice, world peace, and unity with nature in the CEOs they studied. Other scholars point to changes in the context that require managers and leaders to adapt and conform look at the market on one hand and government on the other hand. De Page 8 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Bettignies and Kheong (2007) say these contextual needs require additional value orientations such as rational thinking and instinct equally. Several scales have been developed to measure individual values (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Yang 1987; Yu, Fu, Liu & Qu, 2007). Schwartz (1992) for example identified ten common value dimensions: achievement; benevolence; conformity; hedonism; power; security; self-direction; stimulation; tradition; and universalism that were distinct from one another, universal in nature and used across cultures. This ten value framework influenced the work of Guangtao Yu, Ping Ping Fu, Jun Liu and Qing Qu (2007) in creating the Chinese Values Inventory (CVI). The CVI was used in this study to detect specific Chinese values held by school principals. The value framework is pictured in Table 1. Table 1 about here The Leadership Framework New models of leadership have emerged to bridge the gap which is created when the context is changing and ambiguity and complexity proliferates. What is known is that such contexts reward leaders who are creative rather than compliant, practice from analytic and integrative mindsets use a multi-dimensional set of leader actions, connect their organizations to major environmental themes, and with the minds and spirit of followers (Pisapia & Pang 2009). Such environment’s demand that leader’s demonstrate agility of mind and action. This study utilizes Pisapia’s (2006; 2009) strategic leader framework as a guide. Pisapia’s notion is that strategic leadership is not just the purview of top management. Leaders at every key intersection of the organization must be able to work in a strategic way. They must lead and manage simultaneously with a deep appreciation of stability. This expectation puts a premium on horizontal and collaborative actions. A central tenet Page 9 of 34 Leader Values and Actions of Pisapia’s strategic leader theory is that leaders who are able to think and act with agility will be able to create more supportive organizational conditions and achieve more valuable organizational outcomes. His strategic leader’s mantra is common ends and adaptable ways and means. When ends are not externally established strategic leaders are to establish them. When ends are know, they create the conditions that produce results by mobilizing people, establishing relationships, capturing resources, creating coherence and crafting a responsible adaptive learning culture. To accomplish these tasks in a multifaceted world he suggests that effective leaders use a multifaceted set of actions. Pisapia (2009) proposes five action sets leaders can use to create the conditions that produce results: the choice between political [bartering and bridging] and ethical [bonding] actions as well as the stabilizing actions of managing and the transforming actions that enable them to keep moving the organization forward. These action’s described in Table 2, were used to determine if leader values influence their actions. Table 2 about here Contextual Factors Many scholars believe that organizational environment is an important factor influencing leader behavior (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Cook, 2001; Osland, Kolb, & Rubin, 2001; Osborn, Hunt & Junch, 2002; Shivers-Blackwell, 2004). Contextual factors can be divided into organizational variables and personal characteristics. It was expected that the school principal’s values and actions would be influenced by both organizational and personal characteristics. The organizational environment factors which are commonly used in educational research for the explaining school effects were considered for this study. Organizational factors include: (a) school type (middle school, high school, and middle and high combination school), (b) school size (number of students), (c) number of classrooms, Page 10 of 34 Leader Values and Actions and (d) number of teachers. Only school type was used for analysis at this time. Personal characteristics and traits of the leader may also affect their style of leadership and eventually their effectiveness. The study of leader characteristics and traits has a long history. Trait studies have yielded significant correlations between individual leader attributes and a leader effectiveness criterion (Yukl, 2002). In this study three personal characteristics of leaders were chosen: (a) position (principal-vice-principal), (b) gender, (c) age and (d) educational degree. Methods Research Design This study used a quantitative non-experimental design. The criterion variable was the actions school principals use to lead and manage their schools. The predictor variables are values these principals hold. The study was also designed to discover any possible interactions between the criterion and predictor variables which can be attributed to contextual factors. Specific hypotheses were not established since the study was considered to be exploratory due to sampling limitations. Population and Sampling The study was conducted on a convenience sample of 106 school principals from 27 provinces of China that attended staff training in Shanghai in the spring of 2010. The instructors distributed the questionnaires in the classes and told the participants that the investigation was only for study and had nothing to do with individual evaluation. The participants answered individually and anonymously. The demographics of the sample are as follows. Approximately seventy four percent (73.6%) were principals, and twenty six percent (26.4%) were vice-principals. Males (85.8%) outnumbered females (14.2%). Most participants (72.6%) were in the age of 40-49 years, and the proportion of principals to vice-principals’ increases with Page 11 of 34 Leader Values and Actions age. Thirty one percent (31.1%) led middle schools; approximately forty two percent (41.5%) high schools; and twenty seven percent (27.4%) were from combination schools. Almost all participants received university education; approximately seventy eight percent (78.3%) had Bachelor Degrees, twenty percent (18.9%) had Master Degrees. Data Collection - Instruments Two instruments were used to collect data for this study. The Chinese Value Instrument (CVI) was used to collect data relative to the value orientations of the school principals. The original value items were collected by open questionnaire, sorted into general items by multiple individuals. The CVI contains 54 items and was psychometrically validated through principal component factor analysis (Yu, Fu, Liu & Qu, 2007). The participants were asked to rank by the importance of each value item from -1 to 7. -1 means “reversed with my values”, 7 presents “extremely important.” The Value orientations of 2089 Chinese respondents were revealed in10 dimensions: social harmony (α=.855), benevolence and honesty (α=.858), deploitation and innovation (α=.801), achievement and power (α=.797), zhongyong (α=.787), stability (α=.685), familism (α=.675), happiness (α=.682), renqing and guanxi (α=.679), freedom and equity (α=.652). Yu and his colleagues reported that differences in values between male and female were not significant. They concluded that the guiding values of Chinese people are familism, benevolence and honesty, freedom and equity. The Strategic Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ), developed to test one component of Pisapia’s theory of strategic leadership, was used to collect leader action data. It was psychometrically validated through principal component factor analysis (Reyes-Guerra 2008; Pisapia 2009). Forty items from the SLQv3 were used to create SLQv4 which was used to collect data on the five leader actions - managing (n=6 α=.673), transforming Page 12 of 34 Leader Values and Actions (n=12 α=.861), bonding (n=10 α=.738), bridging (n=7 α=.813), and bartering (n=5 α=.622). The SLQ asks respondents how often they use these actions in performing their duties on a scale of 1-7; 1 means never and 7 means always. The higher the scores, the more positive the prediction for effective functioning in meeting environmental demands and pressures. On the other hand, an inability to be an effective strategic leader is suggested by low scores. The interpretation of these dimensions of leader actions provides participants with a deeper understanding of their capacity to influence others. While the SLQ has versions for self and other, the SLQv4 used in this study was a selfreport instrument. The translation from English to Mandarin was achieved in two steps. The SLQv4 was first translated into Mandarin and retranslated into English by academicians with doctoral degrees in organizational psychology and then back-translated. The versions were compared; items and questions were found quite similar. Some items and terms were modified to improve the translation. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics, multiple univariate analyses of variance, and regression were performed to evaluate the relationships among values, actions and contextual variables. All statistical tests were done using the Statistical Packages of Social Scientists (PASW) software version 17.0. An Alpha level of 0.05 was set for all statistical tests. Eta2 was employed to test for effect sizes (ES) for all appropriate analyses with .01-.04 considered small; .05-.07 considered medium, and .08 or greater considered as large effects (Cohen, 1969, p23; 1988). Limitations of the Study Results from this study are limited by the sample and operations. The sample size is relatively small when considering the number of school principals in China. While the Page 13 of 34 Leader Values and Actions sample was representative of principals from across China, one is still cautioned about over generalizing the results. Second, the sample was purposeful, convenient, and not randomly selected. Third, the data were self reported. Although some researchers such as Spector (1992), report such data is not as limited as commonly expected, we attempted to overcome the effects of this limitation by cleansing the data before analysis by considering (a) omission rate of the omitted responses, and (b) inconsistency of responses on paired items to increase the accuracy of the results. These limitations led us to classify our study as exploratory, meaning the results may point in a direction but need to be substantiated with a larger sample from the population under study RESULTS School Principal Value Orientations Research Question 1 asked: What are the most important values held by principals? The analysis proceeded by describing the importance the school principals placed on the value dimensions measured by the CVI. These results are displayed in rank order on Table 3, and then compared to the rank order achieved with the norming study of the CVI (Yu, Fu, Liu & Qu, 2007). Table 3 about here The data produced a clear ranking of important and less important value orientations. Principals reported that familism (M=5.8093, SD= 1.01215), social harmony (M=5.5547, SD= 1.16822), benevolence and honesty (M=5.5225, SD= .92262), were the most important values. The second level of importance was composed of zhongyong (M=5.2102, SD= 1.05767), stability (M=5.1395, SD= 1.20225), freedom and equity (M=5.0295, SD= 1.12305), and renqing and guanxi (M=4.9082, SD= 1.07805). The lowest level of importance was assigned to happiness (M=4.5559, SD= 1.16810), Page 14 of 34 Leader Values and Actions achievement and power (M=4.0671, SD= 1.17116) and deploitation and innovation (M=3.6268, SD= 1.39989). In contrasting the rank order achieved in this study to the CVI results one can observe different orientations between the two sets of data. Familism is ranked number one on both administrations. Also the ranking for achievement and power and deploitation and innovation are similar. After that the order is different. The more noticeable differences are that principals in this sample placed more importance on zhongyong and stability and less importance on freedom and equity. Male-Female data were not statistically analyzed but differences in the importance of freedom and equity and social harmony can be seen on Table 3. Research question two asked: are principal’s values orientations moderated by their position, gender, degree held or school type? Gender, degree held, and school type did not interact with other variables and did not singularly produce any effects. Therefore, they were not included in interaction analyses. Age was only significantly related to guanxi F (1.965=5.240, p=.000, ES = .208 and was not tested further. Table 4 about here As seen on Table 4, principal and vice-principal rankings of the importance of the values mirrored the general sample with one exception. Vice-principals rated benevolence M=5.1414 as more important than social harmony M=4.9167. A comparison of their mean scores, however, demonstrated significant differences held by principals and vice-principals as to the importance of the value being assessed. Moderate effects where produced by principal vice-principal comparisons for familism F 5.918, p=.05, ES =.059, stability F 5.733, p=.05, ES =.056, and freedom F 4.138, p=.05, ES =.043. Larger effects were presented for comparisons of principal and vice-principal Page 15 of 34 Leader Values and Actions ratings of importance of social harmony F 12.569, p=.01, ES =.118, benevolence F 6.834, p=.01, ES =.068, and zhongyong F 8.906, p=.01, ES =.085. No significant differences in Principal ratings were found for guanxi, happiness, achievement and innovation. The Use of Strategic Leader Actions by School Principals Research questions 3 and 4 asked us to determine the level of the participant’s use of strategic leader actions, and the effect of position, age, gender, school size, school type, on the strategic leader actions. These research questions were answered by first comparing the means for study participants on the four leader actions. As seen in Table 5, bonding (M = 5.8645, SD = .48650) was used most often, and bartering (M = 4.7892, SD = .82814) the least often in the general sample. Simple T tests indicated that all comparisons at the sample level were statistically significant. The rank order of use of leader actions by principals is bonding, transforming, managing, bridging and bartering. As seen on Table 5, this rank ordering stays consist whether you are a principal or vice principal or male or female. The preferred influence tactics of school principals in this study were bonding and transforming. However, principals use leader actions differently from viceprincipals. Principals use transforming (M = 5.6593, SD = .70096), bridging (M = 5.2674, SD = .69178), and bartering (M = 4.8590, SD = .85104) actions to a greater extent than vice-principals. The use of managing and bonding actions were used at a similar rate by principals and vice-principals. Table 5 about here Similarly, as seen on Table 5, male and female principals use leader actions differently. Female principals use transforming (M = 5.9667, SD = .80911), bonding (M Page 16 of 34 Leader Values and Actions = 6.0000, SD = .53518), bridging (M = 5.3651, SD = .63651), and bartering (M = 5.1333, SD = .35024) more often than male principals. Male principals use managing actions (M = 5.3005, SD = .72627) more often than females. The comparison of female vice-principals to male vice-principals yielded similar results except that both use managing actions at the same rate, and females use bonding actions less than males. Also noted from Table 5 is that principals of middle schools use managing (M = 5.6056, SD = .56644), transforming (M =6.0333, SD = .53905) bonding (M = 6.0551, SD = . 43523) bridging (M = 5.4302 SD = .70058) and bartering (M = 5.0133, SD = .82200) significantly more frequently than principals at high schools and combination schools. This initial inquiry indicated that principals’ leader actions were influenced by the position they hold, their gender, and the type of school they manage. We sought to confirm these results through by examining the moderation effects of position, gender, age, degree held, and school type in regard to the prediction of the principal’s use of strategic leader actions. The results of these univariate analyses are displayed in Table 6. Table 6 about here In particular, position and school type moderate the use of managing F (1,165) =2.652, p=.027, ES = .117, transforming F (1.965=5.240, p=.000, ES = .208, and bridging F (1,400) =2.984, p=.015, ES = .130. Effect sizes were large. The only other moderating effect noted on Table 6 is that of position and gender in regard to use of bridging actions F (2.828) =5.814, p=.018, ES = .055. The effect was moderate. The Link between Values and Actions Research question five asked: Does the principal’s values influence their use of leader actions? Regressions models were constructed and tested to determine the portion of the variance in the use of the leader actions attributed to principal value orientations. Table 7 displays the four value orientations - benevolence & honesty, Page 17 of 34 Leader Values and Actions stability, achievement & power, deploitation & innovation – that significantly predict leader actions. Achievement & power appears as the most important predictor. Table 7 about here As seen on the table, stability, and achievement & power combined to predict 21.9% managing behavior. Benevolence & honesty, and achievement & power predict 25.2% transforming behavior. Achievement & power explains 25.2% of bonding. Benevolence & honesty predict 11.5% of bridging. Achievement & power and deploitation & innovation combined predict bartering in 17.7% of the cases. The other six values (familism, social harmony, zhongyong, freedom & equity, renqing & guanxi, and happiness) reflect general value orientations of individuals but do not have a significant effect on the leader action. Discussion We extracted several major findings from our results. From the review of literature, we expected that Chinese school principal’s value orientations would emphasize benevolence, flexibility, balance, self restraint, less individualism and self interests, and the use of personal relations [guanxi] to get things done. This expectation was easily identifiable in the rank order of importance the school principals placed on the ten values. Clearly achievement and power and deploitation formed at one end of the continuum while familism, social harmony, benevolence anchored the other end. Identifying this continuum supports the work of Ros, Schwartz, Surkiss (1999) and Fu, Tsui, Liu, and Li (2009) on the difference between self enhancement associated with values of achievement and power and self transcendence values of universalism, benevolence, concern for the welfare of others. The observation of Bond and Hwang (1986) regarding fundamental “wu-lun” Page 18 of 34 Leader Values and Actions relationships, hierarchy, and individual loyalty as the prerequisites of social harmony can also be observed in the arrangement of values along the continuum. However, when comparing the principal’s rank order to the rank order of the 2089 university students and employees reported by Yu, Fu, Liu & Qu (2007), school principals ranked social harmony, stability, zhongyong as more important and freedom & equity seemed less important. The values rankings were moderated by the responsibility of principals. If the value orientations are the result of cultural influences and traditions, we would have expected that the school principal ranking would to some degree mirror the school viceprincipal rankings across school types: high, middle, and combination schools. Instead we found that the ranking was fairly consistent but the level of importance was not. This presents an interesting dilemma for future research on the contextual influence on values as opposed to the influence of values on context. Overall, the school principal leader prototype centers on transforming (M=5.67) and bonding (M=5.865). The supportive actions are managing (M=5.253) and bridging (M=5.157). Bartering (M=4.790) was the least often used action. The actions contained in Pisapia’s bonding construct stem from ethical roots whereas the bartering actions stem from political and transactional roots (2009). The dichotomy between bonding/transforming and bartering mirrors school principal research conducted in the West (Reyes-Guerra, 2009). Our findings on bonding and transforming mirror results found in other studies using the SLQ (Yasin, 2006; Urdegar 2008; Reyes-Guerra, 2009; Uğurluoğlu, 2009). They also relate well to Bass’s (1998), and Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) contention that transformational charismatic influence tactics are universally endorsed and effective across cultures. They are less supportive of Bass’s (1996) claim that transactional Page 19 of 34 Leader Values and Actions tactics are universal as seen in the results for bartering, bridging, and managing. The male leadership prototype formed around managing, transforming and bonding. The female prototype demonstrates a wider command of leader actions. Their pattern centers on transforming, bonding, and bridging. They are also more likely to use bartering than males. Gabriel and Gardner (1999) suggest that this difference could be due to male identification with a larger group while females define themselves in interpersonal terms or specific relationships. The female respondents pattern of leader action use is consistent with Pisapia’s (2006; 2009) notions of strategic leadership that leaders must use a multifaceted set of leader actions to be successful in ambiguous contexts. This research did not ask the “so what?’ question so we are not able to fully interpret these findings related to difference in leader effectiveness. The notion that leadership is contextually and culturally based (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili 2001; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2002; Elenkov & Manev, 2005; Belchtz, & Leithwood, 2007; Pisapia, 2009) is also seen in our data. Principals’ leader actions were influenced by the position and type of school they manage. Principals use the leader actions differently than vice-principals - they bridge, barter, and transform to a greater extent than vice-principals, but manage and bond at the same rate. The use of leader actions by principals and vice-principals indicate that different roles and contexts require different actions. This conclusion can be clearly seen in the comparison of principal and viceprincipal use of bridging. Principals, who have greater needs to establish both internal and external relationships, use bridging significantly more often than vice-principals. Although the level of use of bridging and managing are above the mean level for the SLQ scale, considering the focus on guanxi, stability, benevolence, and social harmony values in the Chinese context we would have expected them to be used more often. Page 20 of 34 Leader Values and Actions The effect of social context is also noted in the finding that middle school principals manage, transform, bond, bridge, and barter more than principals at high schools and combinations schools. Transforming and bonding in middle schools were at a very high level. Perhaps these differences can be attributed to the purposes these schools serve. For example, high schools are directed by the only baton- university entrance examination, but middle schools are evaluated by more indexes and there are different ways to enter high school from middle school in different provinces, such as in Shanghai, academic examination and high school’s enrollment combined, which is moderated by school districts. The role of social context on leader actions is one that needs further examination. The link between values and actions can be seen in our data to an extent. Values are anchors to make decision and keep us true to ourselves. Values have been described as implicit, espoused or enacted (Argyris & Schön, 1978). It is thought that the best ways to learn about one’s values is to look at their behavior to detect linkages. In this research we looked at values and leader actions. Interpreting our results from this perspective we would say that traditional Chinese values are implicit and even espoused but not acted on in the same way projected with the rank ordering of the values by school principals. One observation is that the values that were identified as the most important by principals - familism, social harmony - do not seem to influence the use of leader actions. One might say they were good in theory but in practice, achievement and power, benevolence and honesty, and stability had more influence. Value congruence occurs when behavior reflects implicit or espoused values. In our framework, the higher one ranked a value the more it should be reflected in their actions. Consequently values like familism, benevolence and social harmony should connect to transforming, bonding and bridging actions. Of these traditional values only Page 21 of 34 Leader Values and Actions benevolence concepts like integrity, kindness, responsibility, tolerance, self restraint and repaying an obligation linked to leader actions i.e. transforming and bridging. Perhaps the most intriguing finding relates to the influence of achievement and power [honor - social status - success - wealth - face - knowledge] linked to managing, transforming, bonding, and bartering. This indicates to us that the more important achievement and power were seen by principals the more they used transforming, bonding, and bartering leader actions. While we don’t want to over generalize from our results, it seems safe to say that if transforming, bonding, and bartering leader actions are valued in the leader prototype, achievement and power orientation should receive more attention in Chinese culture. This study, though exploratory, lays a foundation to further cement the assumed link between leader values and leader action and the role context plays in this link. Several practical issues need further research. It will take a much bigger sample in differing managerial contexts to fortify this link. Furthermore, the link from guanxi to bridging and bartering did not appear in the data. This seems counter intuitive considering the extent of the writing painting guanxi as a main cultural feature. The finding on a negative relationship between innovation and bartering action was also confusing - taken at face value it means that the more we espouse challenge, excitement, curiosity and imagination the less we use the bartering actions. We look forward to further cementing the link between values and actions and investigating the issues raised by this research. Page 22 of 34 Leader Values and Actions References Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A., (2001). Leadership profiles of managers in postcommunist countries: A comparative study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, (22), 62-69. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bass, B. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Bass, B. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry and educational impact. Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 181-217. Belchtz, D. & Leithwood, K. (2007). In D. Christopher & Leithwood, K. Successful Principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective, pp 117138. Netherlands: Springer Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins. Bush, T., Coleman, M., & Xiaohong, S. (1998) Managing secondary schools in China, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 28, 183-195. Bush, T., Haiyan, Q. (2002). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. In Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. School leadership and administration: The cultural context, pp.174-186. London: Routledge. Chinese Ministry of Education (2003). The 9th 5-Year Plan for China's Educational Development and the Development Outline by 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2010. Chinese Ministry of Education, (2003) Report of Education Statistics Volume 1 No. 26 Department of Planning. Retrieved March 31, 2010. Cohen, J. (1969) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. NY: Academic Press. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (2nd ed). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cook, M.J. (2001). The renaissance of clinical leadership. International Nursing Review, 48, 38-46. Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Fireside/Simon & Schuster Page 23 of 34 Leader Values and Actions De Bettignies, H. & Tan C. K. (2007). Values and management education in China. International Management Review, 3(1), 17-37. Elenkov, D. & Manev, I. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31 (3), 381-402. Fairholm, G. (1998). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to its spiritual heart. Westport, Ct: Quorum Books. Fouts, J. & Chan (1997). The development of work-study and school enterprises in China's schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29 (1) 31 - 46. Fu, P., Tsui, A., Liu, J. & Li, L. (2009). Pursuit of whose happiness? CEO Personal values and transformational leadership. Paper presented at Shanghai Jiaotong University, December 14, 2009. Gabriel, G., & Gardner, W.L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642-655. Hambrick, D. & Mason, (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206. Hayhoe, R. (2001). Creating a vision for teacher education between East and West: the case of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Compare, 31(3) 329-345. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81-94. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2003). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leonard, G. (1991). Mastery. New York: Dutton. Lewin, K., Xu, H., Lrftle, A. & Zheng, J. (1994) Educational Innovation in China: Tracing the impact of the 1985 reforms. Harlow: Longman. Li, C. & Shi, K. (2005). The structure and measurement of transformational leadership in China. Acta Psychologyca Sinica, 37(6), 803-811. Lin, Y. (2005). Responsibility of leaders: Inspiring collective self-efficacy of organization members. Modern Leading, 207(8), 30-31. Lin, Y. & Su, Y. (2005). Management model based on human nature assumption of Page 24 of 34 Leader Values and Actions “Autonomous Man” in transitional period. Social Sciences, 300(8), 66-73. Ling, Y., Zhao, H., & Baron, R. (2007) Influence of founder— CEO' personal values on firm performance: Moderating effects of firm age and size. Journal of Management, 33, 673-696. Liu T. & Tang K.S. (2003). Comprehensive analysis and application on Chinese traditional management thoughts. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2, 55-58. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 133-152. Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G. & Jauch, L.R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797-837. Osland, J.S., Kolb, D.A. & Rubin I.M. (2001). Organizational behavior reader (7th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paine, L. & MA, L. (1993). Teachers working together: a dialogue on organisational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 675-697. Pawar, B. S. & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80-109. Pisapia, J. & Pang, S. K. (2009). Rethinking leadership: New tactics for a globalizing world. Paper presented at the Global Leadership Forum, September 6, 2009, Istanbul, Turkey. Pisapia, J. (2006). A new direction for leadership. (Education Policy Studies Series No. 61). Hong Kong: The Faculty of Education and the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research. (Monograph) – cited in Scopus Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers. Price, T. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 67-81. Pye, L., (2000). Asian values: from dynamos to dominoes? In Harrison L. & Huntington, S. (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress, pp.244- 255. New York: Basic Books Quinn, R. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122-140. Page 25 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Ralston, D., Egri, C, Stewart, S, Terpstra, R., & Yu, K. (1999). The new generation of Chinese managers: Implications for business in the 21st century. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 415-428. Redfern, K.A. & Crawford, J.D. 2004, 'An empirical investigation of the influence of modernisation on the moral judgements of managers in the People's Republic of China. Cross Cultural Management, 11(1), 48-61. Reyes-Guerra, D. (2009). The relationship of strategic leader actions and normative structures. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL). Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 4971. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 1-65. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Abstract Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891. Schwartz, S.H. & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the context and structure of values. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92-116. Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2004). Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transactional leader behavior. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 41-50. Si, X. (1993). The principles of school management. Xi'an, Educational Publishing Company of Shaanxi Province. Si, X. (1997). The management of schools in China, Professional Development News, No. 9, pp. 5-6. Leicester EMDU. Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job conditions. In Cooper, C. & Robertson, L. (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp. 123-51. Chichester: Wiley. Sun-Tzu, (1993), Sun-Tzu: The Art Of Warfare: The first English translation incorporating the recently discovered Yin-Ch’üeh-Shan texts, Translated (1993) With an Introduction and Commentary by Ames R., New York: Ballantine Page 26 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Books. Tang, X., & Wu, X. (2000). Educational change and development in the People’s Republic of China: Challenges for the future. In Townsend, T. & Cheng, Y. Educational change and development in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp 133-161. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Pub. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (2002). 21 leaders for the 21st century. How innovative leaders manage in the digital age. New York, NY McGraw-Hill. Tsui, A. & Wong, J. (2010). Teacher development in mainland China. In C.K.K. Chan and N. Rao (eds.). Revisiting the Chinese learner: Changing contexts, changing education, pp. 281-298. CERC Studies in Comparative Education Tu, W. M. (1991). Core values in economic culture: The Confucian hypothesis, Pacific Basin Economic Council, 24th International General Meeting, May 6, 1991. Uğurluoğlu, O. (2009). Assessment of Strategic Leadership Characteristics of Hospital Managers. (Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey). Urdegar, S. (2008). Beyond fidelity: Relating educational practices and their determinants to student learning gains. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL). Yang, K. S. (1987). Confucianized values, individual modernity, and organizational behavior: An empirical test of the post-Confucian hypothesis. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, 64 Academia Sinica, 1-49 (in Chinese). Yasin, M. (2006). The use of strategic leadership actions by Deans in Malaysian and American universities. (Doctoral Dissertation. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton FL). Yu, G., Fu, P., Jun, J., Qing, Q (2007). Balancing yin & yang: Chinese values orientations and their structures. Nanjing Business Review, 15. Yukl, G., 1992. Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In: Dunnette, M.D. & Hough, L.M. (eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology vol. 3, pp. 147–198. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Page 27 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 1. Descriptions of the Value Orientations found on the Chinese Value Inventory Value Social Harmony Word Descriptions World peace (eliminate war and conflict) - Maintenance of ecological balance and environmental protection - Country's prosperity - Social stability - Stability of the social order. Integrity - Kindness - Responsibility- Helpful- Tolerant - Filial Loyalty to the Organization - Self-restraint - Justice - Repaying an obligation - Equality Challenge - Adventurous - Curiosity - Excitement - Creative Imaginative Power-Honor-Social Status – Success - Wealth -Face Knowledgeable - Putting influence Practical -Modest – Mental Peace - Thrifty - Optimistic Work & Life stability - Social Security Children - Love - Family health - Family harmony Enjoy life - Beauty - Comfortable life and working environment Pleasure Relations among organization members- Social relations - Favor Sincere friendship - Politeness Freedom of thought and action - Independent - Ambition - Faith Perseverance Benevolence & Honesty Deploitation & Innovation Achievement & Power Zhongyong Stability Familism Happiness Renqing & Guanxi Freedom & Equity Page 28 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 2 Descriptions of the Leader Actions found in the Strategic Leadership Questionnaire Leader Action Description Managing actions are taken to maintain consistency in order that current organizational goals are accomplished efficiently and effectively. Transforming actions are taken to influence direction, actions, and opinions in order to change organizational conditions and culture so that learning and change occur as a normal routine of the organization. Bonding actions are taken to ensure that trust is an attribute of the system and not just something developed among individuals in order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the organization's aspirations and values. Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of power and influence from outside and inside the organization in order to gain insights, support, and resources. Bartering actions are taken to give something in exchange in order to strengthen the effectiveness of relationships and alliance building efforts. Managing Transforming Bonding Bridging Bartering Page 29 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 3 The Value Orientations of School Principals Value* N Sample Mean 5.8093 5.5547 5.5225 5.2102 5.1395 5.0295 4.9082 4.5559 4.0671 3.6268 SD 1.01215 1.16822 .92262 1.05767 1.20225 1.12305 1.07805 1.16810 1.17116 1.39989 CVI** Rank 1 4 2 8 7 3 5 6 9 10 N 83 82 81 85 84 82 85 80 82 83 Males Mean 5.8313 5.6494 5.5297 5.2141 5.1349 4.5910 4.8988 4.5375 3.9817 3.5952 SD 1.03455 1.15994 .97030 1.09012 1.21252 1.036 1.10351 1.20986 1.16669 1.40833 N 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 14 13 14 Females Mean 5.6786 5.0000 5.4805 5.1846 5.1667 5.0615 4.9692 4.6607 4.6058 3.8143 SD .89027 1.09632 .59925 .85034 1.18213 1.17299 .93040 .92303 1.09193 1.38445 Familism Social Harmony Benevolence & Honesty Zhongyong Stability Freedom & Equity Renqing & Guanxi Happiness Achievement & Power 97 96 95 98 98 95 98 94 95 Deploitation & Innovation 97 *Values displayed in rank order as judged by school principals **Rank of value on the CVI study as judged by 2089 Chinese people. Page 30 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations and F Tests for Position [Principal-Vice-principal] Principal Value Familism Benevolence Zhongyong Stability Freedom Guanxi Happiness Achievement Innovation N Mean SD N Vice-principal Mean 5.4167 4.9167 5.1414 4.7000 4.6790 4.6538 4.6385 4.2778 3.8173 3.5111 SD .79360 .67341 .83952 .88907 .95926 .88547 .97155 .74685 df 1(95) 1(93) 1(96) 1(96) 1(93) 1(96) 1(92) 1(93) F 5.918* 12.569** 6.834** 8.906** 5.733* 4.138* 2.243 2.174 1.640 .254 Eta2 .059 .118 .068 .085 .056 .043 70 5.9607 68 5.6738 72 5.3944 71 5.3146 69 5.1710 72 5.0056 67 4.6679 69 4.1612 70 3.6714 1.05091 27 1.09634 27 .96775 27 1.07256 26 1.26351 27 1.15365 26 1.12936 26 1.22736 27 1.28769 26 1.48228 27 Social Harmony 69 5.8043 1.12018 1(94) 1.17713 1(95) * p , .05 for F ; ** p , .01. Page 31 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for Sample, Position, Gender, and School Type Managing Transforming Bonding Sample Principal Vice-Prin Principal Male Principal Female Vice-Prin Male Vice-Prin Female Principal Combo Principal Middle Principal High Vice-Prin Combo Vice-Prin Middle Vice-Prin High Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N 5.253 .688 106 5.299 .727 78 5.126 .559 28 5.301 .72627 72 5.278 .807 6 5.133 .5490 19 5.111 .612 9 5.237 .614 19 5.606 .566 30 5.022 .834 29 5.050 .572 10 5.167 .547 14 5.175 .707 4 5.567 .671 106 5.660 .701 78 5.307 .507 28 5.634 .692 72 5.967 .809 6 5.305 .406 19 5.332 .703 9 5.53 .658 19 6.033 .539 30 5.355 .718 29 5.240 .268 10 5.357 .660 14 5.297 .428 4 5.865 .487 106 5.886 .518 78 5.805 .388 28 5.876 .519 72 6.000 .535 6 5.825 .3597 19 5.764 .463 9 5.778 .580 19 6.055 .435 30 5.782 .525 29 5.867 .202 10 5.817 .481 14 5.611 .411 4 Bridging Bartering 5.157 .7166 106 5.267 .692 78 4.848 .706 28 5.259 .700 72 5.365 .637 6 4.797 .797 19 4.965 .480 9 5.261 .668 19 5.430 .701 30 5.103 .682 29 4.543 .620 10 5.092 .747 14 4.756 .558 4 4.790 .828 106 4.859 .851 78 4.600 .740 28 4.836 .878 72 5.133 .350 6 4.516 .694 19 4.761 .849 9 4.768 .839 19 5.013 .822 30 4.76 .893 29 4.280 .855 10 4.729 .631 14 4.913 .686 4 Page 32 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 6 Moderation effects between Position (P), Age (A), Degree Held (D), and School Type (ST) in Regard to the Predication of Strategic Leader Actions Criterion Variable Managing Managing Managing Managing Managing Managing Managing Transforming Transforming Transforming Transforming Transforming Transforming Transforming Bonding Bonding Bonding Bonding Bonding Bonding Bonding Bridging Bridging Bridging Bridging Bridging Bridging Bridging Bartering Bartering Bartering Bartering Bartering Bartering Bartering Sum of Squares .522 .558 .019 5.824 1.601 2.983 2.077 1.186 .520 .009 9.824 7.726 5.291 7.415 .542 .052 .004 1.402 1.907 2.967 3.187 2.828 1.368 5.297 7.000 4.763 2.665 3.735 .633 .158 .007 4.248 3.402 6.094 8.974 Mean Square .174 .279 .019 1.165 .400 .426 .415 .395 .260 .009 1.965 .702 .529 .494 .108 .026 .004 .351 .173 .297 .212 2.828 .684 1.059 1.400 .476 .266 .340 .158 .079 .007 .850 .340 .609 .816 Source P*G P*A P*D P*ST P * G * ST P*G*D P *G*D* ST P*G P*A P*D P*ST P * G * ST P*G*D P *G*D* ST P*G P*A P*D P*ST P * G * ST P*G*D P *G*D* ST P*G P*A P*D P*ST P * G * ST P*G*D P *G*D* ST P*G P*A P*D P*ST P * G * ST P*G*D P *G*D* ST * Alpha = .05 df 3 2 1 5 4 7 5 3 2 1 5 11 10 15 5 2 1 4 11 10 15 1 2 5 5 10 10 11 4 2 1 5 10 10 11 F .809 .585 .039 2.652 .859 .914 .891 1.328 .591 .021 5.240 1.694 1.276 1.192 .504 .107 .016 1.346 .666 1.139 .816 5.814 1.406 2.119 2.984 .877 .491 .626 .737 .115 .009 1.254 .477 .855 1.145 p* .490 .559 .844 .027 .493 .500 .491 .265 .556 .884 .000 .094 .262 .300 .773 .899 .900 .262 .765 .347 .657 .018 .250 .070 .015 .558 .890 .801 .567 .892 .923 .290 .899 .579 .342 Eta2 .008 .012 .000 .117 .042 .075 .053 .013 .012 .000 .208 .220 .162 .213 .008 .002 .000 .075 .100 .147 .156 .055 .027 .098 .130 .117 .069 .094 .010 .002 .000 .059 .067 .115 .160 Page 33 of 34 Leader Values and Actions Table 7 Regression Models of 10 Value Orientations and 5 Strategic Leader Actions Dependent Variable Managing Model Stability Achievement & Power Transforming Constant Model Benevolence & Honesty Achievement & Power Bonding Constant Model Achievement & Power Bridging Model Benevolence & Honesty Bartering Model Constant . 442 .177 2 87 10.574*** .51 -.294 4.583*** -2.642** Constant . 353 .115 1 88 12.544 .353 3.542*** 13.634*** R2 . 486 AR2 .219 β Predictors Constant df1 2 df2 F t 14.562*** 87 13.451*** .275 .258 2.205* 2.065* 10.338*** . 518 .252 2 87 15.961*** .341 .262 3.277** 2.519* 33.766*** . 375 .131 1 88 14.437*** .375 3.800*** 8.788*** Achievement & Power Deploitation & Innovation * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Page 34 of 34