5.step 1. Detailed analyses
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the variables included in the study are presented in Table step one . The bivariate correlations are indicated by a Pearson’s product momentum correlation coefficient (r). Among the background factors, weak negative correlations between sex and work engagement (r = – 0.18, p < 0.01) and sex and task performance (r = -0.17, p < 0.01) were obtained for the South Korean sample, while for Ethiopia they failed to reach significance. Work position was weakly negatively correlated with work engagement (r = -0.22, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0.16, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia) and innovative work behavior (r = -0.19, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0 .24, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia). Transformational and transactional leadership styles were positively correlated with work engagement and indicators of work outcomes in both countries, with the exception of the relationship between the transactional leadership style and work engagement in Ethiopia, which failed to reach significance. Laissez-faire leadership was weakly positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.13, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior (r = 0.17, p < 0.01) in South Korea, while in Ethiopia it was negatively correlated with work engagement (r = -0.21, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior (r = -0.16, p < 0.05). Its correlation with task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. Work engagement was moderately positively related with measures of outcome indicators -innovative work behavior (r = 0.57, p < 0.01, and r = 0.66, p < 0.01) and task performance (r = 0.46, p < 0.01, and r = 0.54, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and South Korea, respectively. With respect to internal consistency, all measures for both samples demonstrated traditionally acceptable internal reliability levels (? ranged from 0.77 to 0.95).
Bivariate correlation, suggest (M), standard departure (SD), and you may internal consistencies (Cronbach’s?) of your own studies variables on the South Korean (n = 291) and you can Ethiopian (letter = 147) examples.
The new coding scheme are below: Gender: step one = men, 2 = female; Education: 1 = diploma, dos = BSc, 3 = MSc, 4 = PhD; functions condition: step 1 = director/section direct/assistant lead, dos = cluster commander, step three = staff.
Viewpoints underneath the diagonals is actually relationship coefficients into South Korean sample, while those above the diagonals try values into the Ethiopian try, also inner structure strategies (Cronbach’s leader values).
To ascertain the Bu linkte bir gÃ¶z atÄ±n proposed hypotheses related to the relationships between leadership styles and the measures of work outcomes and work engagement, a series of multiple linear regression analyses was performed, in which each indicator of work outcomes and work engagement was regressed on styles of leadership consecutively for the two countries separately. In the analyses, the background variables of the participants were controlled to remove their effects. As shown in Table 2 , the outputs indicated that the three leadership styles taken together explained a significant amount of the variability in innovative work behavior (?R 2 = 0.26, F (8,138) = 8.82, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; ?R 2 = 0.48, F (8,182) = 47.1, p < 0.01 for South Korea), task performance (?R 2 = 0.20, F (8,138) = 5.55, p < .0.05 for Ethiopia; ?R 2 = 0.21, F (8,182) = , p < 0.01 for South Korea), and work engagement (?R 2 = 0.24, F (8,138) = 8.82, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; ?R 2 = 0.32, F (8,182) = 23.2, p < 0.01 for South Korea). However, when the path coefficient estimates were taken into account, the path effects of the transformational leadership style on innovative work behavior (? = 0.47, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; ? = 0. 54, p < 0. 01 for South Korea) and work engagement (? = 0.52, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; ? = 0.45, p < 0.01 for South Korea) were significant, while its effect on task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. The effect of the transactional leadership style was significant only for task performance (? = 0.29, p < 0. 01 for Ethiopia; ? = 0.35, p < 0.01 for South Korea), not for innovative work behavior. Similarly, laissez-faire leadership's negative effect also reached significance level for task performance only (? = -0.19, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia; ? = – 0.17, p < 0.01 for South Korea).