Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
13.15 COMMUNICATING THE RESULTS
Fifteen teams worked on both simple and complex projects over the course of a
month. Five teams each were headed by a leader using one of the three following
leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, or laissez faire. Performance of the
teams on the projects was judged by management using a 0 (
not satisfactory
)
to 7 (
high quality
) rating scale. All effects met the equality of error variances as
tested by Levene's procedure and of equality of covariance matrices as tested
by Box's
M
test.
The main effects for leadership style,
F
(2, 12)
=
28
.
35,
p
<.
05, and
project type,
F
(1, 12)
05, were both statistically significant
but can be best understood in the context of the significant Leadership Style
=
97
.
20,
p
<.
×
Project Type interaction,
F
(2, 12)
=
80
.
40,
p
<.
05, which accounted for
70 percent of the within-subjects variance.
The graph of the interaction is presented in Figure 13.3. Simple effects
analysis indicated that the democratic leadership style was very effective with
both types of projects. Authoritarian leadership was equally effective as demo-
cratic leadership with simple projects but was the least effective with complex
projects. Laissez faire leadership was of intermediate effectiveness for both
types of projects, although somewhat less so with complex projects than with
simple projects.
CHAPTER 13 EXERCISES
13.1.
Assume that we are interested in the effects of music on recall.
Participants (
n
7) are presented with lists of twenty-five words as a within-
subjects factor (five-minute study) under the following type of music con-
ditions (
b
1
=
=
heavy metal,
b
2
=
jazz, and
b
3
=
soft rock). The between-
subjects factor was participant gender (
a
1
female). Type
of music was counterbalanced across all participants. The dependent mea-
sure was the total number of words recalled. The data are as follows:
=
male and
a
2
=
a
1
a
2
Subject
b
1
b
2
b
3
Subject
b
1
b
2
b
3
s
1
10
15
19
s
8
11
16
21
s
2
12
16
19
s
9
12
16
22
s
3
11
17
20
s
10
13
15
22
s
4
10
15
20
s
11
13
15
23
s
5
13
18
19
s
12
13
14
24
s
6
10
15
18
s
13
12
15
21
s
7
9
12
17
s
14
11
17
20
a.
Conduct an ANOVA on these data by hand and with SPSS or SAS.
b.
If the interaction is statistically significant, conduct simple effects and
multiple comparisons analyses by hand and with SPSS or SAS.