FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP … · 2019-05-16 · FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND...

FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES IN UGANDA BY CHARLES OKUONZI Reg. Number 2013/PhD (MGT)/ 50/PS A PhD Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the`requirements for the0awavd of a Doctorate kf Phiìoso0hy in Management Studies of ]barara ]niverSiôy of ScienCm and Tecxnology in Collaborataon with Uganda Technïlogy and Mcnagement University( NMVEMBER 2016 DECLARATION I, Chaòles Okuonzi declare that this thesys is my originAl work and investigation. It is submit4ed for the degree of Dkctorate of Philosophy in Managemdn4 Ctudies of Mbarara Ujive2sity of Rcience$and Teghnology. It has not beun submipwed for any dagree oò examination at any(other uniVersity, nor(has it been prepared with the ass)stance of any other body or instivution, group, or peRson outside Mbara2a Universiôy oæ Rcience and Technoìoey, Signatere…„…… CHARLES OKUONZI$ @L This is to certkdy that thir dhesis las been submitted in fulFilment of the requirements for the award of PhD iî Man`gemeNt with my approval as a Univepsity0Supervis r.

ApprovEd by: ………… DR. DORIS.M.KAKURU SUPERVISOR ………… . DR GER R]DÅ ZIWA CO-SUPERVISOR EEDICATION To almichdy God: the only One who has helped me to õnderstaod anä re!lize my true q.d f5ll potential. To my parents, Mr. Justife Ìebuga and Mrs. Susan Adraru, and$all my brothers and sióters for thei2 encourafement and suxpobt. Uo my wife, Margaret Oluka: for her patience, understanding and dedicated love To my children, Alleni, Sheron a.d Raphaela: Bor bearino`uith my trcdç eark0absdnce. May yïur potential bg fully maximized in xour generatéon! An$ to all those who ire strõggling`day and nifht to succeåd in l)fe(`may your struggles jever be if vain. MACKNOWLEDGMENT[ First and æoremost, I would niku to thani Dr. Doris. M. Kakuru and Dr. Gertrude!Ziwa for going above-and-beyond0their obdigated dutées. Serving as m9 wutervisovs overàthe last three years has been a full-time kob in itself cNd I am grateful gor thå tolerance`of my`constent need for Öeedback, and pressures. H thank Prof. Bennn F!sheka for always been availAble to provide guidance. My good comrade Peter ABesiga created an environment in whIch I &e,t comfortabme to share our frustrations and 5xcitements> Dr. En/* Si|ver Mõgisha has also been án incredible inspiradion to me. He beliEved in"íe and qccordåd me the opport5nity to ipply myself to really fig challenges. Alro, I would like to thank Prof. Carya for being the ideal acádemic role m/$em and(vision`rx`wivhout his foresyght, this wïuld never have happened. I wMuld like to acknowledge Fred Andema and namily, Anguzu Alfòed and all my good fryends. Finilly, I wou|d like to thank alì mi good colleagues at the MUST-UTAM] joint PhD program. They have been tremendousìy helpful to me vig(t!from garly stage3 of the dissertation, in tErís of BoTh advise anä genescl social support. I thank them for making this transition as stress free as possible> LISÔ OF ACRONYMS

A^OVA : Ajalysis0kf Variánce CEO : Chief Gxecupmve Officer GEM : )Global Entrepreneurship Monitïr LDC : Neast Developed Countby LOX : Leader Member Exchange LPI : ILeadership Practices Invent/rq® SME I: Smaml !nd Medh5m Sized Enterprises SOM : SME Owner-Manager(s) SPSS : Statistiãal Package for Social cientists PUBLICATiONS Okuo~zi, C. (6016). Folnmwer Voice Behaviour and Influence over headership competencies in!Uoanda: A Pvaliminary @nalysis. Global Journal of cmemerce and management pmrspective Vol.5 (1):35-46. Okuonzi, C. (2016): oes voice type mattdr¿(An exaíination /f0the Influeîc% of voice bdhavi/r over leadersh)p ãompet%ncies of SYE Owner-Managers )n UgándA. In Proceedings of the 3zd ANnual 0Internatiknal Coîference on Technology !ajd Minafement 3096 hICTM-16), 1st–2nd Augõst 2016< Kampala,$Uganda. okuonzi, C. (2416): Does Vkic% Type Matter? An Examinapion of the Influence of ^oice Behavior over Le!debship Competancies of SME Owner-Managers in ganda. Hnternatiojal Journal ob Techîology and Management (IJOTM) Volume 1, Issue 1, 1- 1ö. Okuonzi, C. (2016): Learniog from Followersz An Examénation of Fmllower Voice Behavios and Its Influence nn Leaterrhip Competencies oF Ugandan SME Owner-Majegers. European Journal of buóineqó !nd Managemen|, ISSN (paper) 2262-1905 ISSN (Online) 2222-2(39. TABlE OF CONTENTS TOC \o ¢1-1" \h \z \t "absimg,2" HYPERHINK \l "_Tgc465370764" ARATION $PAGEREF _ 370766 \h HYPERLHFK \l "_Toc465370765" APPROVAL PAGEREF _Toc465330765!\h $HYPERLINK \l "_Tkc465370766"

DEDICATION PAGEREV _Toc665370766 \h HYPMRLINK Ll "_Toc<65370767" OWLETGMENTS PAGEREF _Tïc46%370727 \h %HYPERLiFK$\l "_Toc4653707¶8" LIST!OF AGRONYMS _AGEREF _Toc4653 0768 \h 3 HYPERLINK \m "_Toc465370769" PUBLiCATIONS PAGErEF _Toc4" 370769 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46537077 " LMST OF0TaBLES PAGEREF( Toc465370772 \h HYPERLI^K ]l "_Toc465370771" ABSURACT PAGEREF Toc465370771 \h HYPERLiNK \l "ßToc465370772" CHAPTER ONE: INTRO@UCTION !PAGEREF _Toc465370772 Lh HYPERLÉNK \l "_Toc46%370773" 1.0. Intr duction PAGUREF _Toc4¶5370773 \h HYPERNINC!\l "_Toc4653w0774"! 1.2. Backgr und tn`the Study RA EREf ßToc465370774 \h HYpERLINK \l "_Toc465370775" A 3.2.2 Theoretical Baãkground PaGERGF _Toc467370775 \h 0hYPERLINJ \l ¢_Toc465370776" 1.2.3 Conceptual Background PAGEREF _Toc465370776 \h HYPERLIJK ]d "_toc465370777" tual Background S PAÇErAF _toc465370777 \h -“ HYPERLINK |l "_Toc465370778" 1.3 Statamånt of the Prkblem PAFEREF _Toc465370778 \H HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370779"

1.4 Purposedof the Sttdy PAGEREF _Toc465170779 \h "HYPERLINK&\l "_Toc465370780" 5 Objectives of the0Study) `PAGEREF _Toc465370780 \h HYPERLINK \l &_Toc465370781" 1.6 Re earch(Questions QAGEREF _Toc46u370781 \h HY_ERLINK \l 2_Toc465370782" 1.7$Hypotheses of the Study PAGEREF _Toc465370782 \h XYPERLINK \l "_Toc065370783 1.8 SignificancE of the Stuôy PAGEREF _Toc461370783 \h" HYPERLINK \l "_ oc465370784" 1.9Justification of the st}dy XAGEREF$_Tob465370 84 \h HYpEÒLINK \l "\Toc445370785" 1/10 Scope of the Stud} PAGEREF _Toc465372785 \h HYPERLINK \l 2_Voc465370786" 1.11 Operational Devinitions of Key ôerms TAGEREF _Toc465370786 \h H[PERLINK \l *_Toc465770787" CHAPTER TWO: HITERAUURE REVIEW PAGEREÆ _Toc465370787 \h 0HyPERDINK \l "_Toc465370788" 2.1 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc465370788 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46µ370789" 2.2 theoretical Framework PAGEReF _Toc465370789 \h H]PERLINK \l "_Toc465370790" 2.3 Conceptual Review PAGDREV _\oc465370790 \h HYPERLINK"\l "]Toc46537079±" 2.4 Review of related literature PAWEREF _Toc46u330791 \h HYPERLINK \l "_To#465370792" 2.4.1 The Concepts of SME and Leadershix Compudencies PAGEREF _Toc465370792 \h HYPERDINK \l "_Uoc465370793" 2.4.2 Follower V

ice behaviour a~t Leadårship Competencies) PAGEREF _Toc46537079s \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370794" 2.4.3 Promotive and Prohibitive Voice PAGERUF _doc465370794 \h HYPEPLINK \l _Toc465370795" 2.´.4 Related c4udies on FnllOwer Voice ajd Leadårship Competencies PAGEÒAF _Toc4&5370795 \h H[PERLINK \l`"_Toc465370796" 2.4.5.$Prommdive Voice Behaviour and Leadership competencées PAGEREF _Toc465370396 \h "IIPER INK \l "_Toc$65370597" 2>4n6. Prohibitife voice beiaviour and Leadership comtttencies PAGEREF _Toc467370797 \h HYPERDINk \l "_Toc465370798" 2.4.7.(Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Leadership Competencies PAGEREF _To#465370798 ]h HYPERLINK \l "_Tob4¶5370799" 2.5 Synth%sis od the Litfra|ure and Research Gaps Afalysis PAGEREF _T c46537 799 \h HYPERLINK ]L "_\oc465370800" CHAXTER THREE: METHODOLOGY PAGER F _Toc4&5370800 \h PERLINK \, "_Toa465370801" 3.¡. Introduction PQGGRAF _Toc465370801 \h HYPEÒLINK \là"_Toc465370802" 3.2 Reseqrch Desygn PAGErEF _Toc465370802 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370803" 43.3. Study Population PAGEReF _Toc465370803 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370804" 3.4. Determination of the Sampla size @CGEREF _Doc465370804 \è HYPERLINK \l "_Tos4653708_56( 3.5. Sampling techniques and procedure PAGDREF _Toc465370805(\( HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370806"

3.6. Data Cmllection Metho`r PAGEREF _Toc465370806 \h !HYPERLINK \l "_TOc4653 0807" 3.7. Data Collection Instruments PAGEREF _Toc465370807 \h HYPERLÉNK \l "_Toc465370808" A 3.8. QualhtY of instv5menvs PAGEREF _Toc465370808 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370809" 3.8.1 Vaìidity and re,iability PAGEREF _Ôoc465370809 \h HYPER INK`\l "_Toc465370810" rocddure of Data Collection PAEEREF _Toc465370810 \h HYTERHINK \l "_Toc4653·0811" 3.10> Ethical Consideration PAgERMB _Toc465370811 \h H]PERLINK \l "_Toc465370812" 3.11. Deta Analysis PAGEREF _Doc465370812 HYPERLHNK \l "_Toc46537081 3.12. Measurements of ~apiables PAGEREF _Tos465370813 \h 3 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc46537081$& CHAPTER FOER* PRESENTATION, ANALYSHS AND INTERPRETAFION OF RESULTS PAGERE _Toc<65370814 \h HYXERLINK \l "_Toc465370895" 4.0 Introduction PAGErEF _Toc46µ370815 \h HYPERLINK \l$"_Doc465378816" 4.1.1 Sam0le Distribuvion PAGEREF _Toc465370816 ]h HY_ERLINK \l "_Toc465370x17" 4.1.2 Re{p/nse Rate PAGEREF _Toc465371817 \h H[PERLINK \l "_Toc465370818" T4.1.3 Bac{ Ground InFormation on Respondelts _AGEREF _Ôoc465270818$\h HYPERLIOK \l 2_Voã465370819" 4.1.4 Descraption of Follower Voyce Behaviour, LMX and Leadership Competencies — PAGEREF _Toc465370819 \h

RLANK \h "_Toc465370820" 4.0 Semmary of VeriFication!of Hypotheses @AGEREF [Toc4653708:0 \h HYPERLINJ \l ¢_Toc4657w0821" 4.3: Summarq kf the rglationship betse%n voice behavimur and leadership competencieq PAGEREF _\oc4653'0821 \h HYPERLI "_Poc465s70822" ChAPTER FIVE: FIÓCUSSIONS, CONGLUSIONS AÎD"RECOMMENDaTIONS PA EREF _Tob465370 22 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370823" 5.± Introduction pAGEREF _Toc4 5370823 \h H]XERLINK \l "_Toc4&5370824"¢ .2 DisCõssion PAGEREF ßToc465370824$\h `HQPERLINK \l 6_Toc56537082 5.1 Conclusions PAGERDD"_Toc46537082% \l HYPERLIJK \l "_Toc465370x26" 5.2 Thaoretical ane Practical implicatinns (PAGERMF _Toc465s70826 \h HYPERLIOK \l _Tos465370827" 5.3 Recommendatiofs PAGEREF _\oc465370827 \h !HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370828" 5.4 Limitations of the Studù ant Areas nor further re{åcrch PACERE "_Toc465370828!\h ÈYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370829" 6.0 REFERENCEs PAGEREF Toc465360:21 \h HYPESLINK \l "_Toc4>5370030# 7.p. APPEFDICDS PAGEBEF ]Toc465370830 \h H[PERLINK \l "_ToC465370831" Appendix 1z Inuroductory Let4er PQeEREF _Toc464370831 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Voc465370832" @ppendix 2: Survey Questionnaire for F/llowers/Em_loyees PAÆEREF0_Toc465370832 \h

HYPERLInK \l "_Toc465370833" APpendhx 3: Survey Questionnaire LEaders/Owner-Manawers PAGEREB _Toc475#70833 \h IYPERLINK \l "_Toc465270834" TAp`endix 4: Interview Guide for Experts‰ PAGEREF Toc465370834 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc4653?°835" Appendix 5: KRejcie and Mopgan (1970) Guide for Sample Determination PAGER F _Toc465370835 \h HYPERLÉNK \l "_\oc465370(36" Appendix 6. CVI for the questionnaires rated on a 47/Item$[cale PAGEREF _Toc465370836 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465350837" Appendix 7: Summary of the CVI fOr the`questionncipes PACEREF _Toc665370837 \h HYPERLINK \l "_Toc465370838"" Appendix 7: Relkb"ility Analysis (OutpUts) !PAGMRAF _Toc465370838 \h LIST OF TABLEW TGC \f F \t "Heading 3" \c" Table 3.±: Sample Distribution PAGEREF _Toc465730858 \h Table 3.3: Initial Reliability Test(Results PAGEREF _Toc465370859!\h Table 3.4: Final reliability(test results pAGEREF _Toc465370860 \h Table 4.1: Bespons% Rate per respondent categosy XEGERMF _TOc46537086 Table 4.1.1: Combined R-spon{e Òate PAGEREF _Doc4¶5370862 \h Table 4.2: Res_ondents by Gender PAÇEREF _Toc465370863 \i Table 4.3:!Resqgndents by Age PACEREF _Toc4&5370864 \h Table 4.4: Respondånts by"Level of Education `P@GEREG WToc465370865 \h Table 4.5: Reqpondents by Work E8perience PAGEREF _Toc465370866 \h Tabld 4.6: Descriptive statistics on Proootive Follouer Voice Behavkour HAGEREF WToC465374867 \h Table 4.8: Model Summary`for PromOtive Voice Beha~iouò anD Leadership Co}peteN#ies PAGEREF _Tkc465370868 \h Table

.9: ANOVA testing the ingluence Promot!ve Vkice€Behaviour on!Leaderrhip Competencius PAGEREF _Toc<65370¸69 Xh Table 4.q0_ A Rank Order of the inf,uence Pzomotive oiãe Behavhour on Leadership Competencies PAGEREF OToc465370870 \h Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics on Prohibitive Vollower0Voice Behaviour PAGEPEF _Toc46%370870 \h Table 4.12: Correla4ion(Analysis rusult for Proh)bitive Voice Behaviouv and Neadership Compe4encies PAGEREF _Toc465370872!Xh Tabme 4.13: Model Summarx for Trohibitive oice Bejaviour and Le`dershi_ Compgtencies PAGEREF _Toc465370873 \h Table 4.14: ANOVAb te3ting the influence P3ohibitite Tokce Behuviour on LeaDership Competencies PAGEREF _Toc465270x74 Xh Table 4.1=: A Rank Ordeb of the influence$Proiibitive Voice Rehaviour on Leadership Competencies PAGEREF _Toc465370875 \h Table 4.16: Descriptive statis|ics for LmX PAGEREF _Öoc$65370876 \h Tablå 4.17 Correlation Analysis result for Follower voice, LMX `nd Leader3hiX Competencieq) AGEREF _Toc465370877 \h Table 4.q8:!SummarQ of Multiqle Regression Coeffaci%ntsa showing the interacvion retween Prom/tive voic% anf LMX quality PAGERuF _Toc465370878(Th Ta"le 4.19: Summar{ of Multiple Regresséon(Aoefficientsa showing the intesaction bEtween Prohibitive voice and LMX quality "PAGEREF _TOc465372879 Xx Table 4.20: Relationsiip between$voice behavmour and leadership competencies REF _Toc465330880 \h Vable .21 Model Summary"of the relatiooship$between Toice Behaviour and Leidebship ompetenkies PAGEREF _Too465370881 \h 110• Table 4.22: ANO A testing the in&luence of€Öoike(BuhaViour and Leadershkp Ãompetencies PAGEVDN _Toc465370882 \h Table 4.22: Rank order of the Ajgluence o$ Voice Behaviour on Leadership Competencies PAFEREF _Toc4653 TOC \ F \t "HeadiJg 7"(\c T

LIST OF FIGUREÓ Figure 1:0Conceptual model for developing leadersjip competensies of SME owner-managers in Uganda GGREF"_Toc459031546 \h ABSPRACÔ Básed upon!Social Construcviviqm"theory, exit-voicE and ìoyalty theory and ldader-melber exchanga thegry , this!study contributes to current researci on voice behaviour and"leadership competencies by investigating t(e role f/llower voice behaviour plays!in polióhing leadmrshyp competenãies of Smahl and Meeium Efterprises (hereinafter SMEs) owner-íanagers in Uganda. UsIng a cross-sectional survey deshgn a.d a eixed metho, studx methodologi surveys werd ad-inistered to 340 em_loyees and to 54 owner-managers in SMES in Uoanda. Iu was hypothesized that pro-otyve follower0voice ceèaviour has influenkå over leadebshir cëmpetencaes of SME owoer@ ma.AgŒrc (hereinafter SOMs) 䁩n Uganla wèreaS prohib_Ѵive voɩce behaviour has no influence�ɯ a.AgŒrc (hereinafter SOMs) i䁮 Uganla wèreaS prohib_tѩve voiɣe behaviour has no influence �ɶ er |eadarship compet r |eadarship compete nci%s wIth Leader-MeM�er-䁅ychšnee (hereinaftur L

ci%s wIth Leader-MeMb聥r-E䁹chaŮee (hereinaftur LM X)Êqualyty playing a moderating rnle. The hypmtheses weve dɥsted0wiѶɨ hier )Êqualyty playing a moderating rnle. The hypmtheses weve deɳted0wivѨȠhiera rchical reg chical regr n!analysas& The mv)dence obtained indicates that followers |hrough their voice exertion behaöiour indeed hive indluenceòver leadershi_ co}petengies of sME owner-minagers in Uganda. Further, LMX quality moderates the relationship between follower voice and leadarship$competencies. The results advancu ves%arch on leadepshir comxetencies by hemping to highlight the pouerful role follower v ice be avaour plays(in influencing ldadership competeocées, and alSo advance oreanizatiknal literature -n SMEs by ijtroducing voéce behAviour0as a vital source of learnino fgr ÓME owner-majagers. CHARTER O~E: INTROLUCTIGN 1.0.àIntroduction Desrite been ranked as the most entreprejdurial country hn thå worì$, Many Smqll ant medium sized entepprises (hmreinafter SMEs) in Ugand! dm not survive beyond a year (Brw%erl, J., Preisendorfer, P., & Ziegler, R., 1992» Boden &$Nucci 2100; W!lter et al., "004; Rooks & SserwanGa, 20 9) promptine R ak!kamba (2011), t/!declare Uganda as c graveyard!of SMEs. The problem(is that these fkris are led by Smanl aîd medium sijmä untgrprióe owoer-mAnagers!(hereinafter SOMs)`wlo

lack0the required leadership competencies to guaranôee SME succesc and sustainability (Rwakakamba,02011, Briggs 2009 & Tushabom÷e-Kazooba, 2006).$I~ fact SOMs mosp|y become leaders by virtue of start)ng tha)r enterprises without formal leadership/managerial trainyng or education. Thir pr blem is eócahated by the fact that, they have a fotoriously negative attytude to formil approacHes to leabning"and show a penchant for incidentAl, unstbucpured and inf'rmal learning processes (Mawsey et al., 2015¬ Clsrke et al., ; 06), more so they arE resoerce-suirved and overwhelmed!fy the daily demands` f keeping 4he SME runn9ng thus lkmiting the extent to which ôhey`can develop!their ckmpetencies (Leitch 2007). To date, no4 much of empirical researcj has laboref to identif{ what actions provhderc can take to meet SOMs le%dershyp competencG ìearning needs (Billington, Neeson 6 Barrett, 2009: Chárters e4 al., 2028; Redmond & Oal{er, 2008;`Webste2 et al., 2005) anl yet, SOMs`continud tk bE$reluctant ôo pabp+cipatd in conventiooal training and lear.ing proeramc. ThU3, phe queStion remains: how do wa develOp leadarship compedencies of sush SOMs? Perhaps#txe answer to imprgving leadårship competgnckes of SOMs is0po investigade FollosEr Voice Âehaviour aq án"appropria|% and effeãtive wqy do mearn at the wgrk poice. Irmed wiôj such!volumyfo1s evidefce tlat lea`ership is a follower-driven phenomenon"*Shamir ,2007), a partnership, something whych leaäers and followers create togeuher and that r t( vollow the common purpose (Maroosió, 2008+, and tjat leaders cannot lead wkthoõt goìlowers and that goodaleaders !re thd rwsult of good followers (Kellår-an, 2008Œ Chaleff- 2003) ,txat fnìlowers ioflyence leaders; ,Farris an$ Lim ,1969 ald Sims and Manz, 1984) and uhat follovers can act as proacdive Partnd2s in the Leadership process anf áre an$essenvial part of txm leaderShip equavion (Lapierre & Carsten, 2014) and thad vhevm arå immense be~efi|s !sso#iated with the diversity of followers input in the0wnrkplage sUch as crisis/mistake preventi/n (Edm ndóon, 2003; SchwartZ & Wand, 2003), and0individuil learning and skill accumulation (Nemåth, 199', Edmondson,01999$ 20°3), follower voice was suggested as an Effective way to help SYE(/wner-mana'ers enhance and 'row their leaddrship skill÷ end abilities but the eztent to whiCh i4 influences in the Wganean context is jot jnown. Considering phat0laCk of ne`dership competencies as a }orå serIous inhibitor to SMD growth (O’D÷yer ' Ryan, 2002 , understan$ing how ME leadejs aãquire aîd0develo0 leadårship(competencier adds a.Other facet(to 4ie knowledgå about SME perforMance in`the gmerging economius like Ugandi. This introductory chapôer The2efore deals ~itj`tha background to phe study in historiCal, theoretical,0conceptuan and contExtual percpecpives. It subsequentl9 presents the statement of the probleo foll'wAd by the purpose"of the wtudy, the objective3 of the stedy, thu resmarch questions, the hqpothesEs, tha scopd of the study- the significánce, Juctification ¡nd operatkonál |efinition of terms áfd concep|s. 1.2. Background to the S|udy

1.2.1 Histo2ical BackgRound Tie hiwdorhcal background to this s|udy stems from the"global!emergence and!re£ognitign /f kom_etencims`as #ritical success factor gor SME`performence and wroWtj combinet wyth the emergence of en|repreneurshix in Uganda and Goveònment of ÕGanda’s subsequejt emphasis0of suppgrting thå development og QMEs as engines of economic$grkwth under!vision`2040. Leadership gompetence(is an old field of svudy with a òich backgrounD which!is historkca,lq situated0within the field of0Lea$e2shyp. Before Äavid McClellAnd conceived the oziginal use of competencies in leadership in thg 1170s ( cClellind 1973), the goNcept of compeuence is traced 3,081 years Ago to the"Chinese ampire vhich recogniZed diffe_ences in individual abimities0by employing cIvaL c%rvise exa}s i. welectiOn for govårnment jobs (Ana3tasi, 1978). In medkeval times, aqprentices were!expected to devemop the specmfjc skills they would need æor effåctive`job perbormcnce by(working with a master craftsman and for$hundbeds of yeirs,0educators hqve defined the knowlmdge aod skills to be cov$red in their currictla (MgLagan, 1997). The tuòn of the "0th century witnessed a rise of the concept of competencg especialny during the “clcssical málagelent” period where Frederick Gmnslo÷ Tcylor, the father of scientivic majagement propOsgd gre!ver division of laboR, with jobs being simpliféed a~d an extensi/n oæ Manageòiah contbol over all elementq of the workxlace (Taydor 5q11). In the 1930s the dictIgnary of occupational titles gas pubnished which identified0the knowledgd cnd skills connected 4 different oacupations (Hoòtoì, 2000(. In ô(e 1940s afd 1950s, researchers starvud systgmavically ideîtif{ing ane anahyzing broad performa~ce facvors (Flanagan,!±954; Nleishman, 1953). Baginning in the 1960s¬ many psùchologists researched ijdividuah`coepeteîcyer that wkuld eFfectiöely prEdict job perforoaNce (Qhippma~n et al.( 2 00).` In the laue 1960s, tld concept°of(‘managerial°aompadency’ gained proménence larfely from the work of McClelland (McClelland, 1973) and the IcBEr consuLvancy group in thE 1970s (Horton, 2002). McClelland (1973) noted that comretencies are ngrmal|y bcsed on an analyqis of0an expert pårformer whera key behavioral indicatgrs for quCcessful perFormance wera identibied and thEn linked to a gompeteNcy. Ij the early 1980sl a majop study c mmi3sioned by the American MAnAgement Arsociation!grounded the concept in behaviïqral and performance ter-s, with competency being äefined as “an underlying(characterisôic /f An indiVidual that is causally remaôed to effective o2 superior performancu” ¨Boyatzis,`1982). BoyatZis itantified 19 generic behaviousal compedencies associated with above áverage managerial perfoòmajce, groupel into five clusters (goal anf actiïn }a.ifement, leadership, human rmsource managem%nt, focuó nn others and lirectifg subordynates)® The competency movement continuously gathered momentum a~d rEãånt years have

seen an expansion Of the ap0roaãh to ingorporate leadership fOllOwing uhe distinction made between manageounT aNd leadership0by writerc suCh as"Zadezîék (1977) and Kottler h1990). Hence, man9 studéeq havd sought to identifq(the core competencies(thaö äafine"effectyve`leadership (Haye3( 1979; Boyatzis- q982; Wang & Chen, 2002; American Management Association, 2005, etc.). Regarding contemporary`leaèrshipànm0etencies, the following compeuenciew have ge~erallx beån proven time and0again qs$mandatory for effective lead%rsìp. ThEse inaludd: interpersonal scills; self-knouledge+`knowledge management; integrity/honesty; developinç others; technical compeuence; comeunication9 politic`l savvy; diversity áonscio5sn-ss; str`teoic/v)sionary tjinking; customer focuq; team leadership; 2esults-orientation; qroblem-solving; ducisiof-makiNg9 infludjce skihls+ conflict management; changu manacement; partnership and negotiation skills; entrepreêwrship skills; rdsource and Information managemen|; emotional intElligence; p2 ect and Progralme íanagem%nt;!pu`nic fiNancial malageMent;"àeople management and empowerment; and social and environmental rewronsibilitq"(Bgnnks, 39<7; Tranka, 2004; SpmnCer & Spencer, 1997; Emploiu_s’ Organisation, 2004» Gtggenh%imer " Szulm, 1998; LaszloŒ 4003; Gole}an, t al., 2000; PADAMA, 2012;0Walke{, 2011). In 20 5, the American Management Association identified the top leadership competenches!ar!stòategy develoPment, colmulication sëills, devemoPing leaders, hiring talent, fostering creativity"and innovqtion A stuty by LcCauley (2006) identified leadErship competencies`fougd cïnsistent among organizations ac m!niging chaNge, problem solving and decision mAking, demonstratijg ethics!and integrity, displaying ærive and purpose, communicatknf Efäectively, deöeloping otheps, valuing dyversiTy. Campbell((1997) bum,ding on \he ACK model iNtrodeced by Bloom (1956) devehoped A seô of sEven(lead%rship comQetejcier namely rtrategic fision, decisikn-making, communication, empowermentànl entitmement, promotion `nd encou2AwemeNt, and understajdability® imilarly Jeffrey & Jon 2003) develoqed twenty%one competgncies sugh as open-minded, toler!nt, råflective, xrincipled, communIcating, cOopgra|ingl etc.(Other researchers such is Qiqo and0Wang (21 9) found leadership competencius such ar accountability, teaM buildilg, reladionslip(management, continual l%arNing and cmnflict -anagement to be impïrtant for SmU lead%rs.$ In afdition to the R)ch historicao account of competencies in thå gloBal aòena alzeadù highlighted above, it as important to look back at Wganda’s past political a.d %conomic history to prorErl{ understanf the(competence problem i~ Ugandan S]Es toDay. From the time Uganda!was declared a protebtorate by the0British in 1x73 (Ug!nda National R%port, 1962), the Protectorate go~ernment iumedi!tely rec gnized thát

fribans tid$îot have cOepetencies and cmpit!l to start$industry, aNd vhus the Uganda Developlent Corporation (UDÃ) uas created in 1956 and charged with the responsirmlity of spearheading induótrial aod comMercial agriCultõral development in Uganda. Even aftÅr Presidant Iddi Amyn expe,led Asianc and daclaret the fqmo}s ‘Ec nomic WAr–¢in which he handed over the dexarted Asians’ propdrtù(and cusiness to Ifricans én an attempd to create a new å.trexreneurial slass- most inheritud buwinesses took a nose=dive. Presidenô Iddi Amin immediately recognized ôhe problem of poor coltetencieó and establIsèed0|he Uoanda Advisory Board of Trade (Balunywa, Rosa & Nandagirm, 2011) to0manige the óompaoies that had beun ìeft by the Uganda Devel pment Corporat9on anf the Asian comeunity but unfovtUnAtely, because of management challenwes, most on ôhe busijesses thap were taken ovgr froí the Asians still collapsed an` closet for lack of leade2s(ip, managerial and entrepreneurial co}xedencies (Balunywa, Rosa & Nandagiru, 2013)." Nevertheless, In!the Ugandaj context, Mgangi et al., (2013),$in their!pimoeer study of leádgrship competencies assmciatud with swccessful SMEs in U'anda qnd Kenya )dendified eiçht (8) essential competenciec that were closely linked to SMEs’ success namely; ~isioning, fuihdiog`commitmenu, socyal capital- persojcl vilues, anticipation and vesilienge, resoUrcefulness, Respoosiveness, and entrepSeneurial oryentation. ThIs sôudy therefore exploòed how these coïpetencieó Aould be learned and developed b}(ÓOMs. Mukh a{ uhe SME sector hs!rmgarfed as cruciaL for economic transformation of LDCs through emp|oùment and!innovatIon (Beaver 2 3, Femler 2003), 4heir pelevAnce is$curtailed by ôhe mere nact that!man{ SMAs collapsa tooèarhy due to def)ciencieó$in leaeership compet%ncies oæ`4heir owner-managers which are critical fob wuccdss a®d sustainaìli4y (Anderron 2002. Councml for Excellence in Management cnd Meadepr(ip 2002, Morri3on 2003. Mw@Ngi et al.,(2013, Rwakakamb` 20 1, Briggw 2009, Tus(abgmwe-K!zogba 2046). YaT ócholarly wïrk into$how SMes"ldad%rs sho$Encgunter savere timu and resoupCe conserains cen mmprove on theij competencaes i3 6ery scanty and has received lmttle attention (Morr)son 2003, Coglister &`Brig(am 2004; Veschio 2003), evej th/ugh SMEs by vheir nature, qresent a(qNique contaxt wòse atpempd to adopt traditional ipproaches to development of leadership competencies has lArgely failed To yield positivu results due to inappropriate!mOdeq nf èdiöury and time limitations (B ndå. f Terry 2000). Âased on the evidence0of reliance on unsTructqred, informal lear.Ing among SÍE leaders (Massey et al., 2005 & Claroe, ut al,, 2006), synchronijed wèth the works of reknown scholars such as Meindl et al., (1985) who crg5ed vhat it is thg fgllowårs rather vhan dhe leaDers who conótruct the phenomeNon of`leaäeòship$ plus Shamir (200w) wjg argue` that"good leadårship is eQqally an outcome of gooä fol,kwets"and!call-d for fuôure work to

centre on$how follo÷erc influelcu ôje development of!leatepshiq and$Ãnrdon & Yukl ¨2004)0who advocated!gor more researãh on leauership compe|encies relev`nt tï turbulent SME environments, thió study sought to contribute to thu0bkäy of kngwledge by examining tie role foll ers play in thõ development nf leádership competencies f Uganla. SME owker manager{. It was motmvated by th% fact that individualr running SMEs!are finding it quitd difficult to eohange their`lea$eróhip aompetencies yet extaîp research has`not studied the extent to hich folìowers cofstructiv% ideas, insig(ts, afd informction"(Follo'er Voice) kound enhance leaderrhip com_etencies of SME leaders0whych perhaps toptrays dhe0laci of appReCiatI/n `mong researchebs of the dangers posed by ind)vkduals ÷ith poor leadership comètelcyes to the`sõrvivam of SMEs. Theref/re vhe central$arGueent in ôhis thesi{ is that if you 7ant to improve lEadersh)p competencies of SOYs, qsk their followers because thei2 iNpuô plays an integrál ro|e in shaping the lealeRship compepencies ob 4hemr ouner-íanaggrs"in Ugaîda. ThergfOre`the use of SME follo ers’ constructive ideAs, insights$ infor}a|ion( opinions or sugguStions (vnice b%ha~igur) tï support and uncourage owner-manager learnéng is uhe underlyino principle gf vlis reqearch. 1.2.2 Thåoretic@l BacjgbOund Thhs study was guided cY Socmal0constructivism theory, Adbert Hmrschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyelty theory and LeadEr Member Exchange (LMX) theory. Soci!l Constructivism theor{ Social Aonstrqctivism theory of 1978 whose pro|agonist¡was Ìev Semenovich Vygotsky unDerpins(this study ây {uggusôing thàt rocial interactioj is$oecessary for learninf (Kvause et al., 20028 Wooìfolk & Márgetts, 2851). Social Constructivism accordijg to Kim ,20 1) is premised on thzee assumptions abo}t real)ty- knowledge and lei2ning. First$ 2ealitq is viewed As bEéng constructed through hwman aCtivity) it cann t be dis#ovepet, and it does noô exist pRiïb to itw social invention. Secojd, ënowing is a!h5man prnduct and$Individuals can create meaning through intebact)nç 7ith each kther and wivh theènwyronment$in which!they live. Lastly, learning is viewed a{ a soaial prosess ant meani~gful learning occurr when indiviluals qre engaged in s ciAl activitie3. From this Perspectire, meaningful$learning occurs throug(`collaboratioN ajd dióc}ósion ôhat learners are abhe to ex`ress their u~derstand)ng, disten to t(e views of others and explore dhfferent ideas. By suggesting that followers can be a valuable source(of kn/wleÄge, Social Construstivism theory potEntyally offer{0a"broader ndersôanding0and exp|cna_ign of how follower voice behavIour )s an alternative s/urce nf Knowledge for tHe devmlopment of headershit Compete^cies of owner-manacer1n Fïr social ko~structivists, follgwer’s voice behavio5r is az impordant tool Because it enables interactivit{, discessign, diaìogue and debate, which Are essential tO the"social cmnst2uctionòd meaniNg (Cien, n.d). Exit, Voice, aîd Loyadty thEory

Agcording"to Qhbert HiRschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty t`gorq of 19'0, theRe qrd two types of resqknse(to unsauisfactory situations; the firsv iq "exi|"`or leawing without trying do fix things and the seSond is “voice," that is, speaking up and trying to improve2thinçs-speayfica,ly leadership In t(is study. By suggesting thit &onloweró ca~ utilize their voices to keep leaduvs!on their toec, Exit, Voice, and Loialtx tigory potEftially o&fers a broaäer undeRsTanding anD explanation of how voice iffluencms leaders(ip colpete.cies. While the theory provides an in)depth explanatKon oF How fnllowurs0can utimyze voice to remedy or fix T@ines, the context ov$t`is explanation may differ from sector$to sector ind from country to counpry. The "exit-woice" framewmrk is therefore incomplete wytè respect to éts application`to leadership competenae _roblems in SMEs. Surjec|ing ét uo valilation yn the SME sectoR"is Therefoòe important. Tlis!study txus aimed to uneertake this validatIoh in SMEs in Uganda. or purposes of this(research, this can bg related to SMÅ employees speakingmup promotively/prohibitively; to tlemr leaders in at|empts to indluence0lealershi_ sompetencies for the lone-tere survifal and growth of tha sMEs. Leader Íe-ber(Exchange (LÍX) theosy Anotèer very i}portaot theosy whic` uneerpins thas study is the Leader member exchange L X) theory because of éts cnnceptua,ized liîkage betwee. leáders$ant followebs. A{ p2opigated by Dansereau, Graen . Haga in 1975, LMX(is tie only leadership theory thit places foãws On the dyadic relationship$between leaders and followers’, rather than(their tsaits or bmhaviors or(sytuAtiojal charactEristécs. It asserts that leaders do not inter`ct sith`follower7 4niformly because Of(time and besources limitations but estáblish cl/se relationshirs with soie (dhe iî-gzoup) while remaining distant to others (the out-group) and the high-quality relationships will lead to positive outcomes-specifically leadership competencies in this study. Conversely, those in the out-group are excluded from important activities and decisions. For purposes of this study, this can be related to high influence of followers in the in-group on leadership competencies compared to those in the out-group. 1.2.3 Conceptual Background Conceptually, there are two key terms that are defined and explained in order to gain a better understanding of this study. These, inter alia include leadership competencies and follower voice behaviour. For purposes of this study, Leadership Competencies were conceived to be the dependent variable whereas Follower Voice Behaviour constituted the independent variable and the dyadic LMX Quality constituted the moderator variable. The study variables are therefore constructs from the three domains of leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and how they work together: the follower (Leader-targeted Follower voice exertion behaviour), the leader (Competencies), and the dyadic relationship (LMX) and these were measured to validate the perceived relationships. Leadership Competencies have been defined by Boyatzis (1982) as “the underlying characteristics of a person (motive, trait, and skill, an aspect of their self-image or social

role, or body of knowledge) that lead to or cause effective and outstanding performance.” Nordhaug (1993) a respected expert in the competency field also defined competence as the composition of human knowledge, skills and aptitudes that may serve productive purposes in organizations. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2009, 1) refers to competencies as “the behaviors that employees must have, or must acquire, to input into a situation in order to achieve high levels of performance”. Most recently, Mulder (2014) defined competence as “the set of integrated capabilities which consist of content-related clusters of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which are conditional for sustainable effective performance”. The society for Human Resource Management has equally defined Leadership competency as leadership skills and behaviors that contribute to superior performance. According to Mwangi et al., (2013), effective and successful leadership in SMEs in Kenya and Uganda is manifested through eight leadership competencies and ascriptions that include visioning, building commitment, social capital, personal values, anticipation and resilience, resourcefulness, responsiveness, and entrepreneurial orientation. These eight (8) competencies were used as measures of leadership competencies in this study. For the measurement of these eight (8) leadership competencies, Kouzes and Posner’s (1998a) Leadership Practices Inventory® (Self and Observer) version was adapted and used to collect data. SME leaders (owner /managers) and their followers were asked to complete the Leadership Practices Inventory® (Self and Observer) questionnaire to rate the frequency with which they thought they engaged in each of the leadership practices. The LPI was used because it effectively encompassed and represented the main ideas surrounding Mwangi et al.’s (2013) eight leadership practices of effective and successful SME leadership. On the other hand, Voice is a comprehensive term that has attracted much academic scrutiny as researchers attempt to find the best fitting models and methods. Albert Hirschman (1970) began the study into defining and understanding employee voice by stating that when employees have a problem or grievance with the organization in question, they either voice their opinion or they leave. Since then, many definitions of voice have emerged. Boxall and Purcell (2003) defined voice as ‘a whole variety of processes and structures which enable, and at times empower, employees, directly and indirectly, to contribute to decision-making in the firm’. Similarly, Millward et al., (1992) defined voice as ‘the ability of employees to influence the actions of the employer’. Voice has also been defined as “the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside an organization with the perceived authority to act” (Detert & Burris, 2007). Van Dyne & LePine, (1998) also defined it as “making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures”. Van Dyne et al., (2003) further broadened the conceptualization of voice by defining it “as the expression of constructive suggestions as well as concerns which is therefore adopted in this study”. Voice behaviour has equally been defined by Van Dyne et al., (2003) as “the expression of constructive ideas, information and opinions about change in organizations”. In accordance with Liang, Farh, and Farh, (2012), voice behaviour can have two

dimensions; Promotive voice which revolves around expression of suggestions to improve thing, as well as Prohibitive voice which is concerned with expression of concerns regarding issues that could hurt the organization. Follower Voice behaviour was measured using promotive and prohibitive voice constructs, (Liang et al., 2012). 1.2.4 Contextual Background SMEs are the key drivers of economic growth in LDCs such as Uganda (Rwakakamba, 2011; Ocici 2006) and as such massive efforts have been directed towards enhancing their survival and growth due to their direct impact on the economic development. In LDCs such as Uganda, SMEs play a critical part of poverty alleviation and generation of new employment opportunities (Mead & Liedhol, 1998; Nichter & Goldmark, 2009). According to Okello-Obura et al., (2008), SMEs contribute 75 percent of Uganda’s GDP where as Gamser (2003) projects Kenyan SMEs contributing to the GDP to be about 40 percent. Despite of being ranked sixth best in terms of total early-stage-entrepreneurial activity (TEA) (Namatovu et al., 2010),Uganda is reported to have one of the highest business failure rates among the GEM Countries – countries that take part in the GEM 8 global entrepreneurship studies. Unfortunately many of these businesses, shutdown before even celebrating their first birthday (Bruderl et al., 1992; Boden & Nucci, 2000; Walter et al., 2004; Rooks & Sserwanga, 2009). According to the same GEM (2009) report, Sub-Saharan countries have the highest scores of business discontinuation among the factor-driven countries. Kenya for instance experiences 60 per cent SME failure rate within one year after start-up as per Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS, 2007, cited in Bowen et al., 2009). In the GEM (2011) report, Uganda’s alarming score of 27.4 in 2011 was an increase from the 2009 score of 24.2 and it was more than twice the average for all the factor driven countries. However, the competency facet of this problem has not got much attention of scholars yet available evidence attributes the high SME mortality rates in Uganda to lack of the required leadership competencies (Rwakakamba, 2011, Briggs, 2009, Tushabomwe-Kazooba, 2006). In spite of the undoubtable role of leadership in the attainment of enterprise success and association with positive organizational outcomes (Avolio et al., 2009; Engelen et al., 2012; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Yang, 2008), Ugandan SME leaders are hugely disadvantaged when it comes to acquisition and development of leadership competencies. First of all there is a dearth of evidence-based leadership research to guide them on how to acquire and develop leadership competencies associated with firm performance. More so, the limited scholarly work into SMEs in East Africa has majorly focused on growth challenges and causes of failure in SMEs (Mwangi, et al., 2013). Despite of the fact that competencies which entrepreneurs in emerging economies should possess in order to lead their businesses to survival and growth are likely to be different from those in the developed economies Solesvik (2012), most studies on SMEs have majorly focused in developed economies mostly United States, Europe and Australia (Mwangi, et al., 2013) with less attention being paid to the enhancement of leadership competencies in emerging economies contrary to the fact that the context shapes competencies (Capaldo et al., 2004).

Secondly, SME leaders in emerging economies such as Uganda operate in informal, resource constrained and hostile environments which is a huge impediment to improved performance through formal training (Curran et al., 1997; Blackburn and itching, 1997; Cosh, Duncan and Hughes, 1998) and conventional approaches to development and training are often unsuitable in preference to collaborative and networked forms of learning (Anderson and Skinner, 1999; Sadler-Smith et al., 2000). Within such resource constrained and hostile environments, acquisition and development of leadership competencies are therefore a low priority for the SME leaders compared with more critical operational issues (Atkinson and Meager, 1994; Watkins, 1982) and firm survival (Ram, 1994). Lastly, contrary to academic research suggestions that adequate training will not occur within the SME sector without significant external intervention from training providers, attempts to provide contextually valid leadership development among SMEs seem to be unhelpful for many reasons. For example Leitch, et al., (2009) noted that there is often a conflict between formal approaches to development of leadership and the SME situational context thus leading into low-uptake of structured competence development activities. More so, owner-managers of SMEs consider development programs to be irrelevant to their business or individual needs (McGuire, et al., 2007; Mitchell 2007; Walker, et al., 2007) with most arguing that supply-driven training programs do not suit their specific needs (Hoque & Bacon, 2006) yet the unique context of SMEs make their learning needs quite different from other types of business. As Inglis (1994) notes: ‘I’m convinced that the way of life of a small firm is so different from the culture of the medium-sized or large organisation that the management manual has little to say of relevance, and even less that is acceptable, to the small business’ (Inglis 1994). Similarly, Perren and Grant (2001) argued that to understand the needs of leaders of SMEs one must not only be aware of their settings but also design interventions that serve their needs and mirror their realities. Without such awareness and consideration, SME Owner-managers shall continue to ignore such supply driven programs for been inconvenient and disruptive to their business operations (Walker, et al., 2007). Likewise, they always doubt the credibility and expertise of programme providers thus making it difficult for them to engage in managerial and leadership learning (Fuller-Love 2006) and this in effect limits the overall extent to which they engage in significant competency enhancing activities (Leitch 2007). Lastly as Coetze, et al., (2009) noted, SMEs prefer unstructured, informal and reactive learning processes that addresses current business problems or issues, as opposed to formal learning initiatives. Likewise Lewis, et al., (2005), noted that employees often play a key role in advising owner-managers and the benefit with this group as a key source of learning is their knowledge of both the business and the person of the owner-managers. In light of the above argument coupled with Collin’s (2002) recognition of work as a rich source of learning, it’s quite safe to argue that SMEs leaders like all businesses leaders rely on steady flow of good ideas from their employees to solve day to day problems, grow, survive and stay relevant and the pursuit and capture of good ideas of knowledge within and between organizations could be very critical in often volatile SME business environments.

Drawing from the evidence presented above coupled with Burris’s (2010) assertion that the knowledge and skills SME owner-managers should possess to survive and grow their businesses is increasingly unlikely to reside solely with them but rather with employees at all levels and of all types who possess ideas, insights, and information so vital to the owner-managers , Follower “voice” was suggested as a potentially beneficial but often ignored mechanism which SME owner/mangers might need to promote, learn from, and utilise to capture great competence enhancing ideas in order to be fully informed about problems and opportunities facing their firms. For this reason, encouraging followers/employees at all levels of SMEs to speak up with constructive and improvement oriented information is likely to be good for enhancing and influencing leadership competencies. Without this follower-to-leader transfer of knowledge, SME leaders shall often lack the required leadership competencies and SMEs will continue to find it difficult to grow and survive beyond their first birthdays. Despite the obvious practical importance of these issues, there is currently dearth of knowledge to help shed light on how to effectively help SME owner-managers acquire and develop their leadership competencies. These findings are in turn piling pressure on academicians, policymakers and concerned parties to provide contextually specific and relevant systems for SOMs to develop and learn. The goal of this study is to bridge the wide knowledge gap which still exists on the topic of leadership competence learning and development in the Ugandan SME sector. Hence, the reason to investigate the influence of follower voice behavior on leadership competencies of Ugandan SME owner-managers. Although studies of managerial/leadership learning in big firms are many, research in the SME context is limited. In particular, our knowledge of SME owner-manager learning suffers from an insufficient understanding of how owner-managers learn. Thus, evidence of a generally poor level of leadership and management development among Ugandan SMEs owner-managers demands that more serious attention should be channeled to this topic. This study therefore questioned whether or not follower voice exertion behavior plays an effective role in polishing/enriching leadership competencies of Ugandan SME owner-managers. 1.3 Statement of the Problem While it cannot be disputed that good leadership competencies fosters organizational success, the reverse fosters failure and distress. The reality however is that many Ugandan SME owners aren’t well enough equipped to deal with the continual and relentless issues that confront their business today. Indeed many SOMS have only rudimentary leadership competencies when they start their businesses and do not actively seek opportunities to further develop their leadership skills. Lack of the required leadership competencies of SME owner-managers has therefore manifested itself in Uganda been baptized as a graveyard of SMEs (Rwakakamba, 2011) because many firms cease operating too soon (Bruderl, et al., 1992; Boden & Nucci, 2000; Walter, et al., 2004; Rooks & Sserwanga, 2009; Rwakakamba, 2011; Briggs, 2009; and Tushabomwe-Kazooba,2006) despite of governments’ interventions in terms of access to finance, supporting exporters and reducing regulation for SME growth and

survival (Mwangi et al., 2013). Yet SMEs are key drivers of economic growth and transformation through employment and innovation (Rwakakamba, 2011; Ocici 2006; Beaver 2003; Fuller 2003). The general problem is that rudimentary leadership competencies of SOMs ultimately results into the early collapse of SMEs which is very detrimental to emerging economies such as Uganda. The specific problem is that learning and development of leadership competencies is a complex issue because SOMs are less trained and educated, busy and resource-poor and they believe formal training is of little or no value to them. (Walker, Redmond, Webster, Le Clus, 2007). Such gaps, coupled with limited empirical information available to SOMs of the relationship between follower voice exertion behaviour and leadership competencies can lead to ineffective leadership thus fostering failure and distress of SMEs. 1.4 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to establish the relationship between follower voice behaviour and leadership competencies of Ugandan sOMs. 1.5!ObjectivEs of the [tudy The main obnectives of this study weRe toz Invustigate }he dibe#t influence of prom téve follower voice behaviouv over le`derwhip c/mpetencies of"SME gwner-managers in Ufanda. Examine the diregt inf,uence of prohibitiva follower roice beha6iour over leadership competencies of SME owngr-managers in Uganda. Probe whether Leader-Member Exghafge (LMX) quality moderates |he remationship between voiCe behaviour (Promo|ive and Xrohibitive) and leaders(ip co-petencies f SME own%r-maNagers in Uganda. 1.> Research Que3tions Tlis research answEred dhe¡followine questinns: To what extent `oes promotive voic% behatiour infl}ence leadership competencies of SME ownez-managers"in Uganda? To what extent Does prohibitive vohce behaviour influeîce leadership0competencims of SME ow.er-managers in Uoalda?MTo what extent doec Ldader-Member Exchange (LMX! ñuality }oderate the(relationship`between follover voice behaviour (Promotive and Psohébitive© and leafership competenciås of SME o{ner-managers )n Uganda? 1o5 Hypo|heses of!4he Study The studi waó gwided by the following hypgtheses: erw practicing P2omotive voice behiviour hafe a signifiCantly 0ositive inf|uence over leaderóhép bompetensies of SlEs owner-managers in Ug`nda. Follovu~s practickng Prohibitive voiãe behaviowr have no significant ynfluence ovgr leadership competencies mf SMEs owner-managerS in Ugqnda. Leades-Me-jer Axchange (LMX) quality moäerates the inf,uence of follower"voice behavikur on leadership competengies ` f SMG owner-managers il Uganda: Proeotive voice behaviour eoesn’p significantly predict follower influe.ce over leadership competencieó mn case of high-quality LMX pepceptimns.

Prohibitive voice óignaficantly pRedhbts follover influence over leadeRship competenches in case!of high-quality LMX perceptions. 1.8 Significance of the Sôudy The first!smgnificance of this study is th`t ip addresses a major weakness if the trcditkonalist$leader-centric vmew that leaders influence the0behavior and actions oæ followers. By proving that can be influenced by their followers. thió study supxorts Morasso’s (2011) ergument th!t the curBent`Body litebatureòn manageeent and luadersxip does .ot adeñuately define the follower role or its impact on the leader and that genera,my accepted theories abou| the leader and follower relationsxip need to be re-exAmined from ` followep-cenpri# poinu of View. This cha|lengas the(belief that SME$leaders are the fount of all!knowhedge. Therefore it helps`to develop q Culture where nollower voice isàvahued as quqlity feedbac{ in tèd leader sompetence äevelopeenv0cycle. Thg second significance of this studù is"that it addresses the dearth of literary works surrgunting the"subject area and also integrates thå two concepts of followeò Vohce behaviour (how khange o2ienteD suggestions or concernsàre expressed) and leadership Competencies (Attitudes, skills anD knowledge required to låad efæectivåly) that have been studied párallel to one another without mõch crnss-dialkgue and have neves 2eceived any integrated aTtentikn from scholars despite repòesgnting two ric¨ lioes of research. It contrkbutd{ valuabìe knowle`ge to the fIwld of leqdership competeNcies and SMEs in geîeral fiven tHat it is the first study invåstIgete tèe influence of voice behaviour on leadership competen#kes in SME sontext partiCõlarly in Ugandan SIE. Thus by developiNg ` d}namic theory of folloWer voice behaViour `nd leadersh)p`c¯mPetencies, id0yields highly valwable knowlådge hitherto unafailable"which chould be a useful source of refereîCe`to other researchers and other reaèrs io general.M More so, wjilst prmöious litårature has sugfested&that followebs may havm influence"over deader behaviour, thi{ avgumeît has not been $mpirically explakneeìn relapion`to how they iofluence leadership cgmpetenciec especially in the Ugand!n SME context. This0stuFy To some extenv"closes this$g`p by adequatehy exploring thå relaôionshix between 4he tso variables thvoUgh$the lens of Hir3chmanian notion of vOice. MoZe so, mech as!previous studies`haveàdeqUatelù exemined the antåcedeNts and consequences of voice behavior in mrganisaTions, but to Whom employeeq express their idEas ald otinio.s has remainet raòemy exaíhned `nd by ydeotifying SME leaders as voice recipieodó/targets,"this study vqlad!tes Liu et al., (2009) assertion$4hat voice behavior is target-sensitive$and that voice behavior ynvolves speaking up (voice toward the supebviso2) as well as s°eeking out (voice toward peeró)* Fuvphe2mobe, it is"evident that employee voice xas attzacted some go d atTentmon in the fie|d of organizaTional beha6{or but up to this point,!leader outcomås of æollower v ice behaviour have receiöed very little or no atte~tion.)By addrmssino This gap thRough the lens of leaeership!competencies of o

ner-ianigers in SMEs, thiq"study a`vances the voice miturature by establishing if indeed leadership competencies oF Ugandan SME owner-managers`are affected by voice behavi_ur. Whi|e adfressang the dearth of research surrounding the stu`y aRea, this Ctudq also answers Bõdd’s (2014) cal|$for more research to deepen scholarsiiq and broaden practises so that employee fOice behaviour remains a vibrAnt field of research(and practike thit connects with cutting-edge theory as well as with employees cnd theIr firms én their $ay-to-day lives. It is also a response to a call!for a neaf to design, develop, dmliver and evaluate learning interventhonr wHich reflect the interests of SMEs (Devins et$al., 2005). Agaif, to the best of my k~owledge, nk empirical0study has diRectly investigqTed the ingluense of voéce behaviour and leadership competencées in RME context and therefore by testing and confhrmin' the"applicability of westerî ba{ed theOrIus related to Voice and leadership0in the Ugandan Context. Iu expand3 thd frontherS of knowledce by providing the first evidence that"follower voice behaviour haw influence over leadership competencies and 7ill be a stepping stone for future schïlarly work on a rarelY examined and"qeelyngly neglected but vitcl area mf leadership duvedopment in SMEs in most especially in Uganda. Liëewise, it alsoàanswers Shenkar & Von Glinow’s, (1994) ball for research tO uest wxether westernized theories ma)nly developed in advanged n!tion conteyps are qpplicable in the de~äloping country sontaxts. Thi3 study also furnióhes polacy-}akers, academics, analysts and hUman òesource planning, devdlopment and management {qecéalists witi relevant(indoRmation o~$the influence0of follower voice on leadership competåncies of owner-managgrs in S]Es and the kverall implications foò SME coîtinuity hence giving them besearched data to(desigo h)gh impact interw%nti ns oF enhancing(leadeRship competeNcies that ccn guArajtee SME contin}ity. This study deriveq its empirical`significance bY hiGhlighving to prOspectivå and current SME pracôitionErs the neCessity of incorporaTi~ç $iverse follower foige into the learning0and eeveoopmEnt of leadu2ship comqåtencies and çuiding them ijto duvising `ppropriate eeans"oF papping diverse ideas, opiNions or suggestions fòom employees which could be vital source of leaNing for ME gwner-managers. It may as well hgl` them to develop a cl%ar plan on hOw`to tap 0romoti6u"employee voace3, gmpower and dra)n themr employees!to fReely upwardly express ideas, information, and opioions that could enhancå leadership competeîcies.`Likewise it may help SME owner-manAgers to make an audit of their own leadershit`competencies ald, if necEssary, consider0the ways to c{quire all develop them. It could also help to edusate employees about their$roles as folhowers and the impact th%y have oN their leaders and0the SMEs. More so, various stakeholleps stqnd to be fully eîlightened abo}t the need to incorporate follower$voices into luadership compeTance devdlopment programs, The positive lessons d2awn from

thg study can perhap{ renew empl yee cknfidence in their own abilities besides giving SOMs more awareness and knowledwu base for learning ajä development."This is something worth0recognizing by polécq-makers wxen devisi.g programmes of support fmr SME leárning. THis study prmvidås an alternative approach to SME owner-manager learning that cuits their circumstances and lecrning xreferences qnd tackles the excuses/reasons they often give for not atteneinw formal training interventions. It offers a more infkpmed and challenging me`ns for policy-maoers a.d supTort agencies to ge4 involêd wI|h SME leadership duvelopment while retaining context and relEwance. More so, koowing wlether &ollower voice behaviour deiivers learning can help to better target and!refine follnwer voice0behaviour$to ensurE it provides poséT)v% outcomes foz SOMs learning. LAstly tlis study has signi&icant ilpLiccôio~s for SME foLlow%rs/em`loyees and ognEr-managers/leaders. VOr followersl the study informs them of the power of fïicm exertion behaviour aS a foríidable toïl for influencing`leadership competenkies og(SOMs and it4informs followårs who desire to influence vhe leadershiX compeôenci%s of their owner-managers to frame their ydeas promntively and should exercIse some(degree of carefulners before expressing`prohibytive messages especially in cultures where negative speaking is discouraggd and puniqhed. Also, followers are advised to esôablésh hygh-quality relationshi_s with their leadärs if at all their ideas, suggestionó or concerns are to be considered.!From a leadershiq poinu of vigw, the s6udy also i~forms owner-lAnage2s to establish good relctmonships with uheir followers or risk missing out on diverse and valuacle arrayr!of competenAe enhancing adeas, insights, anD opinions fzom their followers ind they gould miss on the opportunity to use this g/ldmine oç ideas t? sharèn vheir compeTencies. Lastly, for SKMs this stuäy offers less costly and time SenSitive Avente to competence learning and development ant it offers a means of enFaging SOMc$yn learning which is relevant and useæul to themn SMEs are aäso Gui$ed to ensure that their employåe’s voice is informed. 1.9Justification of the stUdy The collapse of an SME is always bad news for most, if not all, of the staceholDers.!The0owners lose tjeir ynvestments¬ employees lose thmir jobs, the community loses à means$of the prodõction and distrib5tion of goods and sevvices, the state loses tax revenues. It also reduces tle standards of living of individwalw and brings abOut the depzivation of goods"`,d services. The impact of RME failure ic alway3 overbearing0and for this reawon tè importance of improving lmadership competencies of own%ò-managers in SMEw$has to bu `ttended vo with great concesnn What cannot be dispuve` is tha| good le`dership lrives business success, whermas less effective leadership fosters failure and(distress~ This rule applies!to any business of any size. Without doubt, the leve| of firm0performanke wi|l always be directly0propïrtional to the exteot tàt the owner- mana'er is able$to0coepetently lead The rusines3!4o succers/ Despite the importance of SMEs to the UgandaN economy, little attention h!s been given to e&fectite means of developing leadership compevencies of SOMs. Asèngines of economic growth in emerging"economies, resdarch po build leadership comè4encies

that foster ôhe competitiveness f sMEs is very vital and is hõstified by the d%{ire to {eE SOEs iN Uganda surviVe, grmw anä thereby #reade jorr anl boest economic performance. Therefore- without this wtudy, many SMEs sháll gOntinue to$fail unnecassarily; prowrams designed to develop leaddrship coMpete.cíes ïf SOMs shall miss the mark w`mle policies developed to help sõstain 0and stimulate locál SMEs gzowth and survaval may not be of any significant impact luaving SMEs(vulnerable to collapse and thks wIll work to defeat governments objective of promoting development of SMEs as a mgans of increesing$job creation i~ order to curb the high unemployment rate in Tganda givEn the facd that phe death of`SMEs means deatè of jnb{ (Rwákakamà 2011).` 1.10 Scopeòf uhe Study Con4ent scope This study was anterested in inveóthgating vhå mnfluenca of followmr voice(behavior on leadersiip competencies of$SME owner-manigers in Uganda. V ice behavioUr was$mearured using prohibitive and promotive voice constructs (Lialg et al., 0012) while Leadership cOmxetencies were measured using the Mwangi e| al., (2093) leadership praãtices of {uc#essful SME leaders in Kenya and Uganda konsisting of vis)oning, bui|ding"Com-itment, reókurcefulnecs, anticipation a.d resili nce, respon3iveneós, personan(vilues, social kapital, cnd"entrupreneurial orIdntatign. Ol the other hanf LMX Quality was mea{5zed using LMX-7 de6elopEd by$Gradn, G. B., & Uhl-Âyen, M. (9995). Ideall{, thiS stud9 oughT to be based gn data elicited from all leaders and followers in SMMs io Uganda but given that thmse SMEs are scattered"áll over Uganda and conwidering homogeneity, |imite` time and fInancial resources, it was impracticable to get the necessary informatiOn from!all of tHem. Geographical scope Therefore to conducT easily manageabl% and welL done research, tèe gmographical scope was!narrowed0down to only thred distrmcts iN Eastevn Uganda, viz., Mbale, Tororo an$ Busm`. The choice of Eastern Uganda is based$on thE Census nf Business Establishments, by ]ganda Bureau of Statistias an 2011 which*foufä out that the refion had only 14®6% of tèe surviving businesses yed it had not èen subj%ctEd to Any researCj. Further rtill there is homogeniity in!the SME sEstor and!the whallenees faced by SEEs are simylar across geographkcal boundaries (Tava and Rgwena, 2016, Wavoins 1983), and as sucj, the findings from the three districts coUld still be0used to draw generalizations. 1.11 Operational Deninitions ob Key terms To pr vidE a better undersvanding of the study, key terms were defijed as per ôheiò use in this rtudy. These includu: Leadership Competencies, followers,`foll wer voIce behaviour, leader, prOígtive and prohibiívu voice. Leadership Competencies as used in this stõdy òefer to a"complex combination of kn

wledgel skills, values, and(attitudes owner-manegers need$to lead S]Es effectively’ (Boyatzis, 1982) and aòe critical to the "usiness,success of Ugandan SMEs as measured using the M÷angk et al., (2013) eight leadevship competencies cmnsistile gf vysinning, building coemitment, resourcefulndss, anticipation and resilience, responsiven%ss, _ersonaì values, social capital, and %ntrepreneuria| orientation. Fol|owers )n txis study are amtloyees below the SLE owner-managers whm have lesser power, authgrity¬ and influence thal their owner-managers (Ke,lerman, 2007). Folhower Voice Beh!viour in!thiS study is viewed `s eøpression of lmader-targeted constructiVe ideas, views, pinions/percpebtifes or suggestions voiced by followeps that ase heard by the Owner-manager a~d facilitates SME owner-manager #ompetence learning at the wïrk place (Van Dyne et al,, 2003). Ivs measured wsing prohibitive and promoTive voice constructs (Lianf et `l., 2012). Leaders in ´his study refers to the owner-managers of WMEs-Perskns who both own and manages A busi.ess. pohibivive voicm in this study refebs to expression of aoncern and cryticism about exis|ing or impending practiges or behavious that maybe harmful to the SME (i.e. Qpea{ing in!terms cnncernc, reporting problems). Promotive woice in this!stuty refers to expression of new ideaó/suggmstiOns to improre(leadership coípdtencies (i.e. speaking in tetms of ideas, maohnc suggestions). Small"and Medkum sized EnterpriSeó in this study refgrs`to organizations that hatm been in existence For at leas4 three years and that employ at!least 10 staff. CHAPTER TWK: LITERATURD REVI W 2.1 YntroeUction The literature 2eview axpno2e{ follower$voice be(`viouv and its effectYveness io iofluencing leaders`ip compeTencies of SOMs. It is organized in four suktions; review og the concepuual a~d theoretical framework of the study, an unDevstandmng od Follower Voice behaviour, and leadership(competencies, as well aó linkages betvean The two variables and$synthesks of litarature and research gap analysis. Books and`journels are the main literatuòe sourcås for this study. The main aim is to amalyse exisving lituraturd on |he subjekt with the objective of revealiîg contòibutions, weaknesses and gaps0s as to providm insight as well as guIde in"ansgering the research obhecti6es. 2.2 Themrutical Fraiework Russ+an psychoLogért, Luf Vygotsky who is known to be the main proqoleot of social

constructiv)sm theory argued tàt social interáctioo, térough dialogue preced%w"human development$(Scùnk- 2008). Acco2ding to him, it is thsough0dialogue that individõals!teq4 their own wnderstanding against that of others, which ultimately lgads to dewelopmenu. According tO (Kim, 2001). social constructivism theory is based on three apsumPtyons rmgar$iî' Reality, knowledge efl learning. F)rst, realiTy is viåwed as beilg constructed thrOugh human activity; it cannot be diqcovEred( and iT doer not exis4 prior tg its sOcial invention. Secondly,"knowing is a hu-an psoduat and is socially and culturanly construsted 8Ernesd,"19)9; Gredler, 1997»`Prawat &0Fìoden 199<). Meaning is$created througj tHeir interaction of individwals witx each other and with |he en6ironme.t in which they live. Third, learninf is viewed as a skciaL pro#ess whiãh dmes not take ptacå within an indivi$ual; ngr is it"qassive devel pment of behaviours that afe shaped bq externan forces (McMaèï., 1997). Grom"this poIît of view, meaniîgful learfing therdfobe occurs whan peo_le are engaged )n social acdivities (Atherton- 2011; Kim, 6 01). Taylor, (2007) gìnes that it is through col$`boration ald discussimn that learners are aâle to express their wndErStandinw, listen to"the views of others and explore diæfeòent idgas which chamlenges thdir txinking and accords thee0the oppordunity to!differånt vé%wpoénvs. In the"viuws of (Chan, n.d) collaboratéon activitiec bdtween owner-managers and their0followers enables them tk sharu knowled'e cnd participate i. discuswion, whic( enable{ them to negoticte meani~g qnd build knowledge. Ferthermore, this need for nearning to be sociaî from otherq viÁ networcs is `lso noted in the SME ìearning hivebqtUre as impmrtant tO small business success (Vo}douris,$D)mitpatos & Samavou,!2011; Zjang,$Mac`herson & Jones, 2006, cGoveRn, 2026). Taken from a social construc|ivist’s pårspective, follnwer’s voice %xertion beháviour is ãn imporôa~t tool`@ecause it mlabnes intura#tyvit9, Disc5ssion, dialogue and $ebate,$ghich are esseNtia, |o the$social construction of meaning((Chgî,(n.d). Thereforå tha use nf followars as a$vitad tnol to support ind encn}rage learning anä development od leAdership competence kf owner manegers is a xranciple of this Researgh aNd is backed D%vmns an` gold (2°02) who advocated for a social construbtio&ist$approach"tn SME learning. Thurmby suggest)ng ôhat social interactikn is ne"essarq & r learning (knowledge constRuction process) (Kriuse et al., :013; xoolfonk & Marge|us, 2010), social Consuructivmsm dheory underqins this studY. ALbert Hirschman in his$fook E8it, Voice Aîd Loy`l4y: Responses 4o Declinm )î Firmsl Organizations and States argued tlat there arE two types oæ$re{pofóe to unsAtisfactkzy situátions in onä's firm, organization and the nir3t is "exit" ïr leaving Without tryino to gix |hings and dhe second is “v ice_$ dhat is,$sqeaking up and trxing to rwmedy the lmfectó or fix things. Ïver

time, organizationel rerearcherw havg moved qway fr - the view of voice aq a way to deal wauh tersoNal dissati{vactiïn, and now inqtead view it as a gorm of psocgcial beha6)ïur (Morrison, 2011) which is speaking out aod chaìlenginG the cuatus ñuo wath the(intent of improving the situatIon” Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Accordi~g to Lialg, Farh,"and Farh (2012) voice Can have two dilensions; Promotive voicd which ruvolves qround ways to improve phe work sivõation, as well as QrohibitIve voiãe which is coocerned(wi4h Yrsues that could hurt the uorë situatikn. Both types of voicu are desioned to encourage`positive aspe#ts of the wnrK 3ituaTion.0Photgh the Exit, Voice aod Loyalty theopy hAS not been proved fr m a luadErship sompeuenciEs _erspective¬ it has begn prOvåd in many other Respects, For example, voice hac been proved to have a déråct impact on$efgebtiva orcaniúqtional functionInw (Moòrmson& Íillikeî, 2010; MOrrison & Rothman, 2008), improved perform!n#e by Generating solutIons and opportunities to make the wo2kplace rqn bettar &Kulik, 2009» MacKe~zie, Podsakoff, &Podsakoff, 2011) and enhances obganizational leÁsning anä knowledge sharing$(Ashford et al., 2009; briìsfie,d et&al., 2009; Mildiken & Lam,"2009). _ The cbovm emParical1evidence suggasts Txat voice could also havm a dirgct effect on lEadership outcom%s and as such this study qeeks to add leadersèip competencies as nmw outcomes of V ibe bx adoptine Mwangi et al., (2113) leaderrèip competåncies of suïcås3ful SME headers in"KenyA aod Ugand!0consisting`of visioninç, buildéng com}étment, resourc%fulness, anticipation"and resi,ience, responsiveness,"tersonal values, social capital¬ an` entrepreneqriaL orientation. Given that fodlowdrs can utilise tèeib voiees0to remedy or fiX things-spebificallY meadershép competencies in$This!study, Vhe Exit- Voicå and Loya|ty theory offers q better undarsTanding and explanation of why!perhaps SME leaddr{!làck le!deróhip competencies Of the other hand$"the theory could help us tk descrhbe anf pRådict enhanced leadmrship comqetencies ïf owner–}angerS in ÓMEs Is"sourbmd from follooer idEas and suegestions rehatdd to visioning, bui|ding commitment, resourcefulneós, andicmpa4ion and rasilience, restonsiveî%ss, personal values, social capiôal, and entrerre.eurial nriåltation. Tlis fuòdher e8pláins why it was hypothEsi{ed tèau promo4ive follower voice has s`gnificant infl5enbe mf S E leadership competencies Than0psohibitive voice. Therefore this stuey is partly0based oN Albert Hirsciían’s0Exit, Voice and"Lîyalty!tjeory. Another theïry that underpins this study is the Lmader"Member Ezchange (LMX) dheopy because of itS ackîowledgement of thu amportance of0fgllowers in leadership processe3. In tieir anAlysis of$the atvention |eadershir litezature has pcid t/ the`rolm of followers, (Howell a.d ShAmir, 2005) note$ that the LEX conqtruct ms exceppimnal bebause it aãknoglefg}s phe importance of the&role og0&ol|owers in lea$ershap procesqes, qnd It emphasizes vhau both leaderS and followerc outuahly deôermine the qua,ity of the relitionship (@owell &$ShamIr, 2005). Unlike otHer leadership ôheorids, LMX doE3 not `ocus on dhe specif)c leader characteristics but`focwsas on tèd dyadic rela4ioîship

betgeen lecde2s ánd followers, as op_osed to the orga®izataonál group0(Lunmnburç, 2010; Truckenbro|t, 2100). The central concep4 on LmX"is thau lealeöship is more effectifm whun “leaders and followe2s are `fle to"duvelop mature partnerships ald thus gahn access to the many benefits 4hese reìationshiPs(rring” (Graen & Uhl=Bien, 916, p.(225), MX has also been wédely studigd )n cgntextS of fomlower`kharacveristics, leater cHaracteristics (Dulebohn, B/mmer, Hiden, Broueò, & Ferris, 2031) and outkomes inclqding jo` q!visfactioj, *ob peòfïrmance, organ)zational commitment,0Orsajizational citizenshIp behaviour (OCB), Tõrnovlr, turfover inteft,`role ambigwity, role conflikt, pay satisfaction, Qro#edural and distRkbUtiwe justice, joj enrichMent, psychglogical empowepment, and perc%ptions of politiks (Dulebohn et al., 011; Gerst~er & Day, 1997; Ilier et al., 20 7; Lapierre. Ha#jett, 2007; lapierre,$ ackett, &Taggar,`2026). Despite of the di6ersit} of contexts t(rough wìch LMX haó been0studied; Roµssea5 (9998) suggests that not enough attention has beej paif to tHe lead%r-follower exchange processes that take place, describi~g thg area as a black box. Schrieshekm, Castro, ánd CoglisEr 1999) aäso noôed that therg(have been very fåw$m!jor Thuoretical paPers oN$this topic, and more are needed to wuiä% eipiriãal gmrk whicH camls for a more If-dEpth!theoretibal developmenp mf thiq"aonsTruct. Pèzefore by asseòtioG that leaters do`not interacr with fïllowers uniformly because nf limited t)me and resources but0they insve!d estiblisi close relationsh)xs wiph sgme (the in grgup) whila remaining aloof frOm othebs (the out,çroup) and that th% high-qualit} rmlationóhips vill lead to posktiöd outco}es, @MX theory hel`s us to desczibe and pre$ict enhan3ed le`dership kompetencieS of!SME ownmr-managers as a0positéve$outcome of follower vïice. More so by advocating for dhe developíent of mature partlerships"betweun leqders `nd followers iî opder to gain access$ôo thE(many "enefits theså belationships brhng, LMH`theory helps us to undabstand and predict leadership cnmpetencie{ enhancement as one such benefit of followeR voice that is borne gf0swch partnerships. This theory on the other hand mxplaijs why it is hypothesized that LMX relavionshir -oderates the inbluence of fnllower voice on SME leadership competenbieS. Dlerefïre vhks study iq partly "ased on the Leader Member Ehchangw (LMX) |heory. 2.7 Conceptual REview A c nceptual fram%work is a0grapjical r diagrA}matic depiction of the rel`tionships between"the Stated rariables in a research stuäy ¨Ï'L}áry,!201°). Bevore deìving further, it s worth noting that Voiceànd Leadepshi` represent two rich lines of researgh that nded to be sebjected to integrated analyshs becaure(on%0ys about how change-obiented

sugwestions or concerns are exprasset and another iS(aboup how to lEad effeãtively. The(çonceqtu`l framework links the two consepts togeth5r!to an3wev`the maij research question: Is there(afy relationshi` betwedn SME follower(voicm beháviour (the way SME follower{ express themsålves)&and the leidership co}petencies of theiròwner-m`nager3? As depicted kn the conceptual fram%wnrk (Figuòe 5)- follower v ce"behaviour consisting of!Promotive voice and prïhibitive voice behavkour!is bonceptualized to Have an inf,uen£e over leadership competencies of Ugandan SME wner/eanqgers. ThiS conceptual framework places foìlower voice firmly°as an anpqt variable and effective0leadershit competenckes as tje oUtput varigjle anf it re{pones for calls0fnr a greater Appreciation for vhe effekt!kf follower{ o. lead@r-òelaôe$0kut#om¥s (Shamir, 2003). The frame worë1is also c nqistent wkth Howell(an` Shamiò *2005) vieW that(æolìowers hold informati n and gxpertise needed ây The leaèr. Followers are also seen as a main source of feedback, providing vadidation {g the actions o& the leader (Hiwelî & Shamir¬ 2005-. Simhìarly, followers cre ofpel in an ideal positiol to gain the attention of leaders due to theiz`knoWlefge of |hå work situation (Axtenl et al*, 204°). This view is supported by Obolenskq (201°) vho concluded tà4 0eophe ha4e faster qccess t/ informauio~ and jnow wèat Is going on aroõnd`them, possibhy be|ter than their leaders. Drawing fòom Ván Dyne, Ang, & B/ôero’S, (2003) congettualizathon of voice asà means b} which employmeS èelp their organizati/ns to innovate ind successfullù adapt t/ dynamic busineSs!environlents through the expreósion(of constructi6e opinions, concerns, or ideas arout"work-related issueS, `his conceptuál bramework smeks po broaden the common conceptualizatioî!of voice by portraying it not only as something that is given, but also ar something |hat is actively received specifica,ly by SME owner-managers in$this study, This is suppnrted jy many studies that ja~e recognizeD the criviccl role of voiceìn achieving positive orgaîizational outcomes such as team learning (Edmondcon, 1999) 0imprmved work progesses and in~ovition Ärgyris & Schon, 1978), and crisis prevention (Schwartz & Walf, 2003),0inælueNcing the actionS of0,eaders (Hhrschman$ 19703 Folger, !977) and` recenv work by Liangl Falr,$and Fahr (2012)$shich æound promotive and prohibithve voice behaviïrs to bg aósocmatdd with osi|ivd leadership outcomes. M/re still8 the freme work shows ôhat there are othår moderating factors such as leadgr-Follower relationships whi#h can affect the ioterplay bet een fOnlower voice behaviour and Ldadership competencies. Decpiue the fact thAt voice may re promgtmve a.d rurportivd, th% relationrhip between the bollower and lgáder may hawe thd opposite efgect on the leader oiven that the influ%nce of tèe voiced mesrage, may vary when leader-fïllogeò rematiojsh)0s are taken into account. Ol the other hand, folînweró who demmnstrite prohibivi~u/Challengi~g voice behavi/ur coul` elicit òsmtive response from the leader because of`thE modevatiog factïr. For this study, it was conceptualized that th` d9adic relationship between leeders and followerc qlays a modEratinE zole Because txe

ralatkonship between the two variables seems to be indirect. In their analysis ov the attention the |eadersHip$literature las pai$ to the role of foll/wers, Howell and Shamip, (2005) noted vhq4`the Leadeò member Exchanee co~stru#t is excettional becatse it ackngwledges the importancE oF(the$role of f/llowers in leadurrhép processes, and it emphasizms that boôh leader @nd folloWer mutually determine the qual-ty of the relationship (HoweLl & Whamar-`"00±). Leader Mem`er Ezchange Theory 8LMX) has beeî widely sdudied yn conTexts of follmwer and leadeò characterhstics (Dulebohn, Bommer,!Liden, Brouer. & Ferris,"201 ) and found to be positive|y reLaded job0satisfAction, joj pmrgormanse, organizational commitment, orgaÎizatiodal citizenóèip bexqvIour (OCB), purnover intent( role ambiguitx, role gonflact,$pay ratisfaction, procedural and!distribqtive justice, job efriãhment, psycholOgical empowerment, and perceptions Of politics hDulebohn eô al., 2011; Gerstner & Day, 9997{ Anies et al., 2007; Lapimrrm& Hackett 2007; \apieòre, Hqãkett, &Tagwar( 2006). The modera4or ariable was opepationalizgd by the degree of highnecs mr"lowness!of 4hE relationship qualiôy as theozized in the Leadef-Iember exchangm theory. FIGUSE 1: CONAEPTTAL MODGL$FOR THE ZELATIONSHHP BeTWEEN FOLLOWER OICE BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP COLPE\ENCIES0OF SME OUNER–MANAGER[ IN UGANDa H1 &H2 Figure 1: Conceptual Model (`dapted from0Cim, 2001, Lhaîg et.ql,`2012, Dansereau e| al.,!197 and Mwangi et al., 2013) The$cmnce0tual(framework a"ove illustrates the tebceived selationship fgTween the indapendent variablå of the study$and(the dexendent vaòiable. F llower voice be(avyour Is tHE(ynee_endent variaâle operationalized by tGo concápts og xrKmotive voice and prohibitive voice. The two concåpts are konkeived to direc|ly influence the depandent variable of`leadership blmpetgnCies thgugh this contribuuion i3 moderated by vhe quality of relatioNship between the leadeb and the follower. LealeRship competencies were ope2ationalized by Mwangi"eô al., (2013), eigHt leaderwhip competencyes practiced in succes3ful SMÅs in Qganda and Kånya namemy; visioning, buildkng commitment, so#iél capital, per3onam valuer, anticipation `nd besilience, resourcefulness, resp nshvenesS,(and entrdpseneurial orientátion. 2.4 Review of rel`ôed literature This sectkon presents d(e revieu f reladed"lkterature. It is divided in|o five sub-sections. The"first su"sectio~ presents liteòature on follower voice behaviour.*Thd second pråsents related literaturd"on PromotI~e and Prohibityve Voice.(The third preSents related livebature on promotive(voice behaviour and Leadershhp compEtmnsies. T(e fgurth `zesents rgnated

literAture on Prohibiuive w ice bmhaviour anl FeadershIx competencieS. The fmfth sub-smcuyons precent related literature on Lealer-Membe2 Exchange (LMX), Voice reHaviour cnd leadershix competencims. 2.4.1 Tha Concepts of SME and \ea`ersh)p Compeôencies The SME {ector is rågardee as crucmal for economic transformation thbougH Emplïymenv and innoöation (Bdaver 2003, Fullmò 2003+ bu4 tHeir relevance ms curtailed by the míre nact that many SEEs co|lapSe too early. !Rwakacamba (2011), Briggr (2009) anl Tushabomwe-Kajooba (200¶9 rerort thcT SMEq in Uganda are be-deviled by poor låad`rship som_Etencias, thws tur.ing Uganda into`a griveyarD o& SMEs (Rwakakamba((2011) dewpite of 'nvernme~ts’ interventions in terms /f(aCcess to finance, {upport for increasing export activity_and reduced regulation gor SME gr/wuh and survival (Mwangi et al., 2013). SIE nailure is very detrimenta, to poor ecooomies sqch as UfantA and for thiw reason the éeportance"of duveloping leaddrship compatencies to spur SME perfoboance and growth deserves!urgeît attention. The koncept0of competence és ofe markeD by the lagk of uniFnrm defioitions< tepminologia3, confusion, deba|es!aJd mu,tiple interpretãtionó among scholars. This state of affairs appears to emafate from fail}rg to draw clear cut distijctions between seemingly synonymous terms of competencE, competency, com0etencies0and competencec. Boyaôzis (1902) defined laadership competence broadly as an undmrlying characteristiC that could be a moTire, t2ait, and skill, an espect of"their self-i-age os social role, or body of Knowletge of"a person that lead to or cause effective€and outstcndino performance.” Woodruffe (9992) however defyned competency as a sut of behaviotr patterns that an ilcumbent needs to bring t a positi/n in order to perfnrM its tasks and fu.ctions witH competence. woodrwffe (1992© contended!that competency is concerned!with people–s behaviour that is relevant to performance in tha job.!He considered coipetency to be the behaviours people need to display in order to do a j b effectively e.g. 3ansidivitY) and comxetence as areas of operation and jo` functions e.g. staFf fevelotment). Nordhaug (199s) a respected expert in the competåncy field defines competence as phe composktion of$huoan knowledge, skills and aptitudes that may serve q2oductive purposes in organisations& According to another eXpert$in the field, Gonzi et!al.,"(1993), a cOmpetence is a combifation of avtsibutes underlying some aspect of professional perforeance though at4ributes of individuals do not themselves constitutg competence nor is competence the oere pgrfoòmance of a sgries of task3 but rather an intugration of!attributes with performAnce. Th% Chartåred Institute of Personnel and Tevelopment 8CK D, 2009, 1) also atded to the$debate by definilg Competency as the belaviors that dmployáeS must have, or must acquire, to input i~to i situation in order to achieve high levels of performance, while 'competence'`relates to a(system of mhnimum standerds or

ys demonstrated by performance and outputs. Most recently, Mulder (2014) dafines compatence as: the set of yntegRaped capab)lities which aonsist of content-related clusters of kjowledge, qkills, ane attiuudes, which are son$itional!for sustainable effective performance (includikg problem solving, råalizing énnovation, and creqting transformation) in(a certái~ context, profesrign, orgAnisadion, jo", role aîd situ!tion. The society vïr Human"ResoUrce`Management has eqUally defined Leadership competency as leadårship skills end behaviors$that(contribute to supeRior performance.`Thus thió study adopted this defani|ion gIven$that it looked`et skillc and behaviours of SIE leaders that qual!fy them to lead the MEs to success. Mwangi et al., (2013), in their study of leadershap competencies associatad with successful SMEs iî Uganda !nd Kenya id¥ntified eight (8) essential competenkies that were closely linked to SMÅs’ success namely3 visioning, bumlding commitlent, skcial capital, personal values, anticipation and vesIlience, 2esourcefulness, respon{ivene3w. and entrepreneurial orienta4ion. Visioning meanS creatio. and arpiculation of txe SMEs vision a{ well as maintaiOing maximum focus on it uo ensuve a coemon puòpose il tie SME. To build bommiôment means to mould0and ijspire the SME svaff to put in extra effort in ackomplisling SME gmals. Resourcgfulness means to deal with uncertainTy(and the obsticlas that get in tje way of attaininç SME objectives. Enticipation and resIDience!means been ácle to ianage qncertaintù by being flexible, allowing åmployees to make mistakes and$learn from thEm and shouldering vEsponsibility when tH}ngs go wrong. ResponsiveneSs m%`ns the ability to respgNd to changes i~ the market conditioîs aw they occur. Personal values are prkncipals such as trustworthiness, faith in God, integrity, and personal disciplije held by the S E headers that influånce theiò decisions when runNing the sME. \eader entzepruneurial orientation oeans decision mac(ng!activities0and practices that lead t/ identification and exploitation of markeT oppoRtunities. Social ca_ital meals the resources SME leaders obtAin from their"voluntary ijtdraction with others through various nutworks relationships (Baroî & Mavkmcn, 2000). Thus th)s study adop|ed!Mwangi et al.’s (2013) eigit le!dership competencies wHich SME leadeòs in ugandc Reqeire to overturn high SME attriui¯n ratas in UgAndc. Givmn vhat the learnifg and development of leadersèip competencies is a necessary evil for the survival and sustained grouth of QME{, one wax tk support them is to explore informal leqrning opportunities and as a result$ followers through themr voice exertio~ behaviïup were identified as a relevant learning reskurce for skills, h~vormation and knowledce which in0turn necessitated this present study. 2.4.2 Follower Voice beha6iour and Leadership CnmpetenciEc Follo÷er Öoice beháviour The$concept of voice dates back to Hirschman’s`(1970) discuósion of voice, exit, and$loyalty mn which he concluded that dissátisfactign arising from the decreased quality of a {ituation may cause eithgr poice or exip of individuals in that situatiof. According to him tèe decision to voice or exit(dependq on individuals’ loyalty to the orgajization where loyal individuals

|end to conduct vnice by confronting the current situation and prowiding information for development and the less loyal ones tenl to physically or póychologically Exit the situation. His extensive worK on voice provided a fashs for understanding voIce beiavior i. woRkplaces.(Since dhen varied def)jitio~s of voice have emerged with thbee notable commonalities across these dEfi~itions (Morrison, 2011). First, v/ice is communicative: it!is!anàct of vebbal expression that involves comm5nic`ting an idea from a speaker to a tarwet (Morrison, 2011). Second, foice is diskretionary Van Dyne & Lu@ine, 19;<): employees can ãhoose whether or not`to speak(up about an idea. Finalhy, voice is both challenghng and constructiVe (Van Dyne, Cum]ings, & Park, 1995): it is!challefginw because it aims to change, mody&y, or alter existinç practices, and it is constructi~e becaqse iv is (ntended to improve organizational effectiveness and efficmenayn Vnice bejavior has been rgferred!to as making innovative sugge3tions for changes aot recoMmendinw modifications fo` dxisting stantard procedtres even whenòthers disagbee (Van Dyne &$LePine, 1998i. However, for purposes of this study Morrison’s (2011) Tefinition of`voice as discretionary behavior tha4 invglves commun)c!ôing ideas and sugoestionc intended to improv% the workgrkupòr or'anizatiolal(effectiweness and performance is aDopted gifen thaP it clearly mdentifies the!presumed target of voicm whicH can be nne’s immeLiate Leader. Whereas leaders in organizatio.S are the$ones ghO hoìd`the power to imp|eoent change3 and direct the daily o_eration, it is often the followers who holt valuablM inforlation abou4 gxistilg concerns an$ innovative idmas thAt can potentially contribute to ôxe success of the organizaT)on. Knowlis’ (1973)!opined that within a group situation adqlts !òe each otheb_s richert leárning resources due to the variety Of0knïwledge and skills thaT each learner has and }his rhymes with an %merging consensus in the entrepreneurial learning literature that spòesses the social dhmensions of entrepreneurial leárning through co-participatioj (Taylor & Dhorpe 2004), the development of learning ~etworjs (Floren & Tell 20049, the emergence oF collabovativg peer groups (Reason 3999) and thr ugh relapionship-basEd social learning (Raå 2014, 2005). In the words of Tomas Kensen, president of the Center for Su'gestion System DeveloPment “the real expert is!the persoo who dOes the job and that'w the best place to go when improvements are sought." In.the sAme öein, Charles Martin, aup(or kf Employee0Suggestion$Systems: Boosting Productivity and Profits also opined that mmployees!have great ideas(that can lower costs, increase påvenue3, improve ebfiãiency, or produce greater quality. It ió ganerally accepted that having employees eXprdss voice is a crkthcal compknunt of orga.izational success (Mkrrison &0Milliken, 2000). Scholarly litevature furTler indicAtes thqt there are many bEnåfits of voice. For example it’s a suggested way to imrrove things (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Liang ed al., 2012), solveàn organizatiofAl ppoblem (Milliken & L`m, 2009; Liang et aì., 2012), promote justice (Bemmels f Foley,"1996; Pinder & Harlos, 2001) and solve ethical$misannducd (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2208), or a strategic éssue gf impostance (Duttnn0& Ashford, 1993). Indeed, voicd behavior, or speaking up to payse concer~s or make su'gestions i~ tie workplace, has addi|ionalLy beEn linked to employee psychological well-being (Cortina & Magley, 2013), organizationel justice pe2ceptions (Avery & Quiñones,0600r),

as wull as team (Kim, MacDuffi%, & Phil, 2010) and organizatyonal performances Argote & Ingram, 2p00, Makkenzie, Podsakoff & _odsakoff (6011). More so, it has been proved that tha extåntÀto which employ%es com}unicatu ideas, quggestions, or conceòns about problems Has a posityve eæfect"on organization’s pejformance and survhva| (Morrison, 2011; emeth et al., 2001). Many gtxer c mmenpators have also argued that for organizations (SMEs in this stõdy) 4hat ere facing environmeots that are com_lex, dùnamhc, and ambig5ous, managers need em_loyees to expresr voice afd offer constructive sõggestions because laãk of voice aimed at improving status quo )s likely to result in misseD o`portunities and loss of competitife advantcge and coltriòuting to reduced organi~ational effectiveness (Argyés & Schon, 1978;(Demi~g, 198 ; Duuton & Ashford,$1993;#Floqd & _oolfrilge, 1{94; Perlo70& Williaoã, 3003; aunders, Sheppard, Knigjt, & Roth, 1992i. To add furthe2, effectiveness in oreAnizational learoing has bden qrgued to âe one of the mOst promine~t outcomes of follower voice ,Mil|iken & Lam, 2009). Whereas most of the research to date has examineä voice as a single dimension0constRuct, the(expanded devynitioo by Van Dynd et al., (2003)0|o inclufe both attempts to initiate constructive changes `nd express concerns calls for`dhe need to examine broadened coostruct of change-oriented or psomoti6e and boncern-oriented ïr proèibitive, aspecus of vokce. However, even tje most frequently voiced suggestions and concerns wilì have little hnfluenãe if the Owner-íanagdr is not willing cnd/or able to acknowledge and utilize the voiced messagd. It sas therefore important to explore the leadership outcomes of the voice prOcess to better understand how voice once exqressgd comes to hawe%an effect"on$an owner-manager’s compedenbies. 2.4. Promovive and!Prohibitive Voice Liang, Farh, & Farh ( 012) defined Tromotive Voibe(as speaking up to improve wïpk practicås and proCedures and Prohib tive(Voice e÷ ehpressyon to raysg concerns for e|isting practikes or behaviors that miy harm 4he organiration. But$genårally speakino, various definitions of voice appear to háve prgmotive a~d prohibitive connotations. For example(Roice har similarly been defined as “pro}otive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive khallenge intended to improve rather than merehy cbiticize” (Van Dyne f LePine, 0198); “intentinnall} axpressing ratheR thqn withholding reluvant ideas, information, and!opinions about possible work-velated improvements”"(Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003, p. 1360); “openly stating"onå’s views or opinions ábouô workplace matters, including the actions"or ideas of others, suggested or needed changes, and alternat)ve appòoache3 or dIfferent lines od reasoning for addressing joc=related issues” (Premmaux & Bed%éan, 2003, p. 1538); “di{crethonary pro6ision of€Information intended to

improve organizational fungtioning to$soleonu i.side t(e$organization with the pe2ceived aqthority`to act, even thougi sqch informAtion may(challenge a~d upset the status quo of the organization and its power holders” (Detert(& Burris, 2007 ); and “employees’ expression of challenging but con3tructive opinions, conserns, or ideas acout work-related issues_ (Tangkrala & Ramanujam, 2008). For example, a follower usinw promotive voice max suggest a vision!ry idea, whereaó one tsilg prchibitive vgice may point out the leader’s (ack of vision knstead. With their differences!in framknç and content, i4 is dogical to pvedict that leaders may perceive and respond tï them differently. Proootive voice is butusE-orhented, and it ys conceptualized to be associated with innovation and improvement in the Woòk0lace (Liang, et al.,`2012) similar to the$older definitions of voice. Although it can `e vkewed$as challengkng by prop/sing ways to change the status quo, it is also cojstructive in natuòe, provading leaderS with solutions to áddress tje issue`of conbern. As a reswlT, it is more likely to be endorsed by ôhe leaders because the good intentimn behind it is easily rdcognized and gdnevally interpreted as positive if Uhe issue and soluthons raisel are validn And bebauqe of the proact)vE attitude expressed by folìowers whilm speaking u`, leaders maù form a better impression upon them and view tham as both0competent and resourceful followers drawing mutual benefits to!both parties. On the otheb0hand, prohibitive voice is morE past-nriented as it often s%eks ôo sTop haru&ul practices in txe work`lace. By oït providing0a solution tk!the proâlem, prohibi4ive voice can be véewed as destructivd in nature and more like a complaint, which mimits the suqervisor’s lijelihood kf endorsing the idea. Unlike promoôive voice, |he oood éntention behind prohibitive voice may nov be {o easily recogniz!ble because"raising concerns imqmies failure in the system and may ijvolvi placing bhame oN those that are responsible i.e."the leaders thgmsmlves; (Liang et al., 2012). Becauwe of the insi.pated blcme in prohibitive voicg, leaders may peRceive this form od voice as a person-rased rather than )ssue-based attack, similar to whistle-blowing (Cheung & Songqi, 2014). As a r%sult, they may view the`roicers more!negatyvely, âe leós receptive vo thdir ideas, or even betaliate by ratine tham lower in performance ,Mesmer- agnus$& Viswesvdran, 2005). Even if prohibitive voice only leadó to task conflict (De Drau`& WeigAnt, 2003), it can easily0have a negative sphll over`toward òelationship sonflict uitl the supervisor and the group. Speaking up in challenging ways can also be seen as a thseat`t/ cïllectire unity and organizationaì commitoent (Morrison(& Milken, 2000) and as ! result, leaders`may viuw these followers as troublemakers and their impression of(txose who speak up prohibitively may$equálly suffer resulting into lower liiing and biased perform`nce appraisáls. 2.4.4 Related$studies on Follower Voice and$Leadership"Competencies According to The snciety`gor Hum`n Resource Management, Leadersjip comqetencies are skinls and behaviors uhat contribute to superior performance. Recent research by Mwangi et al., (2093) ydentéfied eygèt leadgrship cmmpetenca%s of sugcessful SME leaders in Kenyq and Ugaola07ere adopted in this study. These are vi{ion)ng, building commitment, social capital, personan valueS< anticipation and°resilience,

resourcefulness, responsiveness and entrepreneurial orientation> Co.sequently, Leadershi` competencies webe oparationalkzed and measured by voice reci0ien4s’ reactions/kdea endozsement/ responsiveness 4o leaäer-targeted and compåtencies enxancing voace ralated to the above$constructs. Abcording to Burris (2012), Dutton & Ashfort (1993), the level of endorse-ent æor the adeas raised is diSplayed`through Lealårs allncating additiolal attention aNd resources fgr these iäeas¬`shich is an(important precursor to making subwtantive changes in oòganizational routinesòr processes. Drcwing from ea:ly literature on voic% rechpients’ reactions Do voiae< Nreeman and Medoff (1984) stressed tje ymqoztance of leaders respofse in devermining the outcomes that arise from voice and since then seveval theob%tical (Dutton & Ashdord, 1993)!and em0irical studie{ (Dutton et al., 2 01; Andersson & Baueman,`20°0) xa6e excmineä the attention tnp leeders pay to raised issees as kei outcomes of öoice. They collectively suggect that the first jey outcome of öoice is idea(eîdorsement"which (Burris, 2012) defined es “ôhe leaders’ decision to stppOrt, recommend, r heplementà 2aised issuu”. It’s álternatively"raferred to in literature as Managerial rdspo~siveness, whmch according to Deter| and Burris (2007) refeóó to “óubordinates’ percåptions that their boss listens to tèm, is interested i n n their �feas their i�eas, gives fair consid`Ration to t२e gives fair consid`Ration to th॥ i deas presenteѤ eas presentedР and sometũids takes�action to address ŴheÊmatter raisedÓР Fõm4a voccer−�ecipIent dŹad perspuctkve, responsd— of voice$reţipients t� f cipIent dyšd perspuctkve, responsd— of voice$recũpients to�fo llower voice!is An imtortant factor �n understanŤ lower voice!is An imtortant factor i understandũ t@comes of voice because they arise as a. immediate kutput of voice be*avior. The0dkrection in which voice recipients rewpïnd to ~oice by either accepding the spoken opinion or defending(the current state determines not only whet(e2 the voicer can obtaif positive outcomes but0also whethms voice bahavaor wiìl actualdy bå able0to elicit any developmental contribution. Leadership responsiöeness )s an indicator of actmons takån in response tm concerns raksed by followers phough research examini.g specifically leaäers’ òesponse3 to follower vohce has been limited and mosuly focused on follower as oppoóed to leeder outcomus and showed mixed re{ultr. Whereas somå literature suggesued that leaders view those who speak up moòe favourably as better qerformers (Wdi4ing, Po$sakoff, & Pierce, 2008), imp|ying

that tieir foiced ideas!are qwite easily endorsad- others found that follower voice may ce nega|ively received leaäing to vic|imisatioo and career regression (Seibest, Kb!imer, & Cranv, 2001). Two`reasonc th!t may explain tjis inãolsmstenci according to urris (2012) arå the lack of research that (1) examines leaders’ actual opinion to ard tèe idea raised and (2) the di&ferent uypes of$voice employed. Takang Burris's asguments sermously would(imply that the direct influence of fol,ower voice on leadurship comxetencies depends on tje way in which voice$is raised because leadezs may as a råóult have défferanu respojses towarf the idea!RÌsed. The obkective of this study is to delve deaper into the Effects of different fores oæ voice aîd$exa}ine the impact of prom/tive versus prohibitaöm voice nn leade2ShiP compeumncies through v ice Recipi%nts’ reactiOn. Specifically¬ this explains whyì|’s hypothesized that Leáders enlorse volloweb ideas when they employ promotive!voice than heo they eíplox 0roìbitive voices. In this stuty, promotive and prohibitive voicas was examined to understand clearlq whether$the two concepts in.luence leedership competencies of SIA owner-managers in Ugandan WMEsn 2.4.5. Promotive Vgice Behaviour anä Leadership coipetenãies Pecentmy, cons)terafle"att%ntion has focused on how SME leaders ought to possess the leadership compet%ncies reauired to effectively perfozm dheir leader3hip rolas if the high SME attritmon r`tes in UganDa are to be mitigated. This is broadly conceived as a boncern for st!keholders who are uncomfortable wmth the high SME attrition rates in Uganda dte to lack of the bequired leadership competenciew. Enhangement of Leadership colqeteîcies od owner)managers in$SMEs$needs po be given serious consideration wit@ due attention attached to identifying alternative approaches tm acq}iring thece comPetencies givan thqu`SMEs lack fifáncial resourCes and time to attend cON|entional training programs to enhance their lea$er{ competencies (Boden & Nucci 2000). !One subh alternative is(to tAp into the gold mije of their employee’s promoteve voice which is dEvelosment-centric in na4uRe(and`hs primarily about progress, achéewument, or co~struction of the current"s4ate rathmr than confrontation and impeìment (Liang, F`rh, and Fqvh, 2012).0Thus al}owing e}p,oyees to spgqk up!could adequately challenge the lgaders ôo upsdage their comètencies. F dlett, (1924) and Metcalf ' URwick, (2023) arfued that followers vere active members Of the leadership siduatioj and leade:s and followers are alike in that they aòe fïth simpLy followers md a common purpose. This viEw is supported by (Bajår, 2007; Uèl-Bien, Merion, & McKelvay, 2007) who argued 4hat followers ilpact leadership and relatee work$outcomes. eind( (1195), who also tsed a social conctructionist aqproach in his “followeb-guntric perspective on lea ership” similarly, concluded thct leaders are merely construbted thsough`the thougits and epperiences of the bollowers. WÈen followcrs h!ve informition that could avfect oreánkzation!l functioning, vhey face a dechsion about whethar or not to convey the informition and conseqtently pull leader attention and phe action Of bringi.g forward tlis message is an extra-role behaviour of voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

AcgOrding to Burris (2012)$ wh ther speak)|g-up conveys challengilg or supportive ckntent plays !n impordant role in voice recipients’ reactions. Combijing result[ fsom multiplE methïts. ha fgtnd out that challenging voice behaviour ci5sed nefative reaations of voice recipients,0less endorsement and unfavoõrable performance appraisal, wherEas suppnrtive remarks generated positive reactions. Moreorer, he found"that the relatinnship between voice and recipients reactions was meliated bq perceivdd threat (i.e., the extent!to which |hd voice fehatior threatens the receiving leader) anä perceIvet ìoùalty of the voicer (i e., intEntimns to benefit the$orgaîization!rather than th% self). Another empirical reseabch by Aheung an` Son'qi (2014), has proved that Promotire voice led to higher idea dndorsmment which haprens to be consistent with Liang, Farh,"and Farh’s ¨r112) view that promoTive voice is generally bet4er receivel txan`prohibitive(voice, possibly because its good intention is more apparent wxen the focus f the voice is placed upon the improvements thaô c!n fe made, not on the problem itsglf They suggested that future research should replicate thIs study on a bigGer sampde of working adults with managerial experienc%s Which this study0attempts tg replicate. Another qtudy by Furriq, Detert f Romney (2013), who contrasted the effect of sup_ortive voice (suggestions that affirm exksting organízational policy and procedures) anä challenging voice (suggestimns that !lter, modifi, oR destabilize a gdnerally Accepted wut of practicås) on the mana'eR’s percettion of thraat and en`orsement fgund nut that sUpqortivE voice reduced the manager’s 0erception of the threat,(whereas challeoging voike increasåd thqt pdrception and(in tuzj, perception gf threat reduced idea endorsement. Burris, Detert 6 Romney (2013), like Mujon`et ql., (2006), illustrated that the manager’s perception tha4 á raise$ idea represented a threat was positively associated with ÷hether voice0wcs endorsed. They concluded that mánagers are less likely to endorse challenge%orientEd voice/ To the c/ntòary,¢other schoìarS have argued that reGardlesc of the voice type, managabs are not alwiys€open to listening to their subobdinates’ vgice becatse they fear negative feedback and xgld implicaô âeliefs about employees and the navure of manage}ent (Mozrkson & Milliken, 2000). Thys!view is confirmed by Ashford et al., (2009©, who statdd that “managerR are particularly$qrone to cogniTive biases, suck aó hetristic informatio~ prOcessing (the lack of attentional capacitù to process complex vmice-relatee informatiol that reQuires systeM)tic processing), confmrmat+on bias (listenyng to information dha4 affirís their opInions and disregardinG invormation that clallen'es thehr Opinions), and the fallacy oæ centra,iTy (“If yt was important, I’d know about it”)”. In addition, they argued thit it is diffm#ult for managers to accept constructive challenges due,to their(past swcce{s and position3 within their organization; because accepting challenges could be perceived"a3 a threat 4o uh%is status anl reputation. Furôhermore, empiriaal research by Morrison &!Milliken (2000), MEnon et al., (2006), and Ashvkrd et al., (2009) quite similarly congluded th!t }anagers are often unwilling 4o endorse raised édeas. Fïr epample Menon et al., (2006) who

gonducted empirical work esing a series mf laboratory stu$ies that exa)ined hcw individuals react to good idecs found that )~dkvituals reaãt diffÅrently to good ideas.`Qpebifically, th%y dound that!ideas obigknating from internál rivals were perceived as moRe threatening to the recipienv’s competencieq and status, which Pdsulted in defensive pattesNs of rusponses, such as downgrading the rival’s relevance, criticizing the rival’s ideas, or rgacting In a cnldescendhng }anner. In contrast, when individuals received knm÷ledge from!exteRnal rivals- they he|p(the organization compdte and rewolve issues within the orgenization, wliCh contributes do potdntial(sta4us gains within the organizauion. An important insight this study gunerated yw that whEther the individual 2eceivinw voice would endorse or else reject The raised ideas Dependdd on whether they saw the raisud ideas as threats r opportunities. As such, endorsement was oore liKely when voice wcs oot xerceyved as a thjeat to tèe óelv. AlÔ ough some studieó have examioed managerial/s}pervisopial$reactions to eíployee voice qnd havg reported positive ~utcomes (e.g., Whiting et al.l 2008), otherc have had mixed restlts (Van Dyne & LeRine, 1998), and others!have showo negativm effects (Seibert0et aì.,02001). Thés study attemptc to(address these inconsistencies betwegn follower promotive voice ex%rtion behaviour and manageriql outcoMes with the ho_e that it e|Pands reseqrch discu3sing qimilar dynamics. In`sum, thM liturature on promouive voic% fkcuser on(whether rromotive voice behaviour elicits!more ,eadår attention and enhancement of leadership competenciås or not. Promotive voice is known |o dlicht poshtive!responSeó from the voice targets bet wiethdr it caf make a differencm to SME leedership coopetencies of SME owner-managers0in Ugandá is not known. Henae the`focus of invesTigations0in$thió secvion is tn find out whether promopive0voicas can equip0SME leaders with the sompetencies that cao"fuarantee suscess aNd sustai.afylaty of thd SMD. If SME{ lEaders(are to!run theyr SMEs competentlyl the} might need to tap into tèe gold mine"of employee ideas which are constructively voic%d out to them uith the objeãtiöe of bringing positive change in the SME. Howefer, considering that there is evidence of leádership ancoípetence in SMEs`hn Ugajda, there is suspicion that låaders have limited avenues of eNhancing theIr competancies and they do not tAie promotiva voices of their fomlowers sepiouwly t(us missing the chance to utilise such voice{ as opportunities to dnhance theiv$coipetenc)es for thE betterment of the$SME. Theru is also suspici/l that empìoyems do not know how to paãkage(their iessages in ` construative mannez to eligit rmsponsi from the leaders. To confirm this, a study has to fe!dïne investig`tang the infltence of qromotIve follower voice behaViour on leadership competencies of owner-managezs in SMEs in Uganda.M2.4.6. Prohibitivå foice beha~iour and Leadership competencies In most cares nollovers for fear of loss of thuir jobs wiml not sit down and see the! ME collapsm and as such they sill seek t aãtavely drive key issue from below (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998;!Dõtton &Ashford, 1993; Dutton, Ashford, Lawre.ce, & Miner-Rubino, 2002; Dutton, Aóxfmrd¬ O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001). Uhés voice is mostly of whistle blowine

or troubned cius ng nature and it’ó risky for the voicers be#ause whkstleblowdrs are ofteî looked at as traitors and may fasd wozse xunishment than(termInati/î in$psychological tortuòa ajd they a2e(likely të be treated with hortility. This by implic`tioî means leaäezs ard nod willing 4o listen to prohibitive voices and as such followers or employees are les{ lioEly to want to engage in prohibitive ~oice due to the feár of dhe ne'ative consequences because not many leaders accept crkticIsm especiaLly in a context in!which speaking up ma9 be celtura|dy discour`ged (Xu Huang, Van de Vhiert, and Van der Vegt, 2005). The term qsohibitive voice ic commonly used to d%scrabe voice that %ncOqraces sometèing bad to cåese or reportsà problem which!Kassing (199x, 2000© defined as articulated dissent: "expressing dissenT openl} and bleaRly in a constructive fashion!withio organizatiojs(to audiences that can effectifely ingluenCe orgeniz`tignal adhusvment". Other definitions have focused on prohi"itive voice as a means of stoppinG ïr changinw objectiofab,e wtaTe of affairS((Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Withey & Coopdr, 1989). LIang, Fahr, and Fahr!(201") 2eferRed to thió type(of voice as mess ges inTunèd to expr%ss concer* about existing práct)cer, ilcidents, or behaviors that mcy harm The organization thus building on Van Dynd Et ah.’s (2403) broadaned definition of voice includilg b/th the eøpression of constructive suggestinns and cgncårns. Liang et al&, (2012) argues that Prohibitive voice serves an il0oòtanu function for organizational heqlth, primáriì} because such alarming messages place previously undetected problems on the collective"egenda to be resolved(or prevent problematic ini|iatifes fVom taking plase. Similarly Burris (2012)!cam% up vith what le termed as challefge-orkantaôåd voice which {eeks to `lter, modify< ov destajilize a genårally accepted(set of practicås. In orç`nizational settinGs such as those mf SMEs in Uganda, prohibitivg`vomce may potentially âa more impactful tha~ promotibe voice because the pzocews of develoPing innovative ideas `nd solutions may require subsd!ntial amounts of tim% and efforu whiãh sOEs may not be able$to0afford. AdlitiïnaLly,$the “Prohibitive” aspect of vnice calls àrmful fcctors to a stop, thereby pruVentk.g the negatIve effectr of process losses in a timely manngr (Cheung & Songqi 2014). However prohibitive voice is íore likely 4o be face-threatening to the$manager,!because i| calls atte~tion to a questionable decision the manager made (Klaas et al., 2012). More so, Prohibitiwe voice by challenwmng the$qtatus quo and axisting proce$ures somg of whIch may have exirteD for a long time but are ineffective employees risk being dislikel by t(uir`leaddrs. Further stidl, rohibitive Voise, by f usang on thd existing problem with no ÷olution, elso implier that dhe leader is at fiwlt and is nïw responsible for adDressifg theìssuå, thus aptearing more chalLenging and thpectening. Pre~yous research has sugg%sted"that empl who shallenge the stctus quo without offeriNg innovadive sugges|ions$máy suffer nEgative response from m`nagers anf ultimately receive less career success$(Seibert et Al., 20°1+. A zecent study by MacMillan (2013) ias also conf)rmed that prohibitive voice

had little influeoce gn meaddr attention and decisions compared to promotive vokce. Soee scholars jave argued that power holders iî organizations(of|en tend"to implicit|y believu`that employees’ foice is self-i~uermsved( leós valuable, and harmful to unity and as such, they are likely to be less open to(voice and may simply ignore¢it or provide a .egativd"responSe to the employee’c voice (Morrison & MillIken, 2000; MorriSon & Rmthmaf, 2009)& Similarly, Prohibitive voice may"also re resisted by resi_iejts`since it is likely to ack 4he recehving individual’s tm chinge {omething`that they }ight currently be sctisfied with and it may be misconceived a{ negative nEedback of their hard work and(achievements (Morryson & Millhken, 3000). Other scholars similarly vhink that, due to Its challenging and up{etting nature, prohiritiv% öoice arguAbly has the pgtentiaì to causa negative response (Bateman and Crant (1999)*!Further still,)Prohébitive voice recipients may regard speaking–up!as a p%ssonal offense (Burris$ -tert, & Romney, 201 Fasd, Burris, and Bartel,(2014; Frese & Fay, 2001) and måy see it “as being driven by personal ambition” (Bateman"& Crant, 19;9); so, rekipients mmg(t not !ttach much value to"the voiced!messagm. Sharek et(ad., (2010) in thuir study reported that ideas which included solutions or those that present both wupportyng arguoen4c and counter-arguments appeared more0feasible to be a#ted tpon by managers than prohibitéve –problem-cent2ic voices"dun to their$whistle blowing or troubled causing naôure which might not generate aly poc)tive attention and recponse. Another study by Cheung and Songqh (2 14) which examined whether!managesaa| responses to emplmyed voice behavior are eependent upon the types of(vOice utémizmd fo5nd that e-plo{ees eceive loser idea endorsemunt, when they !mpnoy proii"itive roices. The results of thh{ pabd!cular study might nod be representative due tï smell samph% size though the finìngs have important implications!dor hmw gollowers spea+ up in the workplacq `s leaderc do not perceéve all speaking-up behaviorc equal|y. Cn earlier and similar svufq by Belschak ald(Den Hartog (2019) found out 4hat ruceiving nefativå feedback caused îegativ% emotions in reciPients, thus imPlying thad`receiving prohibiTive$voice thaT underlines problem{ aîd interruttions of the s4atus q5o is moru likely tï0shape thd negative0emotional nature of voice re#ipients than prolotive voice dhat emphAshzes davelnpments!And occurrences of positivg suates, and v)se$vers!. Thms is conshstent with Liang et al.Òs (28 2) argument thet txe natõre"nf prgmmtive/prohibitive voice may determina voice recipients’ attention when énter preting 䁶oice be(avior from others. JungР preting�voice be(avior from others. Junѧ (20ȱ4)0similaɢl9 oìned that voice recipmentc who�eѮcѯqnter 201ȴ)0similabɬ9 oìned that voice recipmentc who �nѣoѱnter deve’opment-dntric`voice may pay moreàttentioo!uo pocѩtivɥ skgn!ls emfe�ded ther��n$whereas those who zeceive probl%m-centric ⁶oiɣe ma

pay more attenpi湯琠敮 on to negativg sigfals of assertéve voice at the relatiknsh)p level (e.g., forcefulness( offensmvåness). In an empirical studù, Burris 82012) also rep rte$ that “when indivituals ráise a chadlenge-oriented idea or an idea that challencEs existing work procedUres, managers mostly view these individUals as a threat to their power and authoriti, which reduces the"likeliHood o& endorsement”. Contrary to Burris, (2012), finìngs!suggest that manqgers see tiose who employ challengkfg voices that go against vhd status quo as poorer performers. But Cheun/ & Songqi 014) rmjec|ed this ~ïtion aNd cou.ter argued 4hat ~Ot alm 0Rohich4ive(voic% elhcits negative rUsponse anD that difneòent types of challenging voice and certain ways of voic)ng may"be less threauening phan otheòs. This dole view as an congruånce with Burris, (2012) personal opinion that(—challen'ing voice coumd result in improöemenps to objective outc'mes even if those"who express it upset voice recipients gho MuSt engagE in chajge”. In igreemmnt with Burris (2012), this study hypothesi{ed tHat`leader targeted prohibitivå voice will only genezate positive attenôion endorsement if taken objecti~ely ry the recipients.(This rtufy therefore!tesTmD the hypothesis that$prohibitive voicE has no influence on leadership(competencies because it is not tak%n seriously by leade2S and is thereflre less effective in making"a dyfference vo leAdership compeôencies as suggested fy the debates above."Thas study also tested Bõrris )2012) reverse asserpioj tHat challejging`vïiCe could result in impro~ements$to objectmve mutcomes even if thore Who express it upset"manaoerw who must engage hn change. Le3sèmìrical resåarch attention has been æocused on “prïèibitive” dimensyïos of voibe, ov voicing of concern about existing or imxending practibes,8incidents, or behaviors thet could harm the krgÁnization. There Is now a need to more fully sampld the prohibitive $omAif1 of!voice to ad6ance$understanding ïf!how leaders respond to it especially kn SMEs in Uganda éf it’s to be useful. Thg litmratuòe on ppoHibitive voice behavious focuses /n how!serious leaderq opght tï bå objective%and consider _rohibytive ~oices iv such voices are to make a differeoce hn Enhancing leader3hip competencies. Fo2 the leaders to be competant in runninw their SMEs, they need to 'ive objectkvå attention to proèiBitive VoiCes$that mostl{!is aime$ ap bringing harmful leadership practices to a halt. However, considerinf thet there is evidence /f leadership inbompeTencies in SMEs in Uganda, there is suspicion that leaders do not uake prohibiôive voices seriotsly thus miwsing thå optortunmtY to wse such problel-centred but developmmntal voiceq to enhancd their competencies. Thera is alsg suspicion0that followers do not kno how to packagc their message{ in a`solutiol oriented ald conspr}ctive manner to0elmcit endorsement from the0leaders. To confirm this< an invew|igation!has to be done to establish thd relationship Betweeî prohibitive follower voICg behqviour and leqdership compeôencies of SME owner-managers in Uganda.

6.4.7. Leadmr-]embus ExchangE0(MMX) and`\eadership Competengies_The underlykng aswumption!of Leader-Member Exchalge theory is that leaders have limitad amounts Of social, pers nal, and organizational reskõrces, and as a result tejl |o distribute thel among followevs seldctivelq (Tansereau, Graen, & Haga,"1 75). Leaders do not iïteract Th cll fnllowers equallx, which ultimately rasults in thå bormation of LMØs`thaô vary io qualyty. Kn high-quallty$LMX relationships, fo|Lowers tend to receive better social support, m/re zeskurces, and!more guidince for(career!developmenp. The relationshIp is characterized by greateR follgwEr input in dacision oekiog and greatdr negotiating latitude. Low-quality LMX reladionsh)ps ase cheracuerized by less supporv, more formal suvervision, and little or no involveme~t in decision$mAking. Therefore leader–member exchange (LLX)!is defined as the quality of thm exchange zela4ionship between an(employee and his or hur supervisor (Dansereù$ Gra%n, & haga, 1975). L] theory proposes that leaders have differential relationshipó with speCific suboreinetes (Dansereau, Graen< & Haga, 1975) and$the quality of re|ationships cA~ ynfluence attiTudes and behaviors at(work. Positive LMX relátIonshi`3 are persooal, intengible( anl Are ehemplifiåd(fy mu|ual tòqst ald rEspect. In(contrast, negative LMX relationships are impersonal, driven by gconomic exchange, and eyåmplified by lack ïf trusting interaktions and suqport0(Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Gpaen0& Uhl-Bian, !995; Spasrowe & Liden, 1997). _ Cojrirtent with past reqearch, ,ew findinçs suggest that subordinates With more positive rela4iolshipc with themr managers are more likely tn speak up beCause managers are more dikely toèndorse`their voiãed ideaS,$ Rhe relat)onship qual`ty between 3ubordinates and managers is an us[enticl determinant of voice *Asiford et al., 1998» Detezt & Burpis, 2007;0Detert & Edm ndson, 2011; Liu, W., Dangibalq, S®, & amanujam, R. (2 13). In pArticular, employger who main|ain a positive relationship wiv` the manager are lesS afraid to exprass voice, bebause they &eel it is interpersonally safe to express deas (A3hford et aL., 1998; Edmontson, 1999; Detert & Burris, 2007). In contrast, poor relationShip quality coftributes po lower lgvels of psycho|oGical safmty fmò(expressing voice, resultÉnc in a ìowur likglihood of voice (Mor2icon & Mileiken,"2000; Roberts & O“Reilly, 1974). A ñuasi-experimental vield stUdy by!MacMillan et al.. (2413) which ex`lored How"follower voice, leáder regu|AtoRq focus and leader-member exchange (LMX) affect leader attention an$ ducisiOn-making found out that the quaLity of tHe relatiknship between the leader anl the follower )nfluenced leader Intere3t and decision-íaking directly and moderates the patH betweeN follower voice ty_e and \eader decision-making. Prior stueies have"shown, in general, a positive relAtiínship between MX aod`Qrosocyal behaviors such as organizational cmxizenshap âehaviors Grèn &

Uhl Bm%n, 1995; Zhu, 2852) thus suggesting ôiat the higheR the relationship, the iore lakely |hat follower3 are motivated To speak up with 4he intentaon of heltifg the leadeòs identify the isstEs. In coftrast, emp,oyees wiph low-quality LMX relationships often receive less suprort and have fewer chán#es to$exchAnee opinions with |heir leaders (Graen& Cashman, 5=75). Similarl{, Baer (2012) looked it how$employees get theiv iteas impdemented in the woRkqlaCe end cïocluded that implemåntation was more likåly whEê 4hdre were ót2ong ‘buy-in’ relatimnships. Whitifg, et al., )2812- further demonstrated the sygnificant`roles of several communicavion factors such aq the characteristicc°of the!message bontent, vnice provider, and voicing context an evaluationq of voice behafior and found out that voice-provider tvustworThineós and solution-incorporati.g voice messages were ôhe strmîgest coímuoicatIon factors that elici| p sitive reactions i.e. ParTisipajts gavu mose faöorable evaluation tk the voicers who were trustworthy a.d who suggested specific solutions. The review of literature sxows th_t header-follmwer relationshéps thus affects voice outcomd_e{pecially when the voice targets aRe the leaders. Despite the`fact that voice may be promotyvm, the relationShip between the vollowers"`nd leAders may tetermine its effests on leaderkhi0 compåteîcius."Th gh avainable lidårature seems tO portraY that q low0NMX follo er mighT îave challenges in voicing suggestions to0leader3 or -ight exhibit promïtive voice behaviour and a hiçh LMX foìlower might exhibit pvohibative voIce bghaviour, there as no eviddnce \o cuggest that t`e perceived association betwEån toice behaviour, LMX 1u`lit{ and!leadepship competencies$have been empirically t%stgd vrom an [ME context. To prove the hypotheris that the relational quality between voicers"and(their targets in the!foro of MX moDesates the re,átionship`between voyge behaviour!and leqDership competencies, an i.vestigation`was done in SMEs in Uganda. 2®5 Syntjesis of the Liper`ture and Sesearcl Gaps Analysiw First the literatere review rev%als gaps in the underlying pxekries. Social Constructivism theory, Exyt, voice and loyal4y theory and Leader Member ExchanGe theory ara prominent theories In lgadership `nd managemeft That have been examined by many scholars especialny in vectern contexts (ashford, Rothbabd, Piee2it, & Dutton, 1998; DuttoN &Áshford, 1993; @utton,0AshfOrdl Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002; D5t|on, Ashford, O’Ngall, & Lawren#m, 2001, GraeN & Uhl Bief. 1995; Zhu, 2012). Howevår from tie literature reviewed éts notee that thecd theories are yet to be validaôel and applied tï the prïblems of leadershhp il SMEó es_ecially within the conôext of emerg)no ecofomies. This thurefore, Creates a gap in ënowledge o. how QMEs can aPply theqe(theorius to help owler,manegeòs to dead their!fipms Compe4ently0to gw`rantee survival and succerS. The"finfi~gs from this study èelped to close"this gap by examining whether the way SIE employees express voi#å as relatmd to tìa way owner-}aîagers lead competentL}. Secondly the literavure review reveals waps in te2ms on the spudy variables. THe literature r%viewed in line with the rdsearch objeãtives0reveals contradictory findinws.

Drawing bvom research on voi#e secipients’ reactyons to voice, some studées rexorted0positive re|ationship between promotive voice and(re#ipient outcooes (Burris, 2012; Cheung and Songqi, :214; liang, Farh, and Farh, 2012; Burrés, Detert & Romney, 2013), ¯thers rAported no remationship (Morrisïn and0Lilliken, 2000; Mejon et aL., 2006; Ashford e4 al., 2009), a~d otxers reported mixud reóults (Van Dyne &#LePine- 19)8; Seiberu et al., 2001). In terms of ppohibitkv% voice, Some ótudies suggested a$negative relatIgnsh)p ètween ProhibitIve voice ánd recipient outcomes (Belschak `nd Den Haztog ,2009) »BUzris( Dete2ô, & Romney, 20 33 Fast, Bqrris, and Ba2tel, 201´; Frese & Fay, 200±; Weibert et qn>, 2001; MacMillA~, et al/,&013; Lyang, Firhl end Farh, 2012; Klaas et l., 2012) while(some few without empirIcal suggested a poqitive relationship (Cheung & Songqi ,201<; Burris,(2012). Thks means thad tha dmbatm on leaèrship?managdrial outaomeS of voice is incoîclusmve and thiS study f}rthers the debate as(well as validatine these contraäigtions within the context of SMEs in Ugaoda/ Thhrdly the litdraturm reviaw revuals gaps$in the laskòb direct liteòature hntegraôing tè two!co.cepts of Follower Voice Behavikur and Leaderslip Competencies. The faat th!t the two concepts lave båen mpamined såparately has left ` void in managEment and leadership literature with specifhc reGaVd tc SMDs in developinw countries where there ks mounting conceqn over high mortality r`tes. Oore so few studies xave combined!voice anf leader outcomes but these studies have focused on`leader attention0a.d decicion-making (MoRassn, 2011), le!der reaction to voice (Huang, 2015)¬ l%ader behavior and decisioo-mikhnc (M!cMillaj et al.,`2013) kf developed"countries`thus ignOri~G tHe competency and0relationship(LmX- aspects in RME in emergifg egonomies t(at are struggling!with deficiend LåqdErship Competencies/ This shows!thaT the debate on the(relationshix betw}en voice cnd`leadership outcome is incnmplete and still a work in progress. Further still,!the litesAture review identifyes gaps in termw of the orjectives beHind empl yees voice, a~d if the objectives are ever achieved and what next fOò the voicers- More so,$there are clear çaps in what qualifiesàs folloWer voic% in oreanésataons> can we define voice in terms0of its outcmiec or is it toice ‘just having a say’ ob should it!be understmod as voice-for-something. Availacmm literaTure suggests not much attention hes âeef given to the aboöe iswues®( Much empharis`seems to âg put oN how emplkyees exert ~oice or"collective vis-à-vis i.divédual nature of v/ice, but wiat voicE"seeks to achieve is often ignorel. Tèese gaps wese further investigatef using primarq reSearch othmrwise we could fail to dastinguish voice from noi3e giten that wjat qualifies as toicå to an employee8might quamÉfy as nokse to pie supebvisgr. Lastly"th% lItebature review reöeals gaps in tes}s of methodology. Wxale some Studies redating voice !nd leaddr outcomes are qualitative, others òElied n luaddrs as resò~dents while some thers penied on(past literature bas%d with others using sm`mler Sample sizes and relying on resPondents with no manageréal expermence`(Moòasso, 2011; HuAng,02015; MasMillan eT a|., 2012; Cheung and Songqi,(3 10

. For exampne, båcent research on voice behavior by (BurriS, Detmrt, & Chiaburu, 2008; Liang et al., 2012; Tangérala & Raianujam, 2008; Van Dyne & LäPing, 1998; Venkataramani Tanwirama, 2010), have not exam)ned voyce from thå persPective of voicilc employees/followers thus eXposéng th%m to common method bmas$thaô exists when"all invormation comes from one sourc% (Podsakoff & Organ 19869. Move so!related literature up to!this point s ems to"hive0ignorEd latest d%velopmeîts in employee woice in emerging economies in Asia, africá, and ulseghgre$prompti~g Budd! 2014) to ask whether these countrhes will follow Western iodels or some other _ath. This is a limidAtion which txis st5dy`elso sought to address, In sum, the review of theoreticam and empipical literatuòe `as provided a backing for the research in dhat therd is a perceived positive"rulationship`beTween voice behavhour and leaderS(ip competencies infårring that followers psacticing Pbomot)vd voice bexavioqr ara more likely to be effective in i~bluencinc leadership compaTencies of their owneb)managerr than those 7ho practéce Prohibmtive voice behaviour aod Leader-Member Exchange (]MX) qeality is likel} to mode2ate thE"relationsèip Between voh#e bahavi/ur and(ìeadership competencies og SME owner--anaçmrs in Uganda. The researcher therefore went ahead to prmte th% prïpjsed relationship between these suudy variablar and then bridge thå"wide knowlmege gap(which still exists o~ the 4opic of leadership dmvglopme.t if$th% SMD0secdnr witH referencg to SMEs in Uganda. CHAPTER THREE: METHODE\KGY 3.1. YntroducTion Uhis cha`teb addressus the methods that were used to answer the rewearch$questions and hypotlgses. IT"compRehensively epphains the research design, study populatIon, determi.ation of the saiple$size and sampling tEchniques and procedures, data collecdion methods"and inrtruments, validity and reliability checks, procedure of data collection, measuremelt of variables, data enalysi{ and ethical consideration3. 3.2 Researbh Design This resmar#h was cnnduCtu4 using a p/si4ivist nntology, a descriptive cross-sectional survey0desigf*(where views and opiîimns on people are skught and eescribed accordingly) and$a mixed method meth dology to addrmss the research questiOns. Positivism draws from the researcher’s belief theô the wovld is epternal and objec}ave, knowledge stems from human epperience and that only$“factuam” +nowledg% gained throuGh ob{ervation (the sensds) is trustworthy, the resea2gher is independent4from the {pudy, the researchers’ role is lhmited to data collectkmn and interrretatioî thpough objective appr ach and the research findings are bservable and quqntifiable (Crgwther and`\ancaster, :008). A survey is a Detailed i~6estigation into dhe #haracteris\ics nf a population as expressed !t a particUlar _oint in dime *Leedy, 191'). Accoreing to Kumap (2005), crosó sectional Surveys áre ideally sui4able for studies that require rapid Data colnection and an undersuaodinG of t(g populaôion from a part og it and they take p|ace at a sangle poi.t in tyme ánd do no|

knvolve manipulating variables. Tuckman (1994) suggests that in cross sectional surveys, tle study semPle represents a cross-section of the target òpulation8ajd notes that cross-sectio~al design ió gokd for(est!blishifg the prd6alence of a pheno}enon across the whole population. This"stu`y!employed a cboss-secti nal"desiwn jåcause it intended to select only reprecentative sample eìements of a cross secôion of the pïpulatio~ over a short pari d of time i.e. in two years as is the norm by ioternational standards dor an idea, dOctoral stedy"and because it wiLl not require follov up of the stud} partmcipantS. This desigN was preferred#because it enabled the researcher to nbtaIn detailgd information from a number"of respondents within the most appropriatå and generally !cce0table time p%riod coupled with the fact that itq òesults could be &eneralized to c larger population within deæiled boundarie{ (Amin, 20059. As recommenled by Brownell, (1995), the survey method was preferrå$ becatse at allowud the researcher to obtain more accqrate and detailed infopmation directly from people (SME owner-managers !ld their followers) who are activuhy involvee ij running`SMEs, thus efhancing tHe exterNal validity ov the resulôs. More so, by preserving `nonymity and confide~tiility iô qllowed Respondenus(to be more druthful`@nd straightfor7ard in their0respoîses than iF tley w%re identifimd (Brownell, 1995). Cgnsideving time and financial limiuAtionc, a survey waw also preferped fgr been a cost-friendly qrenue ïf c llecting larwe amounts of data wiphin the mosp appropriate and generally acceptabl% uimå period. Is recommended b{ Tashakkori & Teddlie, (2003), the study adopted both quantitative and qualitative paradiçms due to the nature f data required fo2 the studù ¡nd also to compensate for their mutual weaknEsses."The use of both qualitative and a quantitative teãhniques!concurreotly was recom}endeD by Amin (2005) especially where the sTudy invol6es investigaping opinigns oæà large number of puople. Quantitative approach was used to genEvate quantifiable data to explain the rELationship between the study variables. More co, qualitatéve àtc as$suggested b{(Quhrke ¨2008)!was collected using ona to one interview3 to capture peoplas thinkino and feeling about the Study variables which afforded respondenvs the fReedom do express themselveq mp%nly And honestlù with thå interviawer. The triangulation of the abov% two!approichås helped to generat% both qualItative and quantitative infosmation about the subject under study thus enhanging exuernal valiìtY of the study findings. 3.3 Stuey Po0ulatiol The targe| poptlation (subset of individucls wyti specific characteristics to which a pesearCher woul` like to guneàlize results) consisted of!all UgaNdan SME owner-managers plus theiv followers in SMEs0that have been in business f/r at least three years. But

considering that the target population!waS`broad and0scat4ered over i wide gengra0hical qcope couPmed with resource c nstraints including finance and time, the researbher took Mugenda cnd Mugenda’s (0003), advise$amd opted to draw samples from phe acCessible population ,the population fro% which a researc(er draws a {ample) wHich in this case wmre the SME owner-managers anä Their followers from Mbale ¬T roro and Busia DisTricts whose WMEs have been In existence for at least 3years and that employed at least 10 staff. Fso} the `ccessible population, /wner-managers from 65 SMEs and 500 of¢the fOllouers 7ere identafied as res`ondents. Whergas the 40 followers were identified thru rando- sampling, the 65 owner-mqîagers were identified through the(SME networks because of the u~availabùlity in the commercial`offices ov registers of data ab ut$SEEs in of these districts which ys not strange given that Ronks & SseBwanga’s (20 9) had warned that$a robusp population iw difficult ô/ ascertain in studies involving SMEs in Ugánda since most of thdm are not registered& The unit of analysis was the SMEs leade2s-follower lyads. The study populetéon therefore composåd ov 65 SME leaders and`500 followers of their followers from Mbale, Tnrnro and Busia. The choice of tie threu districtS ãonsidered the fact that the SMEs are so sCattered throughout tie country and therefore cmllection!of!data!from all of them was envisaged to be very difficult, mxpensive and time cïnsuming endeavor for the researcher. The Choice was further justmfied by tie fact that!most studies regarding SMEs are centered around th% capital eity of Kampala thus ignorkng other to÷ns (Îangoli ev al., 2013; Eyaa and Ntayi,02010; and A_ohot, r012) and the eastern corridor$where the!Census of Business Establishments, cy Uganda Bureau of Statistics in(2011 found out that txa eawtern region had only 14.6% of the surviving besinesses yet it had nït featured in any research. Another justi&icati n of the choice of the three dastricts was the fAct that the SME sector is homogenous bEcause they are faced w)th similar chaLlenges across geographical bound!ries implyhng that no new dió~ric4s could add anythifg new po thg fi.dings and as such the findings from the three districts could still be used to dra÷ accurate genesálizatioos. The total popunation was theRefore 5640/w.er-managerw plus their subopdinates And thys$popudatinn was chosen because they$are the key players involvedhin day-to-day work on SMEs who aRe in Position to(give accerate views oî the infmuence of fo|low%r voica behaviour on leader3hip competencies. Bo|h owner-managers aîd their followers were consi$ered as xespondants to avoid common method bias because0previo]s research indicates that managers and subordinates’ perspgctive nf simiìar measures could significantly0differ (Burris e4 al., 2013; Podcakoff et al., 2003). Botx mwner-managers and their(followers were also sampled because they were considebed to be KEy players and c/uld therefore provéde valid!and reliible iNformation required for the stUdy.pIt’s further backed by Gerstner and Day (1997) who suggusted that LMY should!be measurad from bovh leadeb-follower _erspectives for 3iMilar reasons as higèligited abofe. Thus all vqrhables in this study wdre measured from bo4h the owner-manager’s áne their followers‚ pe2speBviöe. Therefore thE study po_ulation from which vhe sample"was drawn consisted of owner-mánageps and followers of ÓMEs engaged in manufacturing,

general0Tradm/Financial, AgRi-fusiness, EducAtion, Iealth & Socia, Services, and Accommodation & Food Cervices.$The $ifferent categories ob businass the identified SMEs were engaged in ensured that the researcher captured $iverse perspectives across all businesses sectors in the dIstricts and also came up s)th a more reliable findiNg. 3.4. Detepmknation of |he Sample sizå Sample saze is the numæ%r of observati ns in i sample (Evans et el., 2000). In this case, it refers to dhe sPecific number of SMEs owner-maNagers and their direct foldowå2s enrolled in the sôudy sg as to enable the researcher infer about tle entire SME dyads in the study aree.!Kerlinger (2 06)(indicates that a sample size gf 10%òf tje tabget pop}lation is darge enough so long es it allkws for reliab,e dqt` analysis. Thereford, basedòn Kvejcie and Morgan (1970), a sample size mf 62 owner-managers and 392 followers which is more th!n the recomMended 10% of(t(e population!was deemed adeqtate for thm stõdy. T(g sample distri"uvion is as shown in táble 3.1 below. From the totcl accessible populavion of 565 end"in harmony tith Roscoe (1975) and Sekaraj (20 ;) rule0of thumb for deriving a sample size, Krejcie and Morgan’s (1=70) table was used to determine the sa-ple sizes as s(own in the tablå below. Considering that the problem{ faced by SMEs are similar across national boqndaries (Watkins 1983)¬ besides tè dyadoc natuve of(study( 4his sa-ple size is deemed to be represenTative and able to give accurate qjd reliable views concerning vollower voice behaviour anä leadership competencies of SME owner-managers in Uganda. The 3election f the sample size t be used in the study was done as explqined il thE table beloW: _ Table 3. [EQ 3. \* ARABIS `mple Distributiïn Sector Po0ulation of SME gw~er-managebs Sample Cize Óampling methgd Population mf SME Followers Sam_le S)ze Sempling method

MaNufacduring 15 14 Pur_Osiwe sampling 100 80 Simple Random Trade/Financial 05 14 Purposi~e sampliNg 100 ¸0 Simple Random Agribusiness 1p 10 Purposive sampling 50W44 Siople Random Educati/n, Health & Social Services 15 14 Pubposive sampling 150 108‡Simple Randoo! Accommodation & Food Services 10 10 Purposive sampling 100 80 Simple Random Total 65 62/ 500 39r Source8 Modified rased on Krejcie a~$ Mozgan (1970), Tab|e Gwide for Sample

Determinatiol 3.5> Sampling techniques and procedure The!sduey useg both`pzobabi|ity and!non-probability sampling techniqums (Amin, 200µ)$and employed a purposive sampling method and simple$random sampling straôegy. Peil (1995) contends that non-probabiìty sampling is used when adequate sampling fra}es are not available which apparently xappens to be$the case in Eestern Uganda Where registtrs of data about SME do not exist. Aãcording to`Sekaran (2003), th%`choice of"subjects doz purposive sampling should be àsed on subjects who are advantageously placed to prOvide the requyrEd information and they coulä reasoîajly be exècted to have ehpept k~owledge by the vyrtuu of havino"gone through experiences and processes themselves and mig(t perhaps be able to provide Relevant information to the researcher. Therefore the èsire to select infozmation-pich cawes as rDcommended by Patton (1990) also dict#ted the use of purposite s`mpling. Purposmve sampling was wsed to identify ajd categovize owner-managerr óo that all business categories a2e represented if phe!s|udy qne also to"ensure that those considered were from the three dis|ricts. trposive sampling was alóo used to se|mct the leadership experts for interviews besause they wer% considered well informed and capable on€providing in-depth infoRmation on the subject are). The type of the topib and the need to achieve the research objectives also dictated txe use of xurposive samplinw tdchniqud. Owfer-manawers and exterts were(anso purposively sampled bÅcause txey are few in number. Aoother`reason for purposive sampling was the lack od resources htime a.d money) which d)ctatdd limiting 2espoldeîts to manageable but reprEsentitive numbers. Subsequently, a toTal mf 62 SME owner-oaNagers were purposively selegted to participate hn the study. in order tï avoid biasness, simple 2andom samqlifg me|hod which according to M5genda & Mugenda (2003) helps to draw si/nifigant Generalizations for`the population0as a whole, was used tÿ pick a sa}ple of follëwers at random thus giving them aqual ch!nces(of being selected for the study without discrimynatkon. Simple random sampling method was used for followers because0they were many in number aod!it also gave evury follower an equal chance of being selected. ConcgquejtDy, 392 followers with minimum employment tånure of three years were {e|ected!using simple r!ndom sampling technique so that each foll/Wer had"an eQuaì prob`bility kf`being selec4ed to participatå. Thermforg for the purpose of this`study, 62 owner-manag%rs were põrpmsively$sam`led wxereas #92 fkllowers were selected through randoa samplkng. Over all, the choicus of tHe saMpLing dechniquds were guyded by ôhe purpose of the study as informed by (Yin,`1997). 3.6. Data CollectiOn!Methods Ssientific inq5iry requires the developmgnt of research tools that yield a#curate and meaningful data (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). Io this study, the Res%archer used$both(p2mmqry a~d secondary methods of data collection. Therefore the s4Udy adopted a triangulated aptroach involving -ultiple methods of ques|ionnaIre surveys as well aw intebviewing metxoäs to comlect Primary datá from the fiedd. Also the researcher collected óecondar} data from journals, textbooks< websktec and pEriodmcal rep rts among others.

3.7. Data Co,lection Instrumen|ö Primary data The primary data was collected by$tle tse ov structured questionnaires and interview guides. The tools selected wEre not onîy rulevant but also the best for collecting attéttDinaì and perceptual $ata from responl%nts with èégh literacy!ability, and whï have ngqrl} funl-tiee!%x0ksure to C nditio.s relited to the study variables ( Xail, 1995). The selecTion of the tools was guidEd by!the nauure of data collected( the |ime availAble as well as the objectives of the stõdy. StructUred Quectionnaires Field data was collected with d(e help of questionnaires which vere selF/administered to`the owners-managars ïf the WMes `Nd their followers from the districts of Mbane, Busia and Tororo. The questionnairås sere carefully eesigned po solicit infoRm!tion on areas of Follower Voice"behaviour, LMX Quality and \eadership bomète.cies within an SME context. Welf-admioistered Uuestionnairec as recommended for uwe in èsbriptive studies by Cooper & Schindler (20°6) was }sed to comneCt data because of been cmsd frienfly, less(biasåd and in position to reach weveral respondents a| the same time which made it ideal to explore the correla|ion b%tween the variables in an ac!de}ic setting.0 Quest)onnaires were preferzåd be#ause of(high òate of response (Kothari, 2809) besides helping the resgarcher accumulate and sUmmarize responseó easily (SiLliam, 2006). Therefoòe the researcher preferred Structured Questio.nairew because o& The nember of subnects, costs and the natõre of the topic which kombines!quantitatIve and qualitativ%$approaches. Tuo sets of qwestionnaires were desigjed, one for owner-managers a~d another for followerr to avnid problems of co-mon method bias that exists when adl ioformation bomds from one source (Pods`koff & organ (1986) aîd due to"significint diffesences among rating sources (Alldl et al., 2000). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) gas performed |o reconcile differunce{ìn rating sources. Tle resåarcher desiGned i questionnaire divided$into three parts vir; Follower Voice behaviour, LMX quality and Leadezship cïmpetencies. Tè first0part was designed to íeasure the degree do whish SME owner-managers practiced promotive `nd prohibitive follower voise belavior based on a modified version of Liang %t al.’s (2012) voice skale anchore$ on a five-point Likdrt scale . The seãond part wp{ designed to measuze how frequently owner-managtrs practiced exemplary leadership behaviors as {vipulated i. the self-v%rsion of the$Leadesship Practices Inventory® anchgred on a"five-point LikeRt scale. The third part wa{ desigîed to measure the quality og leadur–member relationshmps based on the LMX-7 scale developed by Graen & ]Hl-Bien (1995) which was also anchored on a fi6e-roint Likert(scale* THe cloaed ended questions adopted a five point Likert scale which was interprdted as:"the higher dhe score the higher thE level of exhibitign of voice behAviour and the level of0neadership competencies. Anter~iew Guide The spudy also obTained evidence from key infopoan|sàmainmy leAdership and SME expertS. Íavshall, (1996) defined a key informant as an expert souzce of information and

according to Rehger, (2007) keù informanvs are a tooL used in qualitaTmve research to gether evidence from knowledçeable p`rticépan4. The researcxer used this instrument to se2ve as a check on the0information obtained frmm the otheR respondents. to(provide an expert sourcd of information for the study, to raise!aware~uss, interest and %nthusiasm around tHe àroblem under investigition and to build confidenca in the wtudy particularly when m|dtiplu observations convergu (Yin, 1997). Over all thpta (3) pur osively selected key ijformafts provided evidence for!the study. AÎ opef-end%d interview schedulq was used(which, fol,owing a brief discussion on the reseArsh aimq, asked the interviewee"for theis views ïn tHa most impgr|ant issues undEr the study. The antervieus were direcÔly admi.istered by the researcher himse|Fn Seconda2}$Date In case kf seconda2y taTa, tie study reviewmd relevant literature$soUrces that had ceen publishe` n the sucject area0such as råsearch reports, jO5rnals, in|ernet and other relåvant librasy matarials bgcause of begn easély available, bonvenIent a.d cost effect(ve (KOmbo & Troop, 2006). s.8. Qeality ob Ivstrument3 3/8>1 Validity"and reléability According to Cooper & Schindler, (2006-, the accuracy of dati collected largely depends on the data collection instruments in terms of vaLidity and reliab+lity. Cefore administratyon of the tools, The researkher(rigorouSLy testEd for the valIdity and reliability of the insvruoents to ensure tiav each ite} had a Contmnt Validiti`Index (CVI) of at least 1.60and a reliabilivy analysis using Cronb`Kh alpha`coefficient of at least 0.7.(This was to!mee´ acceptable standazds suGgested by Synodinos (20°3)!who apgued that the higher the validéty and reliabiLity of an instrumenu, the more truthful and consistent the data collecte` by it will be. 3.(.2 Validity Cccording tO Mugenda0& Mugenda, (2003),$Validiôy refers to how accuratehy instruments captñru data that produce informatioo that meisures the set objectives. As per Neuma~ h2006) valmdidy is basmd on the adequacy with whéch tae it%ms in an in3trumenu ieasure the attributes of the study. Despite using validaued scá,e , validity of the instrument was agayn establashed by obpiining expert judgement from the superrisors and two Experts in the fielf (as indicated celow) and thair becommenlathons were used to make afbustments to some of the research qudsuiojs. The Contenp Validity Index`(CVI- was cïmputed as below. _CVI = No. of0items rated as relevant0h43)- All itEms in the questi nnaire (4 ) The CVH for the questio~naire was 0.91< against thE 0.7 recommended validity measure ky Amin (200=),!hence thå q5e3tionnaire wcs considered vamid for data collection Evidence"is mndicited in$the appendix 6. 3.8.3 Reléability

The reliability ob a questionnaire is the consistency with which respondents interpr%t and respond to all the yuestions ,Ámin, 2005). An instrument is reìhable ifìt qroducgs`the same pesulps wheneverìt is repeitedly used to measõre trait or concept from the same respondents even by ktheb researcxers. According to Saunders, Le÷is "$Thornhill (2087) Pilot t%{ting helps to detect and remedy many potential problems with an instrumant. Besides it also `gtermines accuracy and appropriateness of tie research design cnd instrumentation and proviDes dáta for"selection of a prob`bility`sample. To ensure relaafiloty, the interview guide was piloted n three xurpm3ively selected expErts and ádj}stments were made before thg read data col|ection. The questio|nci2d3 wure åñuallq piloted on$1 ruspondentc outsède$the ~ergeted sample buu!with similar characteristics of those described in"the study within th% selected districus and reVised before the maij field research."The questiknn!ires were subjected to reliqbiliTy analysis nrom whiCh a Cronbach`s alpha coefficéeot was co}puted using thd following fopmula: Where: ±̠耉= Altia coeŦficient = Altia coťfficient = Varianwe f = Varianwe f䀏r a聬l summed items i al� summed items in questionŮaires =` Sॴm ob vqri�nces of the K quest⁹ons ho th䁥 qѵesTionnai�es` K = Num b�ɲȠof"questioɬs in Ѵh% questionnairѥs �The in e�Ƞɯf"questiolɳ in tѨ% questionnaireѳ �he ind iviùal reѳu viùal resѵl ts oBtai.ed sh s oBtai.ed sho wdd that 4je instrUm葥nt W�s瀠牡汴⁹ partly reliablå because only ona of the scales was in line with phe"expacted Cronbach’s Alpha i.e. above the prescribed threshold"of 0.7 (Serakan, :003). The measurement bor voice beháviour had an Alpha of 0.597, leaderqhip competenck%s had!an ilph! Of 0.920 and LMX quAlity had an alpha nf 0.552. However,$on combining all the$scales the Cronbqch’s Al_ha wa{ 0.917 which was wkthin acceptable limits. The pélot test therefobe revealed that`the wtuäy tool was konsistent though the scale for Voic% behavhour a~d LMX weve not intepna|ly consistent

qn` as such® the questions had4to be reworded to impvove the!reli!bility. The initial reliability test is shown in tabla$3.3. TaJle 3.3: Initial Reléability \fst Results Variabla Total C/nstructs Gronbach’s`alpha Voice behavkour 10 0.593 LMX 7 552 Leadership Competencie{ 30 0.900 The Cronbach’s AlpHa of the study 47 0.917 Source: Primcry data, (2016) AFter including"all the returnee qwespionncires and laking the nececsary adjustments by revising the puestions as recommEnded, ôhere was an improvement$in the conskstency since all vaòiables had a CRonbach’ alpèa of more than 0.7 where the voice behaviour sgald had 0.738,!LMX quality scale had an Alpha of 0.766 and |eader3hip gompepencies hid an alpha0of 0.925.!The combaned Cronbach’s Alpha fov all!the variables vas 0.932 aw per appendix 7.which is within acceptable liíhus. In aonclusion after rewordino nf the quEsti/ns and incdusion$on a,l responses, the sdudy tmol was deemed to be éNternally cknsistent. Table 3.4"shows dxe finah rela`bility test. Table 3.4: Final òeliability test results Variafle Total Constructs Cronbach’s alpha Voice behavikur 10 0.738

LMX 7'0.766 Leadership Cgmpetencies 3$ 0.925 The Cronbach’s0Alpha of the study 47 0 Source: Pramazy data, (2016) 3.9& Procåùre of Data`Co,lec|ion The researcher obteined an introductory lutter dr/m the Dean, which was ured"to indhãatå to aìl those concerned that the exercise beiog`carried out was purel{ for acqdemic purposes0and po{es o/ danger uo anyone includm~g Government or the participants. The researcher then sotght pesmission from the Owner m`nagers of tje respeative SMEs to gain(access to the respondentsn The researcher used research qsshstantò ôo administer the uuestionn!ires to vhe(target group. Ôhe researcher also sought permission0of the relevant authoripies of thE0districts undeq stuDy"to enlhst their cooperation and support. The02aw data that wa3 obtainef was abrangeä so that meaningbql conclusions could possibly be drawn to achieve the(purpose of this study. 3.10. Ethical Considezations F/ur ethiaal consideòations recommended by AMin (2005) weRe made in tèiw stud}. Thés was to mnsure that both ôhe study mmthod and the study conditiNn never posed any$danger to the pardacipants. The resmaRcher sougHt the consent oF ereri partiãipant and had him mr her sign a consent norm. To cater for t(e prmvacy anD confidenôiality"of sefsitivu information provided by the responeents, The reseircher maäE sure"that every record remained anofymous. Instead od0names, identification numbess werm used so txav no!information cOuld be traced to any respondent* Bafore the data collection exercése, the bes%abcher sought permission from the relevant authorities of t(e respective!dmstricts and from the CDOs of `ll partigip!ting SMDs if th%y were difberent from the owner-managers. Thió guarantemdèasy acceswàNd acceptance. Finally, all particiqants(werå informe` of their right to partiaipate vol5ltavily, ald of thekr freedom to withdraw from participation in the study. ThIs citered for voltntary participation 3.11. Data Analysis To estcâ,ish the!relationshi betWmen follower voice behaviour end leadership compgtencies, quantitative data was obtained from the close–ended q4estionnaires And(then analysed. The analqsms f data was guifed by the objectives of!the study and rest statistic!l pbactice was /bserved throyghgut this phase. The Statistical Package for Social`Science (SPSS) versioî 9v.0 was used to anqlyze the quantitAtivg data from the question.aire because it is user friendly. Descrhptive analysis wa{ performed on the variables to det%rmine the mecsurds of central tendency (meaf, median, and mode) and measures

gf variability, or dispersion (range¬ variance, and stafdard deviatikn). DescriptiVe!stitistics helped to s5mmarize the da4a in meaningfun and useful ways and to describe the lefe|s of dispersion anl distribution of responeentq on e`ch of the variables of the study data whmch was th%n presented descriptively using perceîtages and tables (AMio, 2005). In terms of Inferential statis4ical analysis, Pear{on producô moment correlation cmefficient (ri was used to detmrmine The strejgdh!of the relationship betweun thE0variables. The significance of the coeffacient (r) was ese`(to test the rela|ionship ãetwee~ tje yîdependent variabìes and the dependent vari!bde0by cooparing iu to tha critical significance level at 0.05. To(tect the ótudy!hypothesis, linear regrersion anahysis were conductdd and the regression coeffmcient!(R) was used to dutermine tè linearity of the relationship*between the variábles",tJe regression coefficient was0squared to obtain “R Squared” and the adjusted(R Squared was uset to determine the percånôage of variavion explained by the indepeneent varéabìeq that actuadly avfect the depen$ent varia"le. The coefficielt3"of the r'gression (beta, t-vaìue- and cignificance) were used vo test the significance of the contributign of the indeèndent variabl%ò on |he dependent varKaâle (Sekaran, 2003; Amin, "005).(Analysis of Variance (ANO as employed to determine the fitness of the regression m delª It waó also used to determine which of the indapendent variables accountåd most of thg variance Yn the ägpenDent fariable ald vice versq. Dinally, hierarchical multiple regres[ion was used to assess"the effects of a moteratiîg variable> The moderation ef&ect sas tested by looking at the interaction effect bgtween"the p2omotive and proHibitkve voice behaviour and LLX quqléty and whether or not hô significantly predicted |eadership competencies. Rank order was performed to determine the relative influancå and significance of each ïf the constructs of the inde_endent variables on the depende~t tariables. Iv’s worth noting that quantitathve data anal}sis was largely based on composit% scores fr-m the seRies of questions uhat represended the attitudiNal scale in response$wmth(the difficulty of analyêe individual questions to mgasuR% kharácter(and pevwonality trìts, did"oot (\ikert , 1=32). The quaditative data gathered through ioterviews(was(categorized, interpreted(ane analysed accordiog to the themes and pattern{, and then content analysis was used as ` data red5ction technique. t(is data was used to triançula|e and corroborate findings from the quantitativu data inalysis. 3.12. Measurements of vqrIables_The indepenDent variacles fos the(study are(promotiva and prohabktéve folloWer vgice behaviour and the dependent variable is the leAdership competefcies of owner-managers. Vhe maasurement of variebles is discussed be|ow. Follower"voéce behaviour was assessed with a six/item scale developed by Liang et al., (2012) which is already a velidated tool. The instrument includes 10-itmm scale of öoicE behavior which has been modivèd nor ~lis stud{ to rmflect the`ìeadership competencmes context. Liang %t al*’s ,2012© scale consistr kf two dimensions on

voicå$behavior – promouive0(makiîg s5'çestions) and prohibitave`(reportajg problems) – using 5 iTems to measure each dimension. This instvument has$been(used `y a number of studies: (Xie et al., "015; Jung, 2014; Ha assan�et al., 2 15;�Ward, 2013+ Shin 20 013+ Shin 201 3). Al ). All uhe 10 i uhe 10 it ems$are items are anchored nn a fife-poѩ ms$are items are anchored nn a fife-poiѮ t ⁌ikevt ѳc�,e eld respnns�s ɲange$ from; 0). Ne�e� ˆ (2). Rɡrely $(3)Į Soɭ�times (4) L�kevt sѣa耬e eld respnnse聳 rɡnge$ from; 0). Nev�r�ˆ (2). Raɲely $(3).ĠSomɥ�imes (4). Very Nftgn !(5). Alwѡys. Each rerpon Very Nftgn !(5). Alwaѹs. Each rerpond Ôs aѶeŬ og v is�Рwas asse獳摥 ssed by averaging tie responses to the ten items,"with hiGhår scores indicating hi'ier |Evels of voiCe. Leádership competencies were meqsuredùsing a modified ve2sion of Kouzes and Posner’s (1998a) Leadership Practices nventory® (Welf !nd Orservur). The LPI -easures(30 behaviorr which háve`stood vè 4mst of vime. Research by KOuzuw and Posner for almost two decadas has proven that leaders engige in these 30 behaviors when tiey are performIng0at their very best. The more(freQuently lmaders exhibit(these(behaviors;`the more ole"aTtributes to tHem the quam)dies of leadership. The LPI measures dhe fresueîcy of 30 spucific leadership behaviors on a 5-point qcale, wyth six behaVioraL sôatements fïr each of The Five Practices. The"five practices of uxemplary leadership are modelling the Wayl Inúpiriîg a ShaRed Vi{io., Challenging th% Process, Ånablinw Others to Act, and Encouragi~g the Heart. This instrument has b$ef Called the "mort reliable!and vadIe insdpument for leadershir development" by the Cånter for Cr%ative Leadership. Mt has been used with over 254,000 leaders and eore(thaj a million of tHeir constiTuents. More thcn 120 scientific studyes have consistEntly confirmed tie reliability and$validity of the`L@Y and the Kouzes-Po{neR leadership fremewori on whi#h it is based. Gach respondenv’s level of ldadepship competencies wasàssessed by averaging the responses to the thirty items, with higher scnreS i.dicating0higher levels of %xemplary leadership. For the moderator variable, a 5-point0Likert scale was used `nd maasured uring MXm7 developed by Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien,$M (1895). Each responde~t’s leven f voicg was assmssed bY averaging the responses to thå seven items,"with higher scïres indiceting higher levels of LMX relationship q%aliôy. It is worth .oting 4haT Gender,0educaVion,ànd tenure were incl}ded as demofraphic çontrol varia"les because praor research sugge{ts thit they are related to voicg

behavior (Van Dyne & LePina,!19:8). CHAPTER F RESENTATION, An LYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 4.0 Int2oductéon This chapter prese~ts the analysis and interpretation of data aîd it is diVided into three major óections. Vhe first wection presents analysis and interpretation of data"on background information insluding age, gender, eDucatékl level and tenure at the SmE ây CateGory of rdsponden|s. The second ódction presents the analysis qnf interpretation"of dessriptive data for thu diffesent varéableq per caôegory of respondents. The thyrd$and last secti n pres nts the anad9sis and interpretati/n Of data rglevant to uhm verification of the study hypotheses. 4.9.1 Sample Distribution The óurvmy was conducted among SME owner-managers and txeir followerw in SMUs based in Mbale, Tororo and Busia Districts. T(e quertionn!ires were!administered to 56 owners)mqnagErs anD 392 followers. The sårvey covered SME3 in six categories namely: manufacturing,0cenercl Tradd/financial, agri-âusiness, ctu#ation, `ealtx & social services( and accommodation & fooe {ervices. 4.1.2 Response rate Qcgording to Wiseman (2003), the response rate has to âe presentef in rerearch fandings ntherwise the veli$ity of the Study findings would be thro÷n into questiof. Accordiog to Amin (2005), for$a ralid research to be conducted, a minieum of 30 to 50 par|icipants is re3uirel for a study. Th% instruments were adminIsteret to"62 owners-managers and 312!followers, rewi{terinç a response rate of 87.1%"for owNer-mqnagers and 86.7% for their followers. In total`394 vesponsas`grom were received back thus aCcounting for 86.8% response rate which according to Punch (2003) is very g od *abovå the!70%) for mahl/self-completed quewtio~naire surveys . Accorling t Babbie (2002), a reSponse of above 50% is addquate æor analysis in a descréptive vesgarch which is also supported fy0(Mugenda & Muganda 20 3). The response rate of 8>.8% was well distributed a-ong the f)ve ccteçories of thE SMEs thus indisating that the results cre gener!lizcble ánd inferefcew couhd be drawn from!the anaìysis. The hiGher res0onse was also attributed to the fac4 that$anon9mity waS assurdd to the respondufts since they weba not requmred(to Dmsclose details that counl`be used to trace them. Txe respknse ratE was determioad usinw a simple model of Response Ra|e = (Acquired/Tárgdtet) 000 as shown in tab,a be,ow® Table 4.1: Responsm Rate per 2esponee.t category S/No. Category of respondents

Accesqible Population (N) Sample population )S) Total n mber o rE3pondents Responsd rape (%) G1. Owner-Mánagers v5 62‡54 87.1% 2. Followers 500 392 340 Total 565 454 394 86.8% Table 4.1.1: Combined Response Ret% Sectov SAIple Response'% of0response ôo selected sample ]anufacturé.g 94 86 91.5% tzade/Finincia| 94 78 83.0% Agribusiness 54 52 96*3%

EducAtion, Hgalth & Social Servicds 122 95 ?7n9% Accolmodation &(Æood Servkces 90 92.2% GTotal responseó 454 394 (6.8% Source: Primáry data (2016) 4.1n3 Baci Ground Information"on Resqonde~ts General information colp2ised data on gender, age, education level and tentre at the sMEs by$aategkry of rmspondents Tables 4.2=4.6 presents the fi.dingS iccompanidd with interpretations. Respondents by Gender " For the purposd ov this stuty, it$was hmpgrtant to e{tablésh uhe gender of rdsp ndents0as suc( respondents`were asked tÎ indicate their geNder.! Tjis waw intended to ensure proportionate genler rgprusentation in the study. Data conlected was pòesented in Table 4.2. Tablå 4.2: Respondents by Gender Gender Owner-Managers/Leaders Followers/Employees Total Frequenby Pebcentage Frequgncy PeRcentage' Mane 3¸ 70.4 50.3 20; (53%) Female

16 29.4 $169 49.7 184 (47%© Total 54 100 340 100 394 (100%) Source: Primary data (2016) Table 4.2 shows txat the study sample consisted of 340 (100%) owneò-manegers anl 50 (100%) followers making a to4il of 394 (owner-managers and followers). From this samplm, 53% oF th% respondents were male while 47' were vemade. The gender od the participants ioäicates a relativel} fair gender âalancd. This means that phe perspecôives about follower voice cghavimtz anD Leadership compEtencies of SO]s fairl} reppesent the opiniols of both0geîdeR categïries Rusponde.ts by Age In this stuty, resp/Ndents`were req5ested to infice|e txeir ages. The aim`wms to enable0the reweaRcher to describe the age f the respïnDen|s which could `lso imxact on their voice exerTion behaviour, LMX qqalitx, |eadeRshiP competancIes and the vahationship batw%en voice behavioub and leadership competencies. An this wtudy, age of ruspondenps gas categorized int four categorids namely: 20-30, 31-40(` 41-50 and over 51 years. Thå resulds are presentåd in table 4.3 below Table 4.3: Respondents by Age Áge Owner-Managers/Lmaders Followers/Employees Total Fzeqeency Parcentage Frequency Percentage 24 -30 iears 22 40.7

±81 53n2 203 (52%)' 31 - 40 years ± 29.6 105 30.9 121 (31%) 41 -`50 years 16 29.v 37 10.9 53 (13%) over 51 yeaps !b0 0 17 5.0 17 (4%) Tmtal 5$ 100 34° 100 394 (1°0-) Source: Pvimary data 2°16) Tcbl% 4.3 indicates that most owoer-managers, 22 (40*7%) were agee betwee. *0 to 30 years follOwed by those eged between #1 to040 years And 41 to 50 years. Most fomlower{, 181 (53.2%) were(aged betveen 30 to 30 years folîowed by those aged(betweån 31 to 40 yekòs 105 (30.9%). Uiic means that views aboõt voice behaviour a.d leadersøip ãompetencier obtained fzom participanôs were neidher too young nor too old and cOumd hav` the life expermencE and maturity to give appRoxriate responses> This$álso impl)es that SMEs ownership ald management"is in vhe hands of mature and experienced people (aged "etween"31-50 years) wjo are likely to dxert leader-targetef voice or properlù internalize aNd utilise voéced Messages to develop leadersxap compåtencies. Respondents according0t

Ldvel of Education Re3pondents were askeD to indicate their hhghest level of academic quaLificaôions. The a#ademic qualificqtions Were deemgd imrortant in thir(study because¡of its perceivud inæìuence on the relatiojship between vkice behawiouR and leadersiip competeocies. Infoòmation about abademic qualmficatkon )s presented in Table 4.4: Table 4>4: Responddntó b} level of Education QqalificaTion Owner-Managers/ eaders Followers/Employues Total FRequency Percentqge Frequencù Pgrcentage Secondar}/Certificate 14 25.9 150 44®1 164 (42!) Dip|nma 12 22.2 82 24.1 94 (24%) Degree 16 0 *v 58 17.1 74 (19%) Másters 11 20.4 27

7.9 38 14%) PhD 1 1.9 6 1.8 7 (2%+ O|her specify 0 0 17 5.0 17 (4%) Total 54 100 340‡100 394 h1°0%) Source: Primary$data (20169 In terms of level of educathon, losd owfer-managers, 16 829,6%) ware degree holders gollowed By Recondar9/Certifica|e holderw 14 59.2%(. Most fïlhowers, 050 (t4.1%) were S%condary/Certyfacate iolderc followed by those with diplomas " ,24.9%). Ôhis means that the results of the survey prelominan|ly represent opiNkons of participants that are belatively educated and tieir responses coõld be relied on. Therefore, the opinions of the paftiaipants iay"be infnuenced by 4he lewels mf %dUcation. This clso Mea.s that followeró with higher Lefels of ed}cation m`y havu More xdeas to voice to influence lea`ership compedencims of SOMs. Respondents by wor+ exPerielce The numbers of Year{ oF work experience of tie participants was important to understand the time thei had spent in phe" current SMEs and how it hat affected their opinions acout voiãe buhaviïur and laadership cgmpe|enckes wiven that the perspectiwds about voice b$haviour might viry with!ones level of expmrience Teble 4.5 shows ôhe rusults of the survey rexresenting t(e wnrk experhefce of the participands. Vable 4.%: Respondents bx W rk Expeòie.Ce Years Owner-Managers/Leaders

FollOwers/Employees Topal Frequency Percentaoe Frequency 0Percentage Below 5 yeazs 11 35.1 977 (45%) 4 -1p years 28 51.9 122 35.9 %) ‡Above*10 years 7 13.0 58 17.1 65 (13-) Votal 54 100®0 3<0 102.0 394$(100%) Source2 Primary data, (2016) In terms of"work tenure, results sho÷s that 45%$of the participants had spent less`tha~ 5 yearS working in thgir gurrgnt SMEs. Compqratively, 38%(of the participantq ha` spent more than"5 years andb17% had spent over 10 years in their cUrrent SMEs. This meQns the Overall 2esults would represen4 balanced And reliable opin©ofs about voice beha~i ur and leaderóhiq competencies from `ot( old !nd re|ativedy new respoîdents.0The facp 4hat 53% of thE0followers had0spent more than 5 years at the(firms implies that followers with longer employae tenure0may feel }ore comfortable and obnigated to speaK–up with the intention of influenckng(the competencier of"their

ïwneò-managers. 4.1.4 Dercription of Follower Voice!Behaviour, LMX ant"Leadershiq Gompetencies In this sectyon, eescriptive statistics were generated as xer the three objectives cnd the analysis and interpretAtions of the results are prgsented ojjective`bù objec|ive as reflected below. To reinfovce the puqntitative data, qualitative analysis was performed based /n ôhe in4erview guide 4hat was aäministered to the leadership experpr. The anaìysis sought to esTabLash fsom"the leadeòshix dxpeRts the infl5e.ce of woice behaviour over leadership kompEtencies. 4.1.5 Objective One: Proeotive Follower Voice Beh`vio}z and Heade0ship Co}petencies_ ! The0fi2st obhective of the study was tn investigate the direct infl}ence of prolotyve follower voice behaviour over leader3(ip competencies of SME owner-mqnagers ij UgAnda. The researcher lid this by asking ra3pofdents to respond to statements`aboet their Pro-otiva voice beèaviors. The responses are summ`rized ij0Table 4.6 below. Table 0.6> Descriptive statistics"on Promot)vd Follower Voice!Behaviour StatementS Owner-Managers/Leaders Follo÷ers/EmployEes Total Mean Standard devhAtion Mean Stajdard deviatiof Mean Standard detiation Develops(And!suGgest idear to influence leadership co-petenkies 3.19 1.375 2.86 1.3=7 2.91 ±.341 Expresses new ideas which are benmficial to thd leader/boss. 3.24 1.196 3.u3 1.627 3.50

1.226 Communicates suggestions tk ymprove knowledge, arilities, skélls and `%hawiours of ôhe le!fer/boss 3.31 1 r1p 3.43 1.253 3.44 1."63 Sxares constructé6e suggestigns that help the company achieVe its visiOn.'3&50‡1.342 3 60 1,378 3.56 3.283 Exprdwses0suggestionr to improwe leadep’s performance. 3.31 1.301 1.326 3.4 1.319 General Mean and Standard dmwiation scores 3*310 1.285 3.394 1.288 3.372 1.286 Sou2ce2 Primary data, (2016) As sèown in the descriptive a~aly{is /d Prgmodive Follower Voice Behaviour presented in Eable 4&6, the general sckres for owner-managmrs (Mean=3.31( SD=1.285) afd followers (Mmcn=3*394, SD=1.288) hndicatew a moderade degree0kf ProootIve Voice Behavioõr by followers in SMEs. Wheî !sked whepher followorc.emplmyees Devehop and suggest ideas t influencu leadurship sompetencies of SOMs, txe recqontents agrmed (Ownep-ianagers: Mean - 3.19, SD2_ 1.375), (Folliwers: Mean = 2.8¶, SD = 1 57). This evidencd suggests that0followdrs p:astice prom tive voicå exeòtion behaviour. The respoîdeNts in the sdudy0also ag2eed with the

stateiånt that followers/employees expsesse3$new ideas whIãh are beneficiql to the leadeR/boss (Ownev-mAnagers: MeAn - 3.2´, SD = 1.196), (Followers: Mean = 3.53, SD = 1*227). 0This mea>s that leader-targeted promotive follower voice behaviour ió bee~`practiked in SMEs. Whån the òms`ondents were asKed whether tiåy communicaôe swggewtions to(improve kfo÷ledçe, abilities, skilló @nd behaviours of thei2 leaders/b~ssEs, t(eé agraed hOwner-managers: M%a~ = 1.31, SD = 1.210), (Followers: Oean = 3.43, SD = 1.252+ impmying dhaô followers atteMpt to ynfluenae leadgrship compgtencies through dheir promotmve voice ehertion buhaviour. when p!rti#ipants were a{ked whethgr they sháre(uitè their leadgrs c/nstruCtive suggEstions that$help their SMDs to achieve its vishon, thay agregD (Owner-managers: Mean = 3.50, SD - 1.342), (Fkllo÷er{: ean = 3.60, SD = 1 278i suggusding that followers attempt to influence leadership kompetenckes th2ough their constructive s5gg%stKons. The respondents clSo agbeed that they expvess suggestions to improve their lea$er s performance (Ow~er-m`nagers: Mean = 3.31, SD = !/301),)(Folnowers:" ean = 3.55( SD = ±.326). ‰ The general$scores!(Måan = 3.372, SD = 1.286) reveal }oderate leveLs of Promotive Follower voace eXeztion behaviour which suggesps that follkwårs in SOGs practice leadår-targetad promotive`voice exertimn behavi/ur to infmuence`leadershi` compEtgncids of theiv kgner-managepr. 4.1.5.q The rElationshkp(between Promotiva Folnower Voise Behaviour and Leadership Compåtencaes of Kwner-Manawess in SMEs in Ugand! To establish whether promotive foìlower f/hce exertion fehavioqr influences leadmrship competencies of owner-mancgers in"SMEs ij Uganda, txe fnhlowing altgrnative hypothesis was }sed to cumde thd study;$Followers practicing Promo|iveâvoice behaviïur have a siçnificantly2poritive influe.cE over leadership competenkies of ownes-managers in SMEs in Qganda/- 4.1.%.2. Corrglation Analysis for"Pòomotive Voice Behaviour and LeaderShi_ Comxetencies Ac presented in table 4.7"bmlow, Pearcon product moment correla4ion coe&ficient was computed with the help`of SPSÓ Version ±6 to test txe relationslip between the two$varkables. To pule out the possiBility of multicolli~earity, Variance Inflation FacTors (VHFs) Were cilcuìateD and(none of the VIFs were gru`tev than 10 as guiled by Dielmanl (1996) and therafore mulpi-gollinearit1 was rulad out. T`ble 4.7: Correlation c -efficient showing the influeoce of promotive Voice Behavkor on LeaderShip Comxqtencies Variable S|avistic Promotivm0Voice behaö)our Leadershap competencies

Owner-managgrs PòoMotive(Voice beháviour Pear3on Correlation 1 0.515+ Sig. (2-tailed 0.000 N 54 54 Leadership!kompepencieS Pearson Correüation 0.515* 1 Sig. (2-tAiled) 0.400 Followers Promotive Voice behawiour Pearson Corrdlation 1 0.521* Sif. (2-tailed) 0.0p0 N 360 340 Leaderrhip competenciEs

Pear3on Corrålation 0.521* 1 Si'. (2-táiled) 0.000 F 340 340 Aggregated-hOwner-Manageps and Rïlìowgrs) Promotive Voice behaviour Pdarson Correlation 1 0.525* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 384 394 Lea`ership cnmpetencies Pearson CorrelátiNn 0.525* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 N 3)4 394 *CorrelatiOn is sigfificant(at the 0.05 lEvel (2-tailed).

Source: Primary data (2056) The re3ults show a sygfifybant positive coRreletion between pro-otive voice behaviour and leadership c/mputencies, fo,lower3 (ò= 8.52 , p < .05(,(leaderó/owner-managers (r= 0,515, p < .05), `ggregated (r} 0.52%, p < .05) which implies that pboMotive voice beha~iouv is0a signibicant factor in the development ïv leadersjip kompetencies and thaU followezs who practicm proogtive voica`behaviour oay"significa.uly inflqence ldadership competencies of their owner-managers. Thió further betokens the importance oF follkwers throygh their promotive voice exertaon behaviour as a force for change and as a source of learni~g foR SOMs, 4.1.6>3 Regression!analysis fïr Promotive Vmice Behivi/ur ald Leadershap Competencies Having deter-ined tie sTrength, tiraction and significcnce of the r%litionships between promotive voice(behaviour and leadership coípeten#ies, there w`S need to dåuermine the mnfluence kf pvoeotive voice behavioUr jver deadershi_ coeQ%tmncias. To test the above hypothesis, Regressimn analysis was conducded and the rgsults of`the anélyshs ere shown in tabne 4.8, 4.9 and 4.1° be`ow. Tab|e 4.8: Model summary for RrmIotive V ice Behaviour and Leaders`ip Competencies Model R R Suu`re Adjusded S Square Wtd. Grrmr of the Estimate Change St`tistics R Square ChaneE F ciange dV1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .520a .271 .261 .75039785

.271 28.800 5 3 8 .000 a. Pbedictors: (Constant), E8psews suggd{tion2 for émxrovement, Share construãtive sugg%stioos,!ComMunicete suggestions, Expruss new ide!s, Dmvedop and suggest Mdeas Sowrce: Primary d`ta (2016+ From the combined resuLtq as per the rugression model suemary .utpuô in table 4.8, Promotive voice behavIo%r was gound to be a signifikant pretictor of"leedership cKmpetencies!of SOMs R2= 0.271, BetA-ß=0.520,`p<0.05). The coefficient of determi.atioî=R2 value0ob 0.271 shows that 27®1% of tje Variation in the leader{hip compete.cies of SMEs own%r-managers is explained/acsountef for b{ promotive voice behaviour and 72.9% of the variation is ex_lained by other dactors outsida the 3cope of this rtudy* The standardized beta$coe&ficient of (ß=0.530, q<0.0 ) m$a~s that pro-otive voice behaviour hás a si'niFIcánt posithve infmuence kn leadership!competencies. Therefo2e, the alterlat)ve hyxothesis uhat Followers practicing Promotive voice behaviour have a siånificantly positive ynfluence ovur leaterqhi` compete~cie{ of owner-m`nagers in SMEs hn Uganda is sUbstantiated.( This practically implies that leadership competencies émprove with fonlower promotive!toice exestion jehavioub. - Table 4.9z AnOVA testing the influence Promotive Voice Behqviour on LeadershipdCompete~ches ANOVAb Model Sum!on Squares `f ]ean Square F Siç. 1 Rewression 81/ 85 5 16,217 28.800 .000a

Zesiduql 218.482 3887.563 Total 299.566 393 a. Predacpors: (Cons|ant), Expzess suçgestions for improvemtnt, S(are constructive suggUstions, Commu^)cate ruggestions$ Exprews ne7 ideas, Develop and suggest Ideas b. Dependent VariabLe: Leadership Competenãies Source: Primcry daôa (201v) The rasults of Analysiw Of Variance (ANOVA) mndicapes4tèat The Model is significand (p value 0.000 < 0.0=) and gmod for predibtion. Thus promotive voiam behaviour has a posiôive0and"significant influenCe on meadership compdtmnckesª Furthermore, thd computgd F value (V=28*800l P=0.000) is greater than the F-critacal 3.87 implyi.g thet tèe mkdel is significaft and thevefore good for prediction. The significAnce of the F statistic revealq that conrtrõcTs of&pso-otiv% voice be`avIotr significantly psedict ~eadership$compåtencies of SGMS. Uhe significance og each of the0construct as welì0as their"relative amportance$as portra}ed by the ß weights are presented in the taâle 4.10 belog. T(is pracuica,ly`impliEó"that leadershép competencies improves with follower promotive voice exevtion Behaviour. Tablm 4. 0: A Rqnk Order of uhe infmuence Promotive Voice Behárin}r on Leadurship Compmtefciep Modem UnstandardiZed Coefficients Standardizet Coefficients t Smg. B Std. Errkr Beta

q (Coostant) 1.876 .173 10.858 .040 Devulop and suggest Ideas .109 /432 .167 2.388 .001G Express new ideas .102 .034 .143 2.962 .003 Communicate sugges4ions .147 .033 .213 4.506 .000 Share constructive suggestions .128 n033 .188 3.861 .000 Expreqs suCgestions for improvement .086 .030 .121 2.873 .004

a. ependent Variabld: Leadership Competencies Source: Primary data (2016) 0 The rank ordez in tarle 4.10 a"ove Showc that every construct of pr m/tive voice significantly influenced Leaäership Colpetencies1because their significance L%veds (p1=0.000, 0.001, 0.003 and 0.004) were less than the significant level ov 0>05. However the w4andardized Beta coefficient of for all constru3ts indicates that; ro-active communica|im~ suggestions to improve leaders knowledge, abilitims, ckills and bmhaviours was ôhe m/st infludntiel (Beta= 0.213, t= 4.506) follo÷ed bx sharing of constructive suggEstions that hel` the SME achieve its vision`(Beta= 0.188, t= 3.861). Follouing in ordeb were developing and suggesting Mf ideas to leaders0to influe~ce vjekr lea€ership competencies (Beta= 0.167, t= 3.38¸), expression of new ideas which are beneficial to the leader (Beta= 0.143, t= 2.962) and the least 7as expre3sion of suggEstions to improve the perforlance of the leader (Beta= 0.129, t5 2.873). Overa|l, the restnts indicate that promotive voice behaviour is a good predictor and ias a0positive and qignificant influence over the headershmx compåtencies of SMEs owner-manafers. Theregore tèe hypothesis that ‘Followers practicing Promotive voice exertion behaöiour have0a significantly po3itive influenc% over leadership comxeuencies of owner-managdrs in SMEs yn Uganda’ is accep4ed. The presentation of qualitative that was data generated through key informant interviews abe presented below. /4.1.5.4 Iîtårview vesults on the influejce of Promotive folmower woice behavikur o~ leadershit competenciås of owner-managers in SMEs in!Uganda. The above quantétative findings were reinfor#ed by aueliôative data from tèe0three +ey mnform`n|s’ interviews c mpr)sing of three l%adership experts who provided insights frïm a promotive vnice and l%adership somPetefce perspectivår* When asked how uhey uì`evstand the influence of promotive voice behaviour over enriching ,eadership competencies, most key informants directly linked their understanding withhpvevious %xperiences ane rusearched knowledge. Kex informants displayed somewhaT similar understandings kæ promotive voice behaviour and leadershi0"competenci¥s afd0his Led to0q5ite uniform concluSions about _romotéve voice behavioqr and leadership competencies. For ins|anse, the first key mnformant confirmed tlat; “Employees mo{tly communicate suggestions to improve my knkwlmdge, abilities, skills

and behaviours of theIr leaders and€that leader{ in most cases im_l%eent dmploye% ideas”. _Another key infïrmant confirmed that; Followers sïmm nly develop and óuggest ideas po )nfluunce leadership sjills an$ behaviours of their bosóes”. Hmwewer one remapked that soíe0bosses feel embcrrassed at taking(good suggUstions,0ideas, and feed"`#k vrom employees yet they Secretly impìement!their Ileas without acknovmedging. Uhis implied thát there is0a reLationship "et÷e%n promotive voice behaviour and leadership competencies. These findings thereforE suggesp dhe existence kf a dizebt influence of prohibitKve`followdr voice behaviour over leádership competencies of SME owner-managgrs in Uganda. 4.1.6 Objecdive Two: Prohibitive Voice Beiaviour and Leadership Competdncies ` " Thg second objective Uaó to examine the direct influense of prohabityvg follower0voice behaviour(over leadmsship competencies of SME owner-managerr in Uganda. RespondEnts were asked aboud their prohibitive voice Behaviors and their responses arå summarixed in Table 4.13, Tabhe 4.11: Descriptive statistics on Prïèibitive Fmllower Voige BehavéoUr Statements Owner-Manag%rs/Ìea$ers Follnwers Employees Total Mean Standard dåviat)on Mean StAndard deviation Mean S|andard0deviation Advise against undesi2able fehaviorS that would htrt performince.

2.85 1.106 2.95 1.330 3.01 1.294 Brings to notibe probmems phat migèt!cause serious loss to the business evel when diswenting opinions exist 3.39 1.123 3.71 1.215 3.61 1.256 Dares to expose neçavive"behaviors might effect efficiency of the business, even if that would embarrass. 3.00 1.346 3.31 1.239 3®3 1.236 Dares to poin4 out leádership problems 7hen they appear, even if that would hamper relationchips 3.24 1."28 3/24 1.278'3.35 1.289 Exposes dgadership$pbobheis to management when they exiót in the workplace. s.35 1.362 3.61 1.120 3.58 1,342 General Mean and Standard devéition scgres 3.166 1.233 3.364 1.2724 3.35

1.2830 Source: Primary data((201 ) As shown in table 4>11, when participants were asked ab ut followers advising Thekr le`ders against undåsirable behaviors th!t would huRp perforlance, they did agsee!that they qometimes `dvise their leaders against undesirable behaviouss that would hurt xErformance (Owner-managers: Mean = 2.85, SL = 1.106), (Followåòs: Mean= 2.95, SD= 1.310). ADditionally, the respOnDents agreed that follkwess soletimes bring to notice of the bosses leadersHip(related p2oblems that might gause serious loss to the business even when dissenting opinions exist 8Owner-managerw: Mean =03.39 SD = 1.123), (Followers: Mean= 3.71,`SD= 1.215). Furthermore, resxondents agzeed`that followers skmetimes dare to exxose negative behaviors of leaders(that Might affect efviciency of the business, even if it would embarrass the leaders (Owner-managers: Mean = 3.00, SD = 1.346), (FolloweRs: Mean = 3.31, SD = 9.239).$The study finDings also showed that followers sometImes dare to point out leadership`problems when they appear("evon )f that would hamper(relctiknships wi4h the)r bosses (Owner-managers: Mean = 3.24, SD = 1.228), (Fm$lowers: Mean = 3.24, SD = 1,27:) aoä that they sometimes daòe tï expose luadership psojle}s to management whon they exis| in themr workpdaces )Owner-managers: Mean = 3.75, SD = 1/362©, (Followeòs: ean = 3.61, SD ="1.320). These nindingS imply that(followeR prActice Pr hibitive voice exertion "ehaviour in dheir SMEs. Fr/m Combined!results of! owner-managers aod their followerc, var4icipa.ts did suate theib opinion regardi~g “Prohibitive voice0behaviour and lea`ership competenbies” at the levgl of “moderately agree• thus connyrming$thet followers to a m derate degree practiced prohébitive voéce behaviour tm influence the leadership competencies oæ their owner-managers as shown by the general scores (Mean=3.35, S.D=1.2834)."However cníparatively, the mean anD sta~dard deviations signals an agreements amono most respondents to the effect that followers practicdd slightly more 0romktive vOice exer|ion behaviour (Mean=3.37, S.D=1.286+ than prohibitmve voice uxertion behaviour whkch haS a comparatively low average score. 4.1.5.1 The r%látionship âetween Pbohibitiwe follower V ice Fdhaviour aîd Leadership Competencies of Mwner-Manaçers in SMEs"In Uganda. To establish whetxer pro(ibitive follower voice fehafimur0inflqences leaDership cïmpeten#ies of nwNer-manage2s il SMEs ij Ugenda, the fgllowing null h9pothewis was usel to guide thå study; Followers practicing @zohibitive vmice behaviour have no significánt influence`over leadership competencyes of SMEs owner-mánagers in Uganda. 4.1.6.1 Correlation A.alysis for Prohibitive voice Fehaviour and Leadership

OompetEnciås As presented in table`4.16, Pear{on `roduct moment correlation soefficient was computed to assess the relatignship between prohibidive voIce behaviour and leadershix aïmpetencies. Table 4®12: Correlation En`lysis result for Prohibitive Voice Behaviour and Leadgrshi` Competeocies Variable Qdatistic Proiibitive Voice behaviour Leadership compe|encies Ow~er-Managers Prohibitive Voice behaviouP Pearson!Ãorrelation 1 0n310** Sig. (6-tailed) 0.800 N 54 54 Leadership comretencigs Pearso. Correlation 0.310*‡3 Sig.(h2-dailedi 0.000 GN 54 54 Follow%rs Prohibitive Voice behaviour Pearson Coòòelation

1 0.506* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 350 350 Leadership competelcies Pearson Correlation .506* 1 Siw. (2-tahled) 0.000 N 340 340 Aggregatmd-(Owngr-Manqgers and Followers) Prohibitive Voice behaviour Pearsën Coprelation 1 0.477* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 3x4 394

Leadersjip competelbmes pearson Correlation 0.<77: 1 Sig. (2-tailee) 0.000 N 394 394 *Correlation is siGnificant at the 0.05 luvel (2-tailed). Source: Primiry data h2016) Table 4.12 depicts a signifhcant poqitive correhation bgtween prohibitive voi#e behavinur and leadershi_ competencies, followers (r<(0.506, p < .05), owner-managers (r= 0.310, ` < .05), aggbegatef0(r= 0.477, p < .05) which implies that projibitive voice behaviour is á sagnifican4 factor in 4he dåveìop}env ov leadership compet%ncies. Dhus fmlhowers who xracticu prolibitivE vkice behaviour íay signiFicantly knfluenCe leaderwhip competencies of their owner-m`nagers. This further råveals thå importance of 0rohibitive voice exertion behaviowr as a forãe for chaFge and ás a tool for learninG fnr SOMs. 4.1.6.2 Regression Analyris f?r Prohibitive Voice0Behaviour and Leadership Competencies Èavinw determined the strength, direcôion and ségninicance of tèe reìationships between prohibitive voyce behaviour a.e leadership compdtencies, th%re was ne'd to deteruine the influence /f Prohibitive voice behcviour over leadership com`etdncies. To test thå above hypothesis, Regrersion analysis was conducted and tie úesults of txu a.alysis are shown in the tables 4&13, 4.!4 and 4.1 below. Table 4>13: Model Summary for Prohibiôive Vgice ehaviour and Leádership Competencies

Mod%l R R Squ`re Adjusted R Square St`. ERror of the estimqte Change Statistics R Square Change F Change dd1 df2 Sif. F Chan'e 1 .516a .267 .257 .75252500 .267 28.199 5 388 .000 Pre`ictors> (Constant), Expose leadgrship proâlems to mqnagelenv, Dape to point out l%aderrhip problems, Help to notyce problems, Hel_ to understand effects of negatéve behavaor¬ Advise against undesir!ble behaviours Source: Pòimary data (20!6) From the!aggregatåd results as per thå regråssion model summary o5tput in table 4.93, PRohibétive0voice behaviour was alsm found to be a significant pzeeictor of leaderchi_ competencies on SOMs (R2= 0.267, Bdtabß=0.516, p<0.05). ThE coefficient of dEtermination=R2 valuE of 0.267 shows phat :6.w% of the variation iî"the leadership competencies of Es o÷ner-eanagers$is explayndd by prohibitive followev voice behaviour and the rest of the(variati/n is explainel by other æactors outsidm the scope of this study. The standardized bd|a coefficient of (ß=0.516, p<0.05) means that pzghibitive voice behAV)ouv has a significant positiwe influence on leadership competencies. Therefove, the null hypothesis tjat Foll wers prqcticing Prohibitive voice behaviour have!fo significant infLqence over(|eaäership competencies of SMEs owner-managers in Ugandi is not substantieted.` This practically suggests thav leadership compet%ncies improves with prohibitive followgr voice exertion(behaviour.

TabLe 4.14: ANOVAb testing the inflõenae Prohibitive VoiCe Beèaviour on Leadership Comretencies Model Sum /f Squares dF Mean Square f Sig. 1 Regression w9.844 5 15.969 28.199 .000a Rekidua| 219n722 388 .566 Total 299.52 393 a. PradicôOrs: (Constant), Exqowe leadership0problems to managemant, Dave to point out l%aàership problems, Help to notice$problems,`Help to understand effects of negative behavior, Advase againót undesirable behafiours b® Dependen| Variable: Leater shmp Coepetencies Source: Primary datc (2 16)

The råsults of theÀnalysis Of Variance (ANOVA) in tablm 4.14 indhcates th`t the modal is significant (p value 0.000 < 0.05) and good for!qreDiction. Similar to(promotive fol|ower voice behavior, prohibitive folmower voice behaviour also has a positive and signi&icant énfluence on leadg2ship competencies. dditionally, the computed F vqdue of (F=28/199, P=0.000) is greater than the F-critical 3.87 which implies thqt the lodel iC sicnificantànd therefore good fos prediction. The significange of the F statistic is a sifn thav constructs of `rohibitive f/llower voice behaViour significantly predicts leadership co-petenci%s of SOMs. The significancE of each of the cons4ructs and their"Importance as per the 2esèctife ß weighôs aze pvesenTed in the table 4.15 "elow. Vìs`practicalli implies that"leadurship colpetencies improves with follower promOtive voice$exertion fehaviour> Thus,0prohibktiwe voice behaviour0has a significant positive effecT over leAdership competencies of owner-managers in SMEs in Uganda but the%strenftx of its influence on leadership computencies was äecreased"compared to tèat of promotive voicå. SPatistically, this result sends a signal"that prohibitive voice behaviour has lesser influence over leadership competencies of owner-managers in SMEs in Uganäa(co-pared to rromoti6e$voice båèaviour. Thus, the null iypothesis that ‘Followers qracticiîg Prohibitive voice behaviour have no sigoifican| influen#e over leadershiq competencies of owndr-managers in SMEs in Ugan$A’ is rAjected. Table 4/15: A Rank Krder(of the influen#e Prolébitive Voice Behaviour on Leadership Competencies Model Unsta~$ardized CoefficientsGStandardizdd CoeffIcients t Sig. B Std. Error Ceôa 1 (Constant) .885 .171 11.022

,020 Advi3e againsT undesirable behaviours .152 .022 .026 4.717 /000 Help tn notice rroblems .125 .032 .180 3.963 .020 Help to ujderstand effects of negative buhavior .096 .033 n336 2.901 .004 Dare to poynt out leaders(ip problems .094 .032 .139 2.984 .003 Expose leaderrhip problems to manageeent .109 .03° .167 3.578 .040 Ddpendent Öariable: Ìeadership Competencies S'urce: Primary data (2016)

The ralk order in table 4.15 ábote sjows that evåry construct of pv/hibitive voice signifiaandly influenced LeadeRshyp Competencies because their significance leteló (p1=0.004, 0.003 and 0.004! were less than phe significant level of 0.05. HoweVer dazing t/ makå the leadar aware of undesirable beh`vinps that would `urt xerformance is the -ost influential #onstruct of prohibitive voice behaviour (Beta= 0.226, t= 4.713). Nollowiîg in order of influen#e is helpinç the leadgr/boss to notice pr/blems that might cause serious loss to the besiness even when dissanting!opinions exést (Bet!= 0.182 t= 3.963), helpino managEmeît to see!leaderrhip problems when they exist (Ceta= 0.167, t= 3.578)< faring to(point out leadershkp problems when they appear, eten if that would hamper relationships (Buta= 0.139, t= 2.9(0)"and the leact!wis daring to help the leader/boss tO understand(how some negative behaviorr might affect enficiency of the business, eöen if that would embarraqs him/her (Beta= .136, t= 2.901). Overall, the Results indicaue that prohibitive voice behaviour is a g/od predictor and has0a posityve and significant iîfluence o6er tie leqdership col`eten#ies of SMEs owner-manAoers. Therefore the |qll hypotheshs that(‘Followe2s practicing0Prohibitive voice behaviour have jo significajt0xnfluence over leadership competencies kf wner-managers )n SMEs in$Ugan$a’ is rejected is rejectee* the rresentation of(qualidauive data that ÷as genereted tHrough key infgrmant interviåwr are presente$ below. 4.1.6.3 Intepview resqmtw on the influence mf Prohibitive Follgwer Voice Behaviour }n0the Leader3hip Competencies of o7nep%managers if SMEs in Ugandq. Vhe quantitctive findings were supplemented by reóults from three key info2mant interviews whose$respo.dents also directly ninked their understandin' of prohibitive voiae b%havious and lmadership compmtencies ÷ith their previous experiences and acquIred knowledge. Some key inform`nts concluded that folnowerc or s}Bobdinates mostly feared to point out leadership problems yet they possess good ideas to hElx to improve leadership competåncies. Others concluded that bosses dis,iked negqtive(feedback yet they needed more of it to become better teám leaders. One remarked; “The trutx is thad without any$feEdback even if nega|ive, manawers of SMEs contiîue to make ôhe!s`me mistakes over and over0again”. Ano|her confirmet; “FeedBack to bosses on le`dersiép problems when phey exist in the ukr+place inDkcates that ao(adjectment needs to be made aNd it can come brom any soqrce incl5dinf even sweepers, toilet cleaners åtc.”

This implhed that there ys a rel!vionqhip between prkhibitive voice behav)our and leadership competencies. DhuS, the interviewc generally depia| a direbt influence of trnhhbitiv% fkllower voice bexaviour over leadership compepencies$of SM owner-managers in Uganda though the influefce seems to be lesser compared to tHat gf promotive(voice behaviour. 4.1*7 Objective DhreU: Le#der-Member Exchange!quality a~d uhe relátionship between follower Voice Bejaviour a.d L4adership Solpetencies The third objective sought to pbobe!whet`Er Lea$er-Membeb Exchange (LMX) qeamity moderates theprelationshap betwee.$voice behaviour (Proogôive and Prohibitive) and leadership competencies of SMG ownur-managers in U'and`. Particapants were askgd to describe tleir relationshjp with pheir0bosseq qnd submrdinates anä the recults were!statistically a.alysed uskng the mean and the standard deviadion. Table 4.16: DescripVive suatistics for LMX StademElts OwfeR–Managers/Leaders Followers/Employees C mbindd Mean Staîdard deviaty n Mean STandard deviation ]ean Standard deviation Do you know where you 3tand(with yous follgwer/leader and do 9ïu`usuclly cn w how satisfaed he/she is with wèat yoU do? 3.24 1.243 1.955 3>31 1.874

How wEll does your follower/l%ader underctand"yous job problems ant needs? 3.52 1.240 3."3 1.110 3.24 1.114 How well does your follower/leader recognizd your potentiah? 3>;3 3.149 3.48 1.03; 3.49 Regardless of how Mubh formal auTè ryty your follow%rolecder hac built into his or heò po{ition, what are 4he chaocas that he/she would use hiw/her power to help you solve problems in your work? 3.5r 1.023 3.19 1.049 3.16 1.070 Refardless ov the amount of formcl authopity your foìlower¯leader has, what"are thg changes uhat hd or she would “bail you out• at his or her e8pense? 2.96 0.#81'3.31 1.111 3.31 1.120 I have en ugh confide~ce in my follower/leader phaô I would dmfend and`justif9 hIs or her(decésion if0he op shE were`not pres%nt to do so. 3.35 1.184 3.37 .983 3.41 0.980 How would you!characterire your working öelationship wmth youR follower"leader+ 3.69 0.928 3.54

8.857 3.51 0.935 Ge~eral Mean and Standard devIation scores 3.37 1.175 3.34 1.172 3.3= 1.161 Sourc%: Primarù date, (2016) As depict%d$hn table 4.16, the mean levels $kf(leader-follower relations on 4hree dimensions f respec|, trust ajd obmigAtion were above the råspective` scale midpoints shmwing participants agreed tàt they knew wHere they stood with foldogers leaders and how satisfied uhey wure with wlat they do (Own%r-managers: Mean = 3.24, SD = 1.104 , (Follo7ers: Mean} 3.28, SD= 1&955)®Àdditionally, the findings s(ow that leaders toà fair extent understand job problems and needs of their folmowers (Owner-manqgers: Mean = 3.52, SD$= 1.240©, (Foìlowers8 Mean< 3.23, SD= 1.010). The fhndingó !lso ijdicate tlat; leaders moderately recognized the poteîtiil of their follïwers (Owner-managers: MeAn = 3.33, SÄ = 1.149),"(Followers: Meqn= 3.48, S = 1.039). Vh%!&indings further indicaôe$hIgh chances of leaeers usifg their power to édlp follovers wolê work prob,em (O7ner-managers: Mean = 3.52, SD = 1.023), (Followers: Mean= 3.19, SD= 1.049). Furthermore, the findings Indicate moderately high ghaNces that0leaders"would “bail th%hr followers out” at their own eøpdnsg (Owner-managers: Me`n = 2.96, SD = 1.181), (Followers: Mean= 3.31, SD= ±.111). Respondents ilso agree that leadårs have!enough c/nfidence in dheir foìlowers/subordinates that they would defend0and justifq their decision if theù are not preseot un do so (owner-mana'ers: Mean = 3.35, SE`= 1.184), (FolloweRs: Mean= 3.3 , SD= .983)* LAstly, respondentS characterixed0working Relationship with"their followers"ct an ‘average“ level (Owner-managers: Mean 9 3.61, SD = 0.928), (Follosers:"Meán= 3.50, SD= 0.957). These findings reflect moderate quality of leader—membEr relationsHips in SMES qnder study. Summarily$ the combined scores for owner-ianagers and$their followers (Mean = 3.37, SD = 1.161) were above the scale midpoi~ts indicating moderate mevel3 of LM quality. The score reflects moterate quajity of lecder–-ember relationships!and also indycaves the Pe2toership nature"of the relationships as pdr |he$LMX model. From0the finding it ccn be inferred that LMX quality coumd be moDerating the bµlationship between fo,lower voice behaviour and leadership competencies.

4.1.7.1 Correlation Analysis for Followur voice, LMX qeality ind`Ìeadership Competencies_ As rre{ented in table 4.16( Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was co}puted to for follower voice behAviour, LMX Quality and Leadership Competencies and$|he besul4s are indiaated belOw. Table 4.17: CoRrulation Analysis result for Follower voice, LMH aNd Leadership Competencies Competencies LOX Promotive PrïhibmuyvE Competencies Pearson Correl`tion 1 .<34** .525**G.477** Sig. (2-táiled) ® 00 &000 .009 N 394 394 #94 394 LMX P%arson"Correlati/n .436** 1 .255** .083

Sig. (2-ta)led) .000 .000 .1°1 N 94 394 394 394 Promotivg PeArson Correlation .525 * .255.* 1 .542** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 '.000 N 394 394 384 394 Prohibitive Pearson Coprelation . 77** .083 .542** 1 Sig. (2%tailed) .000

.111

.000 N 5 394 394 394 **. Correlation )s significant at the 0.04 ldve, (2-tailed). Smurce: Primary data (:016) able"4.16 lepicts a signi&icant positive correlátion between LMX quaLity and"leaders(ip competencies (r= 0>436, q < .05) which implies that quality on LÍX relationships play a role in the deöeLopmant of leadership competencies® The results fubther sXOw0a significant positive corrdlation4between LMX quality and Promotiv% voice behaviOur (r= °.255, p(< .05) and an insignifacant correlation`betw%en DMX quality an` Prohibitive voice behaviour (r= .081, p"> .05)."This could mean vhat pemationship quality deuermines the voice exertéon$bdh!viour. Thus also implier that the relatéonshyp qualaty has0an influence on promotife foice behaöhour and the!beverse hs true nor prohibitive voice behavmour. In terms of moderation, this implies that the influence nf voice behaviour /n leadership competenci%s 6aries with levål of quality of tje MX re,ationshiss to the extent that thE influence is hkgher when the vmice exertion behaviour ir promotive than when it’s proHibitive.! 4.1.7.2 Regression Analysis using LMH quality to pred)Ct thg relationciip båtween vohce behavi ur and lea`Ership competencies Haviîg dEtermined the strength, dirdctio~ and significaocE of the(relauion3hips between Vïicd behaviour, LMX quiliTy cnd leadershiP competencées, there0was need to detepmine the influence of LMX quality on the relationshhp bEtween voice behaviour er leadership compåteîcies. To 4est these hypotheses, a mOderated muldiple regressiof"analysis was conductee to identify the va2iation in case ov the entranc% of the modurator v`riable. ”he ind%paOdent variábles were mean-ceNtped to `void multicoìlinearit} (Cohen, Cohen, West, Aiken, 2003i. Table 4.!2 preselts the reg2eksioj resultr. Table 4.18: Summary of Multiple RegrEssion Coe&ficientsa showing the interaction between Promodive vokce aNd LMX quality

Model UnstaNdardized Coefficients Stand`rdized Coeffhcients B Rtd. Error Beta t ig. 1 (Conqtant) 3.808 .035 109.089 .000 Promotive Voice behcViour .489 .046 .447 10.702 .000 Promotive Foice behavinqr * LMX .227 .021 .323 7.593 .000 2 (Constant) 3.769 .435 106.73 .000

Promotive Voice behaviour .461 .045 .418 10.202 .000 GPromotivm Voice bdhaviour * LMX .271 .030 .385 8.954 .000 Interaction (LMX* Promotive Öoike) .157 .036 .190 4.329 .800 a. Dependent Vqviable: LEaderchip Competenbies Source: Primcry data (0016) The second model in Table 16 includes"the intezection term (Promotive vgice an``LMX qualipy) and t e test of statisticcl signifiCance o& the$interaction term found it to be significaftly correlated with Luadership aoípdtencies (Bepa=0.180, 4= 4.s29, p=.000). T`E faat thaT the Interaction ch`nged the R2 by 0.029 meanq that a predictive power of 2.9% was added to the model which ks staTistically significant (p < .004)> Therefnre the significAnce of the additiof of LMX rmlathonships suggests that the pelationshiq between promotmve voicg behaviour and leadership comp%tencies lidferc accobding to tèe LMX qualhtY. thus it Can`be concluded dh!t promotive voicd beh`riour has a statisuically signibacantly and strojger renationsèip with leaderwh)p co-petencies becauså of the LMX relationship quality/ Summarili, the conclusion iS that LMX quality doms moderate the relationshép between romotiVe voice bexavikur and leadership coepet%ncies and |herefore the hyp thesis0that Promotive vOice behaviour doesn’t significantly predicds followes innluence ovez

leadursìp coípeöensieq dee to the quality o& LMØ relAtionshipsìs bejekted. Table$4.19: SummarY of Multiple Regression Coeffkcientsa showyng the inte2aÃtion between Pvohibitiw% voice and LMX quaìty Model Õnstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coevfibients B Std. Mrr r BMta t Sig. 1 (Cofstaît) 3.808 .035 110.132 .000 Prohibitive Voice B%hdviowr .493 .044 .444 11.147 .000 Prohiâitive Woibe Behaviour0*LMX .281 .028 .#99 18®027 .000 2 (Cmnsuant) 3.801 .034

110o195 .000 Prohifitive Voice Behaviour .488 .844 .439 11.071 .000 @rohibitive Toice Cehaviour * LMX .277 .028 >394 9.935 .000 Interaction (NMX* Prohibitive Voice) .084 .036 .093 2.364 .01; a. Dependent Variable: Leaderwhip Co-petencie3 Source: Pvimary data (2 16) The regression results in Table 4,17 bereal thaT th% interaction between Prohiri4ive voice ánd LMX quality was sionificantly(correlAted gith Leadership competencies (Beva=0.093, u=2.364, p= 019). The nact txat txe inver!ction chqnged the R2 by 0.008 implies that a tredIctive powuv0of 0.9 % was added to the model by the additignpïf LMX quality Which is!3tatistically significant (p <.005). Statisticalny, tiis result senls a siglAl that LMX quality does moderate the relatIonship between Prohibitivå voice `fä lead%rciip competencies ald therefore$the hypothesis that LMP Quálity significantmy mndaraôes the relatiknship between Xrohibitive voice behaviour0and leadezship competencies of SMEs owner-manageps in Uganda is acaepted. 4.1.7.3 Intervies resuìts on the moderating rode o& LMX quinity on the relatkonshiP `etwden Follower foice behaviour and leadership competencie{.

he quantitative findings were enriched by results fr/m0the key anformanp interviews0w*o provided inqights from$LMX qualitp perspectives. WHen asked how`they percei6ed the mkderátifg role of DMX quality on the relationship between voice behiviïur an4 leadership competencies jay )nformant{ di{played almost unifovm responses to txe effect that lecder=foll wer relationqhip quality moderates the(relationship between proxibitive0voic% and leadership competencies. Fnr instance, tie firqt kay informand"sôated; “The relationShip quality with one’s boss matters a$lot ánd determines wèthur suggestions made or concerns raiwed a2e accepted and0aCted upon. Employees0who are ij bad boOks wiph their boss find it hard to be heard by their bmsses regardless of thgir voice behaviour”. According to another key informant, - “Managebs always have their prefe2red empl yees whog they select tg0give ideas in meepings or sonsult fase`òn their(past traãK record. Such qrefdrved employees can0freely and easily òaise concerns abowt 5håir boss’s`leadership sty e withou` fear0or favour beca}se they verY well know that they ma{ nod$fe penalized due thanks to dhe close relationshkp someôhing lgss pråferrmd employees aannot even attempt”. Another key informant respnnded that “Relatiofshyp quality works wheo employees express themselvas prohibitkvely. He further advised th`t employees`should never publicdy critkcize their bosq b%cause they dOn’ô love"to be cviTicized. The fact of |ife evdrywhere is t(at wheî qou criticize e 0erson, you lkmit what you can teaah them4or learn fzoM them. Mort bossus love listening and later applying that knowledge in your wn style elsewhere.” Therefore leatership experts who participatgd in the suudy generaldy agreed that!relationshiP ñuality mïderates"the r%latioNship between fonlower voice behaviour aod lgadership competencies to the extent that follOwers in"the in-group who prictice prmHibitive voice bexavio5r qre more effectiveìn influeNciog leaddrship coípe4encies"|han those uho pragtice promotive voice behaviour. These fantings generally sugGest that LMX quality d/es moderate the relationsiip between prohibi4ive follower voice ex%Rtion and leadershOp competencies of SME owner-managers. 4.0 Summary of Verification of HyÒdhese{ 4.2.1 Testing Hypothesis One* Folìowuòs practicing promotivE vkice bexaviour hqve a signmficantly òritive influencg over leaderqhip competelcies of owner-managers in SMEs in Ug`nda.0The Sôudy revmaled a significantly posiTivm ioflueîce of Promotive &ollower(Voice epertion behAöiour over leadersHip competencies of0SME owner-mqjagers. Tè% hypothesis i{ tèerefore

sustained and accepted®$ 4.2.2 Testing Hypnthesis Two: Followers"Pr`cticing Prohhbhtive voicm bEhaviour have no significant infmuence ovmr leadership(comxetensies of wner-mA~agers in"SMEs in Uganda."Thd study revealed a `ositive relavionship00rohibitive!folloWeR voice exertioî behaviour and lea$ership cnmtedencies. The hypothesis iq!therefore rejectEd. 4.2.3 Testing Hypotheris Threm: The stu`y!reVealed th!u LMX quality does significantly modårate the relationship between Pr/motivg voice behaviour and leaders(ip competenCies. TheRefore the hypothesis thaõ high LMX Qua,ity does not signiæicantly moderate the relatio.ship between0Promo|ive voicu behaviour and leaDership compete~cies of SMUs owner-managers in Uganda is rejected. 4.2 3 Testing Hypothesis Fmur: The study revealed that LMX quality indeed loderates tg a signifécant degree the relation3hi` betwedn Pr motive!follower 6oice behavaour anf leadurship`çompetencias as wenl as Prohabitive and leadership ãompetenãies. Thus the hypothEsis$that LMX Quality significantly moderate tèe rålationrjip betweeN Prghibitive voice`behaviou2àand lealersh)P #oMpetåncies of SMEw ouner-managers in Uganda is therefore sustainmd and accepted. 4.3: Summary ov tèe velaôiolship bEtween voice behavio5r and lecdership competencies Tablg 4.20"presents the relationship between proiotive and pr/hibitivE follower voice behaviour and leadership comqetencies of SOMs. T`ble 4.20: Relationship between vokce behavaour and leadership competencies Competencius LMX Promotive Prohibitive Competencies Peabson Corrålation 1 *436** .525*+ >477** Sig. (2-tailed)

>040 .000 .000 N 3 4 394 394 394 LMP Pearson Correlation .436** 1 ,255**G.083 Sig. (2-taileä) .000 .000 ® 01 N 394 394 4 394 Promotive Puarson Correlation .525* .255** 1 .54r** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .010

.000 N s94 394 395 394 Pzohybitive Pe`rson Corruletion .477** .083 .542** 1 Sig. (2-tayled) . 00 .101 .002 N 394 394 394 394 **. CoVredatinn is!significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailel)* ' Table 4.20 shows a4strong positivt correlation (r=0.525) betveen promotive voice bdhaviour and Leadevship Competencies. Testing the!fkndingó, the si'nificaîce of tie correlation (p=.100) was found to re less than tèe critécel value at 0.05 l%vel nf significance. This tierefore suggested that a strong positivm relationShip e8is|s"between prom tive voice behaviour and"Deadership Competencies. The positive relationship meant tiat exertion of(promoôive voice behaviotr led to a directional bhange in Leadership Competencies and ~ice versa* Table t.20 also portrayed c moderatå qositivm correlation (r=0.477) between prohibitive voyce`behaviour and Laadership Coípetencies Tewtiog the fildings, the significance of the cgrrelation (p=.000) was found to bm less

than the criticam val}e at 0.05 level gf sigfificance. Tjis therefobe implied that there was a moderatehy positive and siwnificant relatiooshit bet7een prOhibitife voice behaviour and Íeadership Sompetencies. The0moderate positivu relationshit meant that a moderate uxertion of prohibitivd!voice beiaviour led!to i moderate infìuenëe o~ Leadership Cgmpeteocies. The positiVe relationship meant that exqrtion of prohmbitive vomce behavmowr led to`a similar dirmktio~ql influence on Leadership CoípetencieS.- Table 4.25 Model Stmmiry of the relationship between Vïice Behaviour and Leadership CompetEncie3 Model R R Square Adjusted(V Qqeare S4ä. Errob of the Estimate 1 573a .328W.325 ,·1743143 a Predictors8 (Constant), Promotive Voice Behaviour Prohibit)÷e voyce Bexaviotr Sourbe: Primary daTa (2016i Pable 4.18 abnve reveals the coefficient f determination R" -0.328 w(yci Indicates 4hat 32.8 - of the variation i~ Leadership0Competencie3 is explaéned by thd combifed inlependen4 variables of PrOmotive c.d Pr hibitive follower Voice Behaviour* A"variatioN of 7.2% remains unexplained by other v!r)ables not under study. Table 4.22: ANOVA testing the influence o&$Voise ejaviour anl Neádership Competencies ANOVAb Modeh Sum of Sqtares df Mgan Square F Sig. 1

Regòessho. 98.716 2 49.158 95.506 .000a Residual 001.251 39! .514 ' Total 299.566 3?3 a. Predictors: (Co~stant), Promopive Vo)ce Behiviour, Prohibitive Voice BeXaviour b. Dependent Variable: Neádershir Competencies Source:`Primary dcta (2017© ` Ôable 4.19 indicates tjqt thg c mbinet indep%ndent va2iables (pòomo|ive and Prohibitive!fol,ower Voyge Buhaviour) have a significant influence on Leadershap Cgmpedencier (R2_0.328, F=95.506, P=0.000). This means thåre is a signifhcant lineas¢relationship between the combined`independenT varmables and Leadership Competencies.0It also practically m}plies that$followev Voice Bghav)our significantly influences Le`dershmp Competenãies of SOMs in Uganda. A rank ordår of the influence of follower foice behaviour orer!leadeòship coípetencies was peòformed to dmtermioe 7hich of phe two independent variables had the greatdst influence on leaäer3hip competencies !nd dhe results are presented in t`ble 0.22 below.

Table 4*22: Rank order of the Influence of Vïice Behaviour on Ìeaeershiq Competencias Motel Unqtand`rdiúed Coefficients Standardézed BoefficientS B Std. Errmr Beta ô Slg. 1 (Constant) 3.800 .036 105.351 .000 Promgtive Voice Beha:Iour .418 .854 .378 7.6'8 .000 'Prohi"itive Voice Behaviour .302 .055 .272 5.532'.00p a® Dependent Variable Lmadershaq Comxeten£mes Source: Primary data 2016) accoreing to |he resultw if tabìe 4.22 above, Promotive Voice BehavioWr was$the most0influentiah variable oê LeadErship Competencies (Beta=.378, t= .670, `<0.05i compared to`Prohibitive Voice Âehavioub (Beta=.270, t=5.510, p<4.05i& Overall, the re{ultr to inäicate that Promotive follower Voice Behavioub has more significant inflõencm on Leadership Competencies of SOMs thán Pro`ibitive follower

Voice Behaviour. Fkllowing the abovu psesentation, analysIs and interpretation ob data are the diScussions, concluqIons and vecommendat)onS on the study nindings are )n Chapter 5. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUWSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction_Ôhis chaptep presmnts the `iscussion, coìcluwions and vecommendatkoo{, limitations and areas for fqrther research. The &irst section demonstrates a discuswion according to the objecvkves and hypothEsis of the"stwdy. The second section advqncUs aoncluSi/ns drawn from the discus{ion whereas tèe third highLiçits the recommenåati/ns dr`wn fvom thu conclusions. The fourth section puts icross the li-itations of the Study and Areas fo2 further öesearch. 5.2 DiscUsshon 5*0.1 Discussion of Raseasbj Hxp thesis One: InFl}gncd of PRomotive Æollower Vgice Behcvhour0on Leadership Competencies of owngr-managers0in SMEs in Õganda The first hypothesis was ddrived`from the fir{t ofjectiwe of the study. The pelationsèip between promotive voice Behaviour and leadership sompetencies draws from pesults of!the descsipTive, correlatioo, renression analysis and the key informaft interviewsn As analysed in Chapter four the descriptive statistics indécated moferAte levels of"Promotive0Follnwer vkice exertion behaviour whiah óuggests that followevs in SMÅs practice leader-targeteä 0romotive voice dxertion behavaour to infludnãe Headership c/mpetencies of their owner-m`nagers. WHen askdd whether follnwers/emtloyea3 develop and Suggest ida!s to influence leadership competencies of SOMs, the respondents agrded!(Owner-managers: Mdan = 3.19, SD = 1.375), (Fo|lowers: Mean = 2.86,&SD =`1.357). This evidence suggests that followe s`practice`promotive voice exertion "ehaviour. The respoodE~ts in0the stuäy also agreed witè the statement tèat foldowers/employåes0expressås ngw ideas which are ben%ficéa|`to the leader/boss (Owner-managers: Mean = 3.24, SD 1.196), (Follg ers: Mean = 3.53, SD = 1. "7(. $This`yea~s that leader-targeted promotive foìlkwEr"voibå0behaviour )s been practiced in SMEq. When t(e respo~dents%were asked whether the{ coMmunécate sugggstionsato improve knoglEdge, abilities scills0and behaviours of their leaders/bosse3, thuy agreed (Owner-manAgers: Mean = 3.31, SD = 1.210), (FolloWers: Me`n = 3.43, SD = 1.252) implyine that fol,owers atTempt to iNflugnce leadership competencies through their _Romotive voiãE exErtiOn behaviour. When pasticipants!were asked whether they share with their lecdess cofstructive SuggEstions`that help thEir wMEs to achieve its wision, they Agreed Ownermmanagers> Mdan =$3.50, RD = 1.342), (Folmowers: Mean =03.60, SD = 1.278) s5'gesting thau followers attempt to invltence leadership competencies ôhrough their cïnstrecthve suggestmons. The respondents also agreed that they ey_rdss`suggestions to improve their(leader’s performance!(Owjer-managmrs: Meqn = 3.31¬ SD =01.301),

(Followers: Mean = 3.u5, SD = 1.326). All0in all, it was dherefore welh accfpted by the`respondents in the`study ôhat follovers in SMEs practice leadmr-tar'eted promotiöe voice exårtion behav)our to$influence$deadership bo}petencies of their owne2-managers. The correlq4ional resumts bmtween proioth|e voica behaviotr and leaderslip cmmpet%ncies showed positive and significant relationshi0 (Pearson Corremation Aoefficient) for followesó (r= 0.521, p < .05), leaders/ownes-managers (r=!0n515, p < .05), and aggregated0(r= 0.525, p(< .05). THus, the hypotheSis that Follofers practiciîg have a signi.icantly positive inflõence over leaderShip aompetencies of0ovn%r-mafagers in SMEs in Uganda is accepted. This means thap tha4 promotiVe voice bexaviour is á signifibaît fabtor in the dgve,opmen4 of leaddrsìp gompetenaies thuó highlightine the importan#e oF followers’ _romotive voicd bahaviour(as a force(fgr chaNge and as a learnifg"tkol for SOMs. The regression results on 4he other hand also revealed that that pr mmtive voiCe behaviour is a good predictor and has a positive and significant i~fluence over thd leaddrshi0 competencies kf ROMs. Therefore the(hypothesis tyat ‘Followers pRacticiNg Tromoti6e voice*exertion behaviour have a significan4ly positive influence over Leadership competuîcies0of0gwner-manageró mn SmEs inÙganda’ is accepted. Gu2dhermore, pin)ons gathered froí the key informaot interviews also a'reed on the existence ïf a relationship between!psomotive voice behevio5r and l%adership competeJcies of RMEs owngr-managers. This practically implies thát Follosers practicing Promotive voice exerpion behaviour have an inFluencu over leadEróhip bompetenciew of owner-managers in SMEs in Uganda. 00 The $fmndings of the current study ÷epe crosr-referenced with thore of ovher scholars and displayed simidar velationships betwden promotive voace behaviour and leadership compet%náies of SOIs. For exámxle, these findings concerred witè findings by Bu2ris, (2012) Whg argued$that s0eakmng-up with0suppoòtive content (promotive voice behaviour) plays an import!np role in voicg recipients’ reactionc and influenced his/her actimìs and supportive remarks generated positive reactaons. Cheung and`Soncqi, (2014! also proved that PromotIfe!öoice led 4o higjer idea endos{ement by 3upervasors drawing simidaritims with Liafg, Farh, afd Farh’s&(2012) view thct prOmOtive vnéce iq 'eîeralli"fetter rec%ived$By supevvi{nrs when the fkcus of the vokce is placed upon the i}provements ôhat0can be made. not on the 0roblem itself. Similarly, thd findings furthdr concursed whth views of Âurris, Detert & Romney (2013), a.d Mgnon et al., (2006) that oanagers are more likely t endorse sugwestion-oriented"roice (Promotive) beèavioUz. However, it’s!worth noting that(much as others scholars$suggested that no relationship existed between the(variables0( orrison and Minliken, 20p0 MenOn et al., 2006; As`ford ut al., 3009), the burrenp resåarch%r baseD on tè$empirical féndingw highligited aBove opines that thar% exists a relationship betwEen

pòomotive voice behaviour and leatership c mpetencies of SOMs. These f)ndings that _romotive voice behaviour las influence over"leadership competencies on SOMs a2e in life0with Hirschman (197 ) Exit, V/ice, and Mnyalt9 theorx which argues thAt emphoyees faced wxôh un3atisfabtgry smtua|ions ãould pt to exepcise “voice," tlat is, speaking up and 4rqing to improve things enD álwayq {eep their leaders on"their toes. 0Furtheòmmre, the$findings agree with Vygots{y’s (19789, Socéal Construct)viqm theory based on i|s propagation that Hndividõals create meaniNg tè2ouçh interacting with each otxer and that meaniîgful learning occ%rs t(pough collaboration and discussion that learners are able t express their undgrs|anäifg, listen vo the views of others aod ex`lord different ideas. oiven0the above findiogs and the viewó ezpressed by other scjolars as cboss-referenced, itìs therefor% conclõded that a Valid relationship exists ètween promotive voiae beha~iour and"ldadership bompeuencies and as such, tèere is need do recognize voice as a force for yhange and es a tooL!for d%reloping leadership kompetencies of SO-s. 5.2.2 Disausrion of Research Hypothesis Two: Énf,uence of ProhiBiti6e Followes Voice BehavioUr on Lead%rs(ip Competencies!of owner-manageps in SMEs/ The second hypotheris ÷as d%rived from the second reóearc` objective and it aimed at ascertaining`5he$influånce of Prkhibitive Follower Voice Bdhaviour on Neadgrship Competencies of owner-managers in SMEs. Phis äiscõssion i3 dhepEfore bace on the results gf the dmcbriptive, corrElatkon, regression$ doCumentáòy analysis and the key informqnt interviews. From the descrittiöe data in chapter 4, when participcnts follOwers were asked whether they adviqed$theiv leaders(cgainst undeshrable behaviors thát would hurt pesforeance, t(ey did agr%E that 4èy sometimes cdvire their leaders igainst undesir`bld behaviours thet wo}ld hurt performance (Owngr-managers: Mean = 2.8u,(SD = 1n106), (Foldowers: Iean 2.95, SD= 1.312). Phure was alwo agreement tàt followers 3ometimes(bring to notice nn their boswes leadersjip related problems that might cau3e serious loss to thm b}siness even at tle face of dissenuing opinion{$(Owner-managers: MEan 9 3.39 SD = 1.1239, (Followers: Mean= 3.71, SD= 1.215). Furthermore, rerpondents agreåd that followers someti-es dabe to expose negative behaviorròf le`derr(that mighv affUct efficiency( f ôhe business, even if it would embarrass the leaders (Owner-managårs: Mean = 3.00, SD = 1.346)l (Foldowers: MeaN = 3*31, SD =`1.239). Further still, the findings choweä that followers sometimes dared to point mut leadership problems when they appear, even hf that would hamper relatinnshi0s with their bosSgs (Owner-managers: Íean = 3.24, SE = 1.228),`(Followgrr: Mean ? 3.24, SD < 1.:78) and t(at they sometimes dare tO$exqose leader{hip trobìEms that existq to menagement (Ow~er-

managess:$Mean = 3.35, SD =(1.#62), (Fol,oóers: Eean = 3.61, SD ="1n320). Combined resulus of owner-managers and their fol|owers, participanôs did state their opinion regardijw “Pro`ibitiöe voice båhaviour(and låadership competencies” ct tHe lavul og “moderately agree„ thus confirming that follogers to*a mode2ate degree practiced prohifivive voice behaviour to inæluence the leaeeróhip competencies of their owneR-manauers as shown ây 4(e"generAl scores (Me`n=3.35,$S.D=1.2834). Summarily, respoodents in the`study íoderately agreed that0followers in SMGs mndeed"pòacticed laader-targeted prohibitive voice exertion behaviour tg$influence leadership cnmpetencies of their owner-Íanacers thoufh to a lessur degree tHan promotive voice behaviour. 0The correlatio~ad results between ôhe two variables showe$ posiTive!and sigNificant relationship (Pearson Correlation`Coefficient) were r= 0.506, p < .05 for followers, r= 0.310, owner-managgRs 0 < .05 aNd v= 0.47w, p < .05 for the co-bined imp y ng that prohibitkve`voice `mhaviour is a signif)cant faatOr kn the!development of leadership competencies and Pr!ctically meini~g that followebs whO practicd prohibityve voicg fehaviour may significantly influence haAderqhip compe|enc)es ïf their /wner-managgrs. This dhscoverY furth%r rdvuals the imxortance of prohibiti~e öoyce exertion behafiour as a force for change and aq a"to l for learning for SKMs. The regression reswlts on!the mther Hand als/ revealgd that prohibitive volloWeb voice)behaviour is also a good predicuor a_d has a posAtive and significant influgncm ïöer"the leadershi0 compeuencies of SMUs owner-manacers and as such$ |he .ull hypothesis that0‘Followess prac|icing Prohibitive voice beHaviour have no signiFiãant inflqfnce over leafership ckmpetencies of ïwNer-managers mn SEEs(in Uganda’ is rejected was reJecTEd. Lastly, opini/ns gathered from the key infob-a.t interviews simhl!rly agreed on the Existence od a relationship betweef prïhibitivu vohae behavioUr and leãdership competefCies. This practi#ally iiplie{ that Fnlìowers(practicing Prohibiuive voice exertion behaviour have influenge over leatershit competencies Of their ownur-managers. Thm 2esults of thd current study on prolibitive voice behaviour qnd lgadership competencies belàte to the findIngs0of Cheung & Songqi, (2014) who found out that prohibitive f llower voice behaviou2 ganmrally had influejge on reckxient outcomeó )nd not cll prohi"itive voice elicits negative response from vecip)ents an$ tját diffebent types oæ pro(ibytite voice`were more influential and less threapenynw thcn ïthers. Dhms position is supxorted by Burris, (201") who coîcluded vh!t prohibitivg voace influenãe recipiejt actions and result3 in improtement{ to objective o}tcomes even if those who express it upsut voice reCipienTs who must engage in change. Furtjer cross-regeòencing ov the findi.gs ïf this study0 uith those of ot`er scholars however revealed negative råsultc which is a

reckmmendatio~ for furuher research`. For gXample, Belschek and Den(HArtog (2009i!argued that tHat seceiving negative feådback!c!us%d negativu emotikns in recipients anä as such wouìd not influefce the recipients’ actions other than creating bias. Cheung & Songai (2014) also qlludes to negati~e relationship betwedî _rohibitive voic!(and leadership outcomer because the “prohibitive” aspåct ïf voiãe`calls h!rmful factozs vo a stOp resulting into lower idea endoRsemånt and influence on the recipients. Similarly the æindangs contradicts uhose of Burris, Detert, & ROmnåy, (2013); Fast, Burris, and Bartel, (2114); rese & Fay, (0001); SEabert et al., (2001);€MacMillan, et al, *2013); LIaîg, Farh, a~d Narh, (2012); Klais et al., (20±2) who all consluded that a negative relationshap exiwtq between pòohibitive voica and`recipient outcomes. These fIndings!theref be gave proog and(confirmed Åxit¬ Voice, and Loyalty theory by _lbert Hisschman who contends th`t emploiees faced witl unsatisfactory situations could opt to exercise “Voicg," by qpeaking up p2/hibitively With the aim"gf improving things and keupane thekr leaders gn their toes. Similarly, the stñdy confir-ed the t(e/ry od Sogial Conctructivism by Lev V9goTsky which states that learnijg tajås 0mace through interaatyon, discussion, dmàlogu% a~d lebate and that meaningful lEarning /ãcurs tHrouGh collabopatioî and eiscus3ion.!This is conqtrued frkm the!vindéng txat prohibiti~e follower vombe indluence leadezship competencids in SMEs. Kn line with tè abovd analysis, therefore, The results oF the curvent sttdy and` the views expressed ây0 other scholarc on` tèe relitionshi_€ between the two variables, iu is thepdfore concluded thatà valid rela|ionshap exists between prohibitiwe vïéce behaviour and leadårship #ompetencies. Pòacticallq, thió re3ult sends a signal that prohibitive voice behaviour infhuences leedership competencieS"of owner-manòers0in`SMes in Uganda but yt is slightly less effectivE in its iofluence t(an promotive follo er ~oi e behaviour/ 5.3/1 Discussion of Researcl Hypotxesms Three and Four: Iffluence of LMX Quality on the relationship between Follower Voice Behaviour (Promotive and Prohibitive) and Leadership Co-peten#ies ov owner-managers The third and fOurth hy0othesis were derived from the third and foe2th research objestives res0ectively and the main aie was tm ascertain"whether LMX Quality moderctes the Rå|ationshiñ between follower voice behaviour (Pro-oumve and Prohibitive) and leadership Competencies of SMEs owner-mcnagers in Uganda. This discussi/nìs therefore based on the results of moderatud regression analys)w ant the ëey énforeal| interviews. The res5lts0of the moderated regressaon analysys showed that the intera#tion between Promotive voice and LMX quality and uhe test of

statispicAl signkficance of the invebacti n term was significantly cozrelated vith Leadership competencies (Beta=0.180, t= 4.329, p=.000)."Thus tha$significance of tèe0addktioî of(LMX reladionships means that the rel`tionship between proíotéve voice behaviour¡and leadership competencies differs iccording to the LMX quality. SummApily.$the conclurion is that LMX quality moderates`the relationship between$Promotive_vOice bexaviour and!neadership competencies and therefore the hypothesis that Promotive woice0behaviour doesn’t significantny pbedict folloser influence ovgr leadership competencmes due tk vhd qualiTy of LMX relationships was rejected. Furthermore, the regression pesultc for the moderating effe#t of LMX quality on the relAtionshiq between Xòohhbh4kve vohce behavi/ur and ìeadmrship competencies reveals that the interastion between Prohibitive vmice and LMX quality was significently correlated with Leaddrship competencies (Beta=0.093, t=2.764, p=>019). The fact thau the interagtion0chinGed the R2 by 0.00y implies thc| a statisTically significant (p 4.005) predictive power of 0.9 % was added vo tha model by thå addition of LMX quality whikh sends a signal thaT LMX 1uality m/derAtes the relatiï~slip between Proh)batéve voice and leader3h)p coopetencies and therefore the hypothesis that"LMX Q}ality signifécajtly moderaT% the relationship between Prohibitive voice behaviOur and lea ership competencies of SMEs owner-managers in Uganda was accepted. EMkre so, opinions gather%f from the$key0informant interviews kndicate a general agreement that the relatmïnship quality moderates the relátionship`between promotive as well es prohibitive follo÷er voice behaviour aîd leadership competencies. The above findings are én aoreem%nt with Ashford et al., (1998); Detert & Furris, (2007); DeTert & Edmoldóon, (2001); Liu W&, Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (20q3) who observed that the relationwhip quaLhty between subordinates and managers is an essential determinant of the relationwhip beôween vmice behaviour and recipiånt outcomes. The findings fuvther conctr with hEdmondson, 1999) who argued that employees who mcinTain a positive relationship with the íanager are less afrait to express vokce, becaese they feel it is interpersonally óafe to prohibitively express to¡uheir man`gers* Furvhermore, the findiNgs are in tandem with MacMillan et al., (2013) who found /ut that high qualip} of the relationshiP between the leader and the foll~wer influenced |eader interest and decicioj-making directly aod moderates the path beuween æollower voice type and leader decision-making. The findings also!fall in line!with Graeb & Uhm Bien- 1995; Zhu, (2032)0whg suggested ôjat the èigher the relationship, the lore likely that followers are!motivated to speac up promotiveli wit( the inpention of helping the leaders identify the issues. Generalli, the above findIngs gave prmof and confirmed the LMX themry by Dansereau,"Çraen & Hage hn 1975"which contends that high relationship quality betseen subordinatas and managErs is anaeósential determinanT of vohce behaviour and voibe

outcomes. Thi3 cqî Bå construed from the findiNç dhat$LMX quality moderates txe ra,ationwhip betWeen promotive as well as prohifitive follower voiae behaviour `nd leadarchip cnmpetencies )n SMEs. In view of the above findings and the ôiews exprgssed`by other scho,ars as cross-reference`, it(is 4herefore concluded that a LMX quality signyfic!jtly moderates!the relatéolship between promotive voi#e behaviour and leadership competensyes as well as tha rehationshi_ retween prohibitive voice behaviour and leadership competensies of ÓKMs in Uganda. 5.1 ConclusaoNc Regarding0the influence$of pvomotive follower voice fe`aviour o6er(leadership competencies, the hypothesis was accepte`. Thus the study esdablished a_strong positive relationship between promotive fkllgwer vo)ce behavigur and leedership comqetencies> This implied that(expressIon of pr/motive voice behaviour by followers had a strong influence oter leadership compEtencies of owler-maîagers kn Ugandan!SMEq. The positive relationsxip meant uhat a lirectional change in voice behaviour`led to a similar directionql change in leadership competencies. An in-dePth qualit!tive investigation of The relaTioNship also proved that!a poritive relationship existed. Overall, the study established that folhowers employees in ÕgandAn SMEs have been practicing promotive voicd behaviour and thap this ôartly contributed to development of leadershh_ Bompetencies of their owner-}anaoers. The second hypothesis was zejected beceusm the rulationship between prohibitive fmllower vkice behqviour and leaderchip cïmpetencies was fouod to be Moderate anä p/sitive. The moderate relationship deNoted that expression of prohibitive voice behaviour by followers culminated into a moderate influence over leadership competensies of owner-managurs in Ucandan SMEs. The positive relatioîsh)p meant`that a disectional expvession of prohibitive voice behaviour by followers led to a similar direcuional change in leadership competencies. An in-deqdh investigation of relationsxi` also proved that a pgsiôive relationship exIsted. Phus0the st}dù established th!t prohibitive voice behaviour of folloWers had influence oFer leadership competenciEs of owner-m!nagers in SMEs in Uganda but vhe influence was lmssEr compared to psomotive follower vomce`behaviour. Tie |hird hypOthesis that high LMX Quality dïes not significantly moderate the rel`tionship bmtween Promotive voice behaviour and leaddrshiq competencies of SMEs owner-managers iN Uganda was rezected because the interacpkon between Promotive follower voicå behaviour and LMX quality was found to be0significantly corzelated w)th Leadgrship compåtencies. This impdied that LMX quality does sigoificaNtìy moderate the relationship between Prommtive voice behaviour and leadership cnmpeuencies. Finalny, the vourth hypotèeóis as accepted because the interacôk{n between0Prohibitive follower voice behavéour ind LMX quality wAs significantly correlateä with Leadership competencies of owner-managaSs. This émplied th!t LMX indeed modåsates to a smçnificant defree the

relqtionship between Prohibitive follower voice behaviour$and leadership competenciEs. 5.2 TheoreticAl and Practical im0lications From the conclusions just discu3sed,0seweral theoretical and _rectical émplications at acade-ic, policy-laker, advisory and practitione_ levels are (ighlighted as below. 5.2.1 Theoretical Implications The mìn theoretical impmicatikj of this 3tuäy in terms Of voice behaviour is that foldowurs in the current study did express upward!sugwestions or concerns about$leadership issues to theip leaddrw which valilated exiu, voice and loyclty theory. This study also valifátes and extends the social(cknstructivirm theory into an emerging economy/Ugandan c ntext by0suggesping thau followers are0effective in influencing leader{hip competencies of SOMs and are thus a valuable-alturnetive óource of KnowLedge f r anriching leadership competenciew of UganDaf SME owner-managers. The stwdy also showed that voice can have a positive affect on leadersh)r competencies, $epending on one’s re|itionship with the leader. This means relationships positIvely predicted LeAdership competencies when LMP-quality was high0and negative|y when ht was lmw. A wimilar relati nshi0 as found in the current study as well¬ with LMX-quality moderating phe relationship between vo)ce and lead%rship competencies. In line wkôh LMX theoRy, this óuppïrts the jotiof txat one should first mstablish a solid relauionship befove attemptinc to provide upward suggestion or criticism. The stqdy has bridged the gap in existing literature on the pelatyonship between voice behcviourànd leaddrship competencies. It also contributes to the Human Resources, Organizatiïnal Behavior a~d leadership literadures by demonstrating that follower play al important roìe yn sharp%nhng deaderóhip competencies of SMÅs owner-managers ind that ù.fluence is more likely to ocsur when b th parties rUild high-qualit} relationshipq with One another. 5.2.r Practical Implications Grom a voice and voicer perspective, the first important imxlicataon of the stuey derives frOm the findang that promotive voice behaviour ha{ more infìuenc% on leadership com0etenckes that prohibitive voice behaviour. This means followers gho $esize to influence the$leadership competencies oæ their owner-managers should framd thear ideas promotively®!This als/ implies that follO6grs need(6o be carefel before åxpsgssing prohibityve0messagus eqpecially in cul4ures where negative€speakinf ió discoubaged and punishee The stud{ adso s}ggeStåd that leadeòs`dislike pr hibitive voice behaviour ujless when LMX-quality is High, this implies that leaders should be awáre of tèir own biasew towaräs certain Followers who practice prohibitive voice behaviour, as they(may be daaf to òtentiallx usefu| input when coming from ` disfavoured followeSs. With %mtloyee voice bding cited in literature as a key enibler for changE,!SMEs!also n%ed to ensure that their employee’s!voice is informed. From a relationShip per3pective, an important practical implication is that leaders who do

~o|`dstablici g/ot relationóhirs wmth their followers may not hear diverse and valuable arrays of co}petence enhancing ideas, insights, and opinions from their follow rs aîd the} may miss on the opportunity to use this goldmine on ideas ôo sharpen their competdncies/ Therefore,`leáders sx/uld build hiGh-qualiTy"relationships with all followers wheRe possible. Gther÷ise SME performance and growvh shall cïntinue to be constrai.åd unÌess leaders$cive atte~tion to fonlowers’ views azd introduce axpropriate avenues to cipture feedback frgm 4`em given tèat their proximity to suppliers, customers and colleaguer give{ them va|uable int%lligence. Also,(followers sho}ld attempt to0build (igl-quality relationships wit` their lgaders if their suggestions or concdrns aimed at polishing leadership competencyes are to be heard. For leadd2s who seek(to harness and utilise construatéve input`from diverse workforce to improve leadershir skills and enhance perfor}ance , what LMX theory implies is that the t9pes of relationships leaders defelop0wkth their subordinates out of dainy work interacdions matters a lot because the time spe^t at work is more than time spent outskde w/rk. Leade2s should never(unde2estimate the power of s4ch workplace rela|ionships given the implicátions for workplace attitudas end mora,e an` thå qotential to create en enviroîmend`characterized by!favouritism and unfairness. Therefore, leaders should be aware of how they build these relationships, cultivate w rkpláce relationsèips conscikusly. be open to forming good relationships wéth all {taff an$ prevent these relatimnshIps from leading to an unfair vork entironmenô/ In the sqme con|ext but from a job satisfactmon parspective, those who choo3e To express voice (in terms of both(suggestions and concerns) co}ld be vhose sho are Dee_ly fburtrateä and who no |o.ger care about hnterpersonal`harmonù qnd under such c)rcumstances it could!be qracvical to ide~tify the gider reasons!behind uheir frustratinns because phis may not be sustainable in(the loîg!run. Lastly, in terms of prqctical use, this study offers less costly and time sensitive solution to how sOÍs develop and learn an$ responds to calls made by, among others, McGwére et ad., (2007); Walker et aln, (2°07), Hoque & Bacon, (2006); FulLer-Love (2006) who lighlighted ow~er-m!nager complaints that training programmer were iRrel%vant to(their busines3 or indi~idual needs , never"suited their specific needs and aonsIdered the modes gf delivery to be incOnvenient aod disruptive to ôheir businåss Operatkons`besides aotbting the credibility and expertise of the provifers. It thUs offeRs a heans of engaging SOMs in learning which is rulevand and uóebul to them. 5.3 Recommendations To maximize the uptake of follower ideqs, suGgestions"and feedbaci by owner-man!gers, i|’s recommended that awarEnuss campaigns should be undertaken to _romotå the key benefit3 of follOwers as sources of°kngwledgA. It is import`nt that SOMs understand tlat fo,lowers are always available for them to use as much(or as little as`they wish. All of |hese benefitS must be somd to encourage SOMs laarning and deveìopment>!Thera is ilso need to put in place systems and policies to support voice and$SKM learning.

Thure is a need to deliberately model and promote follower voice behaviour as$an åffective tool in influencing lecdgrship competencies of owner-managers. This can be achievåd by encnuraging promntive folhowdr voice behaviour eiven that it’s the more efgectite in influefcing leadership competencies`than prohibitive voice. More so, follnwers need to be encoubageä and if possible rewa2ded to practice promotive voice behaviour .They equallY need to be trained on how to frame their messages promgtively if at aln they are to stajd a cha.cd of influencing leadership competencies of their managers. There is need`to promotd a workplace culture dhat encourawes prohibitive followdr vmicå behaviour.0Thiq cán be practically im0lemented by offering a lisuening ear to uhe positives in thE prohibitiv% mesóages of followers. Followers need |o be!t2ained on how(to read the whnd and un$erstand thm most`aPpropriate time to voice prohibitive messages, Íore so, follower{ at all levels must be taugh4 How to speák up constructively And productively especi`lly when upward input is ïffered in an(angry and attacking tone. Policy-makes, bUsingss education and triining Provieers should inwolve`SOMs in developing policies thit ard effective and relevant to their learning needs and preferences. Likewise, they should"recognize and celebrate dm`loyees and their foiae behaviour as k.owledgeable, cheap and$time-friendly learning(resources in designinç effective learning xrograms uailored to enrici leadeòship competencies nd SOMs> Such recognitign a|hows thdm to redesign their learning!approaches qccordingly. Policy-makers, analysds, conrultants and other inturestet parties should collaboraue aNd work with SOMs i. designing inktiatives(an`!tools(that intewvate follower voice"behaviour and leaderwhip learning in!SMEs. Providers usmng iore structdred learning approaches should as well iocorpoòaue features of infkrmal learninç where possible. LearnIng mn-the-job and out of ä`y-to-day interactions between SOM-Employees(prgsenôó feweò garriers to learning ane should be encouraged ac$a way to learn and develkp leaderchip competencies of SOMs. More ro, policy-makers and trainé.g providers should build on txe established relationship beôwaen SOMs and tieir em_loyees to create lore leapnifg opportenitkes at thE woRkplace.M SOMs need to be(guiddD into devemO0hng appropriaTe$syste}s for tapping diverse ideas, gpinions or suggespions from employees which could be vital source of learning for them. For WOMs to leczn fòom thair followers, there is need to creat% an environment where the s`me foLl wers"feel comfortabde speaking wp- and such the best ideas can dhen flow straiaht$up to the leader. Creating a le`rninç cu,ture qnd a physical work environment which fosteRs collaboration< openness and kn which mmployaes can freelq interjekt0new ideas iîto open work groups is also recommended. Likewise there is need for SME owjer-manager3 to MakE an aUeit of the)r own leadership competengies and if necessary. conskde "ways to acquije ant develop them with {n wledge sourcee fbom withhn their SMEs/ Lastly SME follo÷ers shmudd be eäucaped `bout their importand(roles as followers and

the #ritmcal impact they have on their leaders in particulAr and txe0performance and growth /f thekr SMEs in generil. In line!with Meindl’c (1995) !rgume~t that both leadershit and its cïnsequences as largely konstruct%d ây followers, fm|,owers need to be aware of the iMportant$role they pday. Employ%us neeD to$shAve knowledge and i|fopmation,0exchaNge ideas, ant create bo,d somutionq to!enrich learning of"their(SOMs. Gone arg the da}s when golloWers wer% tiewed as reciìentw or moderator3 of the leader's influence, and as vehicles fo" the actualizatyon /b the leadår's visign, íission or goals (Meindl 1995).`Followers may need to be coabhed to guarantee that th%y present leadership competence enhancing adeaS egfectively. 5.4 Limitations of the Study and Areas f r further sesearch lthoug` the stue9!provides some inderesting findilgs amd ma+es an important contrhbution in leadership a~d HP litera|õre, theze are some limitatioOs worti noting. The stuty was cross ’0sectional in nature implying that results obtainid may be subjected tm the inèrent weaknesses of cross – sectional rtuties. Standard`quEstionnaires wgre õwed as instruMents to coìlect data"which$perhaps limited thd abilmty to collecd views about informatioo outcide vhe sta~Dcrdized queStion. Thyw research used a wmcll samrle size centered mf ownerm,anagers in SME÷. Futwre researcher should"employ a biggur sampde involvkng other svakehnlders li{a the customers, local authorities among oôhers. F5ruher studias siould be carried out i~ other parts of the countsyò4her than thgse in the ãer2ent study. The research was qlso carried out emongst fungtional WMEs basing on the number of employees anä years an operation. Future pas%arch should be carrmed out amoîg collapsed SMEs based oo sioalar wariaBles. Additiìnal resEarch is needåd to address group- and oòga.izatmon-level effects Of voice and inf,ueNce from I liverse pïpUladionn- Thå!(ighlight%ä limitations shouìd not take away th% naãt that the research method that was adopted for this stuäy ensured that auality was$not compromised and t(at vgzy strong and$rålevant evidence was gathered Which sat)sfied the purposa and0objective of the study. Thiw study did nmt sugg-st caucation, ùt instead suggested that follower voica behaviour has an mnfluence over ddader{hip gompeteNcies of owner-managers but`folìnwers wh/0practice p2omotiVe vmice behaviour uere moRe efnective in influencéng leadership competencies of owner-managers than thnse(who psactiaed prohibmtive`voica behaviour. 5.5$Summary In summ!ry, this research p2ovides proof(and ãonfirmation of concept that fol,owers voice exertioN behAviour hó a v)able tool for learning and development nf ldedership competencies of SOM{. By suggesting that fo,louers are a viable ,earning source fkr SOMs, folnowess construcviwe input thus _rovides(an elternative qvenuå to SOMs learning that meåts their learning preferences and addresses txeir reasons for disliii.f formal trainaîgs and mitioateS iany of the reasons onten cited for not¡`ttending formal traininç Pr/moting thiS source of leavning is important for!SOMs, as )t is through infoòmal le!rning$thet they ensure subvival ob the business. The

findings ov this sttdy contrIbu4e to The existmng bodY0of knowleägd in the area of leidersii0 deve|opmenv and makes p2actical reCommendations ôhat qim at devglophng leadershyp competengies og SME owne2-managers. 6.0 RE ERENCES Ámin, M.E. (2005). Social scyences research konceptions, metxodology and analysis. Kamyala2 ]akerere UnIve2sity. American Management Association. 2005).Leading into`the future: A global study of meádershkp 2005-2015. Retrievee FebvuarY, 2014, frombhttp://www.aianet.org/HRHMeadershipSurv05. Anastasi, A. (1968(. Psychological tåsting. New York: Macmillan. Anderson, S. (2102). Joining entrepreneurs in`tèEir world: mpsoving eNdrepreneurship, management and leadershkp in EK SMEs,$London: Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership Anderson, V. &`Skinner, D. (1999+. Organi{ational learning in psactice: how do small businesses learn énternatiolally Human ReSource Developmånt InternctIonal, 2l 3: 235-58. Andersson< L. M., T. S. Bateman. (2000). Ind)vidual environmental initiative: Ciampioning natural enviroflental issues in U.S® business organizatikns. cadeey of Management Journal, 43, 548–578. Argote,!L.,(& Ingram, P. )2000-.(Knowledge tbansfer: A basic gnr comp%vitive advantage in$firmw. Orgqnizational bghavior and huian decision processes, 82(1), 150-149. Apolo|, S. (20129. OrgãNizational LearninG, Innovatigls and mall and Mudium Sized0Enterprisas (SMEs) Performance in Uganda. Masters Dissertation- MakerEre Univers)ty. Argyrysl C., & Schon, D. (1978). ORganizathonal learning: A theory of action!approach. Readilg, MA: Addismn Wesley. Ashgord, S* J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit S. Ë., & DWttof, J. E. (1998). ^ut on a limb: The role of context and impression(mcnageme.t if$selling gende -equity kss es. Ad inistrative(Science Quarterly, 43, 23¶57. Ashnord, S. J.( Sutcliöfe, Kn M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009)/ Speaking!up a~d speaking outz The leadership dynamics of voice in rganizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.)( Voice and silence in grganizations (pp. 175,201). Cingley, UK: Emerald Group. Atherton, J. S. (2011). Nearnifg and vmaching; Constructivis in leqrning. Retrieved 14/02/"015, from

http://gww.learningandteqching.info/learning/constructivism.htm Atkinsonl J. & Meager, N. (1994). ‘Òunoing to stand still: T`e small firm afd the labour market’, i. J Atkinson aNd D. Store9 (eds) EmploymUnt and the Small Firm Labour Mar+et, London: Routhedge. Avglio. B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hanîeh, S. T., Walumbwa$ F. O., & Chaj, A. (2p09). A meta-analytIc review od leadership imxacô research: Experime.tal and ñuasi-experimental studies. 20, 764–784/0 Avery,0D. R., & Quiñones, M. A. (2002). Dise~tangling the egfects of voice: The incremgntal rolås of oppor|uni4y, behavior, and0instrumentality in predicting procedural vairness. Journal of Apqlied `sy#hology, 87: 81-86. Axtall, . M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth,!K. L., W`lì, T. D., Waterson, Pn E., f Harrinowon,0E. (2000). Shot floor innovation: Fccilitatiog the suggestion and implementawion of ideas/ Journal of OccuPavional `nd Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-28!. Babbie, E. ( 002), The practice of`Rocyal Research. Renuont, BC: Gadsworth. Baker, S. D. ¨2007). Æollowership: The theoråpical foundetion of a contelpobary cons4rucô. Hournal of!Leadership and OrganizatIonal Studies, 14(1),050-60. FAer,0M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: Tie implementation of creativE iDeas in organizetions. Asademy of0Managemmnt ÊournaL, 55, 1112-1119. Balunywa, W., òoga, P. andagire, Dn, N. (2013). 50 Years of Entzepraneurship in Uganda, Ten Years of the Ugandan Global EnurepreneursIip Monitor. http:+.÷aswa-balõnywa.blogspot.ug/ 013/12/50-years-of-enprepreneuzShip-in-uganda.html Baron, P.$A., & MarKman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: Ho soci!l skills can enh!nce entrexseneurs' suc#ess¬ The Academy of Manage-ent Executive, 14(1)( 106-116. Bateman, T. S. & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proabtiôe behaviob: Meanings< impact, a.d recommåndaTions. @5siness Horizons 1999, fod. 42, issue 2, pages 63-70 Beaver, Ç. (20 3). SmaLl business> Succesr anf fqilure. StrAtegic Change, 12(3), 115-122.(RetriEveh July 28, 2014, from ProQ5eót database. Relschak, F. D.( & Den Harpog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of$po3itive anl negative feedbacë: The imp`Ct on emmtions ald extra-role"âehaviors. Applied Psûchnlogy, 58(2), 275 303. Bemmels, B&, & Foley, J* R. (1916©. Gbievance procedure reseasah> A review and theoreticel secommendat)ons. Nournal of Management, 2:, 359–784. bennis, W. 987).On$becomino a Leader® new Ùor{:!Perseus Books Group. Bilhin'tkn<$L., Neeson, R.

& Barrett, R. (2009).0Thg effectiveness of workshoxs as0managerial leirning opp/rtunities. Education + Ôzaining, 51(8/9) 633–746 Blackburn< R. and Kitching, J. (1997).Mcnagement Trainino fïr SMEs: A ComPirative Study of Thrge European Reoions. Sepord to DfEE/MBI. Bloom,!B. S. (3956). Ua8onomy of EdõcatiOnal Objectives, Handbook I: T`e Ãognitive Domain. Ne7 Y rk: David McKay Co Inc. Bolden,$R. & Terry, R. (200p).(Leaderwhip Development in Small and edium sized Enterprises: Phase !(Report. Centre for Leadarship Studies, U.ivevséty oæ Exetev, Decemb%r 2000. Bnden, J.$" Nucci, R. (2400). On the survifal prospebts of men’s and women’s nmw business ~entures. jkurnal od Buskness Venturing. ò000; 15: 347-362. Bowen, M., MorarA, M., & Mureithi$ M> (2009). Management of business c allenges ymong small aNd micr enterprisms in nairobi, Kenya. KCA jouznal of Business ]anagement, 2)1), 16-31. Boxall, P. & Purceìl, j.0(2003 . Strategy and Huían Resource Managemeît. B!qanwstoke: Palgravd Macmihlan Boyatzis, R,G. (1982).Tèe`Competeot Manager: A Model fo2 Effective Performance. (New Yoòk, Wiley & Óons- 1982.) Briggs, B. (200y). Is{ues affecting Ugandan!indigeno}s entr%prdneurShid in ôrade. Africaî Journal of Business Managument Vol.3 (12), pp. 7h6-79? Brinsfield, C. T., Edwards, M. S.,$& Freenberg, J. (2009). Voice and sileîce i>0gògánizations: Hkstorical revief aîf cursånt conc%ptuamiZations. In J.(Gree~beòg& Mn S. Edwards (Edsn), Voicd anl silenc%"an organkzatimns (pp. 3-33). Binfley, K: Emerald Group. Brownoll, P. (1995). Research Methods in(Management Accounting. Coopers & Lybrand a.d the AccountiNe AssocIatioN of"Australia and New zealand BzUderl, J.,"Preisendorfer,$@.( ZiegleR, R. ¨1=92).`Survival chances of(newly`foundgd buséness osganizátions. American Sociological Review, 57, 227-"42.! Budd, J. W. (2014) “The Fut}re of0Employee Voice,” in Ad:ian Wilkinson, Jimmy Donaghey, Tony Dundon, and Zichard B®`Freeman, eds., The Handbook of Research on Employeu Voice (Northampton, MA: Edward ElGar Publisling)¬ pp. 477-487 Burris, E- V. (2012). Txe sisks and rEwards of speakmng up: Managerial responses to eoployed 6oicd. Academy of Management Jousnal, 55, 851–875. @urris, E.V., Detert, J.Ò., & Harrisoî, D. (2010). Empl yee voice and opportunities for leárning in crefit unions. Filene research Institute White Paper no. 209Madison,"WI Burris, E, R., Detert- J. R/, & Romne{, E. C. ¨2013). Speakmng u_ vs. being heard: Vhg disagreement around and ottcomes of$em`loyee voice. Organization Science, 24(1),(22-38. Campbell, J. P. (39979. The cutti.g edges of leadevship."Southern Illinois Unyvdrsit{`Press. Capaldoa, G", Iandolib, L., & Ponsiglionec,

(:004). E.trepreneurial competanciås and traiîino needs of small fmrmr: A methodological approash. Paper pre3ented at the 14th Annual Int. Ent Conference, Napïli. CEMl`(2002). Join)ng Entrexreneurs(in their World. Council dor Excellence in Management and Leadership, London. Charters,0S., C,ark-Murphy$ M., Davas, Nn- Brovn, A& & Walker, E. (2008). A. expdopaôion of mqnageriil expertise in the Western Australian wine inDustry. Internauional Jousnal nf Wine Cusineqs Researbh, 20(2), 138–1µ2. Chaleff, I. (2003). The couraeeoõs follower.`Standing up and for our leaders. San Francisco: Berrett/Koehler$Publishers. Chen, I.0(n.d). Social cmnstructivist 4he/raes. Retrieved ±6 F%bruary¬ 2016- from htt0*//vi+ing.coe.uh.edu'~ichen/ebook/et-iu/sokiaì.h Che5îg, H.K< Songqi- L. (2014-. How Shotld e Speak: ckmparing EffEctiveoess!of Pòomotive and Prohibmtive Voic¥s. Nousnal0of psychology.Vol 27, No 1 (2014) / MClarke, J., ThMrpe. R., A.derson, L. & Gold,(J& (20 6) "It's all action, it's all learninG:0action learning in SMWs", Journil of EurOpean Indus|rial Tramning, Vol. 30 Iss: 6. pp 441 - 455 Coetzer, A.J., battisti, M., Jurado, T. & MassUy, C. 2009). Semf-taught manageR? How SIE`owner-managers develop`their managerial "apabinityn In Proceedings of Small En Drprisa Association of Australia and New!Zealanä,Annual Conference. Wellington- New ZealaNdz MasseÙ universiTy. Soglister, C.C., & Brigham, K.H. (2°04*& The }îtersectIof of leaders)ip and dntrepreNeurship: Lutual lessons to be learnt. Leadership Quarterìy 15, 7 1–)9. Cnllin, K. (2002(. Development engineers’ conceptikns of learning at work. S|edies in CmntinuinS EducatioN,024 (2), 133–152. Cooper, D. R. & Schind|er, P. S.`(20069. Âusiness Rese!rch Meuiods (9th e$ition). USA: McGrau-Hidl. Cosh, A., Dun#an, J. and Huehes,!A. (1998).Mnvestm%n40in$Training and -all Firm growth and Survival: A. Empirikal Analysis for the UK, 1987- 5- Research Report Fo. 36, Sheffield, DfGE. Co5fcIl dor Excellence(in Manageeent and LeadErsèip,`(2002). Managebs aîd leaders: Saising our game. Lo.dnn: RePort for Cmuncil for Ehceìlence in`Manaoement"and Leadership Cortina- N. M., &`Magley, V. J. (2003). Raisinç voice, risking retaliátion: Events following interpdrs nal mistòeatient in txm workplacE. Journal of occupational heanth psycho|og}, 8(4), 247-265. Creswell, J.W. ( 084). Educational research: Planning, coïducténg, and evaluati.g quantitatkve i.d qualitatéve(research. Upper Saddme River, NJ: Pearson. Croncach, L. J. (1951). C/enficient alpha and the intesnel(stzqbture of tests.Psychometréka,!6, 297-334.

Crowther, D. & L n#aster, G. (2008) “Rasearcà Methods: A Concase Introduction to Reseir#h(in Management and Business Consultancy” ButvepWorth-Heinemann CurranN B., Bl!ckbwrn, R>,!Kitching, J/ and NoRth, J.!(1;96i.Estaclishing Small Birms’ Training QRactices,!Needs< Diffkcuhties and Use of Industry Training OrGanizations, Lonfon DfEA. Cerran, J.,!Blackburl, R., Iitching, J. anf North, J. (1997). ‘Small fmrms and workforce tòaining: sooe results, an!lysis and policy implications’ mn Ram, M., Deákins, D. and Smallbone, D. (eds*) Wmaml Firls:$Enterprising Futures, Paul Chapman Pubìisxing Dansereau,!Æ., Grèn, g. G., & Haga, W* 81975). A Vertical dyad linkag% appvoaCh to leaeership informal organizations. Organizatiolal Behavior aod Human performaNCe, 13, 46-7x. Då Dreu, C. K., & Weingartl D> R. (2003). Task v$rsus relatimnship conælict, team perfermånce, and Team membår!satisfiction: a meta-analysis. Journal of axplied PsycholoGy, 88(4), 7t1. Dåming, W. A. (1;86). Out of the còisis. Bambridge, MA: EIT Press. Det%rt, J® BuRris, E. R.`(2007). Leadershhp Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Reallq Oren? Acidemy of Management Journal* 50(4), (69-884. Dedert,"J. R., & Edmondson, A. (2011). Implicit v ice themries: An emergin' qndårstanding of self -censoróhi2 at sork. Academy of Managmme.t(Jourîam, 54 (3): 461 - 48 . Devins, D., Gold, J., Steve, J., & Holden, R. *2005) "A conceptu`l model of ma~agement laarning in micro businesses: Imp,ications for research and policy , Edecation + Training, V l. 47 Iss: 8/9, pp.540 – 545 ienesch, R. M., & Lilen, R. A. (1986). Leader-meober exchang% mgdel of leadership: A ãritique and further ddvelopmeot. AcaÈoy of ManageMent Review, 11, v18-634. Dulebohn, J. h.$ Bomeer,0W. H., Ìiäen, R. C., Brouer, R. H., & Feòris, G. R. (20!1). A meta-analysis /f antmcedents and consequencåqòf lgaddb–mem"er exchanog: KlteçratIng the"pasv with an eye toward the future. Journal ïf Manageme~t. Advance online p}blication. Doi:10.1177/0149216311415280 Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Edb.(, P sitive organizational sclolir3hip (pp® 2 3-278). San$Francisco: Jerrept-Koeller& Dutton- J. E., 6 Aóhford, S. J. (1993). SelliNg is{ues to top manacement. Academy of Manafement Review, 18, 39 428. Duttkn, J. E., Áshford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Myner-Pubino, K. (2002). Red light, oreen lie`t: Makijg sense of Thd orwanixational context for issum sellinf. Organizat)on Wcience, 13, 355–379. Dutton, J. E., Ashfosd, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & awrence((K.!A. (2001). Move3!that matter: Iss5e"sulling and organazetional cjanoe.

Academy of Management JïUrnal, 44< 716–736. Edmondson,"A. (199))/ "PsYchological safåté and laarNmng behavior in worh teams." Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350-383. Udmnndson, A. C. (20 3). Speaking up"in the"Operating Room: How peam lecders promote nearning in int%rdisciplina2y acôion teams. Journal of manageme~4 Studies, 40, 1419-14µ2. Emrloyers’ Organisaôion.0(2004). “Employers’ Orgcnisatmon for LOcal GovernmenT0Compendium Classi&icauion.” Ávailable at: vww.lg-e-ployers gov.uk/leqdership'compe|encies. Accessed [07/0 /2015]. Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, H., & Bretpel,!M. (6012). Entrerreneurial Orim.tadyon, Firm Performance, and the Moderating Role of Tvansformational Lea$ership Bejaviors.(Bournal of Manageient. Doh: !0.1177/014920631245u640 Ensley, M., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pea2ce, C. L. (2006). The ImportAnce of Vebtical and Shared Neadership within New Venture Top Managemejt Teams: Kmplications for the Performince of Startups. The leader3hip quarterly, 217-231. doi:doi:1p.1016/j.\%aqua.2006.02.0020 Ernest, . (199 ). Sosial Constructivism as a Philosoph} of ]athematicw: RadiaalConstrucdivismRehabilitated?,{Internep .Available:Uhttp://ww .ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/soccon.htmUH[6015,"Marcl 28]. Evans, M., Hastifgs, F., and Peacobk, B. (2000). Statistical Distr)butions, 3rl ed. New York:0Wiley, 2008. Eyaa, *, Ndayi, M. J. (2010): Procurement Practices and Supply Chain Performance /f SMES in Kampalá. Asian Journalòf Business Management 2(4)º82-88, 2010. Farris, E. F. & Lim, F. G. *1969). Edfects of performancu on leadersèip, cohesiven%ss, influence, s!tisfaction, and sebsequent performance. Journah of Applied Psychology, 53, 490-49w. Fasd, N. J., Buròis, E. S., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Manqging to stay )n the dark: Ma.agerial seÌf-effycacy, ego-defeosiveness, and tde aversion to employee voice. Acádemy mf anagemenu Journal. (2014, p.1011-1034) FlanagaN,`J. C. (1954). The critécal incident tuchnique. Psychologicil Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. Fleishman,È. A. (1953). he ddscri`tion of supervisory behaVior. Journal of Ap`lied Psyghology, 37(1), 1-6 Fl/ren, H., & Tell, J. (2104). Phe emargent prerequisites of managerial learning in small firm n%twmrës. The leadership and orãani3ation develo_ment journal¬ 24(3©, 212-307 Vloyd, S. W., & Wnoldridge, W. (1994). Dinosáurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle(management's strategic roLe. Academx of Management Executive,`8, $7–57. Folger, R. (1;77). "Distributive(and PrïceduRal Justice: Combingd Impect nf "vohce" and impvovemunt on Expesienced Inequiôy." Journalòf PersoNality and Social Psychology 35:1°8-19.

Nollett, M. P. (1924). Creative Experience. Îmw Yoòk, ^Y: Lon'mans, Gzeen Frazimr, M.0L.,0& Bowler, W. M. (20a2) Voice climate, cupervisor(undermi.ing¬ and work outcomes: A Group-Lmvel examination. Journal of Management, 51, 1173-1183* Freeman, R. B., . Medoff, J. L. (1984). What Fo Tnions Do? New York: BaSic Books. Frewe, M., & Fa}, . (2001). Personal initiative> An active performa&ca concept for work in the 21st ce~tury.$Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. Fuller, T. (2403). Small busineqs futures in society. FUt}res, 35, 297-304. Rgtrieved January 19, 2014, nrom Questia databaóe. Fuller-Lovm, N. (200 ). Man gement defeloPient in sMill fisms, InternaukoNal journal of Management Reviews 8(3), 175-190. Gams%r, M. (20p3). Improving the Business Trade Licensing Refo2m`Environment. RetrieVed on 12/03/2014 from https://openknowledwe.worldbank.org/handle/1098¶/9136 Gerstner, S. R., & Dey, D.V. (1997). Meta/analytic reöiew`of meadeò-mumber exchánge thenry: Correlates and construct issues. Journah of Applmed Psychology, 82, 825-844. Globaì Entrepreneurship Monitor repopt (GEM), (20099. Global Entrepreneupshi0 M nitor repoòt (GEM), (2091). Ggnzi, Á., Xafer, P. & Atha.ason, J. (1993). The!devehopmend kf competency-caseD0assessment strategies for the professions.0 ational OffiCe gor Overseas Skilhs`Research Paper No 8. Canferra, Australia2 Australian Go~ernment PublishifE Service,Wo,eman, D., Boyatzis,`R. ánd McKee, A. h2002) Primam Leade2ship: Realizing the power oF emotional intelìigence. Boston: Harvard BusIness Schoom Press. Fordon, A. & ]ukl, G. *"004). Tèe future of leadership researah: Challenges and opportunyties. German Joqrnal of Human Resourc% Research, 18,0359-r65. Retrieved Desember 29, 2013, from EbSCO database. Gordo~, A. & Yukl, G. (2004)& The future od leadership researchº Cjcllenees and oppoptunivies. Zeitsclrift für Personalforschung, 18(7), 3µ9–365. Graen, G., & Ceshman, J. F. (5975). A role making m/$el in formal orga.Izations: A developmental approach. In JG Hunt & LL Larson (Eds.), Leadership Dr ntiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH:$Kent State Press. Graen. G.,$B.( & Uhl-Bien, M. (1994). Relationqhip-based approach to leaderrhip: Develntment of ldader-member exchange (LMX) theory of lçadership over 25Years: Axplying a multi=level multi-domain pezspectiva. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Gredler, M. E. 81997). Ìearnifg and instruction: Theory énto pract)ce (3rd ed)® Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pruntige-Hall. Geggenheimer, P. & S{uLe, M.D. 1998.Understcfding Leádership0Competengies:

CreaTing0Tomosrow’s LeAtess TïdayN0Bostkn, M.A : Thomtson. Hassan, M., @aswaf, M., & Batool, F. (2015). Emxloyee Voice Behavior in Organizations: Evidejke from Pakistan. Journal of Marketing and Consumer$Research, Vol. 10((:815, pp. 142-154 Hayeó, J. .1979). A new$look at0m`nagerial competence: The AMA model for worthy performance& Managemenu Revmew, 59, 2-3. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). e|it, voice, and loyalty: Respnnses to decline in firms, organizations,`and staTes.(Cambridge, MA: H`rvard University Press. Hïque, K., Bacon, N. (2006). The antekedents of training activity$in BriTish ómall and medium-sized enterprisEs.0Work, employíent ajd roãiety. 00(2), 531-552. Horton, R. (2000-. Introduction: The c/mpetency iovement: Its origins and impact on the public sector. Tha International Journaì of Public Sector Management, 1384), 306-318 Howedl, J. M.$ | Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers(in the chavismatic leadership process: Relationchips and thei2 consequences. Academy of Man`gement Review, 30(1),096-112. Huang, L. (2015). Followers' ãonstrõbtive voice ánd leaders' reactions to vOice: A self-enhancement perspecti~e. ETD collection for Uni~ersity of Îebraska - Lincoln. Paper AAI3689468. Inglis, S. (1994)> Making the!Most of Action Leapning. Aldershot, Engma&d: Gowar Pu`lisj)ng, 1994. Ilies, R , Nehrging, J. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-mgmber exchange and citizdnsjip beháviors: A meti-analysis. Journal o& Applheä Psychology, 92, 269-077. Jeffrey, D. H., & Zon, J. F. (0813). Leadersiép competensiec: Are we all sayIng the 3ame thing. Pòoceeds of 4µth Annual Conference of the Inter~ati/nal Military Testing0Assnciation.`Pensacola, Florida. Retriev%d on 14 November 201< fro- htt_://www.dstomlifvendahl.com/Leadershipcompetenckes&plf Jwng, Y. (2094).Employee Voice and Recipients’ AppraisalS/Reactions: The Dffects Of [peech Style, Voice T{pe, And Voicer S|atus8 University of Wesôern Ontario - ElectronIc Thesis end Dyssertátion Reposatory. Papgr :141.http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/2141 K!ssing,`J. W.$(1998+. “Defelopment and0Validation of0the Organizational Dkssent Scale,” Management CommunigaTion Quarterly 12 (1998): 183 Kaswing, J. W. (20°0). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationwhip quality and emplkyee disóenô. Minagemejt Communication research raport, 17, 58–70> Kasseeah, H. (20 2). Small and Medium-Sized Enterp2ises in Mauritius and ôheir Ovner-Managers: Doms dducataon Matter? Mnternational Journal of BusiNess aNd Rocial Science Vol. 3 No. 17;(September 2012 Kellerman, B. (2007).What every leader needs to know a`oqt followezs. HaRvard Busine{s Review, 85- 1. Kelle2man. B. (2008).Followership-How Followers are Creating Change and Changéng Ìeaderó. Harvard Business

ress, Boston- MA. Kerlingur, F. K, (2006). Æoundations o& Behaviouran Resecrch. (8th ed). London: Surjeet!Peblishers. Kim, J., MacDuffie, J. T., & Pil, F. K. (2010!. Employee voice and organizatiOnil perForeance: Team versus representatmve influencå. Human Relations, 63(3), 370-394. _Kim, B. )2201). Social Constructivasm. Emerging perspectives on lEarning, teaching, ant tuchlïlogy.Retrieved14/02/2015,fzomhttt://prokects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/andex.thp?title=Social_Constructivism Krause- K., Bochner, S."& Äuchesne, S.`(2003). ducataonal Psyahology for leazning0and teacèing. Melbourne: Tlo}son. Klaas, B., S., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Ward, A. (2p12). Uhu detarminants of alternátive forms od workpdace voice: An integrative peòspectiöe. Jouònal of Managem%lt, 38, 314–345.` Knowmes, M.!(1973). Thd atult Learner. A îeglected species. Houston,TX. Gulf Publishing Company-Kombo, D. K., & Tromp, D.L. (2006). Prmposal and thesis wri4ing: @n`introfuction. Nairobi: Tauline’S(Publications Africá. Kottler, J. P. (1990).(Q force!for change: How leadershyp differs from management. Ne7 York, NY: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M. and QosneR, B. Z. (1988a). The leatership challenge; How to$get extraordinary things donu in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey%Bass Pqblishers. Kozan, M.K., Oksoy, D. ane Ozsoy% O. (2006). Growth Plans of Seal|$BUsiness in Turkey: Individual$and Environmental Influeîces. Journal cf Small Business ManaGement, 4(11), 114-129. Kum r, R. (20 5). “Research methotology”> A step-by-step guide for beginners. London: SAGE publications>_L!pierre, L.M, & Cajsten, M.K. (2414), F llowership: What i3 it and!why do people follow/ Emercld Croup Publishing, 2014. Lapierre, L., Hackett, R. D., & Daggar, S. (2806). A test of t(e links between family interference with work, job enrichment and(leadur-member exchaoge. Applamd Psychklïgy: An Inteònational Review, 55, 489-5 1. Lapierre, L., & Hackett, R. D. 2007)."Trait conscientiousness, leader member exchange, job satisvaction an$ organizathonal citizenship behaviour: A test of an integr`tive model. Journal of(OccupationaL and Organizational Psychologq, 80, 5s;-554. Laqzlo, C. (2 03). the Sustainable Company: How to Creatg Lasting Value 4hrough Social and Enwironmeotal Performance. Washifgton, D.C.: Ismand Press. leedy, P.D. (!917). Practical research: planfing and design. (6th ed.).0New Jersey: Merill, Prenti#e hall. Leitch, C.M. (2007©. An action resgarch approach to entrepReneurship. In Handbook for qu`litative research methods in entreneurship, ed. H* Neergaard and J. Parm Ulhøi. Ch%lteoham, UK: Edward ElgaS Publishing. Leitch, K.M., McMullan, C., & Harrison, R., T. (2009). LeadersHip development0in SMÅs: an action learning appro`ch Actkon Learling: Research anl Practice, 6:3, 243-263

Lewis, K.,`Massmy, C®, Ashby, M., Coet{er, A., & Harris,(C. 20 5)/ Wh?? When? Why? ” New Zealand S SME ůw”ѥr- ME oŷ”eѲ-m anager{ nager{ a ssess their Buѳiness Assmstance IntevactiOns. Paper presenVed et thg 8th Annu sess their Busѩness Assmstance IntevactiOns. Paper presenVed et thg 8th Annue SEEANZ Confer�nce`200ȵ䈡UNE, ArmidAne- Liang, J , Farh, C.�I&$C. , & Farh, J. (2012). Psychol/gi‹a & Farh, J. (2012). Psychol/gi‹al AnѴecedeots ɯf Prom•Ѵive an Antѥcedeots oɦ Prom•tѩve and `Prohibitive Voũce: a Two‐W�Ѷe Exa anatmon. @bademy of Management Journal, 55, pp. natmon. @bademy of Management Journal, 55, pp. 7 Ü2. Like′tЬ R.(193耢).AĢ|echniqua for the measuremѥnt of att��udes. Archives of PsybholůgŹ, Ȓ2(140), 1-5%.�Lind, E.A., & Kulik, C.T. (:009©Ю Hear me out: Voice and justie. In J/ Greenberg ¦ M.S. Edwa摲�� rds (Eds.), Voice anD silence in organizatioNs (pp. 135-156). Binghey, UK: Emerald Group. Liu, W., Tangiralal S., & RamAnujam, R. (2013). The zelational anteceden4s of voisd targetel at diffe2ent leaders. ournal of Applied Psychology, 98, 841-51. Lkq, W. Zhu, R., and Yang, Y. (2009). I warn ymu becáuse I like you> Voice behavior, employee ideîtifications, !nd transformational leadErship. Leadership QuarterLy 21(1). Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Lealer-MembEr Exchange Theory: Another Peòrpectyve on the Deadership€Process, Internatiolal jkurnal of Management, 13(1), 0-5. Masseq, C., Gawith, A., Perry$ M., R5th, D., & Whlson, M. (2005). Building`managemelt capability in New Ze`land: An assessmeot of supplY and demaod. Nes Zåaland Ce.tre$for S E Research. Massey$Qniversity, We,lington New Zeamand. McGover., P. (2806). Learning Networks as an aid to ddvelopine strctegic wapabilit{0among small and medium syzed enterprises: A case study from the Iris` polymer i~dustry/ JouRnal ob Sm`ll Business Ma~agement. 42(2). 302-305. MacKenzie,`S. B/, Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P (2011)n Chqllenge-orien4ed orGanizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveneqs: Do challenge oriented behaviors really haöe an impact on(thE organizátion'w bot4om line. @ersonnel Psychology, 6T< 559-5 2. macMillan, K. (201;).`Leaders. Followers, an$ the S`ace Between: A Three Dimensional

View of Leader Attention and Decismon-making. Univercity of WEstern Ontario - Åìectronic The3is and Dissertation Repository.Paper1778. HYPERDINK "http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1778" htTp://hr.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1778 Maroosis J. (2008). Leadership: A partnership in reciprocal following. In Riggio R. A., Chaleff I., Lipman-BLumen J. (Ed3.). The ar| of followership: How great followers create great |eaders and organizations (pp. 17-24). Ran Francisco, CA: Jos3ey-Bass.-Marshad,, I. N. (±196). The key inf rmanT uechnique. Fqmily Practica, 13*1), 92-9 . McCauleq, C. (2006). Development`l!aSsigneants: Creating learning experi%~ces without chaNging jobs. Frdensboro, N.C: Center for$Kreatave Leadership Press McKlelland, D.C/ h1973). Tgsting for compe|ence rather than for iltelligence. American @syciologist, 28, 1-14 McGuire, M/, Engman, A., Lauzmn, C. (2007). E-ployee(leaòning ij rmall and mediuí enterprises: Identifying iNcentives for employer investment anf promisinc strategies* athexis Conrtlting Inc: Toronto, Ontario. McLagan, P. (1997).Competencies:(The next generation. Training`and Development,40–47 McMahon, M. (1997). So#ial constructifism and the world wide web(-A Paradigm for leArning.!Paper presEnted at ôhe ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia. Retrived on drom`http://www.curt)n.edu.au/conference/ ESCHLITE97/papers/ Mcmahof/Mcmahon_Mead, D. C., & Liedholm, C. (1998). The dynamics o& micro and small enterprisas`in0developing sountri%s. World Developmelt, 2>, 61}74. Meinfl,€J. R. (1995). The romance on ,eadership as a follower-centòic theory: A social Constr}cpioni3t ápproach. laadership Quarterly, 6, 329-341. Meindl, J* R., Ehrlich,(S. B., " Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance$of leadersHip. Administrative Science0Quarterly,`38, 78-102. Menon, t., Thompso., L., &$Ghoi, H. S. (2006).0Tainted knowl%dgE vs. tempting knowledge: People avoiä knowledge from inpernal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Manageeent ScIence, 52, 1121–1144. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R.,!& Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistle blowing in org`nizations: An examination of$correlates of whistle blowing intentions, actions, and retaliati n. Journcì of Businecs Et(ics, 62(3), 277-297. Metcalf, H., Urvick, L. (2 03)n Dynamic administ2ation: Thu collectave papeòs of M`ry apker Follett, New York, NY: Ro}tledge? Miceli, M. P., Near< J. P., & Dworkio, T. M. (2008)/ Whistle blowing in organizations. New"York: Routledge. Millik%j, F. J., & Lam, N. (2009).$Making the äecision to speak up or tg remai. silent: ImplkcatIons nor organizational luarning In J. Greenberg$& M. S. Edwards ,Eds.), Voike `nd silmncd in(organi~ations (pp. 22$-264). binglei, UK: Emer`ld Group. Mhllward, N.,!Stevens, M., Smart, D.l & Hawes, W.R. (1992). Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition,

Dartmgutè Publishing, Hampshire Eitchelì, J. (2007). Overcoming “I’m ton buwY”: An audit of sm`ll jusiness training in We1tern Australaa. DepartMent of Eduaation and Training, WA Morasso, A. (2011). Follower Voice: A Percpective ol its Influence on Leader Behavior aîd Implications for Future Develorment. Doctor of!Management, 6011 Thesis, University on MaRyland Universi4x College Morricon,"A. (2003)*!SME mafagement ald lmadership developlmnt: Mirket re-orieîtation. Journql of Mánagement Eevelopment 2 , no. 9: 796–808. Morrison< E. W. (2011). Employee0voice behavior: Integration and directions for!future research. Academy of(Mánagement Cnnal{, 5, 373-$12. Morrison, E. W., & Méllike~( F. J. (2000). Organizatioîal silence: A ba2rier to change`and development in a _luralistic World. The Acade}y of Managemdnt Beview, 25,706-725. Morrison, E.(W.$ & Rothman, N. J. (2009(. silence and the dynamics of0power.0In J.gree~berg & M. S. Efwards (Eds.), Voice and sileoce in organizatiofs (pp. 111-133). Fingley, UK: Emerald Group Morrison, E.W. ¨0111).0Employee voice behavior: Integration and directionr$for future research. Academy of Managmment Annals, 5, 373-412. Mugenda, O.M & Mugendal$A.G (2003). Research methods.( Quantita4ive and qualitative approaches. (pp* 46 -48)l Nairobi, Kgnya: ACTS Press. Mulder, M. (2p14). Conceptions of Professi/nal C mpetence. Hnternational Xandbook on Resm!rch into professional and xractiC%-basud learning, Dordrecht: Springer. Mwangi, S., Sejjaaka, C., Canney, S.,`Maina S., Kairo, D., Ro|Ykh, A., Owino, E., Nsureko, I., Mindra, R. (¶p13).Constructs oFhSugcmssfuL and Sustainable SOE Leadership in East Africa. Mindra ICBE-RF Research Report N0. 9/13 Na.goli, S., Turinawe, D.D.,$Kusemererwa, C., ánd Jqaza, M. (2013).`Powards Enhancing Busknåss and Survival growth rates in LDCs: An Exploratory`Study of(the Drivers kf 71 Buqi.ess failur%s among SMEs in Kampala-Ugaîda. Internbtional Journal of$Jumanitids and Social Scienkes. Vo|. 3 No® 8 (Special I3sues-Axril 2013(n Namatovu, R., Ba|unywa, W., Kyejjusa, S., & Dawa, S. (201 ). GEL Uganda 20100Gxecutive0Repmrt. Retréeved from HYPERLINK "http://www.mubs>ac.ug/home/dmcs/GemUG2010ExecRep.pdf" ttp://www.mubs.ac.ug/home/docs/GemUG6010ExecRep.pdf 22/12/2015. Nemeth, L."S. (1997). Låqsuring obganizational learning, University of Western Ontario NemeTh C. J.< Connell, J, J., Rogers, J. D*, & Brown, K. S. (2001). Improving decision makinf by }eans of dassent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48”58. Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social Resdarch Éetho$s: Qualitative and Quantitative Approcches. Boston: Allyn and Baãon Publisxebs. Ngugi, R.W. (200:). Capital financing båhavéor: ewidence from fi2ms listeD on the Nqirobi Stock Exchange.`Txe European Journal of Finance, 14(7), 609-624 Ngugi, P.K. (2012). “Ahallenees hindering suwtaynability of small and medium family

entårpriså aftEr the exmt of the foundevs io"Kenya”. PèD thesis Jo}o Kenyatta University of Agriculturm an$ Teãhnology. Nichter, S., & Goldmark, L. (2009). Small Firm Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 37(9), 1453-1464. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.013 Nordhaug, O. (1993). Human Capital in Organizations. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Ocici, C. (2006).A Working Paper on Entrepreneurship Presented at National Consultation Conference: Legal Empowerment of the Poor. Commission on Legal Empowerment, International Law Institute Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, Farnham: Gower Publishing O’Dwyer, M. & Ryan, E. (2002) "Management development – a model for retail business", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 Iss: 9, pp.420 – 429) Okello-Obura, C., Minishi-Majanja, M. K., Cloete, L., & Ikoja-Odongo, J. R. (2008). Sources of Business Information and Means of Access Used by SMEs in Uganda: The Case of Northern Uganda. Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 18(1), 1-27. O'Leary, Z. (2010). The essential guide to doing research. New Delhi: Vistaar Publicetions._Pa|ton, M* Q. (1990). Designing qqalitative studies [excerpt: Purpmsefud sampling]. In Qualitative rececr#hànd evaluatioî methods (2nD ed., pp. 1¶9-186(. BeveRnù Hills, CA: Sage. PALAMA: Publig Administratio. Leadership and Management Academy. (2002). “PALAMA Annual PerformanCe Plan: 2012-13”. Evailable at: www.talama.gov.~a. Accessed [16/08/2014]/ Peil< M. (3995). “SociAl 3ciencE research methods”. A handbook for Africa (Revised ad). Nairobi: East African Educatioîal Publishers. Perlow, L.- & Williams,$S. (2003)* Is silence killing }our comàny? Haòvard Business Review, 81, 52–78. Perren, L> & Grant, P. (2001). ManawemEnt and leadership in UK SMes: Witness0test(monies from the worl$ of ejtrepreneurs and`SME managgrs. London: Council for ExãellenCe in Management and Leadership._Pinder, A. c., & Harlos,"H. P. (2001)* Äm`lïyee silenceº Quieskence aod acñuiescence as responsew to perãeived mnjustice. Rasearch in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 30, 331–369. Podsakoff, N._., Podsakkff, P.M., MacKenziE¬ C, B., & Margaret, L.W. (19=3!. & o Subwtitutes`for Leadershix Really Substitute for LEadersìp? "An Empirical Examination of Jerr and Jermier's Sittational Leadership Model." Organizational Behavimr and Human Dekision Processes 54 (1993): 1–44. Pk$sakoff, P. M.,MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y.< &"Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Cïmoon method biases in behavioral rgsearch: A critical review ov"the litercture and reck-mended òemeeies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879.903. Po`sak ff, p. M*, & Organ, D.G (1986). Self reports in` rganizational reseerch; problems and pòospacps. Journal of Managemenô, 12, 69-82.

Prawat, R. S., &"Floden,"R. E. (199<)& Phidoso`hical Perspectives oj Constructivist Views of Learning. Edugational Psychologist, 29(1), 17-48. Premeaux, S. F.¬ & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: T`e moderating efgects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up$in"the workpnace. Journal of!Management Studies, 40, 1537–1562. PunCh, K. F. 240;). Survey Research: The Basics. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Qiao, J. X., & Wang, W. (2009). Managerial competencies for middle managers: Some empirical findings from China. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(1), 69-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/030905909109 24388 Quirke, B. (2008). Making the connections: Using internal communication to turn strategy into action. Burlington, VT: Gowe Rae, D. (2004). ”Entrepreneurial learning; a practical model from the creative industries”, Education and training, Vol.46 Iss: 8/9, pp.492-500 Rae, D. (2005).”Entrepreneurial learning; a narrative based conceptual model”, A Journal of small business and enterprise development, Vol.12 Iss: 3, pp.323-335 Ram, M. (1994). Managing to Survive; Working Lives in Small Firms, Oxford: Blackwell Reason, P. (1999). Integrating action and reflection through corporative inquiry, Management learning special issue, teaching and development, 30(2), 207-227 Redmond, J. & Walker, E. A. (2008). A new approach to small business training: Community based education. GduC!ti n + Train)ng¬ 50(8/9), 697–712. Rieger, H. (2007). "Key Informant." Blackwell Encyclo@edia of Sociology.!Ritzer, George (edi. Blackwell Publishing, 200w. Roberts, K.H. & O_Reilly, C.A. (1974(. Measuring orgAnizetional communication& Nournal of Aqplied Psychology, 59, 321-326> Rooks, F., Szirmai, A., & Sserwaoga, A., (2809). The Intmrplay of Human and Sociad Capital in Entrepreneurship0in Developing CouNtries. The Case of UgaNda. Research Papur"No. 2009o09. Unéted Nations Univeróity Worìt Institute foR D%velopment Economycs Resear Roussmau, D. Mn (1998), LMX meets the psycholggical(contrAct: Looking Insade the black box of leader-member exchange. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple levål approqkhes (pp. 149–154). Greenwich ÃT: JAI Press. RusÂuht, C® E.,0Farrell, D., Rogers, G. & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange°vaRiabLes on exit, voice. loyalty, afd oeglect: an integreTive0model of responses to dEclining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journam, 31, 599– 27. Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamentalr BeqearcH Statistics for Behavioura| SCiences. 2nd.). ij Hill, R. (1998). “What Sample Size is _Enough’ mn Internåt Survey Rerearch”? Interpersonal Computing and Technologx: An electronic Journal fos uhe!2 st Century. Retrieved February, 2016, http://www.emoderators.com/ipCt-j Rwakakamba, M. (2011).$Budget Priorities anf Job Creation in a Competitive Regeonal Marcet. Twawezi, the African Exåcqtive Sadle&-Smith< E., Gardiner, P.,d

adger, B., Chaston, I. & Stubberfield, J. (2800). ‘Ushng collaborative learning to devehop small firms_, Human Resource Deveìopmen| Internation`l, 3, 3: 285-306/ Saunders, D. M., heppard, B, H., Knight, V., & Roth, J."(1992©n Eoployee voice to supervi3ors. Mmpl yee Responribinitie{ and Rights Journal, 5, 241–259* Saunders, M., LewiS, P., & Uhornhilh, G. (2007). Research methods for b}siness students. ¥ 㐨 " (4th ed). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Xall. chrieshei-, C. A., Castrg S."L., & Cogmiser, C. C. (1989). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall Schwartz, J., & Wald, M. L. (2003). The Nation: NASA‘s curse?: Groupthink is 30 years old, and still going strong. New York Times, March 9, 5. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 2001, 845–868. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, C. & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership (pp. ix-xxxix). Greenwich, Connecticut: IAP. Sharek, J., Burris, E., Bartel, C.(2010),when does voice prompt actmon? Constrectinç ideas that trigger attention, importance ane fea3ibility, Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management. Shippmann, J. S.$ Ash, R. A., Játti3ta, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Heskåth, B., et al. (200°). The pzactike of competency modelling. Persoonel(Psychol/gy, 53(3)n 703-740. Chenkav, O., ' VoN linow, M.A. (1994). Paradoxes oF organizational theory and research: Usino thg case of China to illustratd nathonal cOnôingejcy. Manágement Sciense, 40(1): 56-71& Sherwin,B. (201$). Why W man Are More Effective Leaders Th!n Men, Contrybutor. http:/¯www.businessinsiderncom/study-woMen-are-bevter-leaders-2014-1 Rhin, J. (2013). Dmployee VoIce Behavior Duri~g Organizational Change, (Ph.D.), Thesis 3013 Sims, H* P. & MaNz, C. C.`81984). Obserting leader verbal behavior: Toward reciprocal determinis- in leadership theory. Journil of Applied Psxchology, 69, 220-232. Solesvik¬ M. 2012). Entbepreneurial compe|encies in emerging economy context. In ±7vh Nordac Confåruoce on Small Busingss Research( Heìsinki.–2012.–:3-25 May_Spcrrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structur% in`leader–member exchange. Acidemy of Lanagement Review, 22,522–552.

Spencer, L. M. & Qpmncer, S.(M. (1993). Competencå at work New York: WileyMSynodinos, N/G. (0003). The “art” of questionNaire co~structaon: somd impOrtant consideratmons nor manufacturing studies, Integratåd Manufacturing Sys4ems, 14(3), :21–237 Pangirala< Sn & Ramalujam, R. (2008)* Exploring Non-Linearity in Employee Voice: The Effects of Personal Control and Organizational Identification, Academy of Management(Journal.05186): 1189–120 Tashakkori, A. & Teddlim, C. (2003). HandboOk of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oeks: Sage. T`ra, S. &$Rowena, B. (2016) Online learni~c: An effective means for developing smalL jusiness owner-manacgrs’ capabyjiôies?" Journal of Small Business and Enderprise Developlent, Vol. 23 Iss: 1, pp.207 -0223 Taylor, D.W. and"Thorpe, R. (2004) %Entrepreneurial Learning: a process f"co-`articipation', Journal of Small Business And Enterprise Development, February, Vol 11 No 2 pp 203-211 (9) Taylor, R. (2007). The`effect of FacilitaTor training oN the deveopment and practice of parTicipanvs in an ondine induction program for tuachers of wcience andhmathamatèCs. Íontana State Unirersity, Boze}an. Accessed from, http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2007/taylor/TaylorPp507.pdf Paylor, F. W. (1911). The prijciples of scientific manageìent> Retrievåd Novembez 8, 2015, from http://wgw.marxists.org/refureîce/subjmct/economics/taylor/principles/index.htm Trinka, J. (2004). “W``t’s a ManageR to do? Available at: www®govldaders.org. AcceSsed [05+07/2014] vabrodt, Y.B. (2000). The relationship between Leader Member Exchange ane commmtment and o2ganisation citizen behaviour. Acquisition Review Quarterly Summer 1:233-244 Tucëma~, B.W. (±994).Conducting educa4ional research® (4th ed)* Fort Worth: Harcourt Bsace college puclishers. Tushabomwe- azooba, C. (2006). Causes of Cmall BtsineSs Failure in Ufanda: A Case Study from Buwhenyi and Mbarara Tow.s. African Studies Quarterly, 8(4). Uhl-Bien,0M., Marion, R., & McKelvEy, B. )2007 . Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial qge to the knowledge era. Leadership Quartgrl}, 18, 298-31< Van D9ne, L.,0Cummings, L.`L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role(behaviors:"In pursuit of colsTruct and definitional clarity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds&), Resaarch in organijAtional bdhavior,17: 215-2¸5. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Van Dyne, M., & LePIne,"J.A., (1918). Hmlping and v ice extra-role behaviors: Evidenbe of Bo~struct and Predictive Validity. Acadumy of Management Journal, 1, 108-119. Va~ Dyne, L., Ang, S.( & Botero< M. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multi-dimensi nal Co~structs. Journal of ÍanagemeNt Studies- 40, 1359–1392. Venkataramani

V., &( angirala, Ó. (201 ). When and Whx Do Central Em`loyees Speaj Tp? An Eøamination of Mediating and Moderathng Variables.(Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 582-591. VebChio, R,P. (3003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads. Human Resources Management Review 13: 303–27. Voudouris, I, Dimitratos, P. & Salavou, H. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning in the international new high-technology venture. International Small Business Journal. 29 (3), 238-258 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, A. (2013). Voicing Across Cultures: The Role of Communication Style and Relationships In Employee Voice and Subsequent Influence. University of South Carolina Scholar.Commons Theses and Dissertations Walker, B. J. (2011). “Leading from the Inside Out: A Way to Think about Public-Sector Leadership”. Policy and Practice, vol 69(2), April, pp 6-7. Walker, E., Redmond, J., Webster, B., & Le Clus, M. (2007). Small business owners: Too busy to train? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14(2), 294-306. Walter,T.,Balunywa,W.,Rosa,P.,Sserwanga,A.,Barabas,.S,Namatovu,R.(2004).Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Uganda Executive Report 2004."Kampqla: Makerere University Business School. Wang,(Z. M., & Ghen, M. K. (2082). Manage2ial #ompeteney modelling: A structural equations analysis. Prùchological Science, 6, 420-428. Watkins, D. (1982). ±Management development !nd the Owner manager’, in T. Webb, T. Puince and D. Watkins (eds) Small Busioews Research, Lïndon: Gower. Watkins, DfS. (1983). Development, training and edtcation fob the small férm: a European perspective.0European Small Bucmngss Journal,0Vol& I, No. 3, pp.29-44. Webster, B., Walker, E. | Br/wn, A. (2005). Australian small busines{ participation in training áctivities. educatmon + Upaining 47(8/9), 552–561. Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P., & Pierce, J. (2008). Effects of task performance, hel_ing,!voice, and0orgaNizational l y!lt} on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125–139 Whiting, S. W., Mayner, T. D., Podsakofæ, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2812). Effects of messace, soubcå, and contexT on evaluatikns f employee voice behavior. Journal of Q0pmied Qóychology, 97, 159-182. Wiseman, F. (2003)& On the reporting of response ratas in Extenskon Re{earch.`Journal jf Extension On-line 41(3), Available at: httt://www.joe.org/joe/2016june/comm1.shtml (Withey, M. J., & Coorer, W. H. (1y89). Predicting exit, voike, loyalty, and negLect. Admilistrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521–139. Woodruffe, C. (1992). ‘Vha4 is oeant by a c mpetency?’ In R. Boam and P. Sparrow((edw!, Designing and Achievin' Competency. Oaidenhead:!McGraw%Hmll, pp 16-:9. Woolfolk, A. & Margetts, k. (2010).$Educati nal Psychology (2nd gd.). Frenchs!Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia Xie, X.,Y., Ling, C.,D., Mo, S.,J.,°Luan,K.. , (2015). Linking Colleague Support tg

Emrloy%es' Prïmotive Voice: A Moderated Mediition Modal.`PLoS ONE 10(7): e0132123. doi:10.1371/journal.pooe.013212s Xu, H., Van d% Vliert, E. & Van der Vegt, G. (2005).Breaking the silence culture: Stimulatikn of participauion anl employee opi~ion withholding ãross-natioîaLly. Mafagement and"Organization$Review, 1(3) $59-482. Yin, R.K. (1997)/ The gase stuly rmsearcx, design an` methods.$Applied social rese!rch methods, smriec Vol®5 Sage publicatio~s 1985.www/school.utexas®edu+ssay/use2users/13=qe/b.htm (retrieved(24th April, 2015) Yang, C. (2008-.The relationc(ip Among leadership styles, enPrepreneurial orientation and business performaNce. Managing Glocal Transitéons, 6(3), 257–275. Zaleznik, A. (1996). Mina'ers and leaders: Are thdy(äifferent? Harvard(Âuwinesr Review, 55,67,78 ZHang, ., MacPherson, A. & Jones, O. (200&-. Concep4wahiZing uhe learninw prgce{s in SMEsz Improvmng mnnovauion thRoughbexternal obientation. International Small Business JournaLn 20 (3). p699-303. Zhu, Y.H. (2012). A Review of Social Exchange Relationship. Studies hn SocIology of Sciunce, 3, 57-61. 7.0. APPUNDICES App5ntix"1: Introductory Letder A_pendix 2: Suòvey Questionnaire for Followers/Employees FOLLOWER VOÉCM BEXAVIOUR AÎD(INFlUENCE OVER LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES OF SME LEADERS N$UGANDA QUESTIONAiRE FOr QME FOLLOUERS/EMPLOYEES/SURBOTINATES Deaò Respondent, `e purxose of di)s survey is to infestiga|e the infLuence of Follower Voice Behaviour on Leadebship Computenc)es of SÍE leaders in Uganda. As a follower/employEe!of an SME, yoq have a wealth of imQortant information whici is useful fgr this exercise. Please be assured that all your ijformatioî be trdated aq strict|yàconfiden4ial and ÷ill bu comâined wiTh(all other responqes to æorm an overall picture. You are therefore requested to respond to0the qões4ions"below as objectiveli and accurately as possible, In completing each statement, don't worr} or puzzle over individual statements. Some of the questions may seem similar to you, or mcy not b% worded exactly the way yïu would nike them to be/ E6en so,!give your be3t estimate and continue workmng through the questioînairå. Be sure to give an answer for all questions. If you change yïur mind about an answer,(just cross it out and tack in$the propep box.$There0is(no “ri/ht “or€“wr ng” answerr. Your opinIon is what is wanted. -BECKGROUND INFORMATION_1. What is your gender? _Male Female

2. How old are yïu? M20 – 30 years 31 – 50(yeavs 41 – 50 yeArS 51 years an$ !bove 3. What ic your eduCa4iOn level¿ Certificate Masters Diploma PhD Degrei Other specify 4. H/w manq years have yot worked in th)s orginisatiïn? Below 5 years 5 -10 years AboVe 10 yeazs SECTION A: TROMOTIVE VOICE BEHAVIOUR Assessient of followers pe2spective kf his/her proíotive voice$be`aviour i.e. exprå3siol of ide!s or suggestions to impro~e leadersh¨p compEtencies Please indicate to what degree you exhibit each of the"followi~g voice behaviors by

ticking én an appropriate box using this scale: (1). Never !(2).Raremy (3-.Sometimes (4). Very Often (5).$Always Statement( (1) N%veò (2) R!rely (3) Sommti-dsG(4) Very Often (5) Always I`a4|empt to develop anD suggest ideaw that may influence the leadersjip competence ob my leiäer/boss. I try to axpress new idåas whiah aze âeneficiad tm!my låadeò/boss. I attempt po communicate sug'estiïns to improva ey knowlmdge, afilitaes, skilns and behaviours of my leader/boss K try to share sonstructive suçgestyons u(at help the company achievE itc$vision® I!Attgopt to express suçgestions ôo imtrove }y leader’s performaNce. Ada_ted from Liang et al. (2012) SECTION B: PRoHIBITIVE VOICE BEHERIOUR Asse{sment of golloweVs perspective of hiS/her prohiritive voice behavKour!i.e. expressi n of worries or còiticism or Concerns about existing or iopend)ng practices/procedures that could hurt the organization or can cause current cooditions to determoratg

Pleawe indicate to what degree }Ou exhibit each of txe f/llowinw$voice behaviors by ticking"in(an appznpriate bOx using tiis scAle:" (1). Nevdr (2). Rarely (3). Sometimes (4). Very Often (5). Always - Statement (±) Never (2) Rarely (;) SometiMes (4) Very Mdten‡(5i Alweyr I try to help my leader/bows to âe aware of undesirabhe behaviors thet woUld hurt performance* I attempT to help my leader/boss to notice$problems 4hat mIght cause seryous losó to tèe0buskness even when dissenting ot)nions$exiót G I`T2y"to help my`leader/boss to understand `ow some negatife`behaviors`mhghv affect efficiency of the business, even if that uould embarr`ss him/hern I(dare to point out leadership probLe-q wh%n they appgar, even ig that would hamper relationships witx me. I(try to help manageoent to see leadership prOblemó when they exiqt in the workplace.

Qd`pted from Liang et al. ,2012) SECTION C: INFLUENCE OVER0LEA ERSHIP COMPETENCIEC Ynu are(asktd to assesó your leader/boss’s leádership`behaviors."Please!ranë each qqestion ac#ording to your best self-understandinc how fòequEntly(yoUb leader engages in |he described behavior using this scale:$(1). Never $ (2).(Rarely (3+. Sometimes (<). Rery Often 0(%)n Always Rtatement (1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Very often (5) Always OODELLING THE WAY bY$setting an eXample and plannhng small wins Ly Leader/boss/supervisor seTs a personal exa}ple nf what hå/shE expects of other{. My Leader/b ss/super~i{or 3pends time anä energy making certain that everybody adherEs to thU$principles and standerds that we hawe agreed upon. My Lecder/boss/supervicor follows vhrough on thm promises and coomitments hu/she makes.

My Leaderoboss/supervisor builds cknsejsus around(a common set oæ$values for runninf otr organization. My Leadez/bkss/supervis/r is clear(about has/her philosmphy of luadershép. My Leader/Bosw/suPer~isor asks f r feedback on h w his/her actions affect other people's performa.ce. INSPIRING A SHARED VISION by0en6isioning th% future an` enlisting others in the visiOn My LeadEr/bkss/Supeòvysor ta|ks about tòends that will influunce how our!woRk gets done> My Leadez/boss/supmrrisor dEscribespa compelding image of shat our future sould be like.

My`Leader/boqs/supervisor aqpgAls to!others to shaòe an exciting dream og the0future. G My Leader/boss/supervisor p!ints the "big0picturm" og whqt we aspire to accomplish My Leader/boss+supervisor sxows ophers how their`long-teRm interests can be bealized by enlisting in a common visi/n. My Leader/boss/sup%rvisor spe`ks with gmnuine conviction aboõt the higher meanmng and p5rpose of#our work. CHALLENGING THE PROCESS by seabching for opportunities, expurimenting and tikiîg risks My Leader/boss/supdr~isor seeks out challenging opportunitims that`Test hés/her own rkills aNd abilities. My Leader/boss/supervisor challenges peïpne to try out new and innovative ways to do their!work.

My Lecder/boss/sõperwisor searcies(outsiD% the gormal boundaries of his/har organization(for innovative!ways to ioprove what we do. My LEader/boss/suPervióor asks "xhit can0 d learn?" whån things don't go as expected. § My Leader?boss/supervisor experiments and takes)risks, even when there is a chanCe of(failure. My Leadur/boss/rupervisor makes cerôain that ue set aãhievable gmals, make"concrete plans, an` establish measurabld mIlestones for the projects. ENABLING OTHERS DO ACT!by fostering Collaborátion and strengthEning othm2r My Leader/boss/supmrvisor develops cooparative relaTionships amïng the people he/she wgrks with.

My Leader/boqs/sutervisor activelù listens to diverse poilvs of view. ‡ My Leader/boss/supervisor dreats others with dignity and respect. My Leader/boss/supervisor gites peoplm a grEat äeal of frmedom and chgice in deciding h w to äo their work. My Leadmr/boss/supgrvisor ensures0t(at(`eoplm grow in!their jobs bx learnIng new skills and developing ôhemselves.' My Le`der'boss/supervisOr surports the decisions thqp people make on thåir own. ENCOTrAGING THE HEART by recognizing contrhbu4ions and celebratinG accomplishmenps My Leader'boss/supervisor pbaises people bor!a jïb well dïne.

My Ìedder/boss/supervh{or(makes sure that peo_le arg creatively rewarded fob their contributions to the success of p2ohect3. My`Leader/boss/suPervismr publicly recognizes people who exemplify commitment to shared values. ' My Leader/boss/surervisor finds ways vo celebrate accolp|éshments. My Leader/boss/supErvisor gives the members of the team lots(of appreciation `nd sup0ort for their contributions. My Leader/boss/supervisor makes it a point to let peopme know about his/her confilense in`their abilities. *Adapted vrom (Kouzes & Posner, 2053) WECTION D: MODERATOR: LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) QUALITY_Assessment ob Perceptions of the!Leader/fm|lower òa|atiofship- Instructions: Tèis 1uestionnaére contains iteís tèat a3k yoq to describe your relationship with your leader.`For each f the$items, indicade the degree to Which you think the item iq true for you by ticking i thm relevant boxes |hat ap0eár bel~w the0étem. Do0you know where you stand with your`leader/boss/supervhsor and `o you usually know hgw satisdied he/she is with ÷hat you do? Rarely Occasionalny Sometimes Fairly oftån

Wery ïftan How`well does youz leader/boss/supervhsor undgrstand your job(problems and needs? _Not a âit A little Á fair amount Quhte a b)T A gbeat dgal 3. How well does your leader/boss/supervisor recocnize your xotential? Not át all A little Moderately M stly Fully! 4. Regardless of low much norma| authority yo}r!leader/b/ss/supervisgr h`s b5ilt into (is or her position, what are the chances txat he/she pould use his/hev power to help you solve problåm{ in your work? None Sm`ll Loderate High Ver[ èigh 5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authoridy(your lua`er/boss/supervis/r has, what are the chances that he os she would “bain yoU out” at his or her expense7 None Small Moderaue High Very higi 6.$I ha~e enough confidence in my leader/âoss/supervisor that I would defend and justiFy his or xab decysion if(he or she werm not preselt to do so® Strongly disaGree! Disagree Neutral Agree Strïngly agree

7. How wm5ld y/w"characterize your working relationship wivh your leader/boss/sepårvisor? Extremely Ineffective Worse than qwurawe Average Better than Average Extremely effective ' Ádopted fRom Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Thanks for heLpiLg and May Ggd Bless you APpendix 3: Survey Questionnaire Lecders/Ownes-Manageps FOLLOWER(VNICE BEHAVIOUV AND EADERSHIP COMPEUENCAES IN S ALL AND OD IUM(SIzED ENTERPEISES IN UGANDA IONAIRE FOR SME OWNER-MANGERS/LEADERS Deár Respondent, The purpose mf txis suòvey is to invespifate`ôhe influefce of Follower V ibe Behavimur on Leadership Competencies of SME leaders0in Uganla. As a Leader of a SME, you have a wealth of émportant inFormation which is useful for this exmrcise® lease be assurdd that all qour information be treated ar stRicthy confidential a~d will be combined with alì other responses vo form ao overall oxinion. You are therefore requested to recpond to the questions!"elow as ocbec4iveLy and accuretely as posqiâle. Il completing each statement, fgel$free to use yows own $iscretion. Sgme of |He0questions may appear familiar to you and others may not but please feel free to uså your ïvn discretion. Be sure to give an answer for qll questions. Kf yow change your mind about an answer, just cross it out and`|ick the most #orrEct al|ernative. There is no “right`“or “wronf” answers. Your opinion is whaT is valued. BACKGROUND INFKrMETION 1. Ge&der $ MAle Female 2® How old are you? 0 – 30 y ers 31 – 40 yeass

41 – 50 y%cös 51 ñeavs and above g 3. What$is your education level? Certificatm Masters Diploma PhD Degree Other specify ]4. How many years have you wmrked in this oroanisation> Belos 5 years 5 -10 yeqrs Above 10 years SECUION A: PROMOTIVE ROICE BEHQVIOUR -Assessmenu of Leader perspecpive kf Follower/Subordinate promotive0voice behaviour i.e. expression of ideas gr suggestioîw to improve leade2sjip compåteNcies -Please inficate to`what degreE yous followers e8hibit"åach of the follow!ng voice behaviors by ti#king én an ap`r priate boh using this scale: (1). Never (6). Rarely (7). Sometimås (4). Very Often 0(5). AlWays -Stapement (0) Never (2) Rarely

(3) Sometimes (4) Very Often (5( Always My followers/subordinates develop and suwgest ideas to inflUence my le`dErship competencies. My foìlowers/subordinates express new ideas vhmch are beneficaal to íe. My folnOwers/wubordinates c/mmunycate suggestions to improve my knowledge, abilities, skinms !nd behaviours My fOllowers/subordinates share cmnstructive suggestioNs that help the kompeny achIEve éts vision. My followers/surordinates express suggesTions to improve ey performance as a leáder. Adapted drom Liang et al.0(2012( SECTI_N B: PROHIBITIVE VOICE BEHAVIOUR Assessment of Låader perspective`of Follower/Subordinate prohibmtive voice behaviOur I.e. expression of"worries os criticism or c/nberns about Exicting or impeNdiNg practices/procedUres that could xurt tèe

orç`nization or cej`cause cuRrent conditions to de|er)oraTe Please indiaate to what0degree your bollouers exhibit each`on thd following voice behaviors by phcking in an appropriate box using this sccle: (1). Fever ) (2). Rarely (3). Skmetimes (4). Veòy Often (5). Adways Statem n| (1© Never 2) RarEly (3) Sometimes (4) Very"Often (5) Always My vollowers/submrdinates`make me aw`re of mY undesirabne behaviors that would hurt perfovmancd Mq followe2q/suborlinates bring to my notice problems that might ciusg seriouw loss to the busyness erdn when dissenting opinions eXist My followers/{uborfinates make me understand how some negative behaviors might$affect effibiency of the business< even if that would embarraws me. My followers/subordinates point out leadershyp proclems when they appear, efen iv th`t would hamxer my rela4ionship with them. My folmowers/subor$inates point out to manage-ent leadership``roblems when |hey exisv in the workplace.

AdaPted from Lyang etaal.((2012) SECTION Kº INFLUENCE OVER LeÅDERSHIP C MPETENCIES You aze asked to assess!your own undårstanding of your leAdershap belavioró. Please rank each quesdion accoòding to"your best self-unde2standing how freñeently you engage`in the0desãrkbed behavior using tlis sccle: (1). Never "(2). Rarely (1). Someti}es (4).!Ver9 Often $ (5). Always Statement (1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) ^ery Often (5) Always MODELHING UHE WQY by setuiog an exámple and rLanning small wins set A pårsonal eyamp,e nf what I expect of othårs. I s0end time and enerey making sure thau the peopLe I work with adhere to the principles and standards we have agread on follow thr qgj on the promise{ and commitoents that I make. I build consensuS around a common set of vaìues for r}nning$our organization. G I am clear about my phklosophY of leadership.

I Ask for feedback oN how my actions affect other people’s performance. INSPIRIOG A SHARED VISION by envisioning the duture and enlisting odhers in the vision I talk about futurE(trends that will infhugnce how wnrk is donen ‡ I descrifu a coMpelting image(of what our fqture could be |ike. I appeal to others to share an0exciting dveam of(the future&G I xaint the “big picture” of what we aspire to acsomplish. I shog otherc how their long term int%rEsts cao be realized by enlisting`iî a common vision* I speak gith a genuine conviction about the higher mea|Ing and purp/se of our work.

G CHILLENGING THE PROCESS by swarcjing for opportunities, experimenting and tiking òisks I seek out bhanlenging opportunytier`that test my own Skills and0abilities/ ' I challenge people to try out new and inNnvative(wmys to do tjgir work. I search outSide0the formal boundaries of my orçaniz`tion for inoovative ways to iiprkvu what we do. I ask “whap can we learn when things don’t go as expecuee. I experiment and taëa risks, gven when there is a chance of failure. ‡ I$make0certain that we set achievibld g aìs, íace concrete `,ans, `nd establish meásurable miLestonew for t(m projects and qrogbams that we sork on.

' ENABLING OTHERS TO ACT by fostdring cïìlaboration and stren'thening oôhers Statement (1) Never (2) Pare,y (3 Sometimes (4)!Very Often (5) Always I develop cooperapife relapionships a-ong the pEkpnl(I w rk with. I actively listen to dkverse points!kf view. I tr!at others with dignity$aîd respect. I!give people a greq4 deah of freedom and c(oice in decmding how 4o dm their work. I ensure that peopme frow in`their jobs by lecrning new skills and develo_ing themselves. I su`port the decacions that people make on phear own&

ENCOURAGING THE HEART by re#ognijing contribetions and`celeBratiog accomplishmeNts I praise people fkr$A$Job well done. U Y make cuvd that people aru creativel9 rewaräed for the)r gonTributmons to vhe succ%ss of ïur projects. I puBlically recognize people who exempnify com-atment to`shared values. I fmnd ways t/ celebrate accomplislmends. I givm the members of the team lots of appreciation!and supxort for txeir contributions. GI make it á toint to let people(kjow about my confidence in Their afknities. *Adapted from (Kouzes Posner, 2113) S CTION D: MODERATOR: LEATER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) QUALItY Assgssient of PergGptions of tha(Leqdur/follo7eb renatiïnsha_

Instructions: This questi/nncire cnntqinq items tjat ask you to desaribe your_re,ationsèip with your fold/wers/subkrdinates. For each of the items, indiccte the degree to which you tiink tje item is 4rue by ticking in the relevant boxEs tiat a pear benow!vhe item. Do you know where you stand with your &ollowers/subor`inates and"do yoq usuqlny know h w satisfied they are with whap you do? Rarely (1) Occesionally (2) Somet}mds (3) Fairly often (<) Very often (5) How well do your followers/subordinates qndebsdand your job probnems and needs? _NoT a bit (1) Adli}TlE (2) A fair amowît (3) Quite a bit (4) A graat deal (5) 3. How well do your followeò{/3ubordinates recognize your potential? Not at"all (1) A little (2) Moderately (3+ Mostly (4) Fully (5) 4® Regardless ob$how much"formal auuhoritx your follosars/cubordinater have built(into their rosition3, what ara tie chancms that they woõld!use their power to help y/u so,ve worë problems¿ None (±) Small h ) Moderate((3) High (4) Very`hmgh (5) 5 Again, regardless of the amount of Form!l authority your followErs/subordinates have,!what are the cèances that they woumd “baiL you(out” at thear /wn extejse? None((1)

Small (2) Moderate (3) Hiwh0(4)'Verù high ( 6. I have eno}gh c/nfidunce in my folloserw/subordinates that would defend and jñstify their decision if they are not(present to do so. Stro.gly disaoree (1) Diwagreå`(2)GNeutral ¨3) Agree (4) Strïngly agrde (5) 0 ' 7. How would"you characterize {oqr gorking relationship wiôh your follo ers/subordinates? Uxtòemely inenfective!(1! W rse than everage (2) average (3i Better than$Average 94) xtrEmely eff'ctive (µ) Adopted frgm Wrá%n, G. B., & Uhl-Bmen,`M. (1995i. Thanks for your coop%ration. Gïe Bles3 you Appendix 4: Interview Gtide f~r Experts Folllwer voiCe and Leadership competencies in SMEs in Uganda: Survey puestéonnaire Agenda for the Unwtructured Mntmrvi%W Self introductikn of the {esearcher discussing the followiîg: Name, occupation and pbograo Purxose of thu study Ethical consyderat)ons Procedure of the iîtgrview @iscussion on whether*bollower voice`beé`viour influenges leaderóhip ckmpetencie in SMEs in Uganda. Between Qromotive And Prohibitive Voice Behaviour, wèat `k you think is the mo3t utilised Fo|lower Voice Behaviour I~ SMEs PromotivE voice!behaViour i.e. expression ov ideAr oz suggestions to improve existing practices Prohibitive voice behaviour i.e. expression of objections or concerns!eb/ut dxisting or impending`rbactices/procedurås0th!t could hurt thg organizatioN$or can chuse0current contitions to deteriorate Do!xou tHink SME leade2s consider and act lore on Promotyve Voices cmmpardd to0ProhibitiVe Voices? Discussion on Leader-MeíbeR Exchange (LMX© moleRate tHe renationshkp between

fohlnwer ~oi#e behaviour !nd ìeadevship competencieó Do follkwers in |he In-Group(FollowErs who 4he leader trusts the most a.d receives mosu attention, are ghven`chamlenging and interesting work a~d offered otportunities for additiOnal$training and advaNcement) have more influence than thosg kn the Out-Group (Followers wio have less access to leade2, and odten dOn't rekeive opport÷nities for growth or a$vancemeft) Concluding remapks by thabresearcheb.MApqreciate the interviewee’s time Pvomise to shAre dhe rewuìts of the study wit( the interviewee AppendIx 5: Kre*cie and Ooògan (19'0) Guife for Sample Detuòmination INCLUDEPIKTURE "http://gwg.kenpro.org/gp conte^t/uploads/2013/10/krejcim-aod-morgao tacle-of-deäermining-sample-size.png" \* MERGEFORMATINET App%ndix 6. CVI for the quastionnaires rated /n0a 4 Item Scale R= RMlevant; 0NR?Not relevant Itmm Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 No. In Agraement CVI R R 3 1.00 T R R 3 1.00 3 R NR B 2 0.67 4 NR

R R 2 0.67 5 R R R 3 1.00 6 R R R 3 1.80 0.67 8 R R NR 2 0.67 G9 R NR R 2 0n6· 10 R 3 1.00 11 R R R 3

1.00 12 R R R 3 1.20 13 R R R 3 1.00 14 R R R‡3 1.°1 5 NZ R R 2 0.67 16 S R R |pdXdOdDO ymbWNE: tkbcWLWLWC wl^SHS=H vm_SES9 unuaXTXDaX uiu`R`AR`R uêYÒÇÒ_Òõ±õ|±|1|õ™Y_ƒÒx_mbmbiWm I_3¨_¨’‡|‡|qvq|q [P x-xbxW

W X x x såÚËÚÏÅÚOÚÏÚ1®ÚÏÚ1Ú1Ú®Ÿ“‡|y\q|q|f|q yky]RG vkvkc[F ~ó~sh]hRGh_ hNo6 CJ™ q]R_RqFRq |¨f[P[E[:[ }_}_}_rgˆg}g}g}g @õêÛêÔêÉê»Ê°¥_¥_¥Ô_¥Ô‡¥|q|f|f[æ| |n|n|`n˜|˜|˜R˜ n }r}ˆ}g}r}ˆ}\q\}ß} }rg\QF {p{êÉpepZp v£_k_k`UHkH u“j_j_j_L h&#E@CJ G¸–¢¸—ŒÎ-_–ì–vcXvMv v ymybWLWLGL titÔ_^S^S^H^H^ M~shs] R ~ |qf[qPE9- tit^éS^SHS^ 3’3Ç3‡3|3‡q|fõ[P[P |q\G2q ypgp\Q]F\V\V\ h?FX@CJ ~‰s‰h‰ó‰Ì]R]h]G] h,(%@CJ˜@aJ h[Zb Cj |qfq[Pq }qf[fPfPfT hO'@ CJ |sjSaX uju_–_‹_T_ :_;_@_^_q_ hS8+ CJ |qfq|q qcUH<c

y“yqy“yqiyaYN |m|m|o|_ gd_\B |n‹bWbWbWI seWOG< a$#gdA |tiaiai ~sj^VN t?paUe uauaeH1 D1±1é1_Ä©Ä©Ä©ÄxÄx–‹„_yuqumfy lãìãøØÍÅ_µ_ª2”‰~sksksksk`XMXM ug_T_T yjy\y\JÂ ykZOZO H$ fdTH~ |‡|q‡|q|‡i^i^i {l^{R{,—{R{l^{R{l— 7$ 8$_H$ CJ8@KH a$ gdk: y‰qj_q^q_q_q_X hC 4 CZ ymaXaJAaAaA_ {k[\{‡MA ~wplwhwhw H$ If! {p{p{å{eke @VV @[V ync[cSH whwlwn l lwl xoxoxc[P }’±u}}}u}uuu}N 7$_8$ H$ hjP/_CJ8 a$#gdxsK a$"gdP]t yfySyfyS&SCSyC @ìÜÉ¶ÉÜéÜ¶ÉìÜ£ì£Ü_‚zrg\gr\sG q^qKq@ vkvkvXvkvkJ

x…xkxkxk8kxkxkxkx…k EÛÅÛÅ__º¯§®_Û_†_wncWcW {“pdpdpY yk]O]A] =¡’‚’sh\hQEQ:EQ -ÏòæÏ¢Ï¢Ï2”Ï‰}‰rgr\rPr vfvW\>LW u_j__S_H<H mXmAXmX rg{\Q\F ~p_e_W_LALAL t_laUlalaJ v…a…vVJVBV tht]R] {o{d{XMAOÑ }n_n_nPn zododoXo u_jbjVjK@ a$#gdq#Í xmxƒxbWKWb tiSMyAi zn{b“WKW h>vs@6 óèYÑYÅY¸«˜“¸|¸obTbI; zoaUoJ a$#gd:&! a$ gd*&! a$#gd*&! a$#gd8r` a$“gd*&! a$#gdIlT 9tMlT@ a$Cgd*&! a$ƒgd*&! h*&!@' gd*&!@ a$ƒgd*&! a$ gdI0 a$CgdI0_ 'dMlT@ `„Lÿa$#gdMlT `„Lÿa$CgdMlT xlaZSO a$@gd

R R R 3 1.00 18 R R R 3 1.00 19 R R NR 2 0.¶7 G20 R R R 3 1.00 21 R R R 3 1.00 22'R R R 3 1.00 23 R R R 3 1.00

24 R R R 3 1.0° 25 R R R' !.00 26 R R R 3 1.00 27 R R R 3 1>00 28 R R R 3 1.00 2; NR R r 2G0.67 30 R R r 3 1.00

31 R 3 1.00 32 R R R 3 q.00 33 R NR R 2 p.66 G34 R R R 3 1.00 75 R R R 3 1.00 36 R R R ; 1.00 37 R NR R 2 0.67

3x R R R 3 1.00 39 R R‡NR 2 0.67 40 R R R 3 1.00 41 R R R 3 1.40 42 R R R 3 1.00 43 R NR R 2 0.67 &t R R R

3 1.00 45 R R R 3 1.00 46 R R R 3 1.00 43 R R R 3 1&00‡ Relevant Prop/rtion 43 42 44 43 0.91 Appendix 7: summary of the CVI f r the aUestionnaires Relevant Not re,evantgTotal Rater 1 43 4 4w 'Rater 2 42 5 47 Rater 3

44 3 47 Total‡129 12 141 CVI=" T/tal r%lerant itel{=129/141=0.914 Total itemq rated AppendIx 7: Reliabilmty A~!lysis )Outputs) Voice behaviouz Reliabklity Statistiãs Cro~bach's Alpha No. of Itemc 0.738 10 LM -Relaability Stqtisuiãs Cronbach's Alpha N . of Items 0.666 7 Leadership Ãompetencies Reliability StatiStics Cronbach’s Alpha'No. og Atems 0.y25 30 " Combined (Voice behaviour, LMX anD Leadership competencies) Reliabilitx Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha

No. od Étems 0.932 30 PAGE \* MERG FORMAT "PQOE \* MEÒÇEFORMIT PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT "PAWE \* MERGEFOVOAT PAGE \* EERGEFORMAT I.dependent VaRiable FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVAOUR Depefdent Variable LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES OF SLE OWNER-MANAGERS Visioning BuildiNg commitment Socéal capital Personal values Anticipation and resilience Resmurcefulness RespoNsivendss Entrepreneuriam Orientation OOderator Variable Leader-Member Uxcha.ge Promotive Voice Expressiïn of new ideas, information and opinions to improvu leadership competenciås Prohibitive Voice Ezpression of concern about existing or impgnding leadeRship practices or fehaviors that may harm thE [ME ^„<@a$"gdNsù $.' ",#œ (7),01044

'9=82<.342ÿÛ !22222222:2222222222222222 222222222222222262222222ÿÀ %.'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstevwxyzƒ„…† &'*)*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUvUXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„… 5}kE>x s.Áiw>DO >=aŸìe T^ãíqóúÔ©ñ_Ç_3ù:lj€0C]DAyyü \_üU}qE.uÛ 0å}Øòøy_|VO7^x GÙâ_éüÍME !r# /YáÈ>ZqíSQJìlB-á \,7hô¥Ú=)h¢áa»F: \{RÑ@Xn =(Ú=)TQp QQÉ*D¥_•TW'‚_JãóEc\ø›M¶'3ï#2¨?¯JË—ÇVÃy\3·Ô_Y:_]^ªh,EMc )y¸nzX\Tf }b !¿†I’îà\GÀ‰Ê…opqYq[]é R]àn<6y8 1 b{yc2H\ 7Ôo_oo4ëHn-.<°d >+kki& Rj2júv‹y;^ K,©´ §=MG«A$~! >PRŸ)8ÆwtÅDc ye'œPtrG u›æ R clóvVñCi-Äƒ(l‚“µ{ó[Í!K1$Q; kâ;«]XK=P/ 2¨»¸[KY'~R)?_jÌ_µYum.Fr#º__7 ~éíÅ;X"æKc"“ùrHZG_ xÖ;vT$È£;zUJ1w23 2¬»_’Aä¸2*2àíõ¥ñ~Q7Ø]w Ö` @s }£……wË{›¶S\ÎeyD~N "+œ 5t P 0 1¶YØRÔ&æ!/–Ò |gi85.sDÁ|· <WSvWg 9Ïµmø~YãÒã“RZI~f-

sFRDWC @#éR8JZÆV6 T Yvm´vEl4 u> *-np eÈôëSNSum>†ø hÕÓÑ†E&›Z2éJ9_sV] 0xâ R U]Aü_>áy#cúR~!Å]€0_i7_(I 5Yø[Rûv_Å;î–. =Hìj·‹4_qnobL =EzNr+ cß¯MW£(÷G3ÑÆ*–™z·ú|7(AÜ£<Ç_\ï^2wWGÃJ.2q{¡Mr~4_Å¬vhFç;˜{ 23Ï^+ÓkÌ|DAxo: z!TQEt 3ä«^^Ghp?*ó_ ~ƒ-ì=+r_EtF**È * jõM~@j:D c O #63¿°F&» j_'Iºppv b~___NMgb¸ g?*)cE 4 vG =|™_úKËôF4j7_x"_KBmÚ%¡ =}'_oN,n ]Ÿf>yGtz ]>k)BQv’-4õRÕ;›Q$‘N£÷‘ &`Y_'x4ƒvH'' 2éPù~It,N? OkIIE] u*S«.X+3_Ñ_ Q[ 2àÀay$Æp ™IE] N `äfº^Õx Æjèô*Ñ©B\3Vg”_Y_?U–Ù‰UKÔu#¶*] TfZ\°We? dwo_)jZ|Z• |’.2v‰ßÊ¨O„¶ûZSIb c R2k»– =(BDAB T_«SùKX‰%e'oVu§K°?ò

J[ÉyçY&“a&wZA 14-27WKHÕ” Z@$yw9 b_cSùXs.çKGs m|q¢6vÍ!Çy347_45 *5(2=_øQÉ>ÁtoQXg 8:”_‘ÿ@ |~*Á%$& !(?sW$ >£Ò2Ê]xnI,¯8= {EËrÄeüM|u_^_#K‰ U'¯ uësYj^*ae|Bm4èÎÜôP s_ oS¸i8v9_ @ l } p000ãü+¬¢_oS¸{(v9E MO‡:Z0aqu‘ ? *) b p q8Ó O? >„}…>?‡2lc( *NH% Z)-b¯pöq8p *?ï__5œÔ–xîuaM'.J G r§üöªâ)ZhÖHØ20È _h§QIy pÏRIç9¯F2PWF 9/ zkRÕrW1YîæFè~_ PEDycw |ÅÉ;†GJzS2_Q‹¸dqFzÖ~®f‹O’X&1<j[;CgÛ_Î_ RisliÒÕ11X eY$ãX¶Ç_1:}EZ ^G s [ry‘sù_ UséW¨ô˜lZg_MwM÷É6r}jK 6 P–@Xm r=)ÔQ@ Eñ=¶·¨j6pC*5

v| ?¯ò¯AªÖ6qiö0Z@0 K_LSropI!h¢_C (¢_ (¢ ( m|ä…út?Q_9_F˜s. ie\n d mlz]R´Õ,5 –;K ex¸q g_¯EVWPÊC)9 3'5#_qî(è>§SMe Jkq=‡PR_+O ;kã-6ûÄÍ¢Zo_EBÍ4ct` ]-_µîUÓôûm.Æ+;<…PD0 + 4mD|IÔõ‹ v I_=¯_^YmeBc´9ÏÊO_n8ü YkÓ‹ëy€±Ôx•¸‡Œ_Û¿Æ¡WIø•eûˆ5›+˜º eå‡x+Ÿç^“IG7uqY v©E- _.§-«xf}CÆ:^ ExcÃ±xfÂs8%2Bó #?_ ‹Á}öI-Y™[i'' HÌ@$_y'Ò®'†Y<o'ˆ>Ò6_>_ e+ _æ_9á'__©{%¥ñ:uÁÜ-Y~ãzƒ]E-$ ^<VºL±[F3$ (!OaŒrM xo÷Orìs@XZ+Ì-_.Cy_4ë 1ñOQñNµm'Zip(_ *ñ¯ô›KÇP–<K!Q_df‹0. EU¿ wEcøgS—Y_å_£2¢Ë<{˜'@rk¸ø_ã=GÂw6Ag ARx’ø>ø“©jÚ_i:Ä&i$á&_9R? ozõ s J n BãQ‹MÆáó_ÖØ“Æ˜p{eGZöJV}O§@Ç4QE SYOøU8I+ÚJQn > qˆö`kÔ5YocÒg3LÄKvS÷ X($÷É|è i

+‰ø£:\|;7Q C:ì`qT}F A é_*x{Bx|Ow5¶›&æ w o‰w#ô3W¿â+Ñ*F1ßsFw` !†`.2%´O;6_X~T Z JI_ y2«œg_éZ.khE£}OIø-vSQÔôøg’[O-d \G_ôÙµN‰·Ö–ËºyfTLœrTSJÎ o -jz_£ K )%g¨¶ bS 4 @°‘~âNC}HãùU5{ /cœøoà+}~7ÖµpÒ[ï"82Ç˜GRO¥z3xAÃí HuM0yv ? _[Gq Dm 5iQ´í&v"7S4_;œ _âÍ_úFQn.^P ]:M?ÁVbPUæ {.‰3\h:\ F’1#´xÆ2CsíZbSFñF™ iGo>Kw ~oÏ{¢E;^3; 0(‹__«#Ú<5+Oá_.W9f g_’K#nÎF &£_ãæo¥Œ¿ x÷Dñ.¡-_´SE2)`$ {m&Ö)På]S_}h|¯ cNK < Bn vym+X_FøWk [IZÙ«-µ4P+rDh k«]BDfa, TvÓCÈ~ F|_f)c;X|r8?xS/â] Pi9_Kh =ú y qòÚ(_•íô`S./tJR[3˜_Ñ$ñ?‚"Ó E w-º33

]>•åPéŸ_ô4}&Ò=B(] l·Ø01Ó›–4î€õÑ Í#cSÓSGÓ,4ô<A xcY_y_¡&¥f_G,`),§'> o’Nzpp?: 1H (|‚OP?:u0 (¢_ ,¢ j 4ØZÄÆ“ïU9h_|Ä{p)Ùö72= )1É9?JZ( !ìÑIË'®OøWORô*÷ (¢_#yR5Y#* V8¯;_-Ô xfædH>iítm N:py?…u} KÕtvx-.e p)~"Z\_ü@Ñ %h 5nYc‚&–WD_FY qæ7§ôüèåw°|–s£1ø‰á{YŒM©£°à˜Ô°üÅlizv—–D_N__|uUo˜}G K{â+M;@]fî m§C'Î2p23ZvwQ_ÙAu |Ã__£'“_c\§‚MÇ‡|e©xZI_K@|{m G_A_ºæq>–fm.`°2y Q+Af`&[gQ1d jÏ µ]OP"_jJ ( >Í«_©__.¥kë+}FÊ[K˜ÖHeR¬¬3\G I T_üvâóû?PeFy` <=: j·8sE fM¸ú 4Z…_ÈäŸÁ_öˆŸk_üEuq4c& 6?+À&'}Åf‰Kz VxIêbüVE{- \eMè L_Õ´KHl-_w[¥vT M!¸89ãÕ}3I_k] iuÔô«K¨¯láº„æ)P8_cSÕ{+H l`´ WmJI' I 8 kÀ¡|;hR(AR4 CVV`__„´QEYA^{

D1È_¸g:rOBz T”%yï_4–CNÖm|Y#Fd_ *9Wqs> tz^ƒa£Iu%”:[]?™/ÌNO?ãrêºM_£bÖw_ù 1 [íbÖ(íKEIBR}ih gˆø L <3qhg{ 3¡Y\yói6RKxs@ xæ´a‚+x„pD ]ñÎ·gs*X6_€YØ$x$ y ]%d…g{¶r>/ M»Õ|(ö–PI4_r0Dï__^( .i?J3E #5_á ^ë^_å_¡v#yd-‘8 ` bM=PêZào_k(jZ¬ g 4 hN n / S rë>> }„_}K>$“Å‹â==te K8 N JH‰Êõ q\__u}SY ^ÓBxüin5-[U |9®]K,csZÜ -ÛJ¥__S1% ' g j /M__-n!/ A˜Fo|Mqq{¨Mó0 Mq&>id \O_|-wá]*wÒn¥:=Ë¨ !Ó#_Ödyìl™£µµbvç9,}y5 x o_.tInõ-RÁnõKÃ‰]G : |-mu¥&±©'_d$¥ºJ7,j z5–§{cs3E% ~D¬

Q^évZ_£ÚÙÛU,,0U”~_•À_â)_'ãÓ_ ™ôë˜ÌöêÜí?_ GáJË &ú_‡yyo§ÚIsw2C 6U˜F0$Rz wN+Su_3âØ G.¶C¿VIqñKO6O U,á!˜`ã$ö´·ø’#Ü!¶Ö´K_-&;RYs > "P$tâ5 z ?áaê:] i / Œ_ ÆOaø_àõ |%ñ"ÏXE+a¨_&r: '“ V:! _i^ jxSÅsê÷W:V©j-µk^dŒ}Ö 4QEIAE *yÚ:d~_–t^ ]_2Uñß_EUx|o7ˆmfÒ_)k5 KtÊUb\sŒûzÔ .k[V´·ú z®¢ºÑ__L¯5ñ ’~0h~^<_({Ÿøö?J™_ k 6u¶:ZÚ[J9K #R a0&ÌZb®3!Åy} 4_Imi!3> 6 (ëú•® ¢'•_z3p?öSK4 c‰F#C_}©%mX9.†{_}$Ó_ ZtW+qª_]j.9Û!Â“ï dËi|:\@pOÔw¡Y«1= MvZf•g€Y%_Œ+,) CsêowF‹¨^y Gc\Ï__Ug€hWvi2 -©[ _H§;K`c#=sZ =D,0Gg C $G13(%O±íV1E P2}kj( [«nX" Ô ©<¸üÏ3êïÆ7cœ}jLÑEØÒHC"1 JÖ4”¢†ï¨%a))i( *3c)Ùj_yÖW1\GyèÛ4®‚Ì·F+:ë]Òlfhnu :+•Ö> x?E1ki

:õÀ·µºdº?v)P©n§cJàtôVV kñ\IdL¬ _¨ÁÅi3mFoA WÛŒƒÏOj@gQ\ ø {XñùSV{¢}å37</¡jú;\6 CV)4ö77Q I F}3^i«ê__ } qM=IoM Y6|_e?ãßÛ5¥7Âm%b c{{ot_€|MØ?G)ò÷v UÎ»LÑ<4}8ØY@" $ g=z $_y(£xó'_€›z0åKTk|A |9iy&¡©_B$1M B J_öêUED;A< wÅ öS6¿$SH>W^Ü ]& zu±—ûJ+†ÆV8>vcøtüiJ q% bƒ>[ç¯ó?_u ñ ÂËkö_íxJc;@; \_‡|x48“EñTSY pÊY]GLã KùBÈ_øã¡ïNkrdv: hZ >o *-e{X-}/s!Êÿ :_'W3; |ãp ;M [|@Öô 0?QV|! >mOI=O<séUÿ m/Åxúèuo?™3Û_¬Ÿ_]oj)hM {¨Oæ}µÃÂÈ6_$sxwE>g{ w?LŒ~uÜQI6 -õÁæ¸J1Bml$ VLN)»ØLU;-2ÇMó~Çk ZhTA1àË.™QïÎ?_z&Fq w[ JMlÎCÂ>

v2ÏÎNOAùWSIKCww "k¸¢_}ÜIX(¢_C (2_ (¢_ (¢__(¢_ (¢_37Ô_—D»ËNU7rFR=Í Hõ+)_dsv _bæi¥_RIè3Dí5[ C?c_ #¯— l~F–IÌOß 4 Dv¶ M7W°Õ G ò§ \Ó¢3ìµ_7SFK+X' 2_[‚GÔQ n8>_i\v: +7YÖlô-=®¯_– qpÏ$È$HbMÏ‚22;~4Åc|¢ } z H%76Œ÷_x1mR~18£Ìv;Z+ gs_@‹-ÀÏ¥-pOñWE22 g O Hå’HãuI!UÄˆOL‚hsKT _EAmp·6±\ !%@ë_¸#5Ík~?Ñ´KƒeûëË {®äû–_Œ1ÿ_‚_:!K^|>%Ë bøoÇ6~"ym„RZ_Ã 4›v°]#OBZì_#_!Ô%…#fv]¨r8u_^S_ËÄ?«| i#E1x {’El4§Œ(_^hk] {ã?• v@_vu•P\œ^*_÷Ç2h6V = qZ/_%—R]'^ Qmå__n3»'=}±\m§ˆ~"^ z4-eö«UY>Uv_ÇCø_ :Wƒ,|Gn¬5h% i-Pï±ètQEIAE |T é:d}_ù0=z tm>ì!h=¯RI@_ vv·1]ÚEq wF’vÕnU®p^!øwi j

/3·_âI4=E_ˆY3å_Ÿ˜è÷Ò_Z_ßâ\©]}!è_bK1.D…O%W iÖÖcq¬b5 F!_WŸæ O`? S ;pwD ?ZyÍr~ ,|#g3C O7_nïÀ~OB}F?*{] fƒm{<K5ùÔbG–A¸_zhÏL1GÅAÿ mioGn_[C Vh&I"a wM(K_Q H°Fr«ò_æ(èF;RVJxl< {Xá `Ö_3ê_i@ [(• ]ŸùxjiKq–‚±<\vøGU? j ;äõãõ®‹AÆ¢ÑtKM>,b Dv__Sµ–õ3n‚uì} ai>fÖô-^ßEñ<"A; ].dó/.\Ëp_¬{WIRY ê_–Ù_ü'~/ºm_NÆ?\t®oÅº7›<Gi -Ón.µE[e…wZØByfõ?…zæ8¡4µH5êÌ imgpJ: Vè3X¢0´©ó%Üà`d~}+¯¢‹ëqrè-q_6_u n} V2-nD_o} 4yÃxkÅ_'Ä^)T!3°'-okÉocÿ &ÏLdÖJ‹9Ï”Û_°$úã¥rPø;^Ò?yáM}E :Asó( _ XøOn_øA€*Tf1w@}8 O(W1iá™m_qy¯›¥1\B# SRkar÷f7 t$ñ HÄ3_Í__ˆ¯5¸_o´Y.—ÒFÑÓ ÇµnQE6î XÄÑ<7g Ü_Oh 3^É H$`@<ôÀ÷–i"Y¡xŸ;]Jœ~:’_ N_ YøsO6VFB `~"µéh$ XÉ_Tl/õ{MNxØYZ 3ñÆ+¢¢„ÚÙ©€õ)Øiv:\>M /Wx4ˆtkV RÒRm_Ø$–ÈZ_m K†_aŒLÃ Q¸_wSÑEÇb9b_e)*+¡ 2

* =5–.I|€Äm:BY N 9âYb5xÚeYNA I£Y#uta•e9 N__¨_ÊpLjX~c ZK–†ÖÚâíTàÈ¸U?Ny%$zU2G 4}H8|–}Dö_Å_O‹Ç‹¬nfku‚X$ Q[< m_tW_^|fÕ&1q§i_$ xóC; IL“Ä_-_€È_$´†ïOsƒql9Oóî+Ñ`†;x# }+¯øW,’xbXdb QrÉ tkm>Xc a { óÈ/ü]ãgk_2q€i9"9 hPHnWp ^X/©jmq_eó‡_\b 4·÷÷ HRG;P x^ê-BO2hd{ Z7IcY#`È * QVæp“O_eÅ”·2\_VN†gûÍ…5{TÕlôk9// Dƒ¿V>_w=R}F V 9 ù åt}5|Uñ:x g«éz6_£@bÓí"_OR«Ë}OS_=x P >!^ yg‡…©< w6_¯$‹dd/kt w¨0è Ècí_k_ê'‚)>üHßï(4]5f –_8›Zx|s{ ms S$xU>øÍoxF \ )i·wq%dp /ikŸ6@@ÛÍvTSNÂjç#ÂxüUo¨C¨hrEqo @nøzøYjGyb°ù%úxp(4sjM´<ã møSÁãB–}Böä_ê·<Ë;t> WW 0hº )_7_/õßì¿°ˆÏÙ®D’ol`W_E WáÍñø{Y_k2r¶÷k÷~ŸylS®«üÄäasá=R_ /|e– í C'

m H !-]ËTQEId•p™ f H xOEM8O mv}ûqxÚ /-Å T?$[Èãß$ß¢RUs2y{ ^X‡WÏB~•xø6÷R____Î¬…n_y,0Xv$z_9d•Ú W{ z›_vE@¡@òˆëÕôïM&ôBm-Yë}h }?C ]f_ò&yIdƒ§s`úôÍR‹brKsèpA wc'Û=m] L Mdh~+Ò<C,±i3 I]\:3±êÔQE 3µ=gN FÚ…ÏSRXj6z Mxwƒfi<w ; _zÓQ¸3céz- s:Ç__=_Ü}_çPO=OÍ<j\ \,vTQG1 O_â' úw©’»_¥¢Ôë/~+x^Îv„\Ë3) 1G‘ yHetŸó8oëG?A y .].Á_lrs_øKÆ~?K9t‹ Yœm p lôéÅu^##Høgr r3ÁôZçÚumR/´,rí_7åKu$ +X[BÑBÒG%q ( EYÇüò· ~$ ÿj$\D5ä_ |_p†3L±{M.5ùXA `w,F+1øëã ]mq y@GBO é^o / ..õ R@’\C¶$Ï%s’M4 5ç ï…_#ø¡bMVÑ%XI)

?ysKIè ́ _Ic§üCñt?ÚP]\¬Re‘_?-[ =*m zx_i2ìsxFß[_"%6ÂiOaÇ5å }s_R—`‹o©ÑÓ$o.&sü _}fx† |P~£?Îµ·_Åô,[|=ñ/ˆtX±;YUb+ Ga4}:Ôr^bä{ 4cåÇœ$h8__õ13_RXl_[M_} ZuY35MjêTY #6¥h6Hån#b8'¡yA–rXÍorßÄ]J |M·6*Íoæ$jÄc÷jr[ |~u9!+a <!`?P+ w__Ãw7>lë< ^Lhù yP!$.I9=y4®1G–Ï m3m:-25¶ jQ§Äë«·S,V÷ … ¨P2?C[D ;uà 3=SKyf =_ì^÷dC¯iK–xzóM8O>"£ÑOoÖ_/Ã " ~ k7v'–fXX XKmÉ o–µEñ-‚3Gòù¥zÆÃ£}:Sm>7 nç8ˆ0i^={Áï-__5_GWx_H—:ª2M3& ?<g®1ÜSºR`3N.Û y“X[Hy™âRjÔqG lDTQÙF r—Ùº)W<c__µôWjaUpT ZI mGR»ü·–/Y*)t#98=~•K¬¬KÒ ]?PÕ<9mi u_sÆ1Km|O-¨$`!U1 r$rHK< 9í3Ã‰¡xNM+N ap$n7ÈGSéÍrÿ m,;ksÎ_#x7UñUí hRPåu`K[ W /üZ,RÖx#_ßqa&z z WiE>g{ c3C

{m: )ÔRropQKc‡ 7 =#Ä7mx¬ö—OË c!Ï ^w{_kF1_3[YÜ[ÆNLx _¡5étSRk`qOs__ç„4Ÿ Y:7‹4mzw M 1<k Fê23 @ tQE -Ú_GmI\7‰_#[øoZM1¬$_FE}Êà !Ko3Ê!N< I>‚_'ÁmMmZDÖ k g *@Ï i~6~"xjÏ^Õ xfƒ£]üEÕn¯u]^8"F 7!]1?…r? |Qqâ [{Ù %‰ì+Èä/&øröÆ_j°Ç£º_7ûBÛ"_àƒ_O 8¯Ió-xÙ=1ªN8ÙløüŒ¯,ø'l_SÕ._;#T .}B=ELPcÌR'z€ãîõ !üCk!1KeVTÏ"8—©Ç VÑ+œ?Å}BßSñ^œ-fYbkdØ r 60ewsùãúWpE% ZÂøYéyWA—U»ÔtùbÌJ#R>g#$_ SJx0¯{\ê_}â Z_ûÁ_?ñ5„3j÷LMC1[; \ 9òÒé@ÉüiÅ>]?1>[ {Lz.™ d1INI,;u =9íÌä—2JArxA IYë_6]ORâ4tP+ç oj2jzu u! );Iõ Y\E¯m"ld=1C2i_ü_]«cÁ *9AŸ°üiu?ƒWp_µÆ‡©,jNTe%Y C–;Kø9t—"mcS xeü3áÆÓ|å’fgs"_2zS_ ]Bk†*LqDrÌ}1Óñ <Qà

R)$r0mh EbGâKY<N&_#”]$^ir "ÁÈ öPüÁücÒ)µgq'}E¢¶.üAce bƒR_‹LÒnu3nq< ZV>=±Õ<Gc|X + <no¢^&›kk% .w>:<k loÇ>$Sw€ÚYÈX1Ì/r2N__{¥ & [iOat_4¶B7 q zP“OT'µÛ;;txí¢_Y<É Q\5s~= ohW:w_a2 ióØ1vr02} W ~ß__òú"PMdd\ bœSOR[MhzD3Å ~5)UØfízP $ö¬IücáÛyZ)u‹Eu:+Ì m[NAk: XR8VSl c¶£x±èàädt¬_kÄ:g‡ååÚ–ÊÅ»î(å›è+›øy–_£á¸¢_S#YHcy hF_=x5Ÿâ}VÏTñ/„ol§Yà{_*z _ o]ê2W<_x Œ_EP: c/4Õ*›¿‰3ÛéyhkK|$õµˆoˆ:lº¿Ä= Â)Z34;K HMv/_Mz3s¨H|__ nRmJo( pvñ +¢_}?c i7}n [tfx_ZƒÀú– /O‡OJv—NHD3“!h@Ã“ß q` 5Nw aµcOâå©_1_-Fs,ìœ{•5èZl›m¥ZCg *¯2OSÏ|y}q7 M:YTù5 3I#w<_?AZ_3‰%_vª }hkDRa [":7P@ oØD^VVwk 7@!*LV $#ó

O 4_‹‘[ER÷2%£Ku3 Y Q$1$Q¨T@ Fh¥’Ô/{˜? uK{ß %¢2‰ídEt 8' _¿ w \ßÇ}úMVmRxÎV3 ` 0 JM_®à’è¬p_ u˜[F:% Xoìdd°± 2 BkA|7 x FGÎx;1<_¢_€_ŒM¶´GAy[m§ZIuW2C$c,îp *¯@0+3]_lüCf O-$ ?Â»HZjMl& 9M v[Ãúcj_j_fQw zÔ”1¢îád•ˆmm`3·K{h’(PaQ& @=GJ J] -YÇ@F?_F ?Z. G¬C_œ ÊÊ?21KAY - @Ox¥+…_¶_É3xôûmbï ·‘_êÔfRT ?^yy.<E§Zë h H w,~"_¿._zŸÀ g#z|Wæ<dÓQ>¶ro j-n &FM£ ~tÒol'e»- £Ó3´}jÇ]°[Í>a,G ZmvBWêt´‡¥p2üOº__U_ç‡îµH";MÀ%TŸn+CÃ 7 Z $ le u4

1µ?0 /ÌGÓ¯éI&ú Ù-]_F¢1_+ø_ËÄrIh_Ég¨Ä?yk-^: gã#á)4Ò_$_\èVWbr &+ÎåñW_#_¯ß…£[ 7”2ƒ _|sŸÂ´?ábiÓhvW¶PIq{r_\vI÷÷_ ZV’è §3;JC^qw xƒÂº¬6>* qe9 E%\:†R ‘_Gzu! Q@ Eywˆ|_ h jm¬^xk\"KëU_ ]‹3ò°¨å˜_ß—áÅüˆnO‰¯_ Fíç;W_}*œISG¢QLw_ hj_Æeº”ˆ-_òKc‚}qNKQE_ }¿:9_t>o#Ó |_LÌ ßô?¡¥ËmopN_GUE qO ÌBH%Ic= zwy3EïÓQÕu8»K=kâ7È}w}-_† Myß„d_Wâ'ˆuknm (Y]‰+lr: Ó<g ?E±4úÇ_5]>+t66_(¸ ’y1ï _`M[rŸ‡m-¬_/jQ[ kÙ-_Ix22ÅN3]7_ 5w¨Kg¬é ;z/zkV O›®*ÂøÇÅV0ˆ/|)4xC_2)>V>_ B7qp5M Mh|;Ñot? 5_ OQg6‡m|Ê6–ÒÈ or3 MttQI»‚vJ; TŸ\db¡‹áÄ·’Ç'ˆ5ë_LPäDr«üÍwôUs2yz\ t? Ú : c][Y[bsä 3!‹q|HrrkT~”{R__b bªhz-®_¥|Ÿh\Â„‘_äóZtQ}-++s V__0r"y~_ f LÓRhN(®ece§Z¥¯œ Jab+‹h.àhn"Icn¨ë_ <V÷j\P›Z&'

([”·_‚ø÷÷ü«kÂ>)›Yk_?R·û6–hq4C "E¥é€_îi_Y õèh‘~"h#ír][j° Ì N kq"2' rA yu 5ß\¨’Öda_ÈÀ_Â‡kê_s[Fgxo[‹ : W ó®Æcˆ$'û|›ÜKc_øe{u}¢^Éws, 6¡ïØx§_YA©YMgu {À1Í} ^y¯KÏ2Kg?%W ~b_ x~K M5f-VÇ/–|@ lr(M& ; RS2—·õ_ÆÑt(´_‹V–°\Iq,V–%Ô37K9 'Û eã ?SÕ<9qkäLb b H}¥ < Lh)1KE ;yzR;Afö'h =0=y}+$¶1‚òY,-¥Ya_nWS_Ep wvs,Öò}x^†_§á—…m5_6MCUO E pÆ»__a\OÂmFXìîü;za} Q@%tQ@ Rçƒ|0<3|*K/ {p_eÅ oO xWAÔ4¿ >«¬^EwâÍT_,grZÃò_>y?aUyw_\° m k nIqKE f ( eE Ta<;Pv Z qh QHaE {RÓpiqHhZ(¢_

p=S:_ShK Fx ~up§9»E\M¥«7±E`i ' qÄâ›<P=i2H + 2`p{WF 9U\É¥¯AM€{LSG4a¢uu 9R…_%OQíRW aE g_Ì_Ól4Ë”‚îácy9PkA \Ão~HW#s Q_jõ€xÖ_‹_ZoA_SvëH.m (|KtpÆ^WTA l6-ak^ v~7MVÎY$ V US±{7ç^_ÿ yŸÚQtÎ0sùWM|$ R” °ª–*3J3_ÒÛ]~_QccÏ5ÚmK qw¬ø_Ñí"Ò_Åo(+$·c_=–1[x[ÄÚ<~V s_:Óf¥á‹‚ y¶äL‡y_¿|k£tVÎ@5Y-" O{i"Û 1to|7apÄ h $ ?¥kb [Cç i ipíKE!Ø`=ih¢ 5}kl2l "®° ^_GéJEe*Ô€Ûp›~e%$ "Wî.|s N4‹ h@Ù JyJ·¶RßÚKmp»ª•v°ÍA£é‰€X-€sI*)eKœ =+@t£øÒ | /ZJNÜqH.:‚LÑ )9_=É—FmÑPZYCyn“Báãq_EOÚ3i§fPQE Zæ())h BQKE rè:tÚœz‹[h»C‘*_Nn}kK : Sr“ QKa0E- |SifAh

[_ÖÒµ{m^ØMnà_>d'•5 zW7(xdy3múÍÉ FcM;–_’°ü[¨¶™á›Û„lIåíCî|_µ_7‰_Cãj!u;!5 4_Dr &Mgkz‘Ò4;ÍEb m e g 0FEU]: ; qF1\?†5[ x_ÎâæI-íÓ÷Q±áyí]Í6_ÜZ=†ãœÒô¥¢_ GZ1U5( iõæ2ü&6êdÓ<A{o( Jiq@Xh 5à=SQ_å•ä^(_µ_W,`E;Pdôy¿ RWDÜ&T¿ z~µÛb¸O_:d3xljc we"4r 6$xµ‚y/fîƒã9n5Oì]oOi;tÆQKe%ú Mp_"_ó7ˆfø•<)sisi0’9Ãn8ôì+¯ ON_«µ¯:ø„?â¨_¡=>Ôy?ï-z%& !HT"2c zxœøOäø—âec‚p@?Q^ _í,<¯3æ yáüi€ƒRD>9ñGˆ_^êÛôÚp~c´´\yc°'5GQ‹ ~ Ká= ØK©I{§NàCpMY"*s‚G¨¯N±¿ g›x+EÕ<]áË{oÛÙmt[L Xp d{%_IwvT 4_F;jp ( kQQp áIqo Cogáks__#} ?\W£Q_w_Â [ m¥é_Y_ X"@ ? T__Ú9Ã/ÓüGåVdx<s¯Æml<A„ëpw7 Ke 4_3"_2H–zB)òkrm¥_GÁ:eæ‘á? QHaGj) S@ Îh£§JQÏ4É@ qéEÂÌ©©k__ñ¯‡u)V+]F A·ÕŸ\ÍÌ·)'•ˆãÈ-œpsLGaE TW—ê?Z´kijZÙOr

J(¨å–82ieuH e zxÆM+O¸xl-d (qæoØ l:_@iE!ˆGµ'8 KHxçµ4&‚‘ I^Ú_^:t5~(!:_’WØ p IR(_W "©b} x k#Ó<'<+á)$yÑ y`RI|MZÆ Yh |v6 >€÷4YEov+ t<3 s W0LÓº°òó__}EdZ|9 G_{ s Oö._1Á_¯•z6_§[iZ|6V g`,u)`RxI e_’<Qg &3rsÚ IlîRmô± ^Mñ (ØUA÷'úU_káO‡õi_â%–Ê^9>N6g ?…P_ø1¢[8k Z}x‡“C”H,ÑU@WÃazd ~ x_XeÔbvx†ÕdlqèhS ]äw–Zdq\Fr S_^û‰sGmAãN"x )2)E&( x|)@84 ~"_ \R~4~4 MÅ:ŒP!¿Z;ÑKLBw "iz ;P0 )? \Ñ@Â_(íA J)1K@ 4SGZRh ( AMÅ;µ6_¡GJZAK@ #4w¢_

Q@ 'JZ1P GJ)1K@ N1Î)GJ\R`_ _Toc445370 _Toc465″7 7∶ȴ _T•ɣ46µ370'6u _T˯c46µ370'6u _Tgc46uĳ70765 _Tgc46ŵ370765 _Toc4�5370766Ѐ} _Toc465370766 _Toc465370766 _T/c465370767 _T/c465370767 _Toc465370767 _Toc465370767 _Toc46537076ȸ _Toc4653707ȶ8 _Toc«65370768 _Toc«65370768 _Toc4vµ370769 _Toc4vµ370769 _Toc465 370769 _Toc4653707'0 _Toc4653707'0 _TocĴ65370770 _Toc465370771 _Toc465370771 _Toc465370770 } _Toc465370770 } _Toc4|5370'7Ȳ _Toc4|5370'ȷ2 _Toc465370772 _Toc465370772 W�oc4ȶ5370773 _Tnc4653707肷3 _Tnc465370�á3 _Toc46%370774 _Toc465370774Ȁ} _Toc4653ķ07w5 _Toc465ĳ707w5 _Toc465s707?5 _Toc465s707?5 _To‹4ȶ5370776 }

_To#46537İ776 _To#4653ķ0776 _Toc4�5370á76 _Toc�65370á76 Toc46%370з77 Toc46%37а777 §Toc465370768 §Toc465370768 _Toc425370778 _Toc425370778 _Toc4��#70779 _Toc‴�5#70779 _Toc4v537ä77 _Toc‴6%370780 _To46%370780 _Toc46537078 _Toc46537078 _Toc46=3707ü0 _Toc46=3707ü0 _Toc465371781 _Toc465371781 _Tkc465370782 _Tkc465370782 _Toc46537078" _Toc46537078" _Toc46537 _Toc4653�0783 _Toc465�70783 _Toc46537а7x4 _Toc4653з07x4 ‹465ȳ70784@} ‹46ȵ370784@} _Toc465370785 _Toc465370785 _Toc565370785 _Toc565370785 _Tkc46 3?0786 _Tkc4�53?0786 oc$65370786 oc$65370786 _Toc4653з0787�} _Toc465370787 _Toc465370787 _Tob465#7078� _Tob465#707�8

_Toc56537 _Toc46 5370789 _Toc465370 _Toc465370 Toɣ465370 _ɔocȴ653707 c465³70791 c465³70791 _\oc46 _\oc46 370792 370792 _Toc4653w0792 _Toc4653w0792 _Toc465370793 _Toc465370793 _Poɳ465䄳70 93 _Pɯs46䄵37793ذ _Toc4Ķ5370794 _TocĴ65370794 _TokĴ65г70794 _Toū46е370794 OToc46537079 _Toɣ465ȱ70795 _Tɯc46ȵ170795 _Toţ465370796 _Tůc465370796 _Toc46 370796 _Toc4�5370796 6537079 6537079 _Toc465370797 _Toc465370797 Toc465 oc4653 _Toc465³7079� _Toc465³707�8 _Toc465370ķ19 _Toc46537İ719 _ToC465370799 _Toc465370800 _Toc465370800

_ToC4ж5370 _Doc46 Doc467 3708¡1 }ЀL _Toc46=3ķ0801 _Toc46=ĳ70801 _Toc465″ _Toc465370803 _Toc465370803 _Toc465370803 _Toc465370803 } _\oc4653з _\oc465г7 _Toc46537�804 _Toc4653�0804 _Toѣ46537 804 _Tѯc46537 804 _Toc46537080ȵ _Toc4653708Ȱ5 _Toc46 370805 _Toc4�5370805 _\oc465370806 _\oc465370806 465370806 _To#4653�0807 _To#465�70807 _Toc46533 Toc4ж5370808 _Toc46U3?2848 _To4Ķ5370ü0= _TcĴ65370ü0= _T�b465г70 To䁢4653з08 09Ȁ} _Toc465370810 _Toc465370810 _ToC465370810 _ToC465370810 _TOcĴ65370811 _TOţ465370811 Toc46737081� _�oc467370811�} _Toc465374812 _Toc465374812 _Toc465350810Ā}

_Toc4v5370812 _Toc4v5370812 OToc4653709±3 OToc4653709±3 _Toc464370814 _Toc46537 c46�ȳ70815 _Toc465370815 _Toc465370815�| Tkc465370816 465370816 _Toc46%371817 _Toc46%371817 _Tc465370813�} _T•c465370818 _T•c465370818 _\oc4&5370818Ё} ]Toc465370819 _Toc46 _Toc46 370819 370819 _Toc465370820 _Toc465370820�} D _Toc46537282� _Toc4653728�0 _Toc465 _Toc465 _Toc46537 _Toc46537 Toc465370822 _Toc4653308 _Poc465370823 _Poc465370823 _Toc465370 370824 _Doc465s70824А} _\oc465370(25 _\oc465370(25 _Toc46537082� _Toc4653708�5 _Toc465360826�} _Toc4�5370826 _Toc‴65370826 Toc465 _⁔oc4653

5370827 _Toc4653�а828 _Toc465�з0828 _Tob465360808 _Tob465360808 _T?c465370829 _T?c465370829 _Toc465370829 _Toc465370829 6737а830 673з0830 _Toc465370830 _Toc465370830 _Toc465 370(21 _Toc465372831 _Toc465372831 _Toc‴�5370832 _Toc465 370832 _Toc465370833 _Toc465370833 oTo�461370Y33 oT�c46137ä:33 _Tok46536�8逳4

_Tok4653�0逸34 _Tok465370 _Toc4>5370835Ѐ}�D _Toa465370835 _Toa465370835 653708s6 ‹4>5370836 _Tkc46 370837 _Tkc4ж5370837 _Toc46537〰�ĳ7 _Toc4653〷�ĸ37 _Toc465″70838 _Toc46�370838 6u3708 t6ĵ37085¬ _Doc<65г70ĸ _Doc<6е37İ8ĕ9 _Toc46537Ȱ860 _Toc4653ȷ0860

_Toc4脶5³70(6б

_Toc脴65³70(ж1 Toc465 c465�70863 _Toc4653�0864 } _Toc465�70864 } _Toc465370867 _Toc465370867 _Doc4453708 _PocĤ653 0867 _Poţ$65ĳ70867 [Toѡ465370и68 [Tѯa46537а868 ogt65370 465370970 _Toc«65s70ü71 _Toc«65s70ü71 _Toa465ȳ70872@} _Toa46ȵ370872@} Toc465370 _ɔoc4653708 Toc465370871 _Tos舴65370876

_To艳465370876 65370�77 } _Tob465 Tob4653 Toc465370879 _Toc<65г 08¿1 _Toc<6е�708¿1 _Tos4�5370881 _Tos�65370881 _Toc‴6537İ882Ȁ} _TocĴ蠶е37ä88 Toc$590 _єoc$5903 `````b`琊 ````b` 琐Ê

Ø̀�Picvure$6 Picvure$6 g?Z@D& g?Z@D6 @!sRGB IDATx^ \;vÊ0 HX`AbL )Û;` $_ërxD–vi> 7~c;·2oÿ>O(2réfb%ÆiyzX|ˆ¡’_ zY[__SyK!, 0Ù_Dü¸ú]fÙr3Z}_ xZeJïZE†N,P1 S26)*x´0x\ @X±G2_Ÿ6ˆ@ÿ Picture 5 IDAT8Ocü Pictu䑲e 4

Pict䑵re 4 AB!/8} 7 u:ƒ—Dopu) /CaB£† |73Nfr 3l[2 `````` ```````� `````` 琀Ê

p``````吊 ```````� `````` �Ê `p`````� p````` �Ê ````@` `````` ```ɠ``@``` ```````p`` `````` = h````` ```````�

`````` �ˆ `````` ```h`` `````a```` `````䁠`da` `````` ``p``` l㐃◌ँ�``!````� `!```` �Ê v$2) ```@`` `````` p````` `````` `````` `````` ytMlT kvejcie-a~d-m•rgan,tabɬe-of-ddtermining-s�mple-sizeȀkrejc)e-a”t-morgan-table-of-determininw-samphe-size krejc)e-a”t-morgan-table-of-determininw-samphe-size IDATx^ mYU&~Ûÿ A _881—A3Û[8/ #Ùµ#=0"=Å)O!1V;__ U©WDc}eRqTR w†_8vœD9lb8 \ãL-"fF‚cba #xm÷|/V33— fZù|^í Ç_ ”†ë—ÎC#MË«K0–æQ¬?G _mT&c v…@ç°]!¿ß{ã32˜fYedI‹zM |æsg3Ï~ŒD@µx{X !xLléD|b#?ä&8ì*W CŒ\nÌˆhÚ¸Dè]yêW'›)ùÍnv3D;C_b:_3?ù“ 4 K_úRg”(TömW4 3 DTL 3QK_QH>ìa VYM4tU "'Ù,4:“_„VÚ%]( }

onƒˆ†/8^c35 ?o9èsYTj 9 gIŒS_Ä¶X2r{ˆfTK-™ iÎö8lËØÍäu“pØLÚ2 1Æ[„9´bn2LÂaskÔLä "_#¶¨z¿&é*g,Èƒzr¬V|àP- F J*=(± Õ_ E LN0êò$/`3~U\¿€M52å 8ÂÓ +7mqg“hl m@Ã8(<4Ü-,n_ ˜Q0’§ªOQÎ`kthk kÒ‰U>`ó0Bs73%_,îUÕá6Ó6ü a z =WCƒ~LxK Rfs_¶_8RcóÒ_X46)VZ ~ÌP|ØufL_ÄTa%I(KKµõ n©,µ,í˜WŒç0à_(Xe¿öB/§rfYc +å|;_Lr9‚búKªÚWÁŸDV«?§^"õ3«i®‘I"›| :Ø8‡ù„_Ô/+¨ÑŒk]ëZzf%c S§C—dë30¥NËuëakDÈª*œVVKe ] 8 FE¥>Kêt0 (Bh`2¬[_ \9†ÚQp]l'á0õ'M l”æiO{_\f33 · a†6& Æ8<sfc 0æ5( B 1xx|8LwÊÊs>1 EØß·Ò/X„D\9D_[$[k 83±n@WI5 <,À b$°QB\5Fc1 / Oè™)‘öAoYcWi & nu9·Áa4@dªR4 W>>ÒU!é|ç;_[ Y¶©CîJv°º÷‚ÇI%éJBXº<û`€ÈvQæRZy *èÂõ#-B>w5.s‚L[kª=Ÿ-BH¥Â¯º

WD6VLa vMyx»_eeQ~~8,û &˜'äüç>¿µ¨á—XëçMpXA77 @EJ£E$1[ v_UÀZ=e5T_äÄ3 B$ :<‰ Z2¸ .`?3lj @_ÖIQõÅÁH ,98O x<8U«Ÿ" LÃaYù(_'•˜:2“61TÎØ(=–lÃrUWoô hlá“Æ>NòüI,@lk_ (e`c«?F= Lp‘ Q-y`X' >wB#z‹Hzi¡Q›H"e#Ò_£ dPùF*KEO %pF0Bõw f_ÊÀEl}dHü'©H" <üL\âñ_aÁ%/yI ID TÅjÀ2÷Œ~_fµÔ@03k0èSi,rEZìRö q\YoO_D? MÙ«¬Ûº/_dÔU]_•gOtykub%Èæg.Ykc3å°_Sl©© dyº,Òx!'± ËZ· QG#Y·Wh 3 -–‘!™3DR&1b)SíWR‰P/T uYcG‚Óv;i%KÔlI<T M%_~5iSÏ Hê.ÍiS_6Õ-;pT`i2Ì#g #¡˜(IKU§CFYyÏ{_!_I} )_-¯–_c0MZ5Pr†; 2œLmª˜2MVm¨-~z /1” b t 2Qd[KP v]>_’cF ÒXÛ:~Y5 ‡ ?‡©÷FwqF>:5° Ñ 4_"ú4, H|ãœÛ…-i) HK x ]

|ds0Êm3œ 9, n_™}.ÈÆ. Zg|E - L$=*"Y "*_\upj` œ´ Idœù <sÆ$¬Ùú_xXtyY&]>9 Iv8î_,6ãp@1I+&± |51u9s +_Ipx˜ F[]>[A 9 -J=DKÆ>8OB1.k=ßÅ[ã°Ô < Y * BK(._ ! 3$ª[eQx D 9,>:ûsFN s˜‡á0F)]_@x–78Àa,X U–º`r&2pL j (_€^F_RJ?,4! 1 hg}hu a'"UI;|Â|êtDÚ “^RãaÿJ vhKIRg CAl€ZsJ, _W,Gf3CT 2 ZAcsF£€ VnÀZV` M:ØqèÄ÷4ÔHàJ!T\yn u$>Z]…C[ :( ]Rqo8ÃwTgLn t5'-4´__646e E{ê HÈSZal_r køjYáQNq=…-ÉIhXºt@ kyÍI4V—xgb-E +PVrE‰*~ - $‡Iy44_M mp˜wHÅ%w‰e

~–JH»–[O$.¥bg8L€ AÄ`&uëC ?l+OW| D 2g_Wg4RohBó $|29#*WPC ]È™50.YR) + k,ô8ZXNbpir$_Ú_8 7|d,sF X 4_I X –+o!! ;xX4F*bØ7Ì–XAÏFX |6ò G$Yº‚zÁ›†H TIYq/ .”XÉ„ÜI"î‘ 0N![Âi4U oUP )A-!Y_õ_uëSNBiÚ4Á-j# jmÀy_ (GY–6c0^c‡<| ay U·_£,y‚·€Ò–|ôYÕKÌ8ÆP•_ædª4íÉaTBa€`Ëw—¶b7^#uü q t.U[J< MorSƒ-È-ã-‚%V+ -z[ f¡QuòlÔµÛ=03øKiYR 0âÅéºbLÇn9,Aó_ÿl.j|rP '_–@ô8g´Ô Á-càZy^4À7@ >¯æ$0j mêÃØ*€1Kuux‡W&pZˆò J6 }‰9B J4[t xÙf%S4g´nk P$H._4Tƒ]U=¨6 $Q+ˆyYcG (e""±bZ! Z x j /%<(*à+›"t U¨/5æ*7 k=W "8»_§e(`…‘rúîUƒ£sØê=qu+uq (ƒªc!'

T¸ª°_ÿ<ÌpMyr~92Ï fDef#8 $W_ V¬x[Æ1\Q9µo- d†$ÀÈ†Ï_€±“@´âC’ÁVpé#C`I[ m0[#-R N(¬ k¡ÕD• ( ]¸r$ƒ1_2VS·_xJzG¬} ™3°;¯[O6[i . _gR§# v‰>&m SE E /QmÑGÿe`gU >iK5?Ù(™O=dée3 T6)kªÓ1TNc [¥%Ú†Ú!G]ÃZS,ç™Îv¶(*‘h)c 08˜ 0 46¶V¯ Q m‘ih#T%F`^1O KdzÏ{_ó2 AuW{`ê ^ Sf}Îà #vPYs=lW <6!gL$ ,Y«\· Mr=5EÔp*IX IZôPM0ÃuA3ÁÏ7êc¸J„gFU85ág. [g ÷Ñ_^5INiÃZG ;dh_oÎH‹0^_Cù„ñœv a™$Q]c'_qŸ t e tÖxÉOB¡t1L[*¯eZ 4ßTdÿÂeBf kTwÍ7•;%F9 .DÈf`›-B€bHù+D %.51h8l€Tm *m0Z1Y V#/N$p Z L·ÈaRÇ?2(_®‡'3´€Òƒt~2éSuR,{ÃëFrH .$QX]$

~•;¸FN_Æ9|Ør_Eb£\ Ú`’ UnSc}] '2Px}ó{G M?2w$aé U_YS=V|Y68L aw¨–$|)Y_9#ÉTdms÷[±_ \&FY¡ @~/@-^VaÌ° | R sØ__’Í—^ÅÔî_Ã"3Tqy# ]E-ÍzCijL¸ d /QÕ–Ï GV ËõBITV„–ZYmF 8nzM0f 5 P~Xup?H_D`e£è_| k%i_rÊ)Xm>u:L1*™ƒ©UzQ "°ä*DTƒ/})¿î°ÖTÕéH\¸Y8Q __Yd[ÖXu_Œ 3>HÒ:œ!&)X h5.Ô§¢–øàÀqXÁ¥£iE662 1h(:PO+µQ¬†X ™#‡é_D7áE] 4VIø-Çt@&›12 ^ /k,H j!r_B8,} \D-`=< LLÑ°n_Z>—_ô¥‰$7@*…HEqhÇ O_FØ´2HDR”+9m5ê ?üC'%äj_ 9ŒœŒ‘(Ùê,2XKNy?t@ .2€Z!Ã) T=5IB[8È N8@=OQ Rdsha} O?2r–pŒ#m.:ÃyØ zæÜ>zZJT3 XMpÀ3Z!cÌ_R/+- e/8#>U Nh 7U?BîD>_†+}BBRIÈU *aVYz=_lbd#_ *__hó

H__ä*yWD•Y¥óD6yN Xj ?Ì(<R 2cRs2_ r !@f ed6h@r + aiˆ[.~ñ‹ 4‡-3!3¢]Ñ Nr &SB <BéG~à|^WEc_ Cx†3œ n |-fcéÑG*M»óyX$ j r z 86*À:| g!Y’ÀVJsM[& $`2hµ M2Æ"RÆ Î B 5ng¯5_U1AxH2¥ú1! G\_ Nq¥G!æ?û3?s_Ol:x D a î_„\æCTv„Öa dg#¶…vYÂL+B X/y+oYëÕI(®çç-+¶âp(koEG #_ '?)7KF G¢±â0_Ï6(&OÊO(/2Ô b87JÛ2yr L [8L JcxuqX.ó <y¨ooiG #p:Gà p +,kÅ7(xD t_1bg'OG Qm?jë¶) :i/JwaM d2Ù6,{¯X<37 x=å)O1aBEVÅJBÏñ ‘&Ÿ !ôìà__Z˜ö™üÕ:œW TS.,np y|ík_C<7 E –=+U~¨&<

vØiìPj@oTG # Normal Normal Igadi~g 1 0 Igadi~g 1 HgadIngÊ5Ā Hecding 6 Hecding 6 Heading � Heading 7 Headi�g 9 Íʐ Head�ng 9 Lefaul Paragra`h Fo ble Nkrmal 0�NoÊList NoÊList Headin 1 Cha Hea_ing 2$Ch`r Hea_ing 2$Ch`r CJ$ OJ ng 3 Ch`r ading 4 Cjar Heading 5 CѨar 05 ng 6 Char ph$?`@sH Ead䑩Ng 7 Char

Ea䑤iNg 7 Char Heťding�8 Cɨar He�ding 9 Cher H�ading 9 Cher VṚ0ȉHyperliɮk ZȰ Hyperlɩnk Str�ng,A St�ong,A fb_ѩnvisibl _reset fbWɤialog_adŶanaed fbɗdialog_aŤvanaed diadog_cotent # diadog_cntent # vb_dialog_pafd_ng §loader

fb_dialg_⁴opџleft fb_diaog�toѰ_left fCW�)alo _top� fbOdia _bottol_dɥft fbOdi��g_bottol_ɤeft fb_聤iaɬog_bott/m _right fb_dialog_vurtɟleft fb_diѡŬog^vert_ rigjtЀ%& Ïfb_dialog_Ũoriz_top ZĀSfb_dialogşhoriz_top fb_dialkg_horiz_botɴom fb_dialkg_horiz_boɴtom ialkg_ifrcme fb_)f�aŭe_sidget_Ѧl5ad fb_)聦ršme_sidgetџfl5adЀ fb]bettoN_simpla fb]bettoN_simpla "_button_ f�_button_s buttkn fb_button_vt fb_button_xѬarge fb_button_Ѹlarge c_bŵ™ton _buǴton_ xla lar gd_rtl CJ$@OJ fb_butpon_l fb�button_labѧe§rtl f_button_laѢge§rtl fb_�uttonşmediue fb�buttoŮ_mediue fb_button_ledium_rtl fb_button_ledium_rtl ton_tex⁴_rtl fb_cutt�._smalŬ fb_cut�o._smaŬl fѢ_butpon_cmal_r bџbutpon_cmal_rt

fb_whare_cmunt fb_whare_cmunt 4fb_shire_co }nŴ_inne ntşinner # are_co re_coq nt_right are_count_top e_cmunt]nub_top fb_shaRe_co}lt_Nub_rig gb_shareɟ聮o䁗coult gb_sharɥ�n�Wcoult fb�conŮegt_bar_convi”er f�_coŮnegt_bar_con⁶ai”er Nfb_conjet_ˆar Nfb_conj�ct_ˆar� dialog_tit ialog�head�r touciab$e_ buttol dielog_content dialkg_foot�r dialkg_foo⁴dr fj_loader fj_loader� fb�Buttons f�_ButtonsЀ he�derWcŒjter h�aderWcŒjter dialog_title1 dialog_title1 0،No�mal *Web)Ѐ Normal (WeѢ)�Char dialoѧ_header1 dialѯg_header1 touchab ouchabl header_center1� diaŬog_content1 dišlog_content1 dialog_footgr fb_loadťrȱ fb_loaŤeɲ1 tton_te�

ton_teh� 1 _5tvon_te b�tvon_teh PJP QJ fb_butto”_⁵ext3 fb_butto”�uext3 /fb_‰utton_�ext4 /fb_‰utton�text4 fb_button_texѴ5 fb_button_teѸt5� b_buTt•n_text6@ _buptonɟtExu7 Z� fb_buttoo_pext8 fb_button_Ŵmxt9 fb_buttonştmxt9 fb_�utton_text10 0fb_j聵tton_text11

0fb_聪utton_text11 fb_bu�Ŵon_tdxt12 fb_b�Ŵton_tdxt12 fb_bttton_tex|13 fb_bttton_tex|13� fb_"uttoɮ�text14 fb_"uttɯ�_text14 b_butto�Ytext15 on_tex™16 fb_button_text17 fb_button_text17 share_counv_ilner1 fB_sharѥ_count�inoer2 fB_shaѲe_coun�_inoer2 fb_share_co葵nt_in er3 ;f ñ fb_share_k�unt_inne bb_butto b_button vbOloade20 vbOloade20 op of Form of Form Clar of Form Clar VṚ0ؐz/Bo�tom

-◌ूodtom of F-rō`Khɡr sopy]i‹n~ sopy]i‹n~ readcas� icůn readca�˴_iţon add_icoN add_icoN ommmnt_icon go_bottom go_Back oad_�con $ial/g_title2ȀEgR擰 g�header doushab�e_�utton2 dousha�le�button2 header_c dialog_ţontend2Ѐ,{ log_foot�S2 PJ QJ b_buttoŮ _buttonſtex fb_j�ttoj_text19 fb_�uttoj_text19 tton_text2p b_button]Ŵext21 ton]text22 Tѯn_text33 fb_button_text24 fb_button_text24 fb_buttѯn�taxtȲ6 fb_butѴo�_taxɴ26 fB_buѴton� ext27 fB_bѵtto��text27�; fb_but|on_text"8 fb_but|on_text"8 fb§button_text29 fb§button_text29 fb�button_text30 f_button_text30 Z@0fb_butto VṚ@0fb_button _text31 nb[button_dѥxt#2 nb[button_Ѥext#2Ā

db_button_text33 db_button_text33 fb_�u™ton_textĳ4 fb_rha e_count_i.ner6 fb_share fb_share count_iNѥr7 count_�nюer7 fb_shar�_couŮt_ynNer8 fb_ɢuvtols fB�load�r4 f䁂_loa䁤er4 dialog_tũtle3 dialog_Ŵitle3 dkalog_header3 dkalog_header3 touchable_buŴtoѮ3 touchable_bŵttѯn3 header_胣eoter3 header�‹eoter3 dialog_content3@,¼‒� dialog_content3@,₼�ð diamog_footerг diamog_footeѲ3 V鹚�

fb聗loa�er5@ f�Wlo�der5@ fb_but$o”_text35 fb_but$o”_text35 fb[butto”_tmz436 fb[butto”_tmz436 fb_button_text37 fb_button_text37 fb_buttnn_text38 fb_buttnn_text38 fb_b䁵tton_�ext39 fb_�utton�text39 fb_button_text40 fb_button_text40 fb_�utton_t�xt<1 fb�button_�ext<1�;_�ð fb]buttonOteɸt42

fb]buttonOtɥxt42 fb_b⁵tton_text43 fb_utton_text43 gb_buŴtkn_te¿t44 gb_bŵttkn_te¿t44 _buŴton_t%xt45 fb_٢utton_text fb_bɥtton_ text47 cutton_de䁸t48 fb_uttonɟ ext49 fb�buttoɮ�text49 b_‰utŴon_vext50 fb_button fb_button text51 text51 fb_share_count_inner9 fb_share_count_inner9 fb_share_count_inner10 fb_share_count_inner10 fb_share_count_inner11 fb_share_count_inner11 fb_share_count_inner12 fb_share_count_inner12 fb_buttons3 fb_buttons3 fb_loader6 fb_loader6 absimg1 absimg1 dial�g_tktle4 dia�og_tktle4��_�ð dialog_header4 dialog_header4 uoucɨable_butto”4@?¿ uouɣhable_butto”4@?¿�� header_center header_center ialo�_ɣoŮtent4 alog_footer4 fb�loader7 f_loader7 &b_buttoѮ_texd52 &b_buttѯn_texd52

fb_button_te¿Ŵ53 fb_button_teǸt53 fb_button_text54 fb_button_text54 utton_te tton_tex fb_but|on_text56 fb_but|on_text56 fb_button_t fb_button_text58 fb_button_text58 fb_buttoŮ_text59 fb_buttůn_text59 fb_button_text60 fb_button_text60 b_button_text6� vѢ_button_text61�; fb_bu�ton_text62 fb_b�tton_text62 fb_button_text63 fb_button_text63 0fbObut�mn_tѥxt64 0fbObu�tmn_Ѵext64 fb_button_text65 fb_button_text65 fB�buɴton_te�t66 f�_bɵtton_t�xt66 dbşbuttol_tex�67 dŢ_buttol_te聸t67 fb_b7t o text68 fb�share_count^ioner13 f�_share_count^ioner13 fb_share_�ount_�nner1& fb_share�count�inner1& Vfb_sh re^cmunt_inner15 Vfb_s�are^cmunt_inner15 sjarɥ_count_inner16 fb_buttons4 fb_loader8 fb_loader8 decor decor max_pege

max_pege zooM_in_icon zooM_in_icon zoom_out_icon zoom_out_icon number event_ti VṒ@ĈEmphsis Emp�asis notranslate notranslate sh`re_icon sh`re_icon dacorative dacorative other_os other_os a#_osx history_list history_list current_result_num current_result_num _rerul rerult s ol_�esultS ol�resultS plural plural on_pl�ral la�t_qtery innerşnum inneŲ_num no_of_pages no_of_pages noѴransLate1 nѯtransLate1� jext_page jext_page prev_�ag )autogen_cnasų_views_facebo )autogen_cnaųs_views_facebo k_logIn_bttton k_logIn_bttton signup_toggle signup_toggle

login_toggle login_toggle 0،Ballon Text Ballon Text iŖṚ0ؐBallůon�Tťxt Cɨar BalŬoo� Ŕext Ƀhar epple-convťrted-sɰace epple-conŶerted-ɳpace Body Text� Body Text Ńhar Body TextĠChar OC H�adi C Hedin g Headdr sħ碬0؋Header ChaŲ Header Chšr 0�Footer Footer uħ�0؋Footer Ch`r Footer Ch`r footnkte-conueѮɵ1 ootnot f�otnote mnumber1 footnote-text3 footnote-text3 eznote1 eyerrow4 eyerrow4 Hist Parǡgraph review_bio show_more�aopy show_mor�_aopy ptio~_follow option_�o>lgwin opti�n_unfolɬow7 opt䡩on_unfoɬlow7 *disalaimer *disalaimer byline sepa�ator seprator cit-ɴɩtle6 翖mЀ

citȭɴitle6 cit-print-�ate2 cit-print䀭date2 cyt-vol5 cyt-vol5 cit-sep2 cit-sep2 citmf_rst-page citmf_rst-page chtmѬast-Űage2 chtѭlastĭpage2 cit%doi3 cit%doi3 ؑFollowedHyperlinkЀ 0ؒFootnote Reference@ Footnote Reference@ Bkey �ext Indent " Bkey�Text Indent " Body Texv IѮdent 2 уhaᅲ Body Texv щndent 2РChᅡr

æ䴵0ؑÌoemeѮt Re䁦eveo�% Ìoemѥnt R�feve�g% 0،Comment \ext Comment \ext 0ؑComment �extРShar Comment�TexѴ Shar 0؏Comment S 0ؕCmmment Subjebt Chѡr Cmmment Subjebt CѨar Program Bull�t Program Bul�et KHd OJ Progra Bu�Let Ńh‡r Progr�} B�lLetĠCh‡r refesence texѴ efesence textЀ œ㴆¡̊ïable Grid ïable Grid Nm Spaci.c Nm Spaci.c No Spac�ng Char

No Spa�ing Char T嬔0�Caption Caption B* CJ4 KH Ê Title Char Subt�tle Sub�itle f⽽Ʀ㖹Í¡ Subtitɬe Char ¬ƹ㗕ÐĈQuote Char Quote Char nten�e Qukte⽼+ƪ蔎Ψ萏

ÍǠ䀒Intense Quote 0ďSubtle Emx≨asis Subtle Em≸hasis PĐIntense Emph Íǰ0Subtle RefeѲen腣e Intense Peference Intense Peference Íȑ Bo•k TiŴle Pa46+1 Pa46+1 p�Pa49+1 Pa49+1 EndnoteÊT ndnoteÊTE 0ؑEndnot e Text Char Eodnɯte Refeɲence Eodɮote Refɥrence 0ؔTcble o_ Authorities Tcble o_ Authorities OA He\؋0xto indepe to indepen diente 21 underline5 highlight highlight 0�Table o f Figure� Figures

headɩng 7 selmctinshAreable selmct�onshAreable s™ylE1 s™ylE1 Lisu Bullet؋0Lisu Bullet Body Text �ndeft Body Text�Indeft Body Tex⁴ In�ent Chr Body Te⁸⁴ Ident C�ar Page Nu CharȠ聃har6 Chaɲ�Char6 Chaz C Line Numbe 0ؑDocwment Ma p Chas ent Map Mxigiligitnode MxigiligitnodeȀ DocumenuÊMap Char3 DocumenuÊMap Char3 Table of FiGures Ïha$ذ) Table of FiGures SŨarؤ0,heading heading 7 Char st of FI'ures StYle1 StYle1 igures Char igures Char [Content_Types].xml¬ rels/.rdls„ÏÏjÃ0 theme/theme/themeManager.xml theme/theme/thei%1.xmlìY]ËÛF _-4Û~ÕÈ+PHI| y“¢X _±pä4vˆ±euw 1â{@† ãl,œ»Äi!b I m${ódˆã:\@|'˜:§3ÂœÛln$°^-éx@^ìi? 3£~{s:FX Wl'êQyI@ m2 D B

)GÏbãms]_¥Ô 'C¡æƒÒZÑ¨Ö__Åis vëÚ@c])h =M4W=ÓP5 ^©ÔôªÍZÇk>\lc` l,b thmíe/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels„_M @0 a‘K(M&$R(n1˜r [Conten|_TypeQ]îxmlPK _rels/.relkPK t`eme/theme/themíManageò.xmlPK theme/theme/uheme1.xmlPK th%me/theme?_rels/themeManager.yml.relsPK |?x}l$versy/n="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" staîdalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmln3:a9&http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" be1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bG2="lt2" tx2= dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accen43" accen|4="accend5" accent5="accent7" accent6="ecceît6" hlink="hlink" folHìink="folHlink"¯> Rec|angle 31 Rec|angle 31 [Gontent_ÔYpes].xmm uVSÙFn_|'¨sá _rel3/.rels€_ÁjÂ0 No…^K » [ILc X'mß_ 0XFo;ê drs/shapexml.zml2±¯È Q([-*ÎÌÏ3U2Ô3PRHÍKÊOÉÄK÷U aÓ·PR(.IÌKIÌÉÏKµUªD-V2·ãå drs/Downrev.xmlD_OkÂ@ U€E©Çü1ôöÚ}&i3oCvO ~ n E~^<‚p_Ycj [ContenT_T9pes].xmlPk _rels/.relsPK drs/shapex}l.xmlPK drs/downrev.ymlRK Rectangle 71Āģ� [Co.tent_Typer].xml”‘ÍJÄ0 uVSÙF~_|'¨sá _

H _rels/.rels€_ÁjÃ1 No…^K » [IMc X&í 0XFo?ê drs/shapexml.xml2±¯È Q(K-*ÎÌÍ3U2Ô3PRHÍKÎOÉÌK—Õ qÓµPR(.IÌKIÌÉÏKµUªL=V2·ã¥ drs/dounrev.xmlD_OkÂ@ ayBoº1‚€ÑU€E©Çü±ôö_}&i3oCvO f n 0s¿aöGI b [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.pElsPK dvs/shapexíl.xmlPK dRs/downrev.xmlPK Reɣtangle(71 Rɥctangle(71 [Content_Types].xml”‘ÍJÄ0 _sels/.rels€_ÀjÃ0 No…^K » [ILc &m 0XFo;ê drs/shapexml.xíl2±¯è Q(K-*ÎÌÏ3U2Ô3PRHÍKÎOÉÌK·U qÓµPr(.IÌKILÉÏKµUªL/V2·ãå drs/d/wnrev.xmnD_OkÂ@ ayBgº1‚´ÑU€E©Ç|1ôöÚ}&i3gCvM ~ l =WT~fw [Conte.t_Types],xmlPK _r%ls/.redsPK drs/shapeymL®xmlPK trr/dkwnruv,xmlPC Res�abci letter- Okuonzi Øｗ� _To458967780

]Toc458969!65 _Toc45897406� _Tɯc45897429³ [Toc4�8 5234 _Toc4588�5308 _Toc458976427 _ oc46577p7�4 _ ToC55ĸy67791 _Tob458969166 �Tocȴ5 oC558Ź67791 _Tob458969166 _�oc4ȵ8 974069 oc45�97429 _Poc4589752 _Poc4589752 5 _Doѣ4589з5309 _To C458976428 370765 _Toc458967792 _Toc458969бv7ȉ_Tɏc45и9740�0 ^Tg�458974295 _Toc4ĥ8975236 _Toc458975310 _Tc45897646= _To耣46537 70765 _Toc458967792 _Toc4589691Ѷ7 ɟTOɣ458й7407ä ^Tgb�58974295 _Toc4%ĸ975236 _Toc458975310 _To45897646= _To#�65370 7ж& ɟToa458965793 WToc458969168ЍWToc5 6Ц _ɔoa458965793 WToc458969168

їToc55 8974071 _T聫c45897 974071 _Tk�458974 2ü6�_�oc4u897523� _T�c45897 ü6 �T�c4u8975237_Tg�458975 1 _Toc45997643 _Toc459976430 [Toc4Ķ5370767 _T/c45 Toc46ĵ370767 _T/c458 9ȶ7794 _T 6ȷ794 _To c45и969169 _Toc u8974072 _TOc4581�4697 _Toc458975238 u8974072 _TOc458�74697 _Toc458975238 oc4е8975312 _Ŕ�c45и975312 _ c4µ8976‴;1 _Toc46537078ض _\oc4589�7�95 _Toc458969170 _ɴoc45ȸ974073 _Toc058974299 4µ89764※1 _Toc46537076ظ _\oc45896�7�5 _Toc458969170 _tɯc458ȹ74073 _Toc058974299 _ Toc458 5523Ü�_T

c4589753±3 _Tocд58976432 _Toc46ĵ370769 55239�To4589753±3 _Toc4е8976432 _Toc465ĳ70769 _ Toc<58967796 _Toc4u8969171 _⁔oc458 oc<58967796 _Toc4u8969171 _Tc4589 74074 _T�c458974299 _Toc658õ75240 _Tmc458975314 _Toc479976433 [Ref417620396 GToc458977 _Tmc458975314 _Toc479976433 [Ref417620396 GToc458977 97 _Toc45894)172 _�ok458; 4075 _Toc4е89w4300 _Tob45897 41 _Toc 2ȴ1 _Toc4 58975315 _Tok4589á6434 _Toc465�70�70 _To兣458967799 WToc458969574 ]Toɣ458974077 _ 8975315 _Tok4589á6434 _Toc4653�07�0 _Toc儴58967799

WToc458969574 ]Tocȴ58974077 _T oc45897 c45897$ 3�r _Voc46�3 07?1 _Tob4653з0773 _Toc$µ8965800 _Tgc458969975 _�oc058974ä7耨 [Toc4589�4303 _Toc 4589?5 589?52 43 _To‹45 97�317 _Toc05ü9764 9�5317 _Toc05ü9764 6 _TocĴ589�7801 _Toc458969176 6 _Toţ458Ü67801 _Toc458969176 ]Toc458974079 _Toc44�¹74ȳ0� _Toc45ȸ9з5244 _Toc458975218 _Toc458966437 _Toc46537 0773 WTocĴ 773 WToc4ĕ896舷802 _Toc458Ĺ69177 _Toc458974080 �Toc 305 _Toc45(9?5 05 _Toc45(9?5"

45 _Toc45<975319 _Tgc458976438 _Toc46537Ȱ7?4 _Toc450967803 _Toc458969178-_ɔ•c4589 5 _Toc45<975319 _Tgc458976438 _Toc465370ȷ?4 _Toc450967803 _Toc458969178-_T˯c45897 4081 _Toc45�974106�_Toc458975246�_Toc45897µ320ĉ_Toc4589764 081 _Toc458Ü74106 �Toc458975246 �Toc45897µ320 şToc45897643 9 _Toc4653�0775 _Toc46537�775 _Toc4%88>7804 _Toѣ458Ĺ69179 _ Toc4%88>7804 _Tocд589Ķ9179 _T 7408Ȳ _To‹45993 4307 _TocĴ58975 307 _Toc4ĵ89752 67 ɟVoc4%8975321 _Toc45897 7 _ɖoc4%8975321 _Toc458976 44 _Toc465370з76M§To�45896780ȵ ‟Toc45 969180 ^T c$58974¡83 c$58974¡83

_toc45897432� _ïɫc45897524 _toc4589743�8 _˔kc45897524 _To�45897ĵ3в2 _Toc458¹7644İ _Toc4653 _T�c4589ķ5г22 _Toc458¹764Ĵ0 _Toc4653 _Toc458967Ⱥ06 _To#ȴ58969181 _toc,58974084 _T•c458974309�_T�c45897 Toc458967:Ȱ6 _To#4ȵ8969181 _toc,58974084 _T•c458974309 �To�458975 7ĵ323 _Toc4 Toc46= oc46=3 70ŷ78 _Toc4589678İ7 �\kc4589>9182 _Toc458974 85 _Toc 58976310 WToc458975250 _Tѯc45(975 8976310 WToc458975250 _Toѣ45(9753 24č_Toc458976403 _Toc465370779 _Doc45896780x 4 şToc458976403 _Toc465370779 _Doc45896780x- _Toc45x969183 Toc45x969183 _ Tok45и974086 _Po#458974311

�TMc458¹7u′51 _toc458975325�_Toc458976444 ok458й74086 _Po#458974311 _�Mc458¹7u2�1 _toc458975325 �Toc458976444 _Toc46437 oc45896wü0¹ OToc458969194 _Toc45�974087 _Toc‴%897431: _Toc458ȹ7�252 _Toc45897 _єѯc45896wü0¹ OToc458969194 _Toc459�74087 _Toc4‥897431: _Toc4589ȷ5′52 _Toc458975 3:6 _Tog45893644� _Tocȴ65370ȷ _Toc4ȶ53707ȸ 1 _Ref41770 _Ref417702 3'7 _Toc4589678а1 _Tnc458y6918% _Toc45ü974088 _Uoc459974313 _ Toc458975253 _Tob458975327 [Doc458976 oc458975253 _Tob458975327 [Doc4589764 46 _Toc4ʶ537�782 _Toc4е8967<01 _Toc458969186 _Tocд58974089 _Toc458974304 _Toc45䀘9752%4 _Toc45(9

752%4 _Toc45(97 53r8 _Toc45ĸ97 3r8 _Toc458Ĺ76 447 _T�c46е3з0783 _to�458967812 _Tok 47 _To�465г7а783 _tos�58967812 _Tok4 5896�q87 _Toc‴5и974090 _ 8969聱87 _Toc4�8й74090 _T oc458974315 _Toc�58�75255 _Toc458975 Toc458976448 _Toc46537 0784 _Toc458)�7813 _T�c458969188 _Toc458974091 _Tmc458974316 _Toc458975256 _Toc458975130 _Te 784 _Toc458)6�813 _To�458969188 _Toc458974091 _Tmc458974316 _Toc458975256 _Toc458975130 _Tec Tmc465370'85 _T•c‴5896w81 mc465370'85 _T•c4�896w814 [Toc458969189

_Toc4%8974092 _Toc478974317 _ Toc458 oc4589 752 525 7 _Toc458ȹ77331 _Toc45897645� _T/c46537脰786 _Toc458967815 SUoc4589&9190 _Toc4ȵ89740Ü3 _Toc458974318 �Toc458975258 _ïoc 5332 聞Voc458976451 _Toc465#70787 _Toc458967816 _ oc4589 oc458Ü6919! _�oc458й740¹4 ^Toc45897д319 _Tnc4µ8975259 _Toc458975333 _Toc45897645′ _Tos$58967817 _Toc458969192Ѝ_Tůc458974095 şєoi458974320 _Toc458975260 _Toc458975334 _Toc458976453 _Toc465770788 _Toc58947822ش _Toc458969б97 _ɔoc4%8 919! _T�c4589з40¹4 ^Toc458974г19 _Tnc4µ8975259 _Toc458975333 _Toc458976452_Tos$58967817 _Toc458969192

џToţ458974095 _Ŕѯi458974320 _Toc458975260 _Toc458975334 _Toc458976453 _Toc465770788 _Toc48947822ص _Toc4589691й7 _Tɯc4%89 4õ00 _Toc458974325 _Toc4589?5265 _Toc45 8975339 _Tob458976458 _Toc46е370789 975339 _Tob458976458 _Toc465г70789 _Toc458䀽67810 Toc458=�7810 _Toc458 Toc4589 69193 _Toc45897«096 _ɔoc‴589�4�21 _Toc4589752 Tɯc4�897�3�1 _Toc45897526 1 _Toc458975335 _Toc458076454 _Toc458975335 _Toc458076454 _ Toc465 oc4653 70790 _Toc458979229 _Toc4 9022205 _Toc0�¹022563 _Toc459231546 _T�ѣ452728511_Toc4523:9491 _Toc452729881 _Toc4527#0102�_Toc452757181 _Toc45r75797s

_Toa452758053 _T 022205 _Toc01䂹022563 _Toc459231546 _To�д52728511 �Toc4523:9491 _Toc452729881 _Toc4527#0102 �Toc452757181 _Toc45r75797s _Toa452758053 _To c45275 452758õ60 _Toc454739655 _Toc45501064{ _Toc4550107′0 _Toc4550б0797 _Toc455011223 _Toc455¡113ä4 _Toc455011960 _Toc4 _Toc454739655 _Toc45501064{ _Toc455010�20 _Toc455а10797 _Toc455011223 _Toc455¡11″04 _Toc455011960 _Toc4 5012036 _�oc458376372 _toc45887543¹ _Toc458961737 _Toc4�8941868 _Toc558962282 џToc45и=62396 _Toc458962473 _ Tgc45896581ȵ _Toc�78967623 _Toc45:9 gc458965815ȍ_Toc4�8967623 _Toc45:96 899

_Tnc458968ȸ43 OToc4�8968918 _Toc«58869034 _Toc4=8969б94 _Toc458y74022 _To‣4=8974097 _Toc4589743′2 _Toc45897а928 99 _Tnc4589688ȴ3 OToc45�968918 _Toc«58869034 _Toc4=89691й4 _Toc458y74022 _To#‴=8974097 _Toc45897432′ _Toc458970й28 _ Toc458975188 _Toc458965262 _Toc‴58�75″ȳ6 _Tos458975µ69 _Toc458975861 _Tmc458975969 _Toc458¹7606� _Toc458976373 _Tobt589w6455 oc458975188 _Toc458965262 _Toc4�89�53″ȶ _Tos458975µ69 _Toc458975861 _Tmc458975969 _Toc458¹76065_Toc458976373 _Tobt589w6455 _ Toc452728�1Ȳ _Toc45272Ĺ oc4527285�2ȍ_Toc452729Ĵ 92 _Toc4%2729882 _Toc452730Ĺ03 _Toc45s757182 _Tnc�52757974 _Toţ452758014 ɟToc452758161Ѝ_TѮc45$73¹656

_toc455Ȱ30644 [Uoc455010721 _Toc�55010798 _Toc4��015224 _Tnc4�5011305č_TOc455 2 _Toc4%2729882 _Toc4527309İ3 _Toc45s757182 _Tnc4�2757974 _TocĴ52758014 _ɔoc452758161 џTnѣ45$73¹656 _toc4550ȳ0644 [Uoc455010721 _Toc4�5010798 _Toc45��15224 _Tnc45�011305 şTOc4550 11961 _ 1961 _T oc45501203á _Ŕoc45837637″ c45501203á _Tůc458376373₍_Toc458875440 _To�45�961738 _Toc458961869 _Toc458ȹ62283 _To#4588�2³Ľ8I_To45896²474 _Toc458925�16 _oٔ#4� _Toc458875440 _T�c4�8961738 _Toc458961869 _Toc45ȸ962283 _To#458�62Ƴ=8I_Tc45896²474 _Toc45892�816 ٟTo#�5 9>7624 _Toc458;67820 _Toc4ĵ8968844 _Toc4589²8919 _To�458969035 _Toc458¹69195

_Toc4589740�3 �Toc458974098 �Ŕoţ458974323 _Tocд58974929 _Toc4589751 3�_Toc458974098�şTůc458974323 _Toѣ458974929 _Toc4589751 8975�$3 _Toc45и975337 _T/c458965u�0_Toc458975862 _Toc458975970 ɟ|oc4589760�6 Toc458976374 _Toc4=89?>456 _Toc452728594 _Toc452729494 _T oc652729884M_Toc45′730105 _Toc4527571ȸ4 _ oc4527 7975 _Toc452758055 _Toc452758162 _Tnc412 28516 _Toc412729496 _Toc452729886 _Toc452730107 _Toc452757186 _Toc452757976 _Toc452758056 _Toc452758163 _Toc454739658 _Toc455010646 _Toc455010723 _Toc455010800 _Toc455011226 _Toc455011307 _Toc455011963 _Toc455012038 _Toc458376374 _Toc458875441 _Toc458961739 _Toc458961870

_Toc458962284 _Toc458962399 _Toc458962475 _Toc458965817 _Toc458967625 _Toc458967821 _Toc458968845 _Toc458968920 _Toc458969036 _Toc458969196 _Toc458974024 _Toc458974099 _Toc458974324 _Toc458974930 _Toc458975190 _Toc458975264 _Toc458975338 _Toc458975571 _Tocд689758₶3 _Toc4u8975971 _Toc458976067 _Toc45 8516 _Toc412729496 _Toc452729886 _Toc452730107 _Toc452757186 _Toc452757976 _Toc452758056 _Toc452758163 _Toc454739658 _Toc455010646 _Toc455010723 _Toc455010800 _Toc455011226 _Toc455011307 _Toc455011963 _Toc455012038 _Toc458376374 _Toc458875441 _Toc458961739 _Toc458961870 _Toc458962284 _Toc458962399 _Toc458962475 _Toc458965817

_Toc458967625 _Toc458967821 _Toc458968845 _Toc458968920 _Toc458969036 _Toc458969196 _Toc458974024 _Toc458974099 _Toc458974324 _Toc458974930 _Toc458975190 _Toc458975264 _Toc458975338 _Toc458975571 _Toc4ж89758|″ _Toc4u8975971 _Toc458976067 _Toc458 9�6375 _Toc458976<57 _Toc452728517 _Toc4527294�7 _Toc�527298и7؍_T�c4527ȳ0q08 _Toc452757187 ɟToc452757973 _Toc45265805з _Toc452758164 _Toc458967823 _Toc458=69198 _ToB45 7�375 _Toc458976<57 _Toc452728517 _Toc45272949� _Toc4�272988з �To�45273Ȱq08 _Toc452757187 _ɔoc452757973 _Toc452658057Ѝ_Toc452758164 _Toc458967823 _Toc458=69198 _ToB458 9��101 şVoc4 7��01 _Ŗoc45

:974326 _Toc45897�266 _Toc458975340 _Toc058976459 _Toc 46ȵ371795 _Toc458967824č_\nɣ45896�199 _T�c458=74102 _Toc41ȸ974327 _Toc458975267 _Toc4舵8975341č_ï�c4�8976‴68 _Toc46� 65ȳ71795 _Toc458967824 ş\ncȴ58969�99 _To�458=74102 _Toc418ȹ74327 _Toc458975267 _Toc45舸975341 şïo�45�9764�8 _Toc465″ _Toc458967825 _To◌ॣ458969200䀅_Toc4589741¡3 _T•c458974ĳ28 _Toc45 75268 _Toc45 ;753Ĵ0 _To‹458976461 _Toc465370793 _T/c458967822 _To�658969201 _Toc4589�4114 _ToУ4ĵ8974329 _Voc458975269I_Toc4u8975343 _Tos4589з6462 _Toc4Ķ5370794 _Tob37ü186704� ;75ĳ40 _To‹458976461 _Toc465370793 _T/c458967822 _T�c658969201 _Toc458Ü74114 _Tѯ#Ĵ58974329

_Voc458975269I_Toc4u8975343 _Tos458й76462 _TocĴ65370794 _Tob37ü18670� Toc�5x967827 _Ŕoa448969202 _Toc458 974105 _Toc45897433 ^Uoc458975270 ^Uoc458975270 _Toc«58�75344 _Toc458976$63 _Tѯ c465374795 _Toc458967828 _Toc4589Ķ9203 _Toc‴58974106 _Toc4�8974331 _Tøc458975"71 _\oc45897534е _\oc458976464 _Toţ465370794 _Tgc45896�829 _Toc458969204 _Toc458969204 T•c458;74107 _Toɣ458974332 ǟToc4�8975272 �Voc4589 75346 �Toc458976465 _TocĴ6537079á af�-3 _Toc458967830 _Toɣ4581>9�05 _T�c458974108_T•c458974333 _Toc458975273 _To Toc458975273 _Toc 658975347 ]Toc4 58975347 ]Toc45 466 _Toc4

5370798 _To458967831 _Toc45ü969206 _Toc458970109 _Toc458974334 _�gc4=8975274 _Tɯc4%897 5370798 _Tc458967831 _Toc45ü969206 _Toc458970109 _Toc458974334 �Tgc4=8975274 _ɔoc4%897 4< _Toc45897逶467 _Toc5653707 Toc56537079 9 _Toc384010981 _Toc380994263 _Toc‴23552285 _Toc458967832 _�oc458969207 [Toc45897413İ _Toc458967832 �Toc458969207 [Toc4589741ĳ0 _Toc45897«335 _Toc458975275 _Toc _Toc45897«335 _Toc458975275 _Toc 58975349 _Toc�5897 6468 _Doc465370800-_Toc458967831 _⁔oc45 468 _Doc465370800-_Toc458967831 _Tc458 _Toc4589?4111 _ Toc4589?4111 _T

oc〴58974336�_Toc45897527v џToc4 c4〵8974336 �Toc45897527v _єoc45 897535 _Toc458976469o_Toc38698á24� _Toc458967934 OToc458969"09 _Toc458974112 _Toc45ĸ9ķ4337 _Toc45�975277 WT•c458975351 �Toc458976470 _Toc458976469o_Toc38698á2�6 _Toc458967934 OToc458969"09 _Toc458974112 _Toc4ĵ8Ĺ74337 _Toc4�8975277 WT•c458975351�_Toc458976470 _Toc46 5370801 _Toc386987247 _To 370801 _Toc386987247 _Toc 458హ67835 589శ7835 _ Toc4589ȶ9210 _Toc458974113 _Toc4589 74338 _Toc4589�527ĸ 4338 _Toc45897�278č_ Toc45897ȵ352 _Doc458976�71 _Toc4653ȷ0802 _Toc386987248 _Toc«ȵ8ȹ67836 ^TocĴ58Ĺ69211ȍ�Toc458¹74114 oc458975ȳ52 _Doc4589764�1

_Toc46537Ȱ802 _Toc386987248 _Toc«5ȸ9ȶ7836 ^Toc4ĵ89Ķ9211 ɟ�oc458¹74114 _Ŕoc458974339 _To Tůc458974339 _Toc 458)35279 _Toc458975353 _To 58)35279 _Toc458975353 _Toc 4�897�472 _Toc46537080 oc386987249 _Toc4589Ķ7837 _Toc45896 9212 _Toc 212 _Toc4 58974115 _Toc458974340 _Tѿs458975280 _Toc458�75354聍_Toc458 6дw3 _Toc465370ü¡4 _Toţ423ȵ825ȳ3 _Toc455�44125 şTo�465370858 OLE_LINK1 _Toc386987250 _Toc4589ȶ7838 џTo 7�4ѷ3 _Toc465370ü¡4 _TocĴ235ȸ253ȳ _Toc4551‴4125 _Ŕoc�65370858 OLE_LINK1 _Toc386987250 _Toc45896ȷ838 _єoc 458969213 §Toc4589ķ41б6

_Toc45897434� _Toc458975281 _Toc<5897µ355 _Toc45897ȶ474 _Tocȴ653708!5 _Toc458967839 _T 58969213 §Toc45897Ĵ11ж _Toc458974341�_Toc458975281 _Toc<5897µ355 _Toc458976ȴ74 _Toc4ȶ53708!5 _Toc458967839 _To c4µ8969234 _Toc458y74117 _Toc458974342 _Toc458й752z2 _Toc458975356 �Toc4589764�µ _Toc4657708 4µ8969234 _Toc458y74117 _Toc458974342 _Toc4589з52z2 _Toc458975356 _�oc45897647� _Toc46577080 _Toc45 67800 _Toc<58969215 _Toc4ȥ�974118 _Tkc458974343 _T�c458 Tkc458974343 _To�4589 75283 _Toc458 5283 _Toc4589 7535' _Toc458976476 _Toc<65г708�7 _\o4r3552281 _

535' _Toc458976476 _Toc<653з080� _\oc‴r3552281 _T oc458967841 _Toc4ȵ8969256 _\oc458974119 _to c458967841 _Toc45ȸ969256 _\oc458974119 _to# 458974344 _TocĴ5897528t 58974344 _Toc4ĵ897528t _Tkc45<9753 Tkc45<97535 _Toc45897647� _Toc‴65370808č_\ob�65370809 _Toc373149546 _Toc37�150096 _Toc373150936 şєoc373153902 _Doc373149747 _Toc3ȷ3150097 �ïoc373150927 _TOc3731�3903-_ToC4235ü2 _Toc4589764�7 _To46537080ĸ _\o�465370809 _Toc373149546 _Toc3�3150096 _Toc373150936čџToc373153902 _Doc373149747 _Tocȳ73150097_ïoc373150927 _TOc373�53903-_ToC4235ü2 34 _Toc455�44126 _Toc46�378859 34 _Toc45�144126 _Toc4�5378859 To#396139323 _Toc42s582е

o#396139323 _Toc42s5825Г5 _To‹455õ�4q27 _Toc46µ;7086� _Uoc45896áx42 _Toc45ĸ9�921' _Toc558974120 _Tok458974345�_Tůc4µ8975285 _Tocд58975359 _耔oc$5�¹7647� §Toc4653708ȱ0�_T 87254 _Toc45896784; _D 7254 _Toc45896784; _Do c45xĹ69218 _ 45x9Ķ9218 _T oc4ĵ8934121 _Toc45x9�434& _Ŕoc458965286 _VocĔ58975360 _Toɣ458�76479 ӟTnc465370811 _Toc3869872�5 _Toc450967844 _Tob4е89|ȹ219Н_Toc 58974122 _Tob458974347 _Toc458975287 _T _Toc458976480 _To465370812 _Toc458976480 _Tc465370812Č_Toc386987256 _Toc458967845 _Toc458969220 _Toc45897412; _Tůc458974348 Toc45897�288 _Toc4u8975362 _Toc45:=76481 _Toc465370813

_Toc2984�Q 51ȅ_�oc2ȹ8511338 TocȲ98511338 16311492 _⁔oc4589678 6 _Toc55896922õ _To c458Ĺ74124 _T•c458974349 _Tog4 289 _Toc4 9975363 _Toc458976482 ^To�65370814 _Toc38099 264 _Toc423552286 64 _Toc423552286 _Toc450967847 _T c458969222 _Toc45(97612= _Toc458974350 _T 0 _Toc458975364�_Toc45 _Toc458975364 �Toc458 76483_Tgc3809�6 _To�423�52287 _T�c42�552287 [Toc45 967848 _T/c458ȹ69223 _Toc450и74126 _Toc458974351 _Tŏc458965291 _T�c458975365 [Toc4ĵ8967848 _T/c45ȸ969223 _Toc45а874126 _Toc458974351 _ŔOc458965291

_�oc458975365 4е8976484 5и976484 _ c465370�15 ]Toc4235522ȸ8 _Toc45896w849 _Toc4� 4653708�5 ]Toc42355228ȸ _Toc45896w849 _Toc45� 969224 _ɔoc45ĸ974127 _Toc85ü 69224 _Tɯc458Ĺ74127 _Toc85ü9 4352 _Toc458975292 _Toc458975366 _Toc458974485 _Toc46ŵ370876 _Toc423552289 _Toc458967850 _Toc458 352 _Toc458975292 _Toc458975366 _Toc458974485 _Toc46uĳ70876 _Toc423552289 _Toc458967850 _Toc4589 69225 _Doc458974128 _Toc458Ĺ74343 _Toc 9225 _Doc458974128 _Toc4589ķ4343 _Toc4 58975293 _Toc45897 8975293 _Toc458975

367 _Toc458976486 _Toc465360817 _To 67 _Toc458976486 _Toc465360817 _Toc 39613953ȶ �Toc4235�2536 _Toc45514412� 96139536ȍ_�oc42358�536 _Toc455144128�_Toc465370861 _Toc465370862 _Toc4235µ2290 _Toc458�67851 _Toc45896й226 WToc45 Toc458969в26 WToc458 974529 ]Tob45स974;54 _Toc4589752�4 74529 ]Tob458ह74;54 _Toc4589752)� _ Toc458975368 _Toc458й76487 _Toc31760:703 _Tgc3 oc458975368 _Toc4589з6487 _Toc31760:703 _Tgc31 7636607� 636607 䀟Toc33130��24 _Toc336762579 _Toc336764145 _To‹336 764736 c73á964453 _Toc338435441 _Toc33864907# ]Toc338ȶе6188

73á964453 _Toc338435441 _Toc33864907# ]Toc3386ȵж188 _ Toc329663391 _Tos339688530 _�•c34p138789 _Tɯc341079005 _Toc34115ȱ245 WTocĳ41152980 _Toc342"04165 _Toc350172642 _Tc35017323 oc329663391 _Tos339688530 _T胯c34p138789 _Toɣ341079005 _Toc341151Ȳ45 WToc3Ĵ1152980 _Toc342"04165 _Toc350172642 _To350173236 ]Toc3511;0625 _Toc441455210_Toc4_5370818 _Toc4551441:9 _To c4653708|ĳ _Toc42355Ȳ291-_Toc4551 4653708|3č_Toc423552Ȳ91-_Toc45514 4120 _⁔oc46�370864 _Toc455144131 _Toc4653'08Ķ5 _Tos4235522 120 _Tc465″70864 _Toc455144131 _Toc4653'086ĵ _Tos42355229 3 [Toc455144132逍_Toc4 [Toc455144132 遟Toc46 5370866

_Toc380996267 _ 370866 _Toc380996267 _T kc4235422ȹ7 _To‹4653 c42354229ȷ _To‹46537 _Toc4551$4133 _Toc4&5370867 _Toc455144134 _Toѣ423552г07 _Toc455144131-�Tob4653 Toc4551$4133 _Toc4&5370867 _Toc455144134 _Tocд235523а7 _Toc455144131-_⁔ob46537 0068 _Toc445455222 _toc4499848�7 _ïjc449998371č_Toc4500018�1 _Toc450²60967 _Toc4503 4120 _Toc450451997 _Toc4ȶ5370869č_Toc$67370870 _Toc‴65370871 _To董45514413Ķ şToc4653 70872 _Toc465370873 §Toc465370ĸ74 _Toc4673708ķ5 _\ūc4653?087v _Toc4551 41�8 _Toc4653728�7 ^Toc454144139 _Toc46%3708 78 _Toc465370879 _Toc458967852 _Toc458969227 _Toc458974130 _Toc459974355

_P�c458974295 �Toɣ458¹75 8 _Toc465370879 _Toc458967852 _Toc458969227 _Toc458974130 _Toc459974355 _Po�458974295 _�ocȴ58¹753 69 _Toc458976488�_Toc4�5370820 _Toc464370831 _Toc465370880 _Toc�|537İ881 _Toc464370882 _Toc46е3708ĸ3 _Toc4589 _Toc464370882 _Toc4ж5370ĸ83 _Toc4589 853 _Toc45896 7�53 _Toc458969 228 _Tog<5893453õ _Tocȴ589?4ȳ56 28 _Tog<58934531č_Toc4ȵ89?43ȵ6 _Toc458975¥96 _Toc458 Toc458975"Ü6 _Toc4589 7%3ж0 _T.c458976489 _T %36а _T.c458976489 _To c46µ370822 �Uoc380996274 _Toc423552334 óToc458967854 _Toc458969229 ɟToc45ȸ974132 _Toc45897д357

_To c458975297 _To 458975297 _Toc 458975371_Toc458976490 _Toc38 9962'� _Toѣ42#552335 _Tg458967855 9962䀧5 _Tѯc42#552335 _⁔og458967855 9230 _toc�5897$±33 _Toc4 5897�358 _Toc4=и975298 _Toţ458975372 _Toc45�976491 _ 8974�58 _Toc4=8й75298 _TocĴ58975372 _Toc458Ü76491 _T oc465370 23M_Toc380996276č_Toc42355倲33ȶЍ_Toc4�8)6 7856 _T 856 _To c45896�231 _Toc458974134ȍ_T 458969�31 _Toc458974134 ɟTo c458974359 _Toc458975299 _Tnc458975373 _Toc4�8972492 ]Toc4�5370824 _T•c45896w857 Tob458969232 _Toc458974135 _Toc478974360

_ _Tѯc45897µ�74 _Toc 3 _Tocȴ6537�ȸ25 _Tgc458Ĺ67858 SToc458969233 _Toc458�741ĳ6 _Toc4�8й7636q �Toc058975301 _Toc 58975375 _ɔoc458976д94 _Toc465370826 _Ŕoc458967859 _Doc458969234 _Toc458974137 _Toc458974г62 _Tnc4±897530 2 _To45897=376 _Toc4589764;5 _Toc46537082� ]Tůc4589678v0 �T _Toc‴5897=376 _Toc4589764;5 _Toc465370827�]Toţ4589678v0 _�o 58969Ĳ35 _Ĕ c458974134 _Toc458974363 _Toc4µ8��5303 _Toc4%8975377 _TOc4�8=76496 _Toc465370828 _�oc4589678ж1 _Tɯc458�79236 _Tkc4589�‴õ39 _Toc458974гĖ4 _Toc448 975304 _達ob458875378 _Toc45и976497 75304

_T遯b458875378 _Toc458й76497 _To‹$65�7082Ĺ To‹$653�0829č 699э_Toc455010841傍_Toc46�37 Toc465″70 830 _Toc458967862 _Toc45896=2³7 _Toc45817‴140 Toc458 _Ŕoc4589 74 43 65 _To�458Ĺ7%305 _Toc4 (97537= _Toc05�976498 _Toc4�5г7ä831 _T (97537= _Toc0�8976498 _Toc�6е3�0831 _T 465#70832 _Toc45и96786 cд65#70832 _Toc458й67863 _Toc45896y2ĳ8 _Toc458974141 _Toc458974376 _Toc45xÜ7530| _Toa458975380 _T Toc458974376 _Toc45x9�530| _Toa458975380 _To c45897649¹ _Toc�65370833 _Toc458967ĸ6< _Toc558969′39 _Toc458й34142 _Tc458y74367

_Uoc 45897649¹ _Toc4�5370833 _Toc4589678Ķ< _Toc5589692″9 _Toc4589г4142 _To458y74367 _Uoc4 58¹75307 _Toc458975381 _Toc45897 500 _Toc46537¡�34 _T�c465370835 _Toc46537083ж _Toc4�5г508″7 _Toc450�64806 _Toc 445370839 _T/c3410790<4 _Toc34115±32ȱ oc341153 c3411530 59 _Toc3422 9 _Toc34220 _Toc35017 Toc350172 718 _Toc35017331 _Toc3510307:1 _Toc34¡079085 _Toc3�1151322 _Toc#41153070 _Toc3510307:1 _Toc34¡079085 _Toc�41151322 _Toc#41153070 [Toc34 204244 [Toc3Ĵ2204244 Doc350176�20_Toc350173314 _Tɯc 3�11207 2ƫ 5�1207 2ÇĀÇĀÇĀÇ◌ंÇ䄀ÇĀÇĀÂĀ«̀«̀«̀«̀«�µ«̀̀«̀ïЀïЀïЀÍЀïЀïЀïЂïЀ

FyO-Fn h_[/f* D RuÌ F<@h A"lYm8 p/J"?]7h &>e"à5?y 2>B'IA q go0(1P H .")}=[ fm(*E: P YAg+8o 3 szi,IA q *qH/;D 4 IY;0ìYm8 H`'1MA a 03x#!p !w6'3n3 $x|6d4 & Xm8n{0I _);P^If N(Z;IA q N\U<IA q 9~]<(41m :t="Ccb 6j>' /< 8"?"f? *44Aëh68 )&;Ao&+o@ 'UAd=z [Au/\W '}5C#eBÿ WG4]:% i_8HIk k7VI.B Aq#J”.~c

PiK8'.: zLp0)Y `UŒL+5@v }EÌMF<@h n zP5mK) VQ8.i| -;ZQ_c!W XIrQ3G M <mÔQ(41m O,,RìYm8 "dHR% B TXªS:R"g ?JCTkH W .QW_wq* 4eY8vo QW·Z'3n3 ]@Á[8ZLO /7D]E8 P U2b*eB? 8WÜr'3j3 ”.~cn=\p :-PdIA Zwpds" V ~}4gIA q Kvéhn{:X 7J{iÁ$Z~ "-YmìYm8 ZI%nx#!p Qi?pkH w ,AXp8o 3 XHYpII q n=\`œ3|8 R.q !jn \-jq"f? R,wqìYm8 "<su:v +5Lv5{

@ )V9w8o 3 :Y}xìYm8 =e=yâ9bp G7Py8o 3 i0/z% B 8.i|<s % _}$@v~$ ?'@+D' sZ6 ^6 qWL MeL rwR MzR l_@ln_ Qa@XVa +e@G-e 5m@T?m ¯@m 1c\(Tdl >}@W?} UnkownØ Times New Roman Times New Roman�ḵƐ EspriT-åook Times New Roman TimesNewR�man TimesNew�oman Times Jew Roman Times Jew Roman Cambri`,Bold- Identity-⁈ dentity-H MS Mincho MS Mincho Cali"ri Cali"ri Cambria Math Cambria Math TieesNewђo聭an-Identity-H TieesNeѷR�man-Identity-H MS!Mincho MS!Mincho CambriaIšth Cambriaŉath

MS Mincho MS Mincho i~herit i~herit Timťs Nev�RoŭaŮËq Tiŭes Ne� RůmšnËqƐ TimesNewPolan,Italic TimesNewPolan,Italic Times New ђoman Times NewРRoman illSans illSans GilѬ Sans GiѬl Sans Verdan dvP411 A�vP4115 3C TimesÊNe7 Rgma TimesÊNe7 Rgmn @Camb�ia @Camsia Tahoma Helvetica@O Times New`RomyѮ Times New`Romѹn Tkmes New�Roma GŒorgia GŒorgia Segoe I Segoe�UI Wingdings Wingdings Couriťr ourieŲ O charles&oouonzi charles&oouonzi charles.okuonxi Normal Microsoft Offibe Word _PID_HLINKS http://www.mubs.ac.ug/ho /GemUG201 GemUG2010 ExecRep.p`f

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1778 http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1778Ȁ耟 Uoc4653?�838 _\nc465370837 _\nc465370837 _Tnc46537 _Tnc46537 ^Doc465г708г5 ^Doc46е370и35 _ToC465370834 _ToC465370834 _T/c42 370933 _T/c4Ĳ5370933 oc46=³70832 oc4Ķ5374831 _Toc46 370830Ѐ _Toc4~5370829 _Toc4~5370829 _Tnc465370828 _Tnc465370828 6537Ȱ827 _Toc465370826@ _Toc465370826@ _Toc465370825 _Toc465370825 _Toc«�5370823� _Toc46537¡�23 _Toc46537肰823 _Toc4|5 370821 _Toc46537p820 _Toc46537p820 _Toc4 µ370819 _T•c465370818 _T•c465370818 _Toc4|5370817 _Toc4|5370817 _Toc465370816 _Toc465370816 _Toc46537081� _Toc4653708�5 _Toc465370814

_Toc465370814 465370813 _Toc465∳708б2 _Toc46∵370и12 _Toc46 370811 To�465370810 ^Toc465370809 ^Toc465370809Ā _t�c465370808 _�oc465370808 _Toc465370827 _Toc465370827 _Toc465370806 _Toc465370806 _Toc465�70805 _Toc46�370805 _To�465370804 _T�c465370804䈀 _Toc46137080 _Doc465370802 _Doc465370802 _Voc465370801 _Voc465370801 [Toc46 537ä(00 Toc465360799 _Toѣ�65370 _Tѯ�465370 _Toţ465370797 _Tůc465370797 _Toc4>5370796 _Toc4>5370796 _Toc465370795 _Toc465370795 _Toc46537079д _Toc4653707й4 _Toc4�5370з93 _Toc�6537а793 _TocĴ653707й2 _Toţ465370з92 Toc4653707�1 65370790 _™oc4&5370789 _™oc4&5370789 _Toc4�5370788

_Toc‴65370788 oc5653 _TocĴ65370706 _Toc465370785 _Toc465370785 _Toc464370784 _Toc464370784 _Tnc465370783 _Tnc465370783 _Toc46537 _Toc46537 _Toc46537078q _Toc46537078q _Toc46 70780 _Toc4��370780 _Toc46537б778 _Toc4653з1778 _Toc465370778 Toc465370777 _Toc465370776@ _Toc465370775 _Toc465370775Ā _Toc46 _Toc46 _Toc46537¡#73 _Toc46537¡#73 _Toc4653?0772 _Toc4653?0772 _Toc465370771 _Toc465370770 _Toc465370770 653ķ0749 65ĳ70749 _Toc465370768 _Toc465370768 _Toc4ж5370767@ _Tocд65370767@ _Toc465370766 _Toc465370766 _Toѣ4653 Tocд653? 0765 _Tѯc465370764 _єoc465370764 Root Entrx

WordDocument WordDocument ummaryInfgrmationȀ cu-entSummaryInfnrѭ!ti MsoDat Store MsoDaŴaStore `SE0|6 1…LPEñQî�S×ZOBåRA== `SE0|6 Prnperties Prnperties MacrOs MacrOs `SE0|6 `SE0|6 `SE0|6 `SE0|6 <b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA. tyleName="APA Fiftè Edition" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliïgraphy" hmlns="Xttp://sghemaS.opEnxmlforgats.org?offiseDocument/2006/biblkographY¢></r:SouRces> <?xml version="1.0" encodmng="uTF-8b stajdalone="no"?> <dw:datastoreItem ds:itemID=*{2%3B010B-8BBD-4C3C-904@-D4B764606244}" xmìns:dr_"http;//schgmas.openxmlformats> rg/officeDocumenu?r006/customXml"><ds:scjemaRefs<|ds:schemaRef t3:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats. rg/officeDocument/2006/bablIography"/.</ds:schemaRefs></ds:datAótoReItem> Projuct \G{00020°430- 2.0#0#S: \WinDows \SxsVOW6 e2.4lb #OLD Aut_omatign ENormil !Offic BFA-101PB-BDE5_gAjA_e4_ ram"File s (x86)\@Common Microsof t Shared

\OFFICE1d ThisDncument _VBA_PROJEGT _VBA_PROJEGT PROJECT PROJECT 5\MSO.DL 0 Ob_æ Li`brary fThisDoc umenTC 1Noreal.ThisDocument Attribut e VB_Fam e = "Thi sDocumen Normal VGlobal! Pre decla Tru bExp lateDepi $Custom *^G{00 304EF-000ä-0000-C000-�0а000000046}#4.2#9#Cz\PROGRA~2\COMMON>1\ iC⁒OR~1\VBA\V CR�R~1\VBA\VB A'.1\VBE7.ńLL#Visual Bas)c�For Appliations *\G{00220905-0000-0000-C000耭000000000046ѭ#8.6# #C:\Pr�g�em Fhles (x86)\

\G{00220905-0000-0000-C000-�00000000046mУ8.6# #C:\Pro聧r�m Fhles (x86)\M icroso&t ɏffic�\Mffice15\ESWORD.GLЂ#M�crosovt Word 15 0 Object LiɢraRy 0 Object LɩbraRy *]Gѻ000204�0 -000¡�0 000¡-� 0 0 C000-010�00000 000-0100�00000 46}#2.0+ #G:\Cindowび\SysWOW74\stdoɬe2.Tmb#OL

6}#2.0+ #G:\CindowsぜSysWOW74\stdolɥ2.Tmb#OLE toma4ion *\CNormal *\CNormal +\C�ormal-

*\C�2DF:D05C-5BFA-101B-BDE5-00AA�044DE53}#2.7#0cA:\Program F�les (|86)\⁃ommon Files\Mi 4Ī\C{�DF:D05C-5BFA-101B-BDE5-00AA0�44DE53}#2.7#0cA:\Program Fi�es (|86)\Cmmon Files\Mic osoft soft [ hared\�FFICE15^M O.DLL#Micr�s oft�Oɦfice 1е.0 ObhectšLibrary UhirDocumGnt UhirDocumGnt 2N49�a59c6•ＡȘThisDůcumentØ￥А Uin64x Pboject-¬ stdole ` Normal Offace ThisDocument|Ÿ valuate D="k7 97331F-EC23)02A0-BC5C-1C±2B16q94C0}" Document=ThisDocument/&H80000000 Name="Project" HelpS/ntextID="0" VersiooGompátible32=¢393"22000" CMG|"797BC533C933C933C933C9" DPB="Æ2F04EL5C6D6C6DvC6" GC="6B6 D75C515D515DAE" [Host Extender Info] &H000 p001={3(32D640-CF90-!1CF-8E43-00A0C911005A};VBE;&H00000000 Th)sDocumejt tThisDocUm%nt

Mhkrosoft Word!97-2007 Dobument MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 PROJECTwm PROJECTwm CompOb

FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP … · 2019-05-16 · FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND...

Documents

Transcript of FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP … · 2019-05-16 · FOLLOWER VOICE BEHAVIOUR AND...