A perspective on leadership in small businesses: is the need for achievement a motive in predicting success?INTRODUCTION
Leadership is a term that is often confused with management. In organizations today, there are a number of managers who plan, organize, lead and control the organization to reach the objectives set by the Board of directors of by the top executive management team. However, the term of leadership is always confusing, Are these managers' real leaders or they are just planning budgets and organizing jobs. Do they have the ability to motivate and energize their workers; do they have the ability to align constituencies in their organizations? Do they have the ability to communicate clearly their strategy and achieve goals? This study will test certain aspects of leadership and namely the commitment to achieve standards of excellence, the satisfaction from experiencing success, the satisfaction for being the first to perform a certain task and their ability to solve problems. These aspects will be tested in small organizations in Lebanon to see which of those traits can help leaders achieve company success and how this will affect company success. Leadership as a term includes the perspective of being visionary and having a long term orientation. The 'new leadership' approach takes into consideration vision and long term perspective as the major qualities that leaders should have (Bryman, 1992). It is also named "Contemporary leadership" (Yammarino , 1996). These theories are constructed based on two fundamental approaches: transformational and charismatic leadership. Transformational leadership is of interest to researchers (Barling, Kelloway, & Loughlin, 2002; Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz, 2007; Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005, Piccolo, R. and Colquitt, J. 2006, Pillai, R., & Williams, E., 2004). The interest in Charismatic leadership is growing to some researchers (Brown &Trevino, 2006; Den Hartog et al., 2004; Sosik, Potosky, & Jung, 2002).
The business environment with its dynamism and continuous changes, and given the urge to change rapidly has lead to a certain quality of leaders more than those of managers who are really supervisors, so leaders of today need to be visionary and long term oriented. This situation is at the root of the new leadership theories (Bryman, 1992) and contemporary leadership (Yammarino , 1996). There is as well much attention and interest in the followers' power and responsibilities and the delegation of authority (Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Masi & Cooke, 2000).The new leadership theories represent a clear advance with respect to the theoretical models of leadership that existed before and that is referred to as transactional leadership (Burns 1978).In transactional leadership, followers are rewarded by their leaders when they achieve the agreed upon objectives, they are monitored for better performance and leaders would correct their actions if they don't achieve the established standards. (Bass, 1999; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Given those theoretical backgrounds, it was demonstrated that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary have positive effects on their organizations and on their followers (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999). In family businesses, the situation is different; there has been little study on the effect of transformational leadership on family businesses given the new leadership theories in social psychology. In family businesses the stress is on the existence of beliefs, values, and shared visions as one of the advantages of family firms as compared to nonfamily firms. (Tagiuri and Davis,1996). Family firms enjoy a strong sense of commitment to the mission that they want to pursue and a sense of belonging and identity, that is superior to other firms (Ibrahim & Ellis, 1994). So the taxonomies of organizational culture should be well examined to notice that leadership in family firms is closer to charismatic and transformational than it is to Transactional (Ansoff, 1985; Blunt, 1991; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Handy, 1986a, 1986b; Harrison, 1972; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Sethia & Von Glinow, 1985). Relationships matter in family businesses especially those based on trust, communication, loyalty and belongingness (Leach, 1993, Poutziouris, 2001; Tagiuri & Davis, 1996).
This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the needs, traits and skills that govern the behavior of leaders of small businesses in Lebanon. In the first sections, it aims to explain the nature of traits, the trait approach to leadership as well as the nature of the skills, then it intends to determine the effect of the influence of leadership on firm performance or firm success. The paper starts with an introductory section, then a literature review whereby the theoretical framework is shown from which hypotheses are derived, then a section on the methodology and the sampling and finally a results section.
THE NATURE OF TRAITS AND THE NATURE OF SKILLS
Trait is defined as a "variety of individual attributes, including aspects of personality, temperament, needs, motives, and values." (Yukl, 2006). Personality traits represent the constant natures to behave in a certain way. Needs and motives represent a stimulus or experience. Physiological needs include such factors as hunger, thirst, while social motives include such factors as achievement, self-esteem, affiliation, power, and independence. Needs and motives persuade attention to information and events. They direct, rejuvenate, and prolong behavior. (Yukl, 2006).
Values are defined as "internalized attitudes about what is right and wrong, ethical and unethical, moral and immoral." Values manipulate a person's inclinations, insight of problems, and choice of actions. Values include such factors as "fairness, justice, honesty, freedom, equality, humanitarianism, loyalty, patriotism, progress, self-fulfillment, excellence, pragmatism, courtesy, politeness, and cooperation.
Traits are partly inherited, which means the temperament, the physiological needs, and partly acquired through the values and the social needs. (Yukl, 2006). The trait approach assumes that some people have traits and skills that entitle them to hunt for and achieve leadership positions (Yukl, 2006). The discussion in this paper, will focus on the traits and skills needed in efficient management, not on the traits that foresee who will be the next leader in the group.
Skills refer to the "ability to do something in an effective manner". Skills, like traits, are both inherited and learned, (Yukl ,2006). Levels of skills range from:Very general/broadly defined = intelligence, interpersonal skills and Narrow/more specific = verbal reasoning, persuasive ability (Yukl 2006). Leadership skills include: technical skills, interpersonal skills, conceptual skills, and administrative or diagnostic skills (Moorehead and Griffin, 2008). Leadership skills will be studied intensively in the following section along with relative findings by Stodgill (1974), McClelland (1965, 1985), and Miner (1965).
As previously stated, Leadership skills include: Technical skills, Interpersonal skills, Conceptual skills, and Administrative skills. A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits ... the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of followers, (Stodgill, 1948, Yukl 2006,)
The leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor, and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal skills, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons' behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand, (Stodgill, 1948)
Stodgill maintains that not all leaders are efficient in all circumstances; they may be good in some and inefficient in others. Stodgill also asserts that two leaders with varied patterns of traits could be successful in the same circumstances. (Stodgill, 1948)
The traits that would differentiate leaders from non leaders, are as follows: the adaptability to different situations, the ambitiousness, the alertness to the social environment, the achievement orientation, the level of assertiveness, the level of cooperativeness, the decisiveness, the dependability, their power motivation or their dominance, their level of energy (high activity level), their persistence, their self confidence, their tolerance of stress, and their willingness to assume responsibility.
The skills that would differentiate leaders from non-leaders are: their intelligence, their conceptual skills, their creativity, their diplomacy, their tactfulness, their fluency in speaking, their knowledge about the work, their level of organization (administrative skills), their level of persuasion and their social skills (Stodgill , 1974).
In most research, need strength was measured with a projective technique called "Thematic Apperception Test" ("TAT"). The test consists of a series of pictures of people in ambiguous situations. Anyone who takes the test is asked to make up a story about each picture and the stories reveal the person's daydreams, fantasies, and aspirations. The stories are then coded by the experimenter to obtain a measure of three underlying needs: Power, Achievement, and Affiliation. (McClelland, 1965, 1985)
The need for power is divided into two subtypes: the socialized and the personalized power orientation. (McClelland 1985. The progress in lower levels of management requires high need for achievement, the most favorable need for nontechnical managers to go up the managerial ladder is the need for power, and technical managers' evolution in a company's hierarchy depends more on technical skills and verbal glibness than on motivation. Other researches on the same topic include many studies on the relationship between managerial motivation and advancement. In large bureaucratic organizations, significant correlations were found between a manager's overall score on managerial motivation and advancement to higher levels of management.
THE OBJECTIVE AND THE HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is to test the significance of the leadership traits and skills that would lead to the success of the owners and managers of small businesses in Lebanon. Extensive studies conducted in the United States by Collins, Moore & Unwalla, 1964; Hundal 1971; McClelland, 1965; McClelland & Winter, 1969; and Wainer & Rubin, 1969, concluded that: "Need for achievement appears to be the most important motive for predicting success for owner-managers of small businesses."
Research Design and Model
The model consists of six variables. The measurements section describes in details the methods of measurements for each variable. The variables are as follows: success of owner-manager of small businesses, satisfaction from experiencing success in accomplishing or being the first to accomplish a difficult task, attaining a standard of excellence, preferring jobs in which they can exercise individual initiatives in solving problem, desiring frequent, concrete feedback about their performance.
The study tests four hypotheses which are listed below:
H1 Successful owners and/or managers of small businesses would be satisfied from experiencing success and/or being the first in accomplishing a difficult task.
H2 Successful owners and/or managers of small businesses would like to attain standards of excellence.
H3 Successful owners and/or managers of small businesses would prefer jobs in which they can exercise individual initiatives in solving problems.
H4 Successful owners and/or managers of small businesses would desire frequent, concrete feedback about their performance.
Contribution and Significance
Extensive research on managerial motivation has been conducted by McClelland and his associates in the United States of America for more than forty years. The contribution of this study is to assess whether the Lebanese organizational environment reacts in the same way as the American organizational environment. The implementation of such a research program in Lebanon particularly among small businesses' owners and/or managers is new in nature. No other studies on the most important motives for predicting success in such a way for owner-managers of small businesses have ever been conducted in Lebanon before.
THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Sampling and Data Collection
The data was collected through a questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were filled out by 154 owner/managers of small businesses in Lebanon, The sample was made up of 60.4% males and 39.6% females, owners in the sample were 58.4% of total responses and managers in the sample were 41.6% of small businesses in Lebanon.
All the participants that filled out the questionnaire were informed that the study pertained to measure their leadership skills and traits and the effectiveness of their managerial motivation. Moreover, they were assured complete anonymity and were encouraged to honestly answer all the questions.
A five-point scale ranging from "1=Disagree" to "5= Agree" was used to measure the scales of success of owners-managers of small businesses. The measure was based on a self assessment by the owners-managers. The following table shows the indicators in the questionnaire that measured the success of owners-managers of small businesses:
Table 1--Indicators of Success in the Questionnaire Indicator Success Measurement 1 How many promotions in the The more the better last two years? 2 Do you find yourself Self evaluation, the best successful? indicator
This independent variable was measured using the same five-point scale ranging from "disagree" to "agree". As per the researches of McClelland and his associates this skill or trait is a major indicator of the need to achieve which is the main need for the success of owners-managers of small businesses.
The following table 2 shows the indicators in the questionnaire that measured it.
Attaining a standard of excellence was measured using the same five-point scale ranging from "disagree" to "agree". The researches that had been conducted in the United States by McClelland and his associates showed that owners-managers of small businesses are in constant search to attain standards of excellence on a personal level. The following table 3 shows the indicators in the questionnaire that measured it.
The independent variable, "prefer jobs in which they an exercise individual initiatives in solving problems" was measured using the same five-point scale ranging from "disagree" to "agree". Being the owners and managers of small businesses, they later would prefer to remain the solo solution finders and would require that their solution be implemented even though it might not be the best. The following table 4 shows the indicators in the questionnaire that measured it.
The independent variable "the desire of frequent, concrete feedback about the performance of managers was measured using the same five-point scale ranging from "disagree" to "agree". Individuals with high need for achievement require constant feedback about their decision, work and successes to remain going on. The following table 5 shows the indicators in the questionnaire that measured it.
Linear regression was the estimation technique used in this study. Moreover SPSS (version 17.0) was the statistical tool used to run the regression and output statistical results. The conducted study was based on a sample of 154 questionnaires taken by owners-managers of small businesses in the Lebanon mainly in the regions of: Beirut, Metn, and Keserwane and from the following industries: services, entertainment/food, tourism, and manufacturing. This could be considered as a bias in the sample as not all geographical areas were tested, however, the studied areas can give a good indication as the majority of the businesses are located in the geographical regions tested.
The following table presents the means and standard deviations of the variables in the model.
The characteristics of the sample are shown below. 60.4 of the sample are males whereas, 39.6 are females. 58.4 of the sample are owners of small businesses in Lebanon, and 41.6 are managers.
The following table shows the correlations between the four independent variables that were used to test the four hypotheses.
The above table shows that there is a positive correlation between the independent variables commitment to excellence and satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task. There also exists a positive correlation between the independent variables commitment to excellence and prefer individual initiatives but there is a negative correlation between commitment to excellence and regularly seeking feedback. Add to that there is a negative correlation between the independent variables regularly seeking feedback and prefer individual initiatives.
Moreover there is a negative correlation between satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task and regularly seeking feedback and a positive correlation a between satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task and prefer individual initiatives.
Since the dependant and the independent variables were measured with more than one questions in the questionnaire (as detailed in the measurements' section above), we chose the direct questions that pertain to every variable. As such we ran the regression on one dependent variable and four independent variables.
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
Hypothesis 1 predicted that successful owners and or managers of small business would be satisfied from experiencing success and or being the first in accomplishing a difficult task. The regression analysis conducted in our study revealed that we can reject hypothesis 1 with a 95% confidence interval (since significance = 0.481>0.05). As such it is not true that all or most owners and managers of small businesses would seek satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that successful owners and managers of small businesses would like to attain a standard of excellence. Indeed the analysis of the results of our study revealed that they do with a 95% confidence interval (since significance=0.022<0.05).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that successful owners and managers of small businesses would prefer jobs in which they can exercise individual initiatives in solving problems. Again the analysis of the results in our model revealed that we can reject hypothesis 2 with a 95% confidence interval (since the significance = 0.876>0.05). As such it is not true that all or most of the owners and managers of small business would seek or prefer jobs in which they would exercise individual initiatives.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that successful owners and manager of small businesses would desire frequent, concreted feedback about their performances. The Analysis of the results of the study revealed that such hypothesis could be rejected with a 95% confidence interval (since significance=0.182>0.050) As such not all or most of the owners and managers in small businesses would like to receive frequent, concrete feedback about their performances.
This study contributes to the understanding of the needs, traits and skills that govern the behavior of leaders of small business in Lebanon. The only significant independent variable pertaining to the success of owners and/or managers of small businesses was the commitment to attain a standard of excellence. All the remaining traits: satisfaction from experiencing success and or being the first in accomplishing a difficult task, preferring jobs in which they can exercise individual initiatives in solving problems, and desiring frequent, concreted feedback about their performances, that we tested were not to be found in the sample of our study.
The difference in the results of our study and the ones conducted by McClelland and his associates would be mostly cause by: the difference in culture, the attitude of people surveyed, the method of evaluation, and the sampling size.
Limitations of the Research
Some of the drawbacks of this study would be the seriousness of the owners and managers who filled the questionnaire and this would surely create improper results. Another limitation is that the sample is relatively small and could not be reflective of the whole Lebanese market which is mostly governed by small businesses especially that the surveys were taken in Beirut, Matn and Kesrwane. Another important limitation is difference in culture between the Lebanese people and the American ones where the original studies were conducted. The most limiting implication is that the correlation between the independent variables is somehow high that is why the only one independent variable was significant.
In light of the previous literature along with the results of this study, owners and managers of small businesses should remain committed to attain a standard of excellence that would give them a competitive advantage in a market like Lebanon. But they should not focus only on this goal while forgetting about the others i.e. they should not put their subordinates under constant stress as such the whole process would lose value.
Suggestions for Further Research
Further research could be conducted on a broader spectrum thus covering a bigger number of people from different regions from Lebanon. Moreover different evaluation method could be used. For instance in our study we used the direct questions as a measure of the variables, many other questions that relate indirectly to the variables could be used to measure the responses. We did ask such question but we did not use them, another study could be done using these indirect questions its result could be compared to ours. Studies on the need, traits and skills of small businesses leaders are essential for the Lebanese market were most of the businesses lie in this category.
APPENDIX I--CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE AND RESEARCH RESULTS Frequency Percent Industry Type Valid Entertainment/Food 32 20.8 Manufacturing 37 24.0 Service 70 45.5 Tourism 15 9.7 Total 154 100.0 Age Valid 26 1 .6 27 5 3.2 28 3 1.9 29 3 1.9 30 1 .6 31 5 3.2 32 7 4.5 33 8 5.2 34 10 6.5 35 8 5.2 36 11 7.1 37 6 3.9 38 7 4.5 39 6 3.9 40 6 3.9 41 7 4.5 42 6 3.9 43 11 7.1 44 7 4.5 45 8 5.2 46 2 1.3 47 1 .6 48 3 1.9 49 2 1.3 50 1 .6 51 3 1.9 52 1 .6 53 1 .6 54 7 4.5 55 1 .6 56 3 1.9 57 1 .6 60 1 .6 63 1 .6 Total 154 100.0 Promotions In Last Two Years Valid 0 114 74.0 1 26 16.9 2 10 6.5 3 4 2.6 Total 154 100.0 Industry Type Valid Entertainment /Food 32 20.8 Manufacturing 37 24.0 Service 70 45.5 Tourism 15 9.7 Total 154 100.0 Success Valid Neither agree nor disagree 5 3.2 Partially agree 46 29.9 Agree 103 66.9 Total 154 100.0 Encourage Teamwork Valid Disagree 44 28.6 Partially Disagree 69 44.8 Neither agree nor disagree 37 24.0 Partially agree 3 1.9 Agree 1 .6 Total 154 100.0 Commitment To Excellence Valid Partially Disagree 4 2.6 Neither agree nor disagree 6 3.9 Partially agree 40 26.0 Agree 104 67.5 Total 154 100.0 Support Ideas Valid Neither agree nor disagree 2 1.3 Partially agree 38 24.7 Agree 114 74.0 Total 154 100.0 Seek Feedback Valid Partially agree 18 11.7 Agree 136 88.3 Total 154 100.0 Coach And Develop Valid Disagree 11 7.1 Partially Disagree 113 73.4 Neither agree nor disagree 30 19.5 Total 154 100.0 Anticipate Change Valid Neither agree nor disagree 8 5.2 Partially agree 113 73.4 Agree 33 21.4 Total 154 100.0 Update Skills Valid Neither agree nor disagree 5 3.2 Partially agree 38 24.7 Agree 111 72.1 Total 154 100.0 Prefer Individual Initiatives Valid Partially agree 36 23.4 Agree 118 76.6 Total 154 100.0 Enjoy success Of Others Valid Disagree 45 29.2 Partially Disagree 69 44.8 Neither agree nor disagree 40 26.0 Total 154 100.0 Admit Mistakes Valid Disagree 21 13.6 Partially Disagree 62 40.3 Neither agree nor disagree 33 21.4 Partially agree 37 24.0 Agree 1 .6 Total 154 100.0 Sensitive To Others Needs Valid Disagree 2 1.3 Partially Disagree 73 47.4 Neither agree nor disagree 76 49.4 Partially agree 3 1.9 Total 154 100.0 Recognize Creativity Of Others Valid Partially Disagree 46 29.9 Neither agree nor disagree 95 61.7 Partially agree 13 8.4 Total 154 100.0 Satisfaction From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Valid Partially agree 27 17.5 Agree 127 82.5 Total 154 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Industry Type Valid Entertainment/Food 20.8 20.8 Manufacturing 24.0 44.8 Service 45.5 90.3 Tourism 9.7 100.0 Total 100.0 Age Valid 26 .6 .6 27 3.2 3.9 28 1.9 5.8 29 1.9 7.8 30 .6 8.4 31 3.2 11.7 32 4.5 16.2 33 5.2 21.4 34 6.5 27.9 35 5.2 33.1 36 7.1 40.3 37 3.9 44.2 38 4.5 48.7 39 3.9 52.6 40 3.9 56.5 41 4.5 61.0 42 3.9 64.9 43 7.1 72.1 44 4.5 76.6 45 5.2 81.8 46 1.3 83.1 47 .6 83.8 48 1.9 85.7 49 1.3 87.0 50 .6 87.7 51 1.9 89.6 52 .6 90.3 53 .6 90.9 54 4.5 95.5 55 .6 96.1 56 1.9 98.1 57 .6 98.7 60 .6 99.4 63 .6 100.0 Total 100.0 Promotions In Last Two Years Valid 0 74.0 74.0 1 16.9 90.9 2 6.5 97.4 3 2.6 100.0 Total 100.0 Industry Type Valid Entertainment /Food 20.8 20.8 Manufacturing 24.0 44.8 Service 45.5 90.3 Tourism 9.7 100.0 Total 100.0 Success Valid Neither agree nor disagree 3.2 3.2 Partially agree 29.9 33.1 Agree 66.9 100.0 Total 100.0 Encourage Teamwork Valid Disagree 28.6 28.6 Partially Disagree 44.8 73.4 Neither agree nor disagree 24.0 97.4 Partially agree 1.9 99.4 Agree .6 100.0 Total 100.0 Commitment To Excellence Valid Partially Disagree 2.6 2.6 Neither agree nor disagree 3.9 6.5 Partially agree 26.0 32.5 Agree 67.5 100.0 Total 100.0 Support Ideas Valid Neither agree nor disagree 1.3 1.3 Partially agree 24.7 26.0 Agree 74.0 100.0 Total 100.0 Seek Feedback Valid Partially agree 11.7 11.7 Agree 88.3 100.0 Total 100.0 Coach And Develop Valid Disagree 7.1 7.1 Partially Disagree 73.4 80.5 Neither agree nor disagree 19.5 100.0 Total 100.0 Anticipate Change Valid Neither agree nor disagree 5.2 5.2 Partially agree 73.4 78.6 Agree 21.4 100.0 Total 100.0 Update Skills Valid Neither agree nor disagree 3.2 3.2 Partially agree 24.7 27.9 Agree 72.1 100.0 Total 100.0 Prefer Individual Initiatives Valid Partially agree 23.4 23.4 Agree 76.6 100.0 Total 100.0 Enjoy success Of Others Valid Disagree 29.2 29.2 Partially Disagree 44.8 74.0 Neither agree nor disagree 26.0 100.0 Total 100.0 Admit Mistakes Valid Disagree 13.6 13.6 Partially Disagree 40.3 53.9 Neither agree nor disagree 21.4 75.3 Partially agree 24.0 99.4 Agree .6 100.0 Total 100.0 Sensitive To Others Needs Valid Disagree 1.3 1.3 Partially Disagree 47.4 48.7 Neither agree nor disagree 49.4 98.1 Partially agree 1.9 100.0 Total 100.0 Recognize Creativity Of Others Valid Partially Disagree 29.9 29.9 Neither agree nor disagree 61.7 91.6 Partially agree 8.4 100.0 Total 100.0 Satisfaction From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Valid Partially agree 17.5 17.5 Agree 82.5 100.0 Total 100.0 APPENDIX II--SPSS TABLES AND RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. N Deviation Success 4.64 .546 154 Seek .Feedback 4.88 .322 154 Prefer. Individual. Initiatives 4.77 .425 154 Satisfaction .From. Accomplishing. Dff. Tasks 4.82 .381 154 Commitment To Excellence 4.58 .693 154 Success Seek. Prefer. Feedback Individual Initiatives Pearson Correlation Success 1.000 .091 -.003 Seek.Feedback .091 1.000 -.010 Prefer.Individual. Initiatives -.003 -.010 1.000 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff Tasks -.057 -.115 .028 Commitment.To .Excellence .168 -.131 .068 Sig. (1-tailed) Success .130 .487 Seek.Feedback .130 .451 Prefer.Individual Initiatives .487 .451 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff. Tasks .241 .079 .366 Commitment.To. Excellence .019 .052 .203 N Success 154 154 154 Seek.Feedback 154 154 154 Prefer.Individual. Initiatives 154 154 154 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff. Tasks 154 154 154 Commitment.To. Excellence 154 Satisfaction Commitment from to Accomplishing. Excellence Dff.Tasks Pearson Correlation Success -.057 .168 Seek.Feedback -.115 -.131 Prefer.Individual. Initiatives .028 .068 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff Tasks 1.000 .069 Commitment.To .Excellence .069 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Success .241 .019 Seek.Feedback .079 .052 Prefer.Individual Initiatives .366 .203 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff. Tasks .198 Commitment.To. Excellence .198 N Success 154 154 Seek.Feedback 154 154 Prefer.Individual. Initiatives 154 154 Satisfaction.From. Accomplishing.Dff. Tasks 154 154 Commitment.To. Excellence 154 154 Descriptive Statistics Variables Entered/Removed Model Variables Entered Variables Method Removed Enter 1 Commitment.To.Excellence, Prefer.Individual.Initiatives, Satisfaction.From.Accomplishing. Dff.Tasks, Seek.Feedback (a) (a.) All requested variables entered. Model Summary (b) Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error R R Square of the Square Estimate Change 1 .211 (a) .045 .019 .541 .045 (a.) Predictors: (Constant), Commitment.To.Excellence, Prefer. Individual.Initiatives, Satisfaction.From.Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks, Seek.Feedback (b.) Dependent Variable: Success Model Summary (b) Change Statistics Model F Sig. F Change df1 df2 Change 1 1.742 4 149 .144 (a.) Predictors: (Constant), Commitment.To.Excellence, Prefer. Individual.Initiatives, Satisfaction.From.Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks, Seek.Feedback (b.) Dependent Variable: Success ANOVA (b) Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 2.039 4 .510 1.742 .144 (a) 1 Residual 43.598 149 .293 Total 45.636 153 (a.) Predictors: (Constant), CommitmentTo.Excellence, Prefer.Individual. Initiatives, Satisfaction.From.Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks, Seek.Feedback (b.) Dependent Variable: Success Coefficients (a) Model Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Beta Error (Constant) 3.529 1.083 3.260 .001 Seek.Feedback .185 .138 .109 1.342 .182 Prefer.Individual. -.016 .103 -.013 -.156 .876 Initiatives 1 Satisfaction.From Accomplishing. -.082 .116 -.057 -.707 .481 Dff.Tasks Commitment.To. .148 .064 .187 2.308 .022 Excellence Model 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Correlations Lower Upper Zero- Partial Part Bound Bound order (Constant) 1.390 5.668 Seek.Feedback -.087 .457 .091 .109 .107 Prefer.Individual. -.220 .188 -.003 -.013 -.013 Initiatives 1 Satisfaction.From Accomplishing. -.310 .147 -.057 -.058 -.057 Dff.Tasks Commitment.To. .021 .274 .168 .186 .185 Excellence Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF (Constant) Seek.Feedback .972 1.029 Prefer.Individual. .995 1.005 Initiatives 1 Satisfaction.From Accomplishing. .983 1.017 Dff.Tasks Commitment.To. .976 1.025 Excellence a. Dependent Variable: Success Coefficient Correlations (a) Model Commitment Prefer.Individual 1 To Excellence Initiatives Correlations Commitment.To.Excellence 1.000 -.065 Prefer.Individual.Initiatives -.065 1.000 Satisfaction. From. Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks -.053 -.023 Seek.Feedback .124 -.001 Covariances Commitment.To.Excellence .004 .000 Prefer.Individual.Initiatives .000 .011 Satisfaction. From. Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks .000 .000 Seek.Feedback .001 -2.008E-5 Model Satisfaction.From. Seek. 1 Accomplishing. Feedback Correlations Dff.Tasks Commitment.To.Excellence -.053 .124 Prefer.Individual.Initiatives -.023 -.001 Satisfaction. From. Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks 1.000 .107 Seek.Feedback .107 1.000 Covariances Commitment.To.Excellence .000 .001 Prefer.Individual.Initiatives .000 -2.008E-5 Satisfaction. From. Accomplishing.Dff.Tasks .013 .002 Seek.Feedback .002 .019 (a.) Dependent Variable: Success Collinearity Diagnostics (a) Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition (Constant) Seek. Index Feedback 1 1 4.968 1.000 .00 .00 2 .019 16.333 .00 .02 3 .007 26.854 .00 .01 4 .006 29.461 .00 .38 5 .001 63.869 .99 .59 Variance Proportions Model Dimension Prefer. Satisfaction from Commitment.To Individual Accomplishing .Excellence .Initiatives Dff Tasks 1 1 .00 .00 .00 2 .02 .01 .92 3 .73 .28 .00 4 .11 .40 .01 5 .14 .30 .06 (a.) Dependent Variable: Success Residuals Statistics (a) Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value 4.22 4.80 4.64 .115 154 Residual -1.701 .741 .000 .534 154 Std. Predicted Value -3.595 1.409 .000 1.000 154 Std. Residual -3.145 1.371 .000 .987 154 (a.) Dependent Variable: Success
Ansoff, H. (1985). La direccion y su actitud ante el entorno [Management and attitude towards the environment]. Bilbao, Spain: Ediciones Deusto.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E., & Loughlin, C. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488-496.
Bass, Bernard M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass, Bernard M. and Avolio, Bruce, J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bass, Bernard M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In Chemmers & Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, Bernard M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.
Bennis, Warren G. (1959). "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority." Administrative Science Quarterly 4: 259-260.
Blunt, P. (1991). Organizational culture and development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 55-71.
Brown, M., & Trevino, L. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954-962.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.
Conger, Jay A., and Kanungo, Rabindra.(1987). "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings." Academy of Management Review 12: 637-647.
Daft, Richard L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and Practice. New York: Dryden Press.
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., Van Den Berg, P., Van Der Weide, J., & Wilderom, C. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 447-471.
Fiedler, Fred E. (1967,). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiol, C., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449-482.
Graef, C. (1993). The situational leadership theory: A critical review. Academy of Management Review 8: 285-296.
Hall, Richard H. (1982). Organizations: Structure and Process. New York: Prentice Hall.
Handy, C. (1986a). L'Olympe des managers. Culture d'enterprise et organisation. [The Olympus of mangers. Organizational culture and organization]
Handy, C. (1986b). Understanding organizations. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Harrison, R. (1972, May-June). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review, 119-128.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Howell, J (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations." In Conger & Kanungo, (eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy and a Reformulated Theory." Leadership Quarterly 7: 323-352.
Hughes, R. Ginnet, R.C., & Curphy, G. (1996). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Chicago: Irwin.
Ibrahim, A., & Ellis, W. (1994). Family business management: Concepts and practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Kirkpatrick, S.A., and Locke, Edwin A. (1996). "Direct and Indirect Effects of Three Core Charismatic Leadership Components on Performance and Attitudes." Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 36-51.
Kotter, John P. (1988). The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press.
Leach, P. (1993). La empresa familiar [The Family Firm]. Barcelona, Spain: Granica.
Masi, R., & Cooke, R. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms and organizational productivity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8, 16-57.
Meindl, James R. (1990). "On Leadership: An Alternative to the Conventional Wisdom." In B. M Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meindl, J, Ehrlich, S. & Dukerich, J. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78-102.
McClelland, Charles E., (2004). The Triumph of the Ordinary: Depictions of Everyday Life in the East German Cinema, 1949-1989. By Joshua Feinstein. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 2002. Pp. xiii + 331. $24.95. ISBN 0-8078-5385-2.. Central European History, 37 , pp 641-642
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from the UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 766-788.
Peterson, S., Walumbwa, F., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2007t) Transformational leadership, positive psychological traits, and firm performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Philadelphia.
Piccolo, R. and Colquitt, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 227-240.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 144-158.
Poutziouris, P. (2001). The views of family companies on venture capital: Empirical evidence from the UK small to medium-size enterprising economy. Family Business Review, 14, 277-291.
Rogers, T. T. and McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach.
Rubin, R., Munz, D., & Bommer, W. (2005). Leading from within the effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845-858.
Sethia, N., & Von Glinow, M. (1985). Arriving at four cultures by managing the reward system. In Kilman, Saxton,
Serpa, & Assoc. (Eds.), Gaining control of corporate culture (pp. 400-420). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sosik, J., Potosky, D., & Jung, D. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation: Meetings others' expectations of leadership and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 211-232.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9, 199-208.
Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1991). "Cultural Leadership in Organizations." Organization Science 2: 149-169.
Yammarino, F. (1996). Group leadership: A level of analysis perspective. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 189-224). New York: John Wiley.
Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. (1990). Long term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In Clark & Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership pp. 151-170. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations, (6th ed.), New York, Prentice Hall.
Josiane Fahed-Sreih, Lebanese American University
Sophie Morin-Delerm, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers-Paris
Table 2--Questionnaire Indicators from Satisfaction from Experiencing Success in Accomplishing or Being the First to Accomplish a Difficult Task Indicator Success Measurement 1 Actively encourage teamwork The lower the better in terms and cooperation and help build of self-satisfaction (prefers agreement when working with to remain the solo solution others finder) 2 Mentor, coach and develop The lower the better in terms others, including those who do of self-satisfaction(prefers not work directly with me to retain knowledge) 3 Anticipate change and perceive The higher the better trends before they become apparent to others 4 Update my skills and The higher the better professional knowledge on a regular basis 5 Enjoy the success of others as The Lower the better though it was my own 6 Recognize the creative and The Lower the better innovative ideas of others 7 Do you find satisfaction from The higher the better (a being the first to accomplish direct indicator) a difficult task in a successful manner Table 3--Questionnaire Indicators for Attaining a Standard of Excellence Indicator Success Measurement 1 Instill a commitment to The higher the better quality and excellence 2 Update my skills and professional knowledge on a regular basis Table 4--Prefer Jobs in Which They Exercise Individual Initiatives in Solving Problems Indicator Success Measurement 1 Actively encourage teamwork The lower the better and cooperation and help build agreement when working with others 2 Support ideas or plans of The higher the better action I believe in 3 Prefer to exercise individual The higher the better (direct initiatives in solving indicator) problems 4 Enjoy the success of others as The lower the better though it was my own 5 Am willing to admit to The lower the better mistakes and change accordingly 6 Recognize the creative and The lower the better innovative ideas of others Table 5--The Desire of Frequent, Concrete Feedback about Their Performance Indicator Success Measurement 1 Regularly seek and accept The higher the better (direct feedback from others about my indicator) behavior 2 Am willing to admit to The lower the better mistakes and change accordingly 3 Recognize the creative and The lower the better innovative ideas of others Table 6--Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Age 154 37 26 63 Gender 154 1 0 1 No. of Employees You Supervise 154 76 2 78 Owner Or Manager 154 1 0 1 Promotions In Last Two Years 154 3 0 3 Industry Type 154 3 0 3 Success 154 2 3 5 Encourage Teamwork 154 4 1 5 Commitment To Excellence 154 3 2 5 Support Ideas 154 2 3 5 Seek Feedback 154 1 4 5 Coach And Develop 154 2 1 3 Anticipate Change 154 2 3 5 Update Skills 154 2 3 5 Prefer Individual Initiatives 154 1 4 5 Enjoy success Of Others 154 2 1 3 Admit Mistakes 154 4 1 5 Sensitive To Others Needs 154 3 1 4 Recognize Creativity Of Others 154 2 2 4 Satisfaction From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks 154 1 4 5 Valid N (listwise) 154 Std Std. Mean Error Deviation Age 39.82 .627 7.786 Gender .40 .040 .491 No. of Employees You Supervise 15.48 .943 11.697 Owner Or Manager .42 .040 .494 Promotions In Last Two Years .38 .058 .724 Industry Type 1.44 .075 .929 Success 4.64 .044 .546 Encourage Teamwork 2.01 .066 .816 Commitment To Excellence 4.58 .056 .693 Support Ideas 4.73 .038 .475 Seek Feedback 4.88 .026 .322 Coach And Develop 2.12 .041 .503 Anticipate Change 4.16 .040 .491 Update Skills 4.69 .043 .530 Prefer Individual Initiatives 4.77 .034 .425 Enjoy success Of Others 1.97 .060 .745 Admit Mistakes 2.58 .082 1.021 Sensitive To Others Needs 2.52 .045 .563 Recognize Creativity Of Others 2.79 .047 .583 Satisfaction From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks 4.82 .031 .381 Valid N (listwise) Variance Age 60.629 Gender .241 No. of Employees You Supervise 136.813 Owner Or Manager .244 Promotions In Last Two Years .524 Industry Type .863 Success .298 Encourage Teamwork .666 Commitment To Excellence .480 Support Ideas .226 Seek Feedback .104 Coach And Develop .253 Anticipate Change .241 Update Skills .281 Prefer Individual Initiatives .180 Enjoy success Of Others .554 Admit Mistakes 1.043 Sensitive To Others Needs .317 Recognize Creativity Of Others .339 Satisfaction From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks .146 Valid N (listwise) Table 7--Sample Characteristics as Related to Gender Gender Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid M 93 60.4 60.4 60.4 F 61 39.6 39.6 100.0 Total 154 100.0 100.0 Table 8--Sample Characteristics as Related to Owners and/or Managers Owner Or Manager Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid owner 90 58.4 58.4 58.4 manager 64 41.6 41.6 100.0 Total 154 100.0 100.0 Table 9--Correlations Between the 4 Independent Variables Correlations Commitment Satisfaction To Excellence From Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Commitment To Pearson 1 .069 Excellence Correlation Sig. .397 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Satisfaction Pearson .069 1 From Correlation Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Sig. .397 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Seek Feedback Pearson -.131 -.115 Correlation Sig. .105 .157 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Prefer Pearson .068 .028 Individual Correlation Initiatives Sig. .405 .732 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Seek Prefer Feedback Individual Initiatives Commitment To Pearson -.131 .068 Excellence Correlation Sig. .105 .405 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Satisfaction Pearson -.115 .028 From Correlation Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Sig. .157 .732 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Seek Feedback Pearson 1 -.010 Correlation Sig. .903 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Prefer Pearson -.010 1 Individual Correlation Initiatives Sig. .903 (2-tailed) N 154 154 Table 10--Regressions Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Model Coefficients Coefficients t B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 3.529 1.083 3.260 Seek Feedback .185 .138 .109 1.342 Prefer Individual -.016 .103 -.013 -.156 Initiatives Satisfaction From -.082 .116 -.057 -.707 Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Commitment To .148 .064 .187 2.308 Excellence 95.0% Confidence Interval Model for B Sig Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) .001 1.390 5.668 Seek Feedback .182 -.087 .457 Prefer Individual .876 -.220 .188 Initiatives Satisfaction From .481 -.310 .147 Accomplishing Difficult Tasks Commitment To .022 .021 .274 Excellence