THE LEADER’S VALUES AND LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE:
A COMPARISON OF MAYOR MARIDES FERNANDO OF
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Most often, the study of government leaders and their leadership practices is approached via the examination of their traits, styles, the leader-follower relationship, and leadership processes by stages from planning to implementation and evaluation.
This study explores another approach, which is the cognitive approach (cybernetic approach or the human information processing model) in studying leadership behavior. So far, none yet has been reviewed in the literature using this approach in studying leadership behavior. If ever, this study will be a pioneer in using the human information processing model to account for leadership behavior.
The focus of the study is on the influence of value-orientations of the leader on their decisions, actions, practices, behaviors, and performances. It explores the relationship of value-orientations and the leadership decisions, actions, behaviors, and performances of two city mayors – of former city mayor of Marikina City, Maria Lourdes C. Fernando, and of former city mayor of San Juan City, Joseph Victor G. Ejercito. Both were city mayors from 2001 to 2010.
Location map of
Manila Area.
Statement of the Problem
1. Given that value-orientations influence an individual’s decisions and behavior, which value-orientations may have guided the two city mayors’ leadership decision-making and action?
2. How may the value-orientations of the two city mayors be described and explained as the bases for their leadership decisions and actions, using the human information processing model as theoretical framework of the study?
3. Because value-orientations emerge in early childhood socialization processes, to which particular socialization processes were the two city mayors exposed which subsequently shaped their value-orientations in adult life?
4. To what extent have their value-orientations affected their role as city mayors? To what extent have their value-orientations contributed to the effectiveness of their leadership decisions and actions?
5. Assuming that among the two city mayors’ value-orientations are those that relate to such best practices in business such as total quality management (TQM), benchmarking, and cost-effectiveness, to what extent have these value-orientations provided the basis of the two city mayors’ leadership decisions and actions? To what extent have these best practices been applied and used as guide in decisions and actions concerning city government programs, projects, and other activities?
6. Which city government programs, projects, and activities of the two city mayors received the benefit of their value-orientations on the use of best practices in business?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Factors in the leadership human information processing model.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Operational definitions:
Value-orientations
Operationally defined as presence or non-presence of the value-orientation in the interview of the city mayor measured in terms of:
a. number of times mentioned, and
b. degree of elaboration or amount of explanation made about it by the city mayor
- zero presence, when the city mayor does not refer to it at all.
- slight presence, when the city mayor mentions it once without elaboration.
- moderate presence, when the city mayor mentions it with accompanying elaboration or explanation, and
- strong presence – the city mayor mentions it elaborately in several instances during the interview.
Value-orientation on total quality management
Operationally defined as:
1. Number of times the city mayor reflects on TQM concerns in decisions affecting the need for cooperation from various stakeholders of the city community, conformance to standards or norms, fast delivery of service, information access, distribution and sharing, and participation and involvement of the stakeholders in the implementation of programs, projects, and activities.
2. Number of times that TQM concerns are inputted into the city government program, project, or activity as the foundation of their philosophy or rationale, or their objectives, and
3. Number of times used as one of the criteria in judging the city mayor’s leadership performance.
Value-orientation on benchmarking
Operationally defined as:
1. Number of times the city mayor reflects on benchmarking concerns in the decisions affecting the need for cooperation from various stakeholders of the city community, conformance to standards or norms, fast delivery of service, information access, distribution and sharing, and participation and involvement of the stakeholders in the implementation of programs, projects, and activities.
2. Number of times benchmarking concerns are inputted into the city government program, project, or activity as the foundation of their philosophy or rationale, or their objectives, and
3. Number of times used as one of the criteria in judging the city mayor’s leadership performance.
Value-orientation on cost-effectiveness
Operationally defined as:
1. Number of times the city mayor reflects on cost-effectiveness concerns in the decisions affecting the need for cooperation from various stakeholders of the city community, conformance to standards or norms, fast delivery of service, information access, distribution and sharing, and participation and involvement of the stakeholders in the implementation of programs, projects, and activities.
2. Number of times cost-effectiveness concerns are inputted into the city government program, project, or activity, as the foundation of the their philosophy, or their objectives, and
3. Number of times used as one of the criteria in judging the city mayor’s leadership performance.
METHODOLOGY
Research design:
two single-case studies, one on former Marikina City Mayor Maria Lourdes C. Fernando, another on former San Juan City Mayor Joseph Victor G. Ejercito
Reasons for choosing the two city mayors:
1. popular prestige as successful city mayors
2. their implementation of successful city government programs and projects that benefited their respective city constituents,
3. their being elected thrice (2001-2010), and
4. their respective cities improved and developed during their terms.
Instruments:
1. an interview schedule of 20 open-ended items for the interview of the two city mayors,
2. Tape-recorder to document the responses to the interview schedule, and
3. a questionnaire of 8 items to be given to sectoral representatives of the city government whose responses will be rated according to Likert-type scale from Strongly Agree, then Slightly Agree, Neutral, Slightly Disagree, to Strongly Disagree.
Data Analyis:
Content analysis of responses using categories used in the theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
No comments:
Post a Comment