Continued from devmgr-a:
Table 3 presents the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA). It is noted there that all the attributes, excepting emotional resilience and self-knowledge, have across-group F-ratios significant at p<.01. A range test (Table 4) gives additional information on the specific groups that differed on specific attributes at p<.05.
For instance, in Table 4, the IAS differs significantly from the Dairy and the NGOs on command of basic facts related to their respective jobs. Now looking up row 1 of Table 3, we find that of the five groups the IAS has the best command of basic facts and the NGOs the least.
As for the attribute of relevant professional knowledge, the Forest Department (GFD) and the Fertiliser group score significantly higher than the IAS, Dairy and NGOs. The IAS, despite being an educated elite and scoring as high as (indeed higher than) the GFD on continuing sensitivity to events (see Table 3, row 3), seems to have a sense of professional inadequacy in their jobs. This could very well be for the reason that they get frequently shifted to jobs which are often unrelated to the ones they are shifted from.
The IAS and NGOs differ significantly from all the other groups on problem solving, with the former as the best and the latter as the poorest. On social skills, the Dairy group scores significantly lower than the IAS; the NGOs score lower than all the others except the Dairy group.
It may be noted from Table 4 that proactivity appears in all the cells relating to GFD and IAS, but is absent in the GFD-IAS intersect. Combining this observation with the figures in row 7 of Table 3, it can be said that the IAS and GFD are significantly more proactive than the other groups.
On creativity the IAS scores the highest among the groups, while the fertiliser group and the NGOs score significantly lower than the other groups on this attribute. On mental agility, both the GFD and the IAS are better than the other groups.
While balanced learning habits and skills, as has already been mentioned, are the weakest possession of all the groups, the cooperative dairy sector, the fertiliser group and the NGOs possess it even less.
Assuming that decision/judgement making and problem solving is the ultimate test of a manager's effectivity, we could treat this attribute as a dependent variable and examine how far the other attributes contribute to it. Given the intercorrelations of the attributes, a stepwise multiple regression was considered appropriate to produce the best model that could explain the effects of the other attributes on the attribute of problem solving.
In the case of dairy cooperatives 58.6 per cent of the variance in problem solving was explained by all the ten attributes regressed simultaneously, while a stepwise regression explained 58.0 per cent of the same variance with only five of the attributes (social skills, continuing sensitivity to events, mental agility, proactivity and command of basic facts). A break-up of the explained variance is given below:
Equation 1 (Dairy group):
P.Solving = 2.093+.281SSk+.269CSE+.193MAg+.177Pro+.173CBF
Adjusted R-square by all attributes = 0.58591 (Std Err: 2.86893)
F (df 10, 135) = 21.516, p<.0000
Adj. R-square by stepwise regression = 0.57984 (Std Err: 2.88989)
F (df 5,140) = 41.021, p<.0000
Similar summaries of the regression analyses (the adjusted R-squares, their F values and the final equations for the remaining four groups of managers are given below:
Adj. R-square by all attributes = 0.52600 (Std Err: 2.65893)
F (df 10, 41) = 6.660, p<.0000
Adj. R-square by stepwise regression = 0.57390 (Std Err: 2.52102)
F (df 3, 48) = 23.897, p<.0000
P.Solving = 3.298 + .459Pro + .319CSE + .214PKn.
Equation 3 (Forest deptt.):
Adj. R-square by all attributes = 0.38559 (Std Err: 2.53323)
F (df 10, 39) = 4.075, p<.0007
Adj. R-square by stepwise regression = 0.37409 (Std Err: 2.55681)
F (df 3, 46) = 10.762, p<.0000
P.Solving = 9.642 + .267Cre + .225CBF + .231SSk.
Equation 4 (IAS group):
Adj. R-square by all attributes = 0.47458 (Std Err: 2.83055)
F (df 10, 30) = 4.613, p<.0005
Adj. R-square by stepwise regression = 0.51604 (Std Err: 2.71659)
F (df 2,38) = 22.325, p<.0000
P.Solving = 7.987 + .589CBF + .224Pro.
Equation 5 (NGO group):
Adj. R-square by all attributes = 0.44539 (Std Err: 2.47103)
F (df 10,28) = 4.052, p<.0016
Adj. R-square by stepwise regression = 0.43348 (Std Err: 2.49741)
F (df 2, 36) = 15.538, p<.0000
P.Solving = 11.041 + .365PKn + .313MAg.
Relevant professional knowledge seems to partially influence problem solving only among the managers of the fertiliser cooperatives and the NGOs. In the other three groups, the role of professional knowledge in problem solving is negligible.
In the dairy cooperatives, the managers seem to solve problems on the basis of their social skills, general sensitivity to events, mental agility, proactivity, and command of basic facts related to their jobs (see Equation 1 above). As of now, their problem solving is hardly influenced by relevant professional knowledge, balanced learning habits, emotional resilience, creativity, or self-knowledge. It could be argued that these latter attributes are presently too short of supply (see Tables 1 and 3) to be able to influence.
The problem-solving behaviour of the cooperative fertiliser managers is currently characterised by their proactivity, continuing sensitivity to events and professional knowledge (Cf. Equation 2).
The Gujarat Forest Department managers presently rely on their creativity, command of basic facts and social skills for solving their problems -- not on relevant professional knowledge or any other of the attributes.
The IAS officers seem to see themselves through by their command of basic facts and proactivity. Their problem solving is not supported by relevant professional knowledge, sensitivity to events, social skills, balanced learning or any other of the remaining attributes.
The NGO managers bring relevant professional knowledge and mental agility to bear on their problem solving. None of the other attributes enter into their problem-solving behaviour.
Implications
The foregoing analyses tell us that professional knowledge and the other attributes which fall outside the equations do not explain any significant portion of the variance in problem solving. Does that mean professional knowledge and the other out-of-equation attributes are superfluous adjuncts to the managerial kit?
Problem solving would certainly improve in quality if professional knowledge and personal learning from experience were brought to bear on it. (Available progress/performance reports of the cooperative dairy sector and of developmental programmes like the IRDP and social forestry show that there is a lot to be desired on this front; the performance is far from satisfactory.) The equations given above only represent the current scene; they tell us what attributes influence the problem-solving behaviour of these managers at present. As of now the managers in the study seem to solve their problems typically without the influence of the respective out-of-equation variables, which, if possessed in adequate magnitude, may very well find an entry into the equation; a critical minimum may be necessary which is currently unmet.
Designers of management development programmes (MDPs) will, therefore, do well to pay special attention to those attributes that do not at present get into the regression equation of problem solving.
The shortage of relevant professional knowledge, wherever such shortage occurs, must be addressed appropriately. The MDPs of the regular sort may not be the right instrument for the purpose, for they are typically unable to do justice to it. Proper recruitment and periodic refreshers in particular disciplines would address the issue better.
It may also be borne in mind that, in the work environment, there are factors that can prevent use of certain available attributes. Professional obsolescence could occur not only because of individual managers' personal failure to keep up to date, but the organisational climate might contribute to it, too. What if, as in the case of many a cooperative dairy in the country, the Board of Directors, directly and/or through the chief executive, constantly provide positive reinforcement to unprofessional behaviours of managers? Appropriate programmes of development may, therefore, have to be designed and offered to the elected bosses of executives, too, wherever such boards exist.
Programmes to orient and train managers in balanced learning habits and skills seem imperative -- not only because managers across the groups feel this attribute to be most lacking now, but also because the very nature of the attribute demands special attention. Balanced learning skills (see SK10 in Appendix) comprise an attitude of openness to various sources of learning and the ability to reflect on one's own experiences so as to formulate tentative theories and test them out by application; it prevents one from being limited to any one conventional source of learning or adhering to one pet theory. Development of this one attribute can, therefore, be considered as critical.
Table 3: Means, SEs, F-Ratios and P-values of attributes in five groups|
Group --> |
DAIRY n=146 |
FERT. n=52 |
GFD n=50 |
IAS n=41 |
NGO n=39 |
ALL N=328 |
F-ratio |
P< |
|
SK1 |
31.57 (4.15) |
32.29 (3.67) |
32.34 (3.72) |
33.27 (3.79) |
30.10 (4.24) |
31.83 (4.05) |
3.66 |
.006 |
|
SK2 |
27.47 (3.68) |
27.86 (3.75) |
28.90 (4.17) |
27.12 (5.28) |
24.13 (4.01) |
27.30 (4.21) |
8.27 |
.000 |
|
SK3 |
31.17 (4.54) |
31.23 (3.36) |
31.52 (3.74) |
33.15 (3.81) |
29.10 (3.98) |
31.23 (4.20) |
4.94 |
.000 |
|
SK4 |
31.26 (4.46) |
31.47 (3.82) |
32.62 (3.23) |
34.41 (3.90) |
27.79 (3.32) |
31.50 (4.33) |
14.88 |
.000 |
|
SK5 |
29.32 (4.42) |
30.51 (3.56) |
30.32 (3.78) |
30.95 (3.19) |
28.26 (3.86) |
29.73 (4.05) |
3.44 |
.009 |
|
SK6 |
28.47 (3.91) |
28.73 (3.06) |
29.36 (3.87) |
29.27 (3.78) |
27.72 (3.92) |
28.66 (3.77) |
1.41 |
.230 |
|
SK7 |
27.37 (4.56) |
26.96 (4.42) |
28.86 (3.74) |
30.59 (5.05) |
27.00 (3.82) |
27.90 (4.53) |
5.89 |
.000 |
|
SK8 |
31.36 (4.08) |
31.20 (3.58) |
32.54 (3.98) |
34.22 (3.46) |
29.59 (4.51) |
31.66 (4.13) |
7.91 |
.000 |
|
SK9 |
26.62 (4.30) |
27.00 (4.23) |
27.94 (3.07) |
29.22 (3.88) |
25.36 (3.86) |
27.06 (4.13) |
5.75 |
.000 |
|
SK10 |
24.93 (3.91) |
24.51 (3.32) |
26.92 (4.06) |
25.78 (3.36) |
24.00 (3.47) |
25.16 (3.81) |
4.56 |
.001 |
|
SK11 |
28.18 (4.30) |
29.69 (3.69) |
29.56 (3.34) |
28.39 (4.22) |
28.44 (3.68) |
28.69 (4.01) |
2.07 |
.085 |
| Dairy | MAg. | PKn, PSl, Pro, MAg, BLH, SKn. | CBF, CSE, PSl, SSk, Pro, Cre, MAg. | CBF, PKn, CSE, PSl, Cre. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fertiliser | Pro, BLH. | CSE, PSl, Pro, Cre, BLH. | CBF, PKn, CSE, PSl, SSk. | ||
| GFD | PKn, PSl, Cre. | All, except SKn. | |||
| IAS | All, except ER and SKn. | ||||
| NGO |
Arul, M.J., "Operation Flood and Management Development". Management in Government, Vol. 21, Nos. 1-3, 1989, pp. 91-97.
Bennis, W., "Transforming Our Work Ethic: Four Traits of Leadership". Education Network News, Vol. 3, 1984, pp. 1-3.
Katz, R.L., "Skills of an Effective Administrator". Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct 1974, pp. 90-102.
Mintzberg, H., "The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact". Harvard Business Review, July-August 1975, pp. 49-61.
Pedler, M., et al., A Manager's Guide to Self-development. U.K.: McGrawHill, 1986.
Rao, T.V. and Tamil Selvan, "Strengths & Weaknesses of Senior Executives". Productivity, 33(3), October-December 1992, pp. 443451.
*****
APPENDIX: Pedler's list of managerial attributes.
1. Command of basic facts: Knowledge of the organisation's long- and short-term goals and plans; an awareness of the various roles and the inter-departmental relationships.
2. Relevant professional knowledge: Knowledge of the technical or specialist aspects of one's job as well as of basic management principles and theories.
3. Continuing sensitivity to events: One's ability to tune in to situations and perceive what is going on; attention to facts and figures as they emerge as well as to the attitudes and feelings of people involved in the situations.
4. Analytical, problem-solving decision/judgement-making skills: Ability to analyse information, weigh the pros and cons and take decisions; logical skills are necessary, but at times they may have to be dispensed with and intuitive judgements made when information required for an analytical decision is inadequate, hard to come by or is just not available. Tolerance of ambiguity, therefore, needs to co-exist.
5. Social skills: Abilities related to interpersonal communication, delegation, negotiation, conflict resolution, and dealing with authority and power.
6. Emotional resilience: Given the stresses and strains of a manager's job, emotional upsets are a reality. The manager, however, cannot afford to wallow in this state for long; he must be able to regain equanimity fairly quickly. This would include self-control that allows one to give in when necessary and bounce back when opportune, unwarped by the stresses.
7. Proactivity: Responding purposefully to events. Even while responding to immediate situations, successful managers bear in mind the possible impact their actions may have on the organisation's long-term goals or its mission.
8. Creativity: Trying out newer ways of doing things on one's own or recognising new and good ideas from others and putting them to effective use.
9. Mental agility: Ability to think on one's feet and switch rapidly from one problem to another as demanded by situations.
10.Balanced learning habits and skills: An attitude of openness to various sources of learning and the ability to reflect on one's own experiences so as to formulate tentative theories and test them out by application; not being limited to any one conventional source of learning or adhering to one pet theory.
11.Self-knowledge: Awareness of one's own goals, values, beliefs, attitudes, perceptual and behavioural styles, and feelings. This is necessary for self-control, which will facilitate emotional resilience as well as one's overall self-development. [Back to the study.]