Continued from Part--2
(Following subheadings are not simply the sub headings with numerical identifications, they are the statistical proofs. When all the statistical data is analyzed the figures play the crucial roles for knowing about the in-depth discussion. That is why the word “Figure” has been used with the number indicators for referring the subheadings (as being seen here)
The degree of respects and concerns shown by the managers/leaders for the followers is known as consideration style. Bass, (1990) informs that in this style, followers’ welfare is looked out in addition to expressing support and appreciation. With a view to measuring the degree of the managers’ engagement into the leadership trait, a series of items are presented for measuring the degree they remain engaged-in. This is the illustration of consideration style.
15.2% managers, as per the Figure 4.8, strongly agreed to have been consistent with consideration style, as was rated by the overseas student employees, which was supported by the 36.2% among the overseas student employees. However, among the managers, 30.4% disagreed to have remained engaged in the consideration style, which was accorded with by the 34.5% overseas student employees, as they revealed that their managers rarely followed this style. Lastly, among the managers, 14.6% strongly disagreed that they have ever applied consideration style, which was supported by the 18.7% of the overseas student employees. This is in furtherance that managers were tending to over rate themselves about their engagement in the consideration style.
A leader’s consistent effort is to motivate his/her followers to remain creative and innovative. In addition to this, the leaders are supposed to entertain the question assumptions from the followers and reframe the approach & problems in newer ways. By this way, (Harris, 2001), problem solving & critical thinking of an organization can be promoted. Managers do accept that improvement in any organization is for realizing vital gains to be achieved not by the managers alone, (Sergiovanni, 2000); it is rather the important participation of the overseas student employees, to jointly participate and bring out the solution.
According to Figure 4.9, among the managers, 18.2% have strongly agreed to have exercised intellectual stimulation; talking about overseas student employees, 19.6%, who have practically noticed the managers to have exercised this type of leadership style. This intellectual stimulation, as per Figure 4.9, is agreed to have been practiced by the 36% of the managers, which has been agreed by 32.2% of the overseas students.
Nonetheless, among the overseas student employees 30.5% did not agree with their managers to have rarely/hardly practiced transformational leadership, although 28.4% of the managers have expressed to have practiced this leadership style. Lastly, among the 16.6% of the managers strongly disagreed to have ever applied intellectual stimulation leadership form, which was also agreed by 19.7% of the student employees from overseas. This is the indication that, managers do over rate themselves, in the context of practicing leadership’s intellectual stimulation form. As per the researches, (Sharma, 2008), under-rating themselves on undesirable traits and over-rating one’s own self is the desirable traits of individuals.
The study’s 3rd objective is establishing the relationship between overseas student employees’ job satisfaction in terms of the degree of their liking the job and utilizing their jobs’ knowledge & skill and leadership style(s) of organization managers, employed in London’s public secondary organizations.
Continued to part--4