Self-Designed Fictitious Study Utilizes Statistical Methodologies

Question: Describe about participants in a Leadership Training Program Rated as Better Managers Compared to Those Who do Not? Answer: Leadership training program is actually a major professional training which actually helps individuals to grow the leadership qualities to actually perform on a dignified position with adequate supervision to guide the employees to their dedicated work. But, there is always a question that basically arise that is are the participants in a leadership training program rated as better mangers compared to those who do not. In fact it is a serious and an important aspect that needs major research. It has been prolifically noticed that the there is a vast difference between leaders and management. In every aspect both are different from each other. But managers those who dont take part in the leadership training program are they not so efficient to those who take part. This study actually states the basic needs and wants of comparing the better managers (Burns, 1978). The article clearly explains every single details about the how leadership training actually differentiate the managers tho se who have not taken the training program. Experience also plays a key role making managers a prolific leader who can actually take the leaders role to boost the employees motivation and morale and help them to dedicate them towards their work. So, the module clearly states each and every pros and cons that is needed in the managerial sector and will potentially clear out the major doubts on better managers. It actually cooperates and significantly executes major roles and procedures of how without the help of leadership training program better managers are also made by experience. Experience is one major factor that increases the potential of an individual rather than training procedures and the potential of being a leader cum manager without the training program is stated in this module. Hypothesis A Hypothesis is a research made on a given topic. It is of different nature based on the requirement of the research conducted by the researcher. It can be of descriptive in nature or may be of quantitative in nature. In other words it is said to have an analysis done on a given topic. Here in this report a hypothesis is done on a given topic of Participants in a leadership training program rated better managers from those who do not participates in the leadership. For completing this hypothesis several studies were made and questionnaires were prepared to collect data regarding the given topic. A fictitious data set is prepared that shows how fifty employees of several organizations were interview and several different results were formulated from the employees (Flynn Stack, 2006). The employees interviewed were of several positions in the organizations ranging from employee level to management level. For conducting this hypothesis a fictional topic was chosen that raised several q uestions regarding the usefulness of the leadership training program for the managers to be expert in their field and compete people of the same rank in performing a better duty. The entire report is discussed in a descriptive manner and a statistical analysis is done in the section later on. Problem questions The study or report deals with the main question that how the leadership training program is helpful for the students to become efficient managers (Tracy, 2014). The entire study in the report deals with the questionnaires presented to the employee and managers of few organizations. The main questions that are discussed in this report are as follows: How often are the training members chosen as a manager? Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Personal skill development Scheme Is the Study useful? How this study is useful for the students? Is Leadership training program helpful? Effect of leadership program on the managers. Effect of Leadership program on the company. Methodology Research Design Research design is the blue print of the report that is made on a research study. It is a method of representing the research in a report manner. Different methods of research are done. Some of them are descriptive research, explanatory and exploratory research. In this report the descriptive method is use to represent the report because it requires a huge base of knowledge to complete this research work (Giuliani Kurson, 2002). The report represents how the data are collected and how it is used to complete the analysis as required completing the hypothesis. Data collection and sampling Data collection is one of the most important methods of a hypothesis. It increases the knowledge base of the research to complete the required work. In this method the secondary data collection technique is used to collect data to increase the knowledge base (Safire Safir, 1990). The data set prepared for completing the research is fictitious in nature but deals with a real worlds issue. For completing the research several questions were prepared based on the given topic and fifty cases were taken in consideration as samples for creating variables to complete the analysis. Data Analysis Data analysis is the most complicated task for any researcher. It is the most difficult part of any research. In completing this study the variables from the data set are used to complete the statistical analysis to get the outcome of the research on the given topic (Krueger, 2004). For conducting the statistical analysis SPSS software is used were the variables are represented in tables and the statistical analysis is done with the help of the data set. Here, in this report the correlation between the variables are found and the results are represented in tabular form and with the help of graphs. Research limitation Every research work has certain limitation. A researcher needs to follow the guidelines that are related to the research work. The most important limitation of a research work is the time constraint for completing the work. The time must be kept in mind while conducting a research study. Data Analysis Data analysis is the most important part of any study done on a particular topic. It is important make the analysis as per the requirement to get correct result for the variables collected from the data set. For completing the analysis in this report SPSS software is used and the data are manipulated from the data set to complete the analysis. The analysis done on the data set is given below: Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age 50 1 4 2.24 .938 Sex 50 1 2 1.28 .454 Salary 50 2 4 2.90 .839 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 50 1 5 2.38 1.086 Is Leadership training program helpful? 50 1 5 2.68 1.096 Effect of leadership program on the managers 50 1 5 2.74 .922 Effect of Leadership program on the company 50 1 5 2.60 .969 Effect of leadership program on the industry 50 1 5 2.72 1.031 How this study is useful for the students 50 1 5 2.88 1.118 Effects on the employees 50 1 5 2.26 1.084 Are the Subject useful? 50 1 4 2.32 .891 Help in communication 50 1 4 2.44 .907 Personal skill development Scheme 50 1 5 2.76 1.041 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 50 1 5 2.46 1.164 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 50 1 5 2.62 1.048 Valid N (listwise) 50 Crosstabs Age * Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Crosstab Count Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 3 3 5 4 0 15 30-40 2 6 1 1 0 10 40-50 6 8 6 2 1 23 50-60 1 0 0 1 0 2 Total 12 17 12 8 1 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.869a 12 .540 Likelihood Ratio 11.716 12 .469 Linear-by-Linear Association .608 1 .436 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.111 .153 -.777 .441c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.121 .152 -.848 .401c N of Valid Cases 50 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Age * Is Leadership training program helpful? Crosstab Count Is Leadership training program helpful? Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 2 4 4 4 1 15 30-40 2 3 4 1 0 10 40-50 3 9 8 2 1 23 50-60 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total 7 16 16 8 3 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.410a 12 .340 Likelihood Ratio 11.036 12 .526 Linear-by-Linear Association .014 1 .907 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 18 cells (90.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .12. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .017 .161 .116 .909c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.003 .156 -.021 .983c N of Valid Cases 50 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Age * Effect of leadership program on the managers Crosstab Count Effect of leadership program on the managers Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 1 6 5 2 1 15 30-40 1 3 3 3 0 10 40-50 0 12 9 2 0 23 50-60 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total 2 21 17 8 2 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 20.508a 12 .058 Likelihood Ratio 15.992 12 .192 Linear-by-Linear Association .266 1 .606 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .074 .164 .512 .611c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .046 .152 .320 .750c N of Valid Cases 50 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Age * Effect of Leadership program on the company Crosstab Count Effect of Leadership program on the company Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 6 5 4 0 0 15 30-40 0 1 7 1 1 10 40-50 0 11 7 4 1 23 50-60 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 6 17 20 5 2 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 27.455a 12 .007 Likelihood Ratio 30.165 12 .003 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.972 1 .008 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .377 .106 2.822 .007c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .342 .127 2.522 .015c N of Valid Cases 50 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Salary * Personal skill development Scheme Crosstab Count Personal skill development Scheme Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Salary 10000-20000 2 2 8 7 1 20 20000-30000 3 7 4 1 0 15 30000-40000 2 3 6 4 0 15 Total 7 12 18 12 1 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.513a 8 .231 Likelihood Ratio 11.258 8 .188 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.386 1 .239 N of Valid Cases 50 a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.168 .138 -1.182 .243c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.183 .143 -1.287 .204c N of Valid Cases 50 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Regression Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .393a .155 -.120 .480 a. Predictors: (Constant), How often are the training members chosen as a manager?, Effect of leadership program on the managers, Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program, Effect of Leadership program on the company, Help in communication, Are the Subject useful?, How this study is useful for the students, Is Leadership training program helpful?, Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?, Effects on the employees, Effect of leadership program on the industry, Personal skill development Scheme. ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.559 12 .130 .564 .856b Residual 8.521 37 .230 Total 10.080 49 a. Dependent Variable: Sex b. Predictors: (Constant), How often are the training members choosen as a manager?, Effect of leadership program on the managers, Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program, Effect of Leadership program on the company, Help in communication, Are the Subject useful?, How this study is useful for the students, Is Leadership training program helpful?, Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers?, Effects on the employees, Effect of leadership program on the industry, Personal skill development Scheme Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.016 .722 1.406 .168 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program -.040 .073 -.096 -.549 .586 Is Leadership training program helpful? .105 .068 .255 1.544 .131 Effect of leadership program on the managers .073 .084 .148 .870 .390 Effect of Leadership program on the company -.009 .073 -.020 -.128 .899 Effect of leadership program on the industry .010 .075 .022 .127 .900 How this study is useful for the students -.034 .067 -.084 -.512 .612 Effects on the employees .017 .074 .041 .232 .818 Is the Subject useful? -.046 .080 -.091 -.579 .566 Help in communication .010 .078 .020 .127 .899 Personal skill development Scheme -.070 .078 -.160 -.894 .377 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? .044 .065 .112 .670 .507 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? .040 .068 .092 .588 .560 a. Dependent Variable: Sex T-Test One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Age 50 2.24 .938 .133 Sex 50 1.28 .454 .064 Salary 50 2.90 .839 .119 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 50 2.38 1.086 .154 Is Leadership training program helpful? 50 2.68 1.096 .155 Effect of leadership program on the managers 50 2.74 .922 .130 Effect of Leadership program on the company 50 2.60 .969 .137 Effect of leadership program on the industry 50 2.72 1.031 .146 How this study is useful for the students 50 2.88 1.118 .158 Effects on the employees 50 2.26 1.084 .153 Are the Subject useful? 50 2.32 .891 .126 Help in communication 50 2.44 .907 .128 Personal skill development Scheme 50 2.76 1.041 .147 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 50 2.46 1.164 .165 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 50 2.62 1.048 .148 One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Age 16.885 49 .000 2.240 1.97 Sex 19.956 49 .000 1.280 1.15 Salary 24.438 49 .000 2.900 2.66 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 15.498 49 .000 2.380 2.07 Is Leadership training program helpful? 17.288 49 .000 2.680 2.37 Effect of leadership program on the managers 21.022 49 .000 2.740 2.48 Effect of Leadership program on the company 18.975 49 .000 2.600 2.32 Effect of leadership program on the industry 18.656 49 .000 2.720 2.43 How this study is useful for the students 18.210 49 .000 2.880 2.56 Effects on the employees 14.737 49 .000 2.260 1.95 Are the Subject useful? 18.417 49 .000 2.320 2.07 Help in communication 19.020 49 .000 2.440 2.18 Personal skill development Scheme 18.744 49 .000 2.760 2.46 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 14.941 49 .000 2.460 2.13 How often are the training members chosen as a manager? 17.684 49 .000 2.620 2.32 One-way ANOVA Sig. Age Between Groups .120 Within Groups Total Salary Between Groups .824 Within Groups Total Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Between Groups .214 Within Groups Total Is Leadership training program helpful? Between Groups .062 Within Groups Total Effect of leadership program on the managers Between Groups .829 Within Groups Total Effect of Leadership program on the company Between Groups .898 Within Groups Total Effect of leadership program on the industry Between Groups .378 Within Groups Total How this study is useful for the students Between Groups .355 Within Groups Total Effects on the employees Between Groups .918 Within Groups Total Are the Subject useful? Between Groups .606 Within Groups Total Help in communication Between Groups .774 Within Groups ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Help in communication Total 40.320 49 Personal skill development Scheme Between Groups .691 1 .691 .633 Within Groups 52.429 48 1.092 Total 53.120 49 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Between Groups .650 1 .650 .474 Within Groups 65.770 48 1.370 Total 66.420 49 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? Between Groups 1.093 1 1.093 .996 Within Groups 52.687 48 1.098 Total 53.780 49 ANOVA Sig. Help in communication Total Personal skill development Scheme Between Groups .430 Within Groups Total Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Between Groups .494 Within Groups Total How often are the training members chosen as a manager? Between Groups .323 Within Groups Total Discussion Here in this report data analysis is done on the variables manipulated from the fictitious data set that helps to complete the statistical analysis on the given topic. All data and reports are presented in tabular form to make it easier to understand for the readers. Graphical representation of the data and results are also provided along with the results to make it understandable and interesting for the audience. Here in the analysis section the dependent variables are compared with the independent variables to find the correlation among the variables. The mean, standard deviation, regression analysis is done with the help of the variables and the results are represented in the analysis section. It can be seen that how the T-test have been conducted with the variables and an ANOVA analysis is also done in the above section. The above section deals with the statistical analysis of the data manipulated from the fictitious data set. It shows how the data are interrelated with each othe r and how they are different from each other to solve the problem arises in the questionnaires. All types of required statistical analysis is been done in the report to meet the requirement of the given topic. Conclusion The module clearly states about the does and dont that are basically need to be prolific manager at an executive or administrative level. Training is always not important in acquiring to be the best manager in any level. If we see on a wider basis we can easily conclude that rather than training experience also plays a key and significant role in becoming a major and well established manager to carry out or to carry forward the tasks that are incorporated in an organization. Basically managers are good leaders. Managers play a key role in establishing the firms orientation along with its main motive, aim and objectives. These prolific features can only be identified and taken into consideration when an individual as a manager has wide perspective of thinking to grow (Lawriwsky, 1984). The tactics, strategies, implementation of plan are all leadership qualities that actually a good manager persists which actually help them to execute major projects, works on wider basis thinking about the growth of the organization. Leadership tactics are essential in every sector. The leadership role must be well performed to bring out the major necessities from an employee making the employee motivated to keep its focus and dedication towards the work. A manager can easily acquire the leadership quality by gaining experience from different fields and sector. A manager can easily be a leader by prolifically boosting up the employees morale and motivate them and help them in their major works to help them to achieve the goal along with the organizational objectives and specific goals. Leadership and management are quite different from each other in the organizational structures to execute great plans and objectives. But it is not necessary for a manager to take any professional or any prolific training to become a dignified leader. Sometimes even experience also matters and counts which actually makes individuals better manager cum leaders without a leadership training program. References Burns, J. (1978).Leadership. New York: Harper Row. Flynn, J., Stack, M. (2006).The role of the preceptor. New York: Springer Pub. Giuliani, R., Kurson, K. (2002).Leadership. New York: Hyperion. Krueger, G. (2004).Enterprise restructuring and the role of managers in Russia. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Lawriwsky, M. (1984).Corporate structure performance. London: Croom Helm. Safire, W., Safir, L. (1990).Leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tracy, B. (2014).Leadership. New York: American Management Association. Appendices Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age 50 1 4 2.24 .938 Sex 50 1 2 1.28 .454 Salary 50 2 4 2.90 .839 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 50 1 5 2.38 1.086 Is Leadership training program helpful? 50 1 5 2.68 1.096 Effect of leadership program on the managers 50 1 5 2.74 .922 Effect of Leadership program on the company 50 1 5 2.60 .969 Effect of leadership program on the industry 50 1 5 2.72 1.031 How this study is useful for the students 50 1 5 2.88 1.118 Effects on the employees 50 1 5 2.26 1.084 Are the Subject useful? 50 1 4 2.32 .891 Help in communication 50 1 4 2.44 .907 Personal skill development Scheme 50 1 5 2.76 1.041 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 50 1 5 2.46 1.164 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 50 1 5 2.62 1.048 Valid N (listwise) 50 Crosstabs Age * Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Crosstab Count Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 3 3 5 4 0 15 30-40 2 6 1 1 0 10 40-50 6 8 6 2 1 23 50-60 1 0 0 1 0 2 Total 12 17 12 8 1 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.869a 12 .540 Likelihood Ratio 11.716 12 .469 Linear-by-Linear Association .608 1 .436 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.111 .153 -.777 .441c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.121 .152 -.848 .401c N of Valid Cases 50 Age * Is Leadership training program helpful? Crosstab Count Is Leadership training program helpful? Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 2 4 4 4 1 15 30-40 2 3 4 1 0 10 40-50 3 9 8 2 1 23 50-60 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total 7 16 16 8 3 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.410a 12 .340 Likelihood Ratio 11.036 12 .526 Linear-by-Linear Association .014 1 .907 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .017 .161 .116 .909c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.003 .156 -.021 .983c N of Valid Cases 50 Age * Effect of leadership program on the managers Crosstab Count Effect of leadership program on the managers Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 1 6 5 2 1 15 30-40 1 3 3 3 0 10 40-50 0 12 9 2 0 23 50-60 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total 2 21 17 8 2 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 20.508a 12 .058 Likelihood Ratio 15.992 12 .192 Linear-by-Linear Association .266 1 .606 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .074 .164 .512 .611c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .046 .152 .320 .750c N of Valid Cases 50 Age * Effect of Leadership program on the company Crosstab Count Effect of Leadership program on the company Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 6 5 4 0 0 15 30-40 0 1 7 1 1 10 40-50 0 11 7 4 1 23 50-60 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 6 17 20 5 2 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 27.455a 12 .007 Likelihood Ratio 30.165 12 .003 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.972 1 .008 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .377 .106 2.822 .007c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .342 .127 2.522 .015c N of Valid Cases 50 Age * Effect of leadership program on the industry Crosstab Count Effect of leadership program on the industry Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Age 20-30 0 6 5 2 2 15 30-40 0 5 2 1 2 10 Salary * Personal skill development Scheme Crosstab Count Personal skill development Scheme Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Salary 10000-20000 2 2 8 7 1 20 20000-30000 3 7 4 1 0 15 30000-40000 2 3 6 4 0 15 Total 7 12 18 12 1 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.513a 8 .231 Likelihood Ratio 11.258 8 .188 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.386 1 .239 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.168 .138 -1.182 .243c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.183 .143 -1.287 .204c N of Valid Cases 50 Salary * Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Crosstab Count Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Total Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Salary 10000-20000 3 12 3 0 2 20 20000-30000 4 2 4 3 2 15 30000-40000 3 6 4 2 0 15 Total 10 20 11 5 4 50 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.492a 8 .175 Likelihood Ratio 14.938 8 .060 Linear-by-Linear Association .036 1 .849 N of Valid Cases 50 Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .027 .125 .188 .851c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .062 .131 .429 .670c N of Valid Cases 50 Regression Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .393a .155 -.120 .480 ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.559 12 .130 .564 .856b Residual 8.521 37 .230 Total 10.080 49 Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.016 .722 1.406 .168 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program -.040 .073 -.096 -.549 .586 Is Leadership training program helpful? .105 .068 .255 1.544 .131 Effect of leadership program on the managers .073 .084 .148 .870 .390 Effect of Leadership program on the company -.009 .073 -.020 -.128 .899 Effect of leadership program on the industry .010 .075 .022 .127 .900 How this study is useful for the students -.034 .067 -.084 -.512 .612 Effects on the employees .017 .074 .041 .232 .818 Are the Subject useful? -.046 .080 -.091 -.579 .566 Help in communication .010 .078 .020 .127 .899 Personal skill development Scheme -.070 .078 -.160 -.894 .377 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? .044 .065 .112 .670 .507 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? .040 .068 .092 .588 .560 T-Test One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Age 50 2.24 .938 .133 Sex 50 1.28 .454 .064 Salary 50 2.90 .839 .119 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 50 2.38 1.086 .154 Is Leadership training program helpful? 50 2.68 1.096 .155 Effect of leadership program on the managers 50 2.74 .922 .130 Effect of Leadership program on the company 50 2.60 .969 .137 Effect of leadership program on the industry 50 2.72 1.031 .146 How this study is useful for the students 50 2.88 1.118 .158 Effects on the employees 50 2.26 1.084 .153 Are the Subject useful? 50 2.32 .891 .126 Help in communication 50 2.44 .907 .128 Personal skill development Scheme 50 2.76 1.041 .147 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 50 2.46 1.164 .165 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 50 2.62 1.048 .148 One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Age 16.885 49 .000 2.240 1.97 Sex 19.956 49 .000 1.280 1.15 Salary 24.438 49 .000 2.900 2.66 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 15.498 49 .000 2.380 2.07 Is Leadership training program helpful? 17.288 49 .000 2.680 2.37 Effect of leadership program on the managers 21.022 49 .000 2.740 2.48 Effect of Leadership program on the company 18.975 49 .000 2.600 2.32 Effect of leadership program on the industry 18.656 49 .000 2.720 2.43 How this study is useful for the students 18.210 49 .000 2.880 2.56 Effects on the employees 14.737 49 .000 2.260 1.95 Are the Subject useful? 18.417 49 .000 2.320 2.07 Help in communication 19.020 49 .000 2.440 2.18 Personal skill development Scheme 18.744 49 .000 2.760 2.46 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 14.941 49 .000 2.460 2.13 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 17.684 49 .000 2.620 2.32 One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper Age 2.51 Sex 1.41 Salary 3.14 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program 2.69 Is Leadership training program helpful? 2.99 Effect of leadership program on the managers 3.00 Effect of Leadership program on the company 2.88 Effect of leadership program on the industry 3.01 How this study is useful for the students 3.20 Effects on the employees 2.57 Are the Subject useful? 2.57 Help in communication 2.70 Personal skill development Scheme 3.06 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? 2.79 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? 2.92 One-way ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Age Between Groups 2.136 1 2.136 2.502 Within Groups 40.984 48 .854 Total 43.120 49 Salary Between Groups .036 1 .036 .050 Within Groups 34.464 48 .718 Total 34.500 49 Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Between Groups 1.851 1 1.851 1.589 Within Groups 55.929 48 1.165 Total 57.780 49 Is Leadership training program helpful? Between Groups 4.166 1 4.166 3.655 Within Groups 54.714 48 1.140 Total 58.880 49 Effect of leadership program on the managers Between Groups .041 1 .041 .047 Within Groups 41.579 48 .866 Total 41.620 49 Effect of Leadership program on the company Between Groups .016 1 .016 .017 Within Groups 45.984 48 .958 Total 46.000 49 Effect of leadership program on the industry Between Groups .846 1 .846 .792 Within Groups 51.234 48 1.067 Total 52.080 49 How this study is useful for the students Between Groups 1.093 1 1.093 .872 Within Groups 60.187 48 1.254 Total 61.280 49 Effects on the employees Between Groups .013 1 .013 .011 Within Groups 57.607 48 1.200 Total 57.620 49 Are the Subject useful? Between Groups .217 1 .217 .270 Within Groups 38.663 48 .805 Total 38.880 49 Help in communication Between Groups .070 1 .070 .083 Within Groups 40.250 48 .839 ANOVA Sig. Age Between Groups .120 Within Groups Total Salary Between Groups .824 Within Groups Total Are they were member of the Leadership Training Program Between Groups .214 Within Groups Total Is Leadership training program helpful? Between Groups .062 Within Groups Total Effect of leadership program on the managers Between Groups .829 Within Groups Total Effect of Leadership program on the company Between Groups .898 Within Groups Total Effect of leadership program on the industry Between Groups .378 Within Groups Total How this study is useful for the students Between Groups .355 Within Groups Total Effects on the employees Between Groups .918 Within Groups Total Are the Subject useful? Between Groups .606 Within Groups Total Help in communication Between Groups .774 Within Groups ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Help in communication Total 40.320 49 Personal skill development Scheme Between Groups .691 1 .691 .633 Within Groups 52.429 48 1.092 Total 53.120 49 Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Between Groups .650 1 .650 .474 Within Groups 65.770 48 1.370 Total 66.420 49 How often are the training members choosen as a manager? Between Groups 1.093 1 1.093 .996 Within Groups 52.687 48 1.098 Total 53.780 49 ANOVA Sig. Help in communication Total Personal skill development Scheme Between Groups .430 Within Groups Total Are Participants of leadership programs better Mangers? Between Groups .494 Within Groups Total How often are the training members chosen as a manager? Between Groups .323 Within Groups Total