30 The indicator of the level of leadership tendency is measured if there were

30 the indicator of the level of leadership tendency

This preview shows page 31 - 37 out of 43 pages.

30
Image of page 31
The indicator of the level of leadership tendency is measured if there were significant difference in the area of leader efficacy. The F-test value of 1.28 shows that there is no significant difference exists. In the area of collective efficacy, the F-test value 1.37 shows that there is no significant difference exists. Further, in the area of district leadership, the F-test value of 0.17 shows that there is also no significant exist. Therefore, the decisions of hypothesis are accepted. The Significant Difference in the Level of Leadership Tendency of UM Business Students When Grouped According to their Program As presented in Table 5, the F-test was used to determine if there was a significant difference in the level of leadership tendency of UM business students when respondents were grouped according to their program. The indicator of the level of leadership tendency is measured if there were significant difference in the area of leader efficacy. The F-test value of 0.79 shows that there is no significant difference exists. In the area of collective efficacy, the F-test value 1.15 shows that there is no significant difference exists. Further, in the area of district leadership, the F-test value of 0.93 shows that there is also no significant exist. Therefore, the decisions of hypothesis are accepted. 31
Image of page 32
Table 3. Significant Difference in the Leadership Tendency of UM Business Students when grouped according to their Age Indicator Sum of square Df Mean Square F-test Significant Difference Decision on Ho Leader Efficacy Between Group 0.168 1 0.168 1.078 0.304 Accept Ho Within Group 15.242 98 0.156 Total 15.41 99 Collective Efficacy Between Group 0.413 1 0.413 2.403 0.124 Accept Ho 32
Image of page 33
Within Group 16.827 98 0.172 Total 17.24 99 District Leadershi p Between Group 0.092 1 0.092 0.502 0.48 Accept Ho Within Group 17.858 98 0.182 Total 17.95 99 Table 4. Significant Difference in the Leadership Tendency of UM Business Students when Grouped According to their Sex Indicator Sum of square Df Mean Square F-test Significant Difference Decision on Ho Leader Efficacy Between Group 0.198 1 0.198 1.278 0.261 Accept Ho Within Group 15.211 98 0.155 Total 15.41 99 Collective Efficacy Between Group 0.238 1 0.238 1.37 0.245 Accept Ho 33
Image of page 34
Within Group 17.002 98 0.173 Total 17.24 99 District Leadership Between Group 0.032 1 0.032 0.174 0.677 Accept Ho Within Group 17.918 98 0.183 Total 17.95 99 Table 5. Significant Difference in the Leadership Tendency of UM Business Students when Grouped According to their Program Indicator Sum of square Df Mean Square F-test Significant Difference Decision on Ho Leader Efficacy Between Group 0.749 6 0.125 0.792 0.578 Accept Ho Within Group 14.66 93 0.158 Total 15.41 99 Collective Efficacy Between Group 1.193 6 0.199 1.152 0.339 Accept Ho 34
Image of page 35
Within Group 16.047 93 0.173 Total 17.24 99 District Leadership Between Group 1.015 6 0.169 0.929 0.478 Accept Ho Within Group 16.935 93 0.182 Total 17.95 99 Chapter 4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations derived from the results of the study.
Image of page 36
Image of page 37

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture