The respondents’ profile Essay
The respondents’ profile
The total number of respondents or ESGR employees interviewed were 44 employees arranged into two (2) groups with their breakdown, take note, as follows: A. Seven (7) designated as Leaders (all of who are former military officers), renamed later, take note, as Senior Leaders or as Senior Officers: 1……4……. 06s…….. (on the military pay scale is a Commissioned Officer that in the Army, Air Force, and Marines is a Colonel, and in the Navy and Coast Guard is a Captain) and 2……3……. GS15s…. (signifies “General Schedule. ” It is the pay scale utilized by the federal.
+ government and is separated into 15 grades. A GS-15 is the highest level a civilian can attain before entering the “Senior Executive Service” which is a higher level, equivalent to flag officers in the military); while ……. 7 Leaders in All B. Thirty-Seven (37) designated as Others, renamed later, take note as Junior Leaders or Junior Officers: 1….. 14: 8………….. are former Military, not sure whether officer or enlisted… GS Civilians ………….. 6…………are Civilians 2….. 23: 14……. ……are Officers……………………………………………. …Military.
…+……… 9…………are Enlisted Personnel (EPs, NCOs). ……37 Others in All The Survey Questionnaire To gather organizational information, the Baldrige examiners used a 63-question instrument, Appendix I (Peacock, 2006) to interview all the 44 employees representative of all the ESGR Directorates. Respondents were asked to rate their responses to each of the 63 questions, using the following five-point scale: (5) Yes, Completely, (4) Mostly, (3) Somewhat, (2) Slightly, (1) No, Not At All, or Does Not Apply. If a respondent responded with “Don’t Know,” the questionnaire was scored at (1) No, Not At All.
All respondents were asked to rate their knowledge of ESGR performance for each question. Limitations of the Study The organization is small so there was only a sample of 44 employees surveyed. As in most surveys, where the analyst cannot confidentially identify each respondent, it is difficult to make absolute conclusions of the results generated. More time and effort are needed to access Baldrige winners for their scores to be compared with these Study scores. The possible comparison can be dedicated to a new research undertaking altogether. Analysis of the Data.
Data analyses took place between January 24 to February 21, 2007. The individual averages were computed from the set of raw and individually “sanitized” (or erased with identifying names or marks) Baldrige data or Baldrige scores (Appendices B, C, and D) coming from the questionnaire of 63 questions divided into the Baldrige Criteria’s seven (7) focus areas or major categories, where for each category item, namely: 1. Leadership (questions 1 to 10) 2. Strategic Planning (questions 11 to 16) 3. Customer and Market Focus (questions 17 to 21) 4. Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management (questions 22 to 28) 5.
Human Resource Focus (questions 29 to 39) 6. Process Management (questions 40 to 50) 7. Business Results (questions 51 to 63) The hypothesis is that individuals who scored high in the leadership item also score high in the other items. These individual averages of raw Baldrige scores were used to study the correlation of Leadership Category with the other items, first through a combined correlation matrix with all combined data sets, regardless of group. Then, the correlation matrix among the seven items were computed separately for each group; second within the Others Group; and third within the Leaders Group.
The p-value of the Pearson correlation coefficients indicated the level of significance of these correlations. A correlation coefficient with a p-value less than or equal to 0. 05 is significant at the 5% level, while a p-value less than or equal to 0. 01 is significant at 1% level. Correlation coefficients with p-values greater than 0. 05 are considered not statistically significant. Significant positive correlations between two items mean that they are directly related, when the scores of one item increase, the scores in the other item also increase.
On the other hand, negative correlations indicate inverse relationships, one item scores high, the other item scores low. No correlation would indicate that the scores for the item can go in any direction. Correlations, however, do not indicate a cause and effect relationship. This means that we cannot make direct assertion as to the nature of the relationship. The same Baldrige scores or item averages were then used to compare the 37 Others Group and the 7 Leaders Group were analyzed further using Minitab statistical softwares.
The differences in the average responses between the Others Group and Leaders Group were tested for each item using two-sample t-test with unequal sample sizes. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were finally run to find the items that could predict leadership scores for both the Others Group and the Leaders Group. With the stepwise method, the number of predictors (X’s) were reduced from a potential of six predictors to as little as two predictors which give significant regression coefficients.
The default values for entering a predictor to the equation were used, namely: 0. 15 for alpha-to-enter and 0. 15 alpha-to-remove. A group dummy variable was also included (0 for the Others Group and 1 for the Leaders Group) to come up with a single regression equation. The significance of the entire regression lines were tested using Analysis of Variance for regression analysis. The significance of each regression coefficient (constant or intercept and slopes) was indicated by its t-value and p-value. As with the t-test, the p-value is the level of significance.
University/College: University of Chicago
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 18 May 2017
Let us write you a custom essay sample on The respondents’ profile
for only $16.38 $13.9/page