Who are leading? A survey of organizational context explaining leadership behaviour of managers and non-managerial employees in public organizations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations (n = 1,266).

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1 Leadership overall	4.10	.905	-
2 Leadership OS	3.83	1.137	.83**	-
3 Leadership RG	4.13	1.141	.90**	.63**	-
4 Leadership IP	3.97	1.030	.82**	.55**	.75**	-
5 Leadership HR	4.46	.931	.84**	.61**	.67**	.61**	-
6 Formal leadership position	.22	.413	.29**	.24**	.30**	.18**	.28**	-
7 Centralization	6.00	2.556	−.04	−.07*	−.03	−.01	−.02	−.14**	-
8 Formalization	6.91	2.295	−.01	−.15**	.02	.10**	.02	−.08**	.34**	-
9 Clarity division authority	6.70	2.221	−.02	−.11**	.02	.05	.00	.04	.15**	.42**	-
10 Environmental complexity	3.40	.607	.36**	.32**	.32**	.27**	.32**	.12**	.07**	.07*	−.01	-
11 Gender	.38	.491	−.06*	−.10**	−.07*	−.04	.01	−.11**	.06*	.11**	.05	−.02	-
12 Age	54.70	7.672	−.01	−.03	.02	−.02	.00	.01	−.04	.00	.07**	.02	−.15**	-
13 Years current position	10.28	8.005	−.10**	−.12**	−.10**	−.04	−.07*	−.11**	−.03	.02	.04	−.08**	−.05	.25**	-
14 Size organizational unit	2.52	1.178	.08**	.07*	.07*	.07*	.07*	.00	.00	.06*	.06*	.14**	−.04	.02	−.03	-
15 Universities	.23	.420	−.03	.01	−.05	−.03	−.017	.11**	.013	−.17**	−.11**	−.06*	.07*	−.02	−.02	.00
16 UMCs	.14	.349	−.02	−.06*	−.04	.01	.014	.004	.07*	.04	.01	−.02	.13**	−.05	−.05	.14**
17 Police	.19	.393	.03	−.04	.05	.02	.07*	.07*	.06*	.13**	.14**	.05	−.17**	.03	.03	−.04
18 Municipalities	.44	.496	.02	.06*	.03	.017	−.05	−.15**	−.10**	.01	−.03	.03	−.01	.02	.02	−.07*

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table 2. Independent samples t-test (equal variances not assumed).

Leadership behaviour	Formal leadership position	N	M	SD	t	df	p
Overall	No	990	3.96	.901	−12.175	532.309	.000
	Yes	276	4.60	.729
Open Systems	No	990	3.68	1.147	−10.063	531.944	.000
	Yes	276	4.35	.928
Rational Goal	No	990	3.95	1.129	−12.249	516.497	.000
	Yes	276	4.77	.942
Internal Process	No	990	3.88	1.051	−7.002	519.722	.000
	Yes	276	4.31	.871
Human Relations	No	990	4.33	.912	−10.788	476.973	.000
	Yes	276	4.95	.829

Table 3. Regression analyses overall leadership behaviour (n = 1,266).

DV: Total all items (α=0.92)	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
	B	B	B	B	B
Constant	4.139	3.919	3.917	3.964	3.970
Gender	−.118*	−.056	−.056	−.058	−.053
Age	.001	.000	.000	−.001	−.001
Years current position	−.012**	−.007*	−.007*	−.005	−.005
Size organizational unit	.057*	.053*	.053*	.024	.024
Dummy UMC	.004	.037	.035	.024	.019
Dummy Police	−.007	.030	.033	.001	−.015
Dummy Municipality	.009	.116†	.116†	.077	.068
Formal leadership position (FLP)		.633**	.643**	.545**	.558**
Centralization			.001	−.008	−.009
Formalization			.011	.003	−.007
Clear division authority			−.017	−.008	−.014
Environmental complexity				.479**	.475**
INT FLP*Centralization					.008
INT FLP*Formalization					.045
INT FLP*Clear division authority					.037
INT FLP*Environmental complexity					−.005
R^2adjusted	0.015	0.093	0.093	0.191	0.193
F	3.685**	17.271**	12.752**	25.851**	19.950**
R^2change		0.079	0.002	0.098	0.005
Fchange		110.132**	0.731 (n.s.)	152.942**	2.002†

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; †p < 0.10.

Reference category sector = universities; Variables are grand mean centred (except gender + sector dummies).

Table 4. Regression analyses by type of leadership behaviour (n = 1,266).

DV:	Model 6a Open Systems (α=0.84)	Model 6b Rational Goal (α=0.83)	Model 6c Internal Process (α=0.74)	Model 6d Human Relations (α=0.75)
	B	B	B	B
Constant	3.772	3.895	3.932	4.281
Gender	−.154*	−.062	−.077	.081
Age	−.004	.003	−.004	.001
Years current position	−.008*	−.007†	−.001	−.003
Size organizational unit	.040	.012	.027	.016
Dummy UMC	−.084	.041	.038	.080
Dummy Police	−.173†	.103	−.090	.098
Dummy Municipality	.090	.170*	.010	.004
Formal leadership position (FLP)	.528**	.749**	.414**	.541**
Centralization	.007	−.012	−.024†	−.007
Formalization	−.074**	.004	.033*	.009
Clear division authority	−.035*	−.002	.000	−.021
Environmental complexity	.525**	.532**	.426**	.418**
INT FLP*Centralization	−.044	.018	.045	.012
INT FLP*Formalization	.067†	.042	.074*	−.001
INT FLP*Clear division authority	.041	.018	.032	.057†
INT FLP*Environmental complexity	.065	−.038	−.095	.046
R^2adjusted	0.184	0.174	0.107	0.155
F	18.87**	17.64**	10.45**	15.50**

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; †p < 0.10.

Reference category sector = universities; Variables are grand mean centred (except gender + sector dummies).

Figure 2. Interaction effect of formal leadership position and formalization on open systems leadership behaviour.

Figure 3. Interaction effect of formal leadership position and formalization on internal process leadership behaviour.

Figure 4. Interaction effect of formal leadership position and clarity of division of competences and responsibilities on human relations leadership behaviour.