This result appeared to be the same with the statistical results for the data set of all samples combined. The deviation was the item Human Resource Focus, Item 5, which appeared to be not correlated with Leadership, Item 1. There could be logical reasons why such a result, but we cannot at this stage, extrapolate without first conducting the same test for the Leaders Group. A. 3. The Pearson Correlation Matrix for the Leaders Group For the Leaders Group, Leadership, Item 1, is not correlated at all, ALL from Strategic Planning, Item 2 to Business Results, Item 7 as shown by Table 3.
Table 3. Excerpt from the Correlation Matrix for the Leaders Group Leadership, Item 1 Strategic Planning, Item 2 0. 371 0. 413 Customer And Market Focus, Item 3 0. 164 0. 726 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management, Item 4 0. 753 0. 051 Human Resource Focus, Item 5 0. 715 0. 071 Process Management, Item 6 0. 247 0. 594 Business Results, Item 7 0. 524 0. 227 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation p-Value The results were revealing on two counts.
First, it told us that the correlation trend shown by the Combined Data Samples of the Others Group and the Leaders Group was mainly due to the effect of the Others Group given its bigger sample size, 37 respondents compared to the Leaders Group, 7 respondents. This is manifest in that the correlation test for the Others Group showed correlation between Leadership, Item 1, and other items except in Customer and Market Focus, Item 3, which was possibly influenced by the results of the Leaders Group which showed no correlation between Leadership, Item 1, and the other items.
Second, the results pointed to the contrast between the two groups being compared. There was a significant difference in perception between the Others Group and the Leaders Group. It should be noted that the Leaders Group, comprising, take note, the Senior Leaders, or specifically, the Senior Officers in the surveyed organization occupied the higher hierarchy and when we mentioned the Others Group, we are referring to leaders still, but leaders occupying the lower hierarchy, the Others Group comprising, take note, the Junior Leaders, or specifically the Junior Officers.
It may argued that based on their respective position in the surveyed organization, ESGR there may be strong factors which create opposing views or that their perceptions could be affected by the imperatives, necessities, and the like and the nature of their respective positions being held in the organization.
Whereas, for the Others Group, wherein Leadership, Item 1, was correlated with all the other items: Strategic Planning, Item 2; Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management, Item 4; Human Resource Focus, Item 5; Process Management, Item 6; and Business Results, Item 7; however, in the Leaders Group, its Leadership, Item 1, had NO significant correlation established with ALL the other items from Item 2 to Item 7. It could mean that the Others Group, mainly Junior Officers were more concerned with function which required them to be aware of all the aspects and details of the organization.
It could be contended that Junior Officers were the implementers of the details of projects and operations hence, with Strategic Planning, Item 2 of the Baldrige Criteria, the Junior Officers were more concerned with examining how organizations develop objectives and action plans and how flexible the organization should be in case of situational changes in circumstance. Junior Officers are expected to be familiar with stock knowledge on the planning step and deployment to achieve objectives at the various stages of implementation.
Chances are, they are the ones evaluating data from various reports and they are the ones making the progress reports and updates for the higher echelon officers. In other words it is possible that Junior Officers differed with the Senior Leaders in terms of data/details exposure, requiring the Junior Officers to pay more particular attention to the different aspects of the organization at the field or at the ground level.
Other items such as Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management, Item 4, could be interpreted as part of the functions of Junior Leadership and Junior Officers were more conscious of the procedures involved in handling voluminous data and information which needed sorting and which may require immediate and appropriate response. In Question 26, under the sub-category, Information and Knowledge Management, for example, in dealing with hardware and software reliability, we can expect that senior leadership not to be doing the actual testing of new software or hardware for that matter.
It would thus be more the function of Junior Officers to test such new innovations. Due to the difference in focus and priorities between the Others Group and the Leaders Group as suggested by their diverging trend in the correlation test outcome, further tests had to be conducted to enable deeper probe into why such results occurred. How come?