Post on 24-Oct-2015
description
THE PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP STYLE OF SENIOR ENLISTED PERSONNEL
IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
Dissertation
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
Valerie E. Davis
Prescott Valley, Arizona March 2011
UMI Number: 3455108
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3455108 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright ©2011
Valerie E. Davis
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
The Perceived Leadership Style of Senior Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces
by
Valerie E. Davis
Approved by:
Daljit Singh, Ph.D. Date
Conrad Francis, Ph.D.
Shirley Johnson, Ph.D.
Certified by:
School Dean: Arthur Lee Smith, Ph.D. Date
in
Acknowledgements
The inspiration for this topic came while I served in the U.S. Armed Forces for more than
20 years, leading the world's best military personnel and using various organizational
leadership strategies to motivate and inspire them to achieve organizational and personal
goals. I strived to be a servant leader who inspired others through facilitation and
motivation. I express honor and thanks to my great Lord, Jesus Christ; without him this
journey would have never been possible. Many thanks and appreciation to each person
who has encouraged me throughout this long journey and kept pushing and supporting
me to remain steadfast, stay in the race, and never give up. Thanks to my Chair, Dr. Daljit
Singh and committee members Dr. Shirley Johnson and Dr. Conrad Francis for your
support and encouragement. A special thanks to Dr. Hugh Glenn, an angel who mentored
and supported me throughout this difficult process, challenging me to remain focused and
stay in the race because the end was in sight. Thank you so much, Dr. Glenn. You were
always a calming presence and terrific resource. Your outstanding mentorship,
persistence, insightful feedback, support, and innate ability to empower me are greatly
appreciated. My dearest friend, Dr. Michael J. Springs and I have been "Chiefs in arms"
for many years and close friends. Thanks to you for your unwavering belief and support.
I could not have completed this project without your unwavering faith in my abilities. My
thanks to Rita Ferenack and Kevin Smith, outstanding academic advisors at Northcentral
University. Completion of this project would not have been possible without the love and
prayers of my family: my parents, George and Pearl Green, who reared me to believe in
myself and taught me the value of hard work, my wonderful husband Kevin and amazing
sons Jason and Michael, the joys of my life who offered endless encouragement and
iv
support. I treasure the love and support they gave me while I was earning my degree.
They supported me, sacrificing our time together so that I could fulfill my goal. They told
me many times that I could not quit, never complaining or doubting I would finish. I owe
my husband and sons an unimaginable debt of gratitude. Finally, I graciously thank God
for putting these wonderful people into my life and for giving me the fortitude and
character required to staying the course.
v
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership style of
senior enlisted leaders (SELs) as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-
perceived by SELs. Transactional leadership has been traditionally used by SELs in the
U.S. military; however, transformational leadership is the most effective leadership style.
The greater use of transformational leadership would potentially increase re-enlistments
and extend the long-term service of SELs. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) and a demographic survey were used to collect data from SELs and junior
enlisted personnel. A sample of SELs and junior subordinates received an e-mail with
directions for completing an online survey and questionnaire. Data were used for
comparing perceptions of leadership style based upon participants' age, gender,
education, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, military organizational
unit, and years of military service. Exploratory data analysis, a ^test of independent
samples, a one-way, a two-way ANOVA, and Tukey's Honest Significant Difference
Test were used for data analysis. In rating the leadership style of SELs, significant
differences were found between scores recorded by SELs and junior subordinates based
upon age gender, rank, race-ethnicity, leadership effectiveness, and organizational unit.
No significant difference in leadership style was found between SELs and junior
subordinates based on education, leadership satisfaction, or years of military service.
Future research could include observing the leadership styles used by SELs, compare
ratings of observed leadership styles with ones of perceived styles. An improved
understanding of more effective leadership practices and their use would likely improve
troop morale and aid in retaining experienced SELs and junior subordinates.
vi
Table of Contents
List of Tables vii
List of Figures xi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Background 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Theoretical Framework 4 Research Questions 6 Nature of the Study 10 Significance of the Study 11 Importance of the Study 11 Definitions 12 Summary 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16 Leadership 16 Current Leadership Research 20 Great Man Theory 23 Trait Theories 23 Contingency Theories 25 Situational Theories 25 Participative Theories 26 Behavioral Theory 26 Social Cognitive Theory 28 Civilian and Military Leadership 29 Organizational Leadership 31 Management vs. Leadership 32 Styles of Leadership 33 Transformational Leadership 34 Transactional Leadership 38 Passive/Avoidance Leadership 39 Leadership Decision-Making 40 Leader and Leadership Development 41 Self-Efficacy and Leadership 42 Summary 43
Chapter 3: Research Method 46 Research Questions 46 Participants 50 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis 57 Data Analysis 58 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 59 Delimitations 59
vn
Summary 61
Chapter 4: Findings 62 Research Question 1 66 Research Question 2 67 Research Question 3 68 Research Question 4 76 Research Question 5 84 Research Question 6 90 Research Question 7 98 Research Question 8 104 Summary I l l
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 113 Implications 114 Recommendations 118 Conclusions 120
References 122
APPENDICES 134 APPENDIX A-MLQ Sample Items 135 APPENDIX B - Informed Consent Forms 139 APPENDIX C - Demographic Survey Appendix 141
Vlll
List of Tables
Table 1: Gender and Age of Respondents 51 Table 2: Gender and Race-Ethnicity of Respondents 51 Table 3: Years in Current Grade of Respondents 52 Table 4: Rank and Age of Respondents 52 Table 5: Status in Rank Relative to SELs 53 Table 6: MLQ Scoring 55 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Effectiveness 67 Table 8: t test of Independent Samples for Leadership Effectiveness 67 Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Satisfaction 68 Table 10: t Test of Independent Samples for Leadership Satisfaction 68 Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transformational Leadership 69 Table 12: Between-Subject Effects for Gender and Transformational Leadership 70 Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transactional Leadership 72 Table 14: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Gender 73 Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Passive-Avoidance Leadership 74 Table 16: Between Subjects Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership 74 Table 17: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Leadership Outcomes 75 Table 18: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Gender 76 Table 19: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Race 77 Table 20: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and
Race-Ethnicity 78 Table 21: Significant Differences for Transformational Leadership and
Race-Ethnicity 78 Table 22: Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership and Race 79 Table 23: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Race-Ethnicity 80 Table 24: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance and Race-Ethnicity 81 Table 25: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance and Race-Ethnicity 82 Table 26: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Race-Ethnicity 83 Table 27: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Race-Ethnicity 84 Table 28: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Age 85 Table 29: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Age 85 Table 30: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Age 86 Table 31: Descriptive Statistics for Passive-Avoidance and Age 87 Table 32: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership and Age 87 Table 33: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Age 89 Table 34: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Age 89 Table 35: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Transformational Leadership 91 Table 36: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Education 92 Table 37: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Transactional Leadership 93 Table 38: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Education 94 Table 39: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Passive-Avoidance Leadership 95 Table 40: Between-Subject Effects for Passive Avoidance Leadership and Education....96 Table 41: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Leadership Outcomes 97
IX
Table 42: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Education 98 Table 43: Descriptive Statistics: Transformational and Years of Military Service 99 Table 44: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Years of
Military Service 99 Table 45: Descriptive Statistics of Transactional Leadership and Years of Military
Service 100 Table 46: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Years of
Military Service 101 Table 47: Descriptive Statistics for Passive Avoidance and Years of Military Service ..102 Table 48: Between-Subject Effects for Passive Avoidance and Years of Military
Service 102 Table 49: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Years of Military
Service 103 Table 50: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Years of Military
Service 104 Table 51: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Unit 105 Table 52: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Unit 105 Table 53: Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership and Unit 106 Table 54: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Unit 107 Table 55: Descriptive Statistics for Passive Avoidance and Unit 108 Table 56: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership and Unit 109 Table 57: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Unit 110 Table 58: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Unit 110 Table 59: Significant Differences in Leadership Scores Between SELs and Junior
Subordinates 112
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Estimated marginal means of transformational leadership 71 Figure 2: Estimated marginal means of passive avoidance 88 Figure 3: Estimated marginal means of leadership outcomes 90 Figure 4: Estimated marginal means of transactional leadership 107 Figure 5: Estimated marginal means of leadership outcomes I l l
XI
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Leadership challenges facing the U.S. military have changed markedly in recent
decades (Fraher, 2010; Hinton, 2001). The world is changing faster than previously
imagined. The pace and scope of change and technical development is such that to
continue to meet future personnel needs, the U.S. military needs to adopt practices and
strategies that improve troop morale and the retention of experienced leaders. Senior
enlisted leaders (SELs), having acquired knowledge, skills, and experience, are highly
proficient in completing core competencies and adapting to conditions across the
spectrum of conflict (Bradley & Charbonneau, 2010). Whether junior subordinates find
satisfaction in the military and re-enlist depends in part on the leadership effectiveness of
SELs. The low retention of military personnel increases the costs of training and
negatively affects the military's effectiveness (Cheese, Thomas, & Craig, 2007; Hinton,
2001).
Background
Military leaders believe that dispatching the right leaders to the right place at the
right time combined with providing advanced experience produces a great force
multiplier, a ripple effect extending throughout a military organization. Since
transitioning to all-volunteer armed forces, the military environment has changed
markedly, each branch becoming self-sustaining and self-renewing. In the U.S. Armed
Forces, a maximum of 3% of enlisted personnel may advance to E8 or E9, and only 1%
may advance to E9, a senior enlisted leader. According to current regulations, only 1% of
active duty enlisted personnel will ever serve as chiefs (S. Res. Title 10 USC 517, 2006).
Hinton (2001) noted problems that began during the 1990s resulting from downsizing the
2
U.S. military and the loss of personnel because of retirement have affected "leadership
continuity and succession planning" (p. 2). Limiting advancement opportunities for
enlisted personnel increases the difficulty to retain them for long-term service. Re-
enlistment among junior subordinates depends in part on satisfaction with the military
life, which depends to some extent on the leadership skills of SELs.
Senior enlisted leaders are the military's first-line leaders. Currently, the
professional literature lacks a comprehensive understanding regarding how transactional
and transformational leadership influence the leadership practices of SELs or how
various leadership styles affect decision making. A few studies have focused on
outcomes of leadership styles by investigating selected traits and behaviors of effective
leaders (McCormick, 2001). These studies, however, have not examined leadership as a
process. This study compared the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as perceived by junior enlisted
personnel and as self-perceived by SELs. The following predictor variables of leadership
style were explored: age, education, gender, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership
satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of military service. Identifying the perceived
use of transformational leadership and comparing perceptions of its use by SELs provides
a basis for increasing its use, whose more frequent application would likely positively
affect troop satisfaction and increase re-enlistment rates.
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed in the study is the traditional use of autocratic and
bureaucratic leadership in the U.S. military, an aspect of transactional leadership that
potentially results in a wide range of personnel problems and negative effects related to
3
troop morale. Two principal effects are difficulties in retaining experienced SELs and
problems in recruiting new junior subordinates.
Autocratic leaders typically act unilaterally, making decisions and dictating the
work methods that subordinates must follow to complete their assigned tasks.
Bureaucratic leadership, a form of autocratic leadership, has been the most prevalently
leadership style used in the U.S. military. Weber (1947) coined the term bureaucratic
leadership to describe a leadership style used by leaders whose position empowered them
with the authority to impose disciplinary standards. Subordinates advance or receive a
promotion to the extent they conform to the orders and rules of the leader. Leadership
that is more effective results from the combine use of transformational and transactional
leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Identifying prevalent leadership
styles in the U.S. military would provide an empirical basis for initiating educational and
training programs to implement the wider use of transformational leadership. Moreover,
perceptions of leadership style may vary based on factors such as age, education, gender,
race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of
military service. The use of more transformational and less transactional leadership
potentially facilitates extending the active service of experienced SELs and improving
troop morale among junior subordinates, which potentially facilitates their re-enlistment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership
style of SELs as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-perceived by SELs.
The Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2006) provided a
useful tool for studying leadership styles (see Appendix A). In this study, the short form
4
of the MLQ was used to compare leadership styles between SELs and junior enlisted
personnel to determine whether perceptions of leadership among SELs differed from
perceptions of their leadership among junior subordinates. Based upon an ordinal scale,
the MLQ measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each leadership style,
although leadership styles may coexist and are not always mutually exclusive (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008). Perceptions of leadership style could vary between the groups based
upon a wide range of factors. In this study, a demographic survey was used to investigate
several variables for their perceived effect on leadership style; for example, education,
gender, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, and years of military
service. For instance, if it were found that males and not females perceived that SELs
used more transactional leadership than transformational leadership, this perception could
negatively affect long-term service and troop morale. Such a finding would identify the
need for SELs to change the perceptions of junior subordinates, which could require a
change in their leadership style.
Theoretical Framework
Organizational leadership served as the broad theoretical framework for this
study. The specific theoretical model, the Full Range Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio,
2006; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccilo, 2004), combined five
dimensions of transformational leadership and four dimensions of transactional
leadership. The model consisted of three types of leadership behaviors—
transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership—and represented nine
distinct factors (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Dimensions of
transformational leadership are idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence
5
(behavior), inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Dimensions of
transactional leadership are contingent reward, management by exception (active), and
two passive/avoidance behaviors—management by exception (passive) and laissez-faire.
The MLQ (Bass & Avolio) identifies and measures these factors.
Burns (1985) coined the term transformational leadership in 1978 to describe the
ideal situation between leaders and followers. During the 1980s, the concept of
transformational and transactional leadership that Burns (1978) originally proposed was
refined and operationalized by Bass (1985), whose multifactor leadership theory
encompassed a range of leader behaviors including charismatic and mundane. The Full
Range Leadership Model further refined and extended the multifactor leadership theory.
Conceptual frameworks of leadership range from nonleadership (laissez-faire), to
transactional leadership based on rewards and punishments, to transformational
leadership based on leaders' behavioral charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Leadership
theories include trait theory, situational leadership, behavioral, the
contingency/situational model, social cognitive theory, and path-goal theory (McFadden,
Eakin, Beck-Frazier, & McGlone, 2005). Avolio and Gardner (2005) pointed out that the
vast majority of leadership theories did not focus on the core process of leadership. As a
result, rigorous testing of theories did not occur, so theories were inadequately developed,
and conceptualizations of leadership emerged posthoc (Avolio & Gardner).
Individual perspectives influenced the ways that researchers have defined
leadership, usually "in terms of traits, behaviors, influence, interaction patterns, role
relationships, and occupation of an administrative position" (Yukl, 2006, p. 20). The
majority of definitions assume that leadership includes one person intentionally
6
influencing other persons; otherwise, definitions of leadership have little else in common,
differing in purpose, manner, and outcome of influence (Yukl). A fundamental
disagreement among researchers regarding the identification of leaders and leadership
processes has led some theorists to question whether leadership is a useful scientific
construct (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). Researchers with different concepts of
leadership have used different phenomena to investigate leadership and have interpreted
results differently. When the concept of leadership is limited, however, the researcher is
"less likely to discover things unrelated to or inconsistent with their initial assumptions
about effective leadership" (Yukl, 2006, p. 21).
The population in this study consisted of 400 military service personnel from
three branches of the U.S. military services stationed in the United States. Based upon a
power analysis using tools provided online by Creative Research Systems (2010), the
sample consisted of approximately 260 SELs and junior subordinates selected from the
population. The sample included male and female SELs and junior subordinates.
Approximately 130 SELs and 130 junior enlisted personnel were selected to complete the
MLQ and a demographic survey.
Research Questions
The research questions and related hypotheses for this study were as follows:
Q l : Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership
effectiveness of SELs?
Q2: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceived satisfaction of the
leadership style of SELs?
7
Q3: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon gender?
Q4: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon race?
Q5: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon age?
Q6: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon education?
Q7: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon years of military service?
Q8: Do perceptions of the leadership style of SELs differ between the self-
perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates based upon
their assigned military organizational unit?
Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and perceptions of junior subordinates.
Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
race do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
9
race differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H6o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
H6a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
H7o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
10
H7a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H8o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H8a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
Nature of the Study
This study sought to determine the extent to which SELs in the U.S. Armed Forces
practiced principles of transformational leadership by comparing the self-perceptions of
SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates. Four ieadership styles were examined:
transactional, transformational, passive/avoidant and leadership outcomes. In addition,
ratings of leadership effectiveness and leadership satisfaction of SELs were compared
between SELs and junior subordinates. Each member of the sample of SELs and
subordinates completed the MLQ and a brief demographic survey.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 19) and Minitab (Version
16) were used for data analysis. Exploratory data analysis was used to create frequency
distributions, histograms, and probability plots. Descriptive statistics were calculated for
11
each data set. A t test of independent samples was used for testing null hypotheses 1, 2,
and 3; a one-way and two-way ANOVA was used for testing hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Tukey's Honest Significant Difference Test, a posthoc comparison test, was used for
analyzing significant F ratios.
Significance of the Study
Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are both aspects and
complementary styles of organizational leadership. There is no formula or checklist to
use that identifies whether the use of one style is more relevant than the other in any
given situation (Homrig, 2001); however, lacking an understanding of the potential
usefulness of each style may result in ineffective leadership. SELs often lack leadership
education and remain largely unaware of leadership styles and leadership research
regarding effective practices and the roles that leaders play (Whitehead, 2009).
This study sought to contribute to the professional literature in several ways; for
example, by providing useful information regarding perceptions of the leadership style of
SELs as perceived by junior subordinates and self-perceived by SELs. Little is known
about perceptions of leadership style held by SELs and junior subordinates. Therefore,
military leaders could potentially profit by understanding how subordinates perceive the
leadership of SELs and how SELs self-perceive the effectiveness and satisfaction of their
leadership. In short, findings would be useful for SELs to know how their leadership is
perceived by junior subordinates.
Importance of the Study
The United States military changed markedly after terrorists attacked New York
City on September 11, 2001. America found itself at war against global terrorists—at
12
home and abroad (Government Accountability Office, 2006), which extended the role of
the military beyond fighting wars to facilitating peace and stability to obviate combat
(Kem, 2006). Technical advancements have transformed modern warfare. Service
personnel are now requiring different, more integrated leadership skills than existed in
previous environments (Fraher, 2010). Furthermore, training procedures and leadership
development of SELs have changed to address new challenges (Connon, Naro, &
McCabe, 2006) and their role in improving decision-making (Rausch, 2006).
It is important to understand perceptions of leadership among junior subordinates
and self-perceptions of SELs regarding the effectiveness and satisfaction of their
leadership. To help fill the void in the literature, further research into leadership styles of
SELs is warranted along with investigating the leadership style of SELs by comparing the
self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates. The need for the
Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit and retain military personnel in the all-volunteer
armed forces has increased since Operation Iraqi Freedom (Scully, 2007). The number of
retirees has increased, creating the need for more recruits. Moreover, the number of
experienced service personnel retained and the number of eligible recruits have
decreased. Troop deployments have surged, and military personnel commonly serve
multiple deployments (Government Accountability Office, 2006). Long-term separation
from spouses and children lessens the likelihood that experienced members of the
military want to continue to serve on active duty.
Definitions
This study included the use of the following key terms:
13
Core values. Operating philosophies or principles that guide an organization's
internal conduct as well as its relationship with the external world. They are usually
found summarized in the mission or a statement of core values (Bruman, 2009).
Junior subordinates. A diverse corps of functionality and operationally
specialized airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines (DoD, 2009).
Esprit de corps. Devotion and enthusiasm among members of a group for one
another (DoD Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff, 2009).
Ethics. Set of values that guide behavior and performance of military personnel
(DoD, 2008).
Laissez-faire leadership. The absence of leadership. The leader delays decisions
making, does not provide timely feedback, and makes little effort to help followers
satisfy their needs to grow; in a sense, this term refers to the absence of leadership
(Northouse, 2009).
Military citizen. A person who owes allegiance to a government and who is
entitled to protection by that government (DoD Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff,
2009).
Passive-avoidant leadership. A leadership style involving an abstention from
responsibility, decision making, providing feedback, and passive indifference toward
worker growth (Yukl, 2006).
Positional leadership. Positional leadership in a unidirectional or managerial
way; that is, as a quality associated with position and rank rather than influence with
followers (Hesselbein & Shinsek, 2004).
14
Professional military education. Military education in schools that provide the
continuum of education necessary to inspire and develop enlisted leaders with the moral
framework of integrity, service, and excellence (Ord, 2006). Professional military
education is academic education that enhances performance in each phase of professional
development and build on the foundation of leadership abilities during the earlier stages
of an individual's career (Huguley, 2009).
Self-efficacy. The belief that individuals are capable of performing in a certain
manner to attain desired goals and their capability to achieve designated performance
proficiency that influence events and affect the lives of others (Margolis & McCabe,
2006).
Senior enlisted leaders. Senior enlisted leaders are experienced individuals who
use leadership to leverage resources and personnel to complete missions (Huguley,
2009).
Transactional leadership. Leadership that motivates subordinates by appealing
to their self-interests and exchanging benefits that may include pay and benefits in return
for work effort (Yukl, 2006).
Transformational leadership. Leadership that appeals to the moral values of
followers to raise their self-consciousness (Yukl, 2006).
Summary
During the 1980s, Bass (1999) refined and operationalized the concept of
transformational and transactional leadership, a concept originally proposed by Burns
(1985). According to this model, leadership ranges from nonleadership (laissez-faire), to
transactional leadership based on rewards and punishments, to transformational
15
leadership based on the leader's behavioral charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Transactional leaders believe that clarifying goals and providing rewards result in
individuals and groups fulfilling their goals. Transformational leaders move followers
beyond immediate self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration (Bass). Transformational
leadership is regarded as the best single type of leadership, but the most effective
leadership results from the combined use of transformational and transactional leadership
(Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006).
16
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter reviews selected leadership literature, definitions, qualities and skills
of leaders, and findings of current leadership research. Stogdill (1974) noted, "There are
almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to
define the concept; however, there are central defining elements of organizational
leadership that have some consensus in the literature" (p. 259). A discussion is included
of principal leadership theories; e.g., the great man theory, trait theory, contingency
theory, situational theory, participative theory, behavioral theory, and social cognitive
theory. Addressed are civilian and military leadership including leadership development,
education, organizational leadership, leadership experiences, leadership styles, and types
of leadership: transformational, transactional, passive/avoidance, and charismatic
leadership. An overview of leadership decision making is followed by a summary of
historical trends in leadership development. The chapter concludes with an overview of
self-efficacy and leadership.
Leadership
Leadership is a universal factor present in human societies, affecting their
destinies in important ways (Bennis, 2007). Researchers have proposed multiple
definitions of leadership that focus on various aspects of leaders' behaviors, situations,
and styles (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (2006)
described leadership as the engagement of leaders and followers, valuing the
contributions of participants and distributed power among leaders and followers.
Akinboye (2005) defined leadership as leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals
that represent values and motivations, wants and needs, and the aspirations and
17
expectations of leaders and followers. Leadership and followership serve several group
functions. Resource sharing requires a mechanism such as leadership for maintaining
group unity and managing intragroup conflicts (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008).
An evolutionary approach to the study of leadership potentially generates novel
hypotheses about leadership psychology that can be empirically verified in experimental
research (Van Vugt, et al. 2008). Leadership studies have traditionally focused on leader-
centrism and situational leadership (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Definitions of
leadership recognized that the practice of leadership, although dependent upon the leader,
is influenced by context. Hershey, Blanchard, and Dewey (2007) defined leadership as "a
dynamic process, varying from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers,
and situations" (p. 92). In theory, individuals can be trained to adapt leadership styles to
specific situations (Hershey, et al., 2007).
Leadership is an elusive concept. Burns (1978) opined, "Many of us do not have
the faintest concept of what leadership is all about" (p. 451). Other scholars agree that
there has been a lack of congruence in the field of leadership with little agreement on
how leadership is studied and practiced (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Even identifying
a common definition of leadership is challenging. Rost (1993) identified 221 various
definitions of leadership. Lacking a common definition, it is no wonder that
misconceptions about leadership abound. There are two basic reasons for misconceptions
about leadership. First, conceptions of leadership are influenced by a socially constructed
leader-centric view of leadership; second, the way in which leadership is understood has
changed through the years, leaving an ambiguous understanding of this construct
(Burchard, 2008).
18
The word leadership is commonly used to refer to social experiences and to
provide meaning to common events (Fairhurst, 2005). Cummins (2006) described three
popular notions that influence understanding of leadership: leadership as excellence,
leadership as administration, and leadership as management. Because these popular
conceptions of leadership pervade society, they have influenced individual understanding
of leadership and the role of a leader. This social construction of leadership has confused
the nature of leadership and has led to changing views of how leadership is understood
(Hackman & Wageman, 2007).
Thus, multiple definitions of leadership have been constructed focusing on
various aspects of leaders' behaviors and leadership situations. Leadership scholars have
traditionally debated leader-centrism and situational leadership (Hackman & Wageman,
2007). Leadership has often been defined in terms of a position of authority or power
(Scharmer, 2009) or as a relationship in which one person wields power to comply others
to complete a task (Parks, 2005). These notions of leadership focus exclusively on leaders
and their innate abilities as leaders. It is the leader who is in a position of power, and it is
the leader who influences.
Hersey and Blanchard (1977) described leadership as "a dynamic process, varying
from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers, and situations" (p. 89).
While recognizing the roles of leaders, followers and situations, however, this approach
emphasizes the leader's use of behaviors in different situations. In theory, individuals
could be trained to adapt their leadership styles to specific situations (Hersey &
Blanchard).
19
By the late 1970s, the field of leadership had increasingly emphasized situational
leadership. Leadership was still something that a leader did to other persons, but
followers and situations were regarded as influencing leaders' behaviors (Chatswood,
2009). Some scholars agreed that ethical leaders were the only ones who could be real
transformational leaders, an idea that at worst implied a tautology, and at best a recursive
definition (Ciulla, Price, & Murphy, 2005).
Leadership scholars, as previously noted, have lacked a universal meaning of
leadership. Yukl (2006) noted that the definition of leadership has been arbitrary and
subjective. At the core of most definitions of leadership are two functions: "providing
direction" and "exercising influence" (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004,
p. 17). The purpose and the context or situation that calls for leadership consists of
essential elements of definitions of leadership. An early definition described the leader as
one person controlling others or pressuring them to obey (Mumford, as cited in Bass,
1990, p. 11). Conversely, Rost (1993) described leadership as an influential relationship
among leaders and their collaborators who intended real change that reflected mutual
purposes.
Contemporary definitions identify leadership as a relational process based on
mutual goals to achieve an action or change (Komives, et al., 2006). Senge (2006)
observed that leadership is something that is widely distributed throughout organizations,
and that the central purpose of such leadership is empowerment of others. This
observation provided credibility to Lambert's (2005) recognition of the importance of
leadership capacity in schools. Matusak, a leadership scholar, noted that the leadership
20
process entails initiating, guiding, and working with a group to accomplish change
(Marcketti & Kozar, 2007).
Qualities and Skills of Leaders
Commonly attributed qualities of leaders have included social, interpersonal,
technical, administrative, and intellectual skills; leadership effectiveness and
achievement; friendliness; support of the group task; and task motivation and application
(Bass & Bass, 2008). An analysis of studies and surveys regarding how leaders relate to
groups suggested that charismatic inspiration, dedication, purpose, results orientation,
cooperativeness, integrity, and empathy are qualities recognized in leaders (Bass & Bass).
Bass and Avolio (2006) identified four dimensions of transformational leaders that also
included emotional intelligence: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individual consideration.
Researchers point to purposes, persons, structures, and social systems as "three
broad categories or skill clusters of leadership practice" (Leithwood, Jantzi, &
Steinbach, 2000, p. 123). Conger and Kanungo (1998) referred to visioning strategies,
efficacy-building strategies, and context-changing strategies, and Leithwood et al. (2004)
named setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the organization. The
ability to engage in practices that help develop other persons has been shown to be
related to leaders' emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Bennis
(2009) devised a model of leadership that included essential sets of competencies among
leaders that included emotional intelligence.
Current Leadership Research
Leadership researchers are currently examining nonhierarchical, process-oriented,
21
and democratic forms of leadership and exploring new leadership characteristics such as
vision, the facilitation of shared vision, and transformational leadership (Tichy, 2007).
These studies identified vision and collaboration as important characteristics of effective
leaders (Tichy). Schein (1992) explored the role of leadership in shaping organizational
culture. Bass and Avolio (2006) identified four dimensions of transformational leaders
that also included emotional intelligence. Bolman and Deal (2008) discussed the need to
prepare future leaders to focus as much on spiritual factors as on intellectual development
and the need for versatile and flexible leaders—leaders who could reframe experience to
discover new issues and possibilities.
Hesselbein and Goldsmith (2009) discussed how Lipman-Blumen described toxic
leaders and their intoxicated followers and the need for leaders to cultivate connective
capabilities or collaboration. Senge (2006) noted the importance to regard all staff
members as leaders and to develop the talent of all change agents. Heifetz (1998)
described the challenge of leading without authority. Komives et al. (2006) described a
relational model of leadership appropriate for building communities and achieving
organizational potential in a multicultural context.
Current views of leadership focus on the importance of cooperative teams,
environments that encourage teamwork and collaboration, and interdependence and
social change (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreas-McGavin, 2006). Enhancing
communication, fostering intergroup relations, creating an inclusive environment, and
creating a shared vision are highlighted in the collaboration literature and have become
important topics in leadership development programs (Allen, Morton, & Li, 2003).
O'Shea, Foti, Hauenstein, and Bycio (2009) explored transactional and transformational
22
leader behavior using pattern oriented analysis to identify which behavioral pattern was
associated with the highest subordinate satisfaction and commitment. Effective leaders
used a combination of transformational and contingent reward behaviors coupled with a
low level of passive management by exception behavior.
Leadership Theories
Because the study of leadership has produced multiple theories, researchers and
professors have been challenged to synthesize theories of leadership to present to aspiring
leaders in meaningful ways (McFadden, et al., 2005). Northouse (2009) attempted to
guide readers in applying numerous leadership theories to modern global organizations.
He introduced the study of leadership with an analysis of trait theory and concluded with
a discussion of transformational process theory (Northouse). The study of leadership is
not only a search for understanding the thoughts and actions of leaders but an
investigation into how to improve the performance and motivation of individuals and
groups (Akinboye, 2005). Clawson (2006) advanced the level three leadership theory as a
standard toward which leaders in the new millennium should strive. This model evolves
from level one and level two in that leaders do not focus solely on visible behaviors and
conscious thoughts of followers but attempt to lead by appealing to "values, assumptions,
beliefs, and expectations" (p. 24).
The evaluation of leadership development initiatives is challenging, especially
when using different tools to assist in development (Ardichvili & Manderschecd, 2008).
However, when evaluating development programs and entire programs, the real goals are
finding causal links between initiative objectives and behavior changes or development
(Allen, 2009). Avolio and Gardner (2005) regarded leadership as a complex process,
23
expressing doubt of the extent to which a set of standards, qualities, or competencies
could ever fully capture the essence of successful and unsuccessful leaders or
organizations. Many assertions about leadership are often expressed without
understanding leadership, which requires more than reading a few articles or books or
fantasizing about how great leaders should act (Avolio & Gardner).
Great Man Theory
The early study of leadership centered on the great man or great person theory,
which assumed that leadership was based on hereditary properties and natural abilities of
power and influence; in short, that leaders were born, not made (Bass & Bass, 2008).
During 1920s-1940s, leadership scholars focused on identifying traits associated with
great leaders. The great man theory is the most elusive quality of leadership (Avolio, et
al., 2009). The contention that leaders are born, not made, has been widely accepted not
only by scholars but by persons attempting to influence the actions of others (2009).
Major capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned (Williams, 2007).
Leaders are a society of learners with a basic desire to learn (Day & Harrison, 2007). The
great man concept assumed that leaders possess special traits or characteristics allowing
them to ascend above others and enhance leadership skills (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009),
a notion that led to hundreds of studies that explored personality traits, physical
characteristics, intelligences, and values to differentiate leaders from followers (Chemers,
2002).
Trait Theories
The idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the trait
theory of leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). It is assumed that individual characteristics of
24
leaders differ from characteristics of nonleaders (McFadden, et al., 2005). The trait theory
attempted to identify specific personal characteristics that explained why certain
individuals had the ability to lead and others did not (Zaccaro, 2007). Researchers using
this theory have examined leaders with various attributes and personality traits including
physical characteristics, personality, social background, and ability (Yukl, 2006). Great
philosophers explored which characteristics distinguished individuals as leaders, and the
importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the
characteristics that certain individuals possess (Zaccaro).
It was assumed that numerous traits potentially combine to form components of
leadership. Trait models of leadership regard leaders as individuals having specific
superior or endowed qualities that constitute their abilities to lead, and certain individuals
possess a natural ability to lead (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Studies of individual traits or
characteristics such as intelligence, birth order, self-confidence, and socioeconomic status
and their relationship to successful leadership led to the conclusion that no single
characteristic distinguishes leaders from followers or nonleaders (Mendez-Morse, 2008).
Using early research techniques, researchers conducted more than 100 studies and
proposed a number of characteristics that distinguish leaders from nonleaders: for
example, intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic
status, and self-confidence (Bass & Bass, 2008). Considering the criticisms of the trait
theory, researchers adopted a different perspective of leader individual differences—the
leader attributes pattern approach (Zaccaro, Gulick, & Khare, 2008). This approach was
based on theoretical arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on
outcomes was best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather
25
than a summation of individual variables; that is, that integrated constellations or
combinations of individual differences could explain substantial variance in both leader
emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes or by
additive combinations of multiple attributes (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).
Contingency Theories
Contingency leadership theories examined the tasks and followers' characteristics
to specify behaviors needed by effective leaders (Ogbonnia, 2007). Researchers identified
contingency models with different aspects of leader-follower relationships (Bass, 1999).
Influential model emphasized increasing followers' involvement (Vroom & Yetton,
2005). Although contingency theories have helped to develop an understanding of
leadership complexities, some predictions based upon this model have failed (Yukl,
2006). Factors unique to each situation determine the effectiveness of specific leader
characteristics and behaviors (Baum, 2005).
Situational Theories
Situational leadership theories also appeared as a reaction to trait theory.
Situational theory assumed that different situations required different characteristics; that
is, the actions of individual leaders are largely dependent upon characteristics of a given
situation (White, 2007). Theorists defined three situational leadership styles and
identified the best style for each situation. The authoritarian leadership style works best
during periods of crisis but does not win the support of followers in the day-to-day
management. Democratic leadership is better suited in situations that require consensus
building, and laissez faire leadership is appreciated by extent of freedom it provides,
although the leader does not take charge (Hersey, et al., 2008). Northouse (2009)
26
regarded leadership as a process of social influence, one person enlisting the aid and
support of others to accomplish a common task. In this sense, leadership is regarded as
creating a way for persons to contribute to making something extraordinary happen
(Kouzes, 2007).
Participative Theories
Participative theories of leadership support group decision making. The decision
making of participative leadership is not unilateral as with autocratic leaders because
leaders arise from consultation with group members and their participation (Bratton,
Grint, & Nelson, 2005). Participative leadership was associated with organizational
empowerment and commitment, but not with all four dimensions of empowerment;
namely, meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Bennis & Namus, 2007).
Participative theory promotes a leader who favors a shared pattern of decision making, a
new solution, and allows stakeholders to serve as leaders (McCrimmon, 2006).
Behavioral Theory
Researchers during the 1950s identified behavior centered on task
accomplishments and behavior directed toward interpersonal relations (relationship) as
the two crucial types of leadership and noted that those who consistently exhibited high
levels of both types were regarded as leaders by their peers (Sashkin & Rosenbach,
1996). The Ohio State studies and the University of Michigan studies were regarded as
seminal research on behavioral leadership theories (Yukl, 2006). Behaviors of effective
leaders differ from the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leader
behavior are task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior (Hersey,
Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008). Behavioral theories have limitations. Leadership
27
researchers have shifted their focus away from what leaders are toward developing a
better understanding of what leaders do and how such behaviors relate to leaders'
effectiveness (Miner, 2005).
Behaviorist leadership theories and newer variations emphasize the learning of
facts and skills that authorities have identified as important (Hersey, et al., 2007).
According to behaviorists, learning is "the relatively permanent change in behavior
brought about as a result of experience or practice" (Miner, 2005, p. 116). Behaviorists
recognize that learning is internal event, but it is not recognized as learning until overt
behavior is displayed (Baum, 2005). Behavioral approaches to leadership are focused on
how the environment affects overt behavior (Hersey, et al., 2007). Behaviorism also
refers to any physical action. It is also known as a philosophy based on the proposition
that the actions of all organisms—including acting, thinking and feeling—should be
regarded as behavior (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). Behaviorism assumes that all theories
should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences
between publicly observable processes and privately observable ones (Harris & Kuhnert,
2008).
To determine the "hows" and "whys" of changes in principal leadership behavior
and self-efficacy beliefs, Eyler (2009) examined changes in transformational leadership
and beliefs in self-efficacy in urban and suburban schools participating in an executive
leadership development program. Both self-efficacy beliefs and practices of principals
were affected by the feedback they received from current and past leadership
experiences. The findings reaffirmed the importance of considering social and cognitive
factors in the study of educational leadership.
28
Wangler (2009) recognized the influence of managerial leadership that supports
the premise that behaviorally complex managers are perceived as more effective than less
complex colleagues. The researcher investigated the effects of other constructs on
managerial effectiveness. Participants (N= 148) completed the Lipman-Blumen
Achieving Styles Inventory and Quinn's Competing Values Managerial Leadership.
Multiple linear path analysis was used to examine relationships among variables. Results
confirmed that a network of relationship among constructs interacted to influence
perceptions of managerial effectiveness, supporting Lipman-Blumen's assertion that
connective leadership behavioral complexity predicted managerial effectiveness.
Social Cognitive Theory
Although the theory of student involvement recognizes various degrees and types
of involvement, it is understood in behavioral terms. In other words, this focus is
primarily concerned with what students do in the environment or how they perceive their
actions. An additional component not addressed by the theory of involvement is the
recognition of why or how students became involved (Weiten, Lloye, Dunn, & Hammer,
2008). Just as Astin (1984) recognized that outcomes were not merely the result of
college policies or programs and that the student was a missing piece with regards to
development, so too is involvement influenced by more than a manipulation of the
environment. Involvement is also influenced by self-appraisal among individuals of their
ability to perform the behavioral or cognitive task or their self-efficacy. Self-efficacy,
grounded in social cognitive theory, provides a model for understanding human behavior
that focuses on the control that individuals exercise in given situations (Weiten, et al.).
29
Social cognitive theory differs from most contemporary theories of behavior,
which view the interaction between personal and environmental variables as determining
behavior. In these models, either the person and situation function independently of one
another or connect in some way to produce behavior, or the person and situation affect
one another, producing the resulting behavior (Bandura, 1997). Instead, social cognitive
theory posits that personal influence, environmental influences, and behavior function
interdependently with one another as determinants of behavior, a process that Bandura
described as triadic reciprocity.
Martin and Epitropaki (2001) used a cross sectional survey to explore effects of
transactional and transformational leadership. High organizational identification was
associated with transactional and transformational behaviors, but additional variance in
psychological outcomes was predicted more by transformational than by transactional
leadership.
Civilian and Military Leadership
Military standards of conduct, discipline, customs, and courtesies reflect a broad
heritage and traditions. Military leaders not only must know these standards, they must
enforce them (Seymour, 2006). The common core that all military leadership programs
share is education, training, and professional experience (Center for Army Leadership
[CAL], 2007; Chief Naval Education and Training [CNET], 2007; Air University Air
War College Leadership, Ethics and Command Central [AWC] 2007). Each branch of the
military maintains different programs and offers a leadership laboratory, commonly
referred to as professional development. Each leadership laboratory is designed around
values, customs, and attributes that characterize the services. The army's Leadership
30
Development Program, provides practice and feedback on the Army's leadership skills
(CNET, 2007). In addition to the formal leadership laboratory, military programs seek to
develop leadership through values-based programs (AWC). Although current DoD
policies provide specific guidance for fulfilling standards, leaders must be familiar with
the mission, the military way of life, the chain of command, appropriate conduct, and
professional relationships. Military members are subject to serve on active duty 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year. If so directed by a senior authority, they must report for duty at
any hour to any location and remain until relieved from duty. The military mission
necessitates restrictive rules and standards that are not usually found in civilian life.
Individuals unable to maintain high standards are involuntarily discharged (Kezar, et al.,
2006).
Differences exist between military and civilian leaders. Military officers are
trained to lead and how to be led until leadership principles become ingrained, a process
of training not education (Kezar, et al., 2006). Military personnel train for leadership as
distance runners prepare for a marathon. Military members must learn to depend on
colleagues for mutual survival. Decision making has more life and death consequences
than in vast majority of other professions. Military members are sometimes put into
positions that require initiative instead of a position that requires consulting skills used in
civilian life. However, military and civilian leadership share common characteristics that
include a general core of decision making and communicating. Good decision making
demands assimilating information and applying analytic skills that often are combined
with decisiveness. Effective communicators must demonstrate clearly and convincingly
31
the logic of decisions. Leaders also need a strong character, initiative, and the ability to
delegate responsibility (Huguley, 2009).
Organizational Leadership
According to Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001), organizational leadership involves
processes and outcomes that contribute to the development and achievement of
organizational goals. Organizational leadership is identified by the application of
nonroutine influence on organizational life. Leaders influence using cognitive, social, and
political processes. Organizational leadership is inherently bounded by system
characteristics and dynamics; that is, leadership is contextually defined. Positions of
leadership are established in work settings to help organizational units achieve their
goals. Organizational purpose is operationalized as a focus for collective action.
Leadership processes define, establish, identify, or translate this focus for followers,
enabling the organizational processes that result in achieving goals. Organizational
purpose and direction are identified by their mission, strategies, goals, plans, and tasks.
The operation of leadership is inseparable from the ongoing development and fulfillment
of organizational goal (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001).
Leadership is functional, meaning that leadership is at the service of collective
effectiveness (Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, & Hein, 1991; Hackman
& Walton, 1986; Lord 1977). Effective leaders ensure that all functions critical to both
achieving goals and maintaining group cohesiveness exist. This notion of organizational
leadership defines effective leadership as organizational leadership (Zaccaro & Klimoski,
2001).
32
Senior organizational leaders often shape the organization's purpose and set its
direction (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). Organizational goals and strategies need to
respond to the needs of multiple stakeholders and constituencies when organizational
goals are set, they reflect in part the senior leader's personal goals (2001).
Management vs. Leadership
Bennis and Nanus (2007) described the difference between leaders and managers:
"Leaders do the right thing; managers do things right" (p. 20). Any discussion of
leadership in today's military must include comparing leadership and management. Some
observers insist that military success depends on effective management; others insist that
charismatic leadership holds the key to success (Elmuti, Minnis, & Abebe, 2005). In fact,
a combination of leadership and management skills are needed. The roles of leadership
and management are better explained by examining three factors: actions, personal
characteristics, and organizing skills.
Managers build organizations whose members collaborate effectively and
smoothly are analogous to the parts of a timepiece. Leaders, on the other hand,
concentrate on moving the hands of the timepiece and displaying the time of day
(Musselwhite, 2009). Successful leaders understand management and leadership skills;
moreover, effective leaders are effective managers. The best managers tend to become
good leaders because they develop leadership abilities and skills through practicing good
management techniques. Using charisma, successful leaders humanize management skills
with inspiration, empowerment, and vision (White, 2007).
Leaders establish and guide the organization toward the pursuit of goals and
strategies; managers ensure that the resources needed to fulfill them are available and
33
used efficiently. To implement a plan, managers organize and staff positions with
qualified individuals, communicate the plan, delegate the responsibility for carrying out
the plan, and devise systems to monitor implementation. Leaders do not merely organize
persons—leaders align them. Leaders understand the vision and are committed to achieve
it (Huguley, 2009).
The terms management and leadership have been used synonymously and as
words with differentiated meanings. Their use generally reflects an awareness of the
distinction made by Burns (1978) between the terms transactional leadership and
transformational leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). The difference is that leaders direct
and mangers execute. Managers, like an investment, seek the best return from workers
energy, talent, and times. Managers are concerned with efficiency and profitability using
minimal inputs for maximum returns. The same person can fulfill the role of leader and
manager—but the roles differ and serve different organizational purposes or functions.
Leaders champion change and may or may not manage subordinates. Managers fulfill a
role and complete a set of responsibilities. They may also lead, but nonmanagers can
practice leadership. By clearly separating leadership from management, it is easier to
explain that leaders have followers and managers have subordinates. The application of
management without leadership usually results in only mandatory worker output (Elmuti,
et al., 2005).
Styles of Leadership
Integral to leadership is the leader-follower relationship. Hollander (2008)
identified differences for followers in a postindustrial leadership model. He posited that
followers are active, not passive, and engaged in leadership instead of followership. This
34
understanding of the leader-follower relationship recognized that even few positional
leaders have unchecked authority (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). In other words, leaders
fulfill the role of leader and follower. Indeed, any person could serve as a leader or
follower, and leaders and followers often change places in the leadership relationship
(Hackman & Wageman).
Lashway (1999) argued that leadership, although observable, is one of the least
understood phenomena. The concept of leadership, systematically studied since 1800,
continues to evolve. It has been defined in terms of individual traits, behaviors, influence
over others, interaction patterns, role relationships, hierarchical position, and the
perception of others regarding influence. It has been examined using models of
leadership guided by the principles of social control and hierarchy (Kezar, et al., 2006). A
perception of leadership as control and command has been followed by the idea of
motivation and the proposal that leaders mobilize others to realize a vision. Change is an
underlying factor that has stimulated different forms and ideas about leadership.
Transformational Leadership
The model of transformational leadership by Bass and Avolio (2006) included
five factors: (a) idealized influence (attributed); (b) idealized influence (behavior);
(c) inspirational; (d) motivation, intellectual stimulation; and (e) individualized
consideration. During the 1980s, transformational researchers such as Clegg, Hardy,
Nord, and Pfeffer (as cited in Bass & Avolio, 2006) began exploring symbolic and
emotional aspects of leadership. New theories focused on transformational leadership, a
style that inspires followers to self-sacrifice, placing the needs and mission of the
organizational above self-interests (Yukl, 2006). Transformational leaders, seeking to
35
change and transform individuals, focused on long-term goals, emotional needs, values,
and ethical beliefs of their employees (Jandaghi, Malin, & Farjami, 2009; Zaccaro, 2007).
Transformational leaders evaluate subordinates' motives, satisfy their needs, and seek to
fulfill personal and organizational goals. They challenge followers to question the current
status, use creative behavior, serve as a model of innovation, and provide an attractive
vision of the future.
To obtain greater outcomes, transformational leaders may employ one or more of
the core competencies of transactional leadership (Kolditz, 2007). Components of
transformational and transactional leadership principles are incorporated into training
strategies used by government and the DoD (Klitgaard, 2005). Therefore, leaders in
extreme environments focus on continual learning and shared risk to build competency,
loyalty, and trust (Kolditz).
Leadership theories had traditionally focused on the leader, including
characteristics and the actions taken to accomplish goals within a specific situation;
Burns included the follower as a key component in the leadership process. His theory of
transforming leadership emphasized the engagement of leaders and followers, valued the
contributions of participants, and distributed decision making among leaders and
participants (Komives, et al., 2006). Burns' (1978) notion of leadership established a new
paradigm. Prior theories are considered industrial models that focused on the traits,
behaviors, and situations that influence leaders. These models worked in an era when
leadership was based upon production and efficiency (Komives, et al.). Transformational
leadership, a postindustrial model, focused on the leader-follower relationship and the
outcomes or change that is produced because of that relationship. Modern scholars and
36
practitioners have called for a new school of leadership that reflects a change in
understanding in leadership as more than good management by a positional leader (Rost,
1993).
Burns then developed the concept of the transformational leader as a person who
changes the outlook and behavior of followers. According to Burns (1978),
transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers engage one another in a
way that raises motivation and morality in leaders and followers, transforming leaders,
followers, and organization. Bass and Steidlmeier (1998), however, warned,
"Transformational leadership is seen as immoral in the manner that it moves members to
sacrifice their own life plans for the sake of the organization's needs" (p. 12).
Bernard Bass (2008), a major leadership researcher and scholar, attempted to
apply Burns' idea of transformational leadership to leadership in organizations. His
evidence indicated that transactional and transformational leadership were independent of
one another and could be observed separately or together in any combination. Bass
(1990) developed the MLQ to measure both transactional and transformational
leadership.
Bass and Avolio (2006) noted that transformational leaders build a sense of
community, identifying four tools that transformational leaders use to effect results: (a)
individualized attention that recognized the differences among followers and allows for
their developmental needs; (b) intellectual stimulation that turns the attention of followers
to goals, aspirations, and new ways of doing things; (c) inspirational motivation as the
way to help followers find meaning in their work; and (d) idealized influence that occurs
when the leader serves as a living example and role model for followers (Winston, 2008).
37
Bennis and Nanus (2007) applied transformational leadership to organizational
leadership. They noted leaders strive to go beyond the usual bounds to effect change in
followers' thinking to redirects their actions (Clark, Clark, & Campbell, 1992). The
theoretical research of Kouzes and Posner (2007) was based upon a behavioral focus.
They used factor analysis to identify five factors of transformational leadership,
describing them as concrete behaviors. They developed the Leadership Practices
Inventory, a questionnaire to measure transformational leadership. This instrument has
five scales, one for each leadership behavior: challenging the process, inspiring a shared
vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart.
Based on the work of Bennis (1989), Sashkin and Rosenbach (1996) developed
the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire. Their categories of transformational leadership
behavior were clarity, communication, consistency, caring, and creating opportunities.
They identified three specific personal characteristics that differentiated exceptional
transformational leaders from average leaders, transactional leaders (managers), and
nonleaders, characteristics they identified as learnable and changeable (Sashkin &
Rosenbach). They identified self-confidence or self-efficacy as a prerequisite for
leadership, asserting that self-efficacy is learned. The other two characteristics of
transformational leaders identified by Sashkin were power and vision. Sashkin
incorporated these three personal characteristic into a comprehensive approach to
leadership, integrating behavioral findings with outcomes of leadership research by
developing the visionary leadership theory, a comprehensive approach to leadership
within the organizational context within which leadership occurs (1996).
38
Barnes and Kriger (1986) contended that previous theories of leadership were
insufficient because they consisted of a single-leader and a multifollower concept. They
noted that leadership was not found in a single individual's traits or skills but was
characteristic of an entire organization with leadership roles overlapping. Furthermore,
they posited that the idea of shared leadership or distributed leadership and the possibility
that a team of individuals could lead.
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leaders neither seek to develop their followers nor focus on the
individual needs of subordinates. In fact, transactional leadership is more a type of
management and not a true leadership style because the focus is on completing short-term
tasks. Transactional leadership includes three broad categories: contingent reward, active
management by exception, and passive management by exception (Vecchio, Justin, &
Pearce, 2008). Transactional behavior focuses on the accomplishment of tasks and
worker relationships in exchange for desirable rewards. Transactional leadership may
encourage leaders to adapt their style and behavior to meet the perceived expectations of
followers. Transactional leaders seek to motivate followers by appealing to followers'
self interests. Its principles are to motivate by the exchange process. For example,
business owners could exchange status and wages for the work effort of employees. In a
political environment, politicians could exchange favors or government jobs for votes.
Some researchers added to Bums' original theory so thought that transactional leadership
encompasses four types of behavior (Taylor, 2005):
39
1. Contingent reward. To influence behavior, the leader clarifies the work
needed to be accomplished. The leader uses rewards or incentives to achieve
results when expectations are met.
2. Passive management by exception. To influence behavior, the leader uses
correction or punishment as a response to unacceptable performance or
deviation from the accepted standards.
3. Active management by exception. To influence behavior, the leader actively
monitors the work performed and uses corrective methods to ensure the work
is completed to meet accepted standards.
4. Laissez-faire Leadership. The leader is indifferent and has a "hands-off'
approach toward workers and their performance. The laissez-faire leader
ignores the needs of others and does not respond to subordinates' problems or
monitor performance (Yukl, 2006).
Passive/Avoidance Leadership
Passive/avoidance leadership or the absence of leadership, a destructive
leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 2006), is characterized by a lack of action or
involvement, decision avoidance, abdication of responsibility, providing limited or no
feedback, and insufficient help to followers that would satisfy their needs or grow
(Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). The leadership models described two passive/avoidance
behaviors: management by exception (passive) and laissez-faire. Management by
exception (passive) refers to leaders who do not become involve from the beginning.
These leaders are regarded as passive or reactive to situations.
40
Charismatic Leadership
A charismatic leadership style seems similar to transformational leadership. It is
associated with social change because these charismatic leaders evoke enthusiasm in their
teams and energetically drive other persons forward. Charismatic leaders, however,
sometimes believe more in themselves than in their teams, creating a risk that a project,
or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave. In the eyes of
followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As
such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and followers need a long-term
commitment from leaders (Levay, 2010; Taylor, 2005).
With charisma and shared vision, the transformational leader endeavors to align
the personal needs of subordinates with achieving long-term organizational goals
(Eisenbeiss, Van Knippenberg, & Boemer, 2008). Charisma constitutes the core of the
transformational leader (Yukl, 2006). Followers of this type of charismatic leader, who
frequently develop strong feelings toward the leader (2006), believe that the leader has
exceptional qualities, expresses confidence about and trust in the vision of the leader.
Leadership Decision-Making
Fitch (2009) recognized the relationship between personal demographics and
leadership styles on decision-making. A quantitative study used descriptive statistics and
inferential statistics to determine relationships among persona characteristics, leadership
styles, and ethical decision making. Using the MLQ and a sample of 187, Fitch sought to
examine ethical decision making, leadership styles, and personal demographics among
Pennsylvania public school superintendents. Fitch found that superintendents who
experienced situations made better ethical decisions than superintendents who did not
41
experience the same situations. More female than male superintendents were
transformational leaders. The researcher recommended conducting quantitative and
qualitative research to identify valid predictors of ethical decision making.
Using an online survey to collect data, Follwell (2009) attempted to identify
potential areas for improvement in soldier training to enhance small unit effectiveness.
Leaders believed that leadership training for enlisted personnel needed re-examination.
The researcher concluded that the content for basic soldier courses should include
decision making and theoretical and practical training in contemporary operating
environments.
In their roles as leaders, managers are presented with internal organizational
decisions that affect policies and procedures. The extent to which employees and society
perceive effects of these decisions as fair and ethical is critical. If managers and other
organizational leaders are required to make internal organizational decisions that support
the fair, ethical treatment of employees they lead, managers must understand the
dynamics of decision making and acknowledge a personal responsibility for outcomes of
these decisions, even when outcomes are incongruent with good intentions (Eberlin &
Tatum, 2005).
Leader and Leadership Development
Leadership development has focused more on using human capital than social
capital to develop leaders (Day, 2007). In other words, developing human capital invests
in increasing the intrapersonal talents of individuals. Developing human capital invests in
interpersonal or relational development including the development of community and
reciprocal relationships. Day and O'Connor (2003) contended, "Developing a leader
42
without regard for the social and systems influences brought to bear by followers and
organizational forces (e.g., culture) will have at best only limited success in developing
leadership" (p. 19). Therefore, the focus on leader development does not necessarily
translate into effective leadership because leadership is influenced by the situation,
leadership environment, or other persons participating in the leadership process. Rost and
Baker (2000) predicted that future leadership education would focus more on social
relationships, the process of change, and the dynamics of change. Day (2000) stated:
Developing individual leaders without concern for reciprocal relations among
people or their interactions within a broader social context ignores the research
demonstrating that leadership is a complex interaction between individuals and
their social and organizational environments. . . . The preferred approach is to link
leader development with leadership development such that development of
leadership transcends but does not replace the development of individual leaders,
(p. 605)
Self-Efficacy and Leadership
Chemers (2000) described self-efficacy as a promising source for understanding
leadership performance. He concluded that leaders' self-efficacy resulted in different
performance outcomes depending upon the activity or situation. Bandura (1997)
recommended assessing self-efficacy through domain specificity. Writers who have
connected leadership and self-efficacy have incorporated two ideas: connecting
contingency/situational and transformational models of leadership. Chemers, Watson,
and May (2000) found that self-rated leadership efficacy was related to leaders'
evaluation by peers, instructors, and observers. These researchers concluded that
43
leadership efficacy contributed to leadership performance and to the perception of
competency. McCormick (2001) proposed a leadership model that characterized the
influence of leadership self-efficacy on behavior. In this model, components of self-
regulated behavior, including self-efficacy, influenced individual behaviors and the
leadership environment.
Summary
Leadership is a universal factor present in human societies (Bennis, 2007) whose
meaning is elusive. According to Bums (1978), "Many of us do not have the faintest
concept of what leadership is all about" (p. 451). Thus, multiple definitions of leadership
have emerged, focusing on various aspects of leaders' behaviors and leadership
situations. The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 examined organizational leadership, the
development and achievement of organizational goals, leadership styles, and common
characteristics shared by civilian and military leaders (AWC, 2007; CAL, 2007; CNET,
2007).
Leadership studies have traditionally focused on leader-centrism and situational
leadership (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Various leadership theories have been used as
the basis for improving the performance of individuals and groups (Akinboye, 2005).
Beginning with the study of the great man theory, trait theories of leadership assume that
individual characteristics of leaders differ from the characteristics of nonleaders
(McFadden, et al., 2005). Contingency theories have been applied to tasks and followers'
characteristics (Ogbonnia, 2007). Situational theories assume that the actions of leaders
are largely dependent upon a particular situation or condition (White, 2007). Participative
leaders practice shared decision-making (McCrimmon, 2006). Behavioral leadership
44
theories describe what leaders do and how their actions relate to leaders' effectiveness
(Miner, 2005).
The two dominant theories of leadership are transactional and transformational.
Bums (1978) developed the concept of transformational leadership as a theory for
elevating the capabilities of workers and leaders to work as teams. Based upon influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Avolio &
Bass, 2006), transformational leaders place the needs and mission of the organization
above self-interests (Yukl, 2006). Historically, transactional leaders have applied
authority, rewards, and punishment to subordinates to fulfill goals (Vecchio, Justin, &
Pearce, 2008). Military leadership and personnel management, however, have changed
because of generational differences among military personnel, operational differences in
military tactics, and the movement of the military model to function more and more as a
professional corporation (Whelan, 2009).
Whelan (2009) described the military as having been transformed "from a
parochial, inbred instrument of land battle to a highly sophisticated, multifunctional
organization closely linked to society" (p. 266), the modem military professional holding
different aspirations, attributes, and values toward work compared with the same factors
held by military personnel from earlier generations. Whelan attributed this change as
resulting from exposure as children to technologies, innovation, and computer
technology—and learning that change was natural. As members of Generation Y, persons
bom after 1980, they were products of modem parenting and schooled with a knowledge
and acceptance of different cultures and languages.
Today's military personnel differ from the troops of yesterday, requiring and
45
expecting the use of more transformational leadership and less transactional leadership.
Many SELs were bom during 1960-1980. The military training for members of
Generation X was learned from superiors whose leadership style was based principally on
transactional leadership. Thus, their self-perceptions of leadership may well vary from
perceptions of their leadership by junior subordinates. Marked differences in perceived
leadership between SELs and junior subordinates could negatively affect troop morale
and attitudes among members of the latter group toward pursuing a military career.
46
Chapter 3: Research Method
Chapter 3 describes the research procedures used in this study to determine the
extent to which SELs in the U.S. Armed Forces practice principles of transformational
leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985) is a 70-item
instrument that assesses four dimensions of transformational leadership (charisma,
individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration), two dimensions of
transactional leadership (contingent reward and management by exception), and one
dimension of laissez-faire leadership. Using this questionnaire as a self-reporting measure
or rating a superior's performance, respondents graded each leadership dimension using a
Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently). This study used the MLQ, which
measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each of four leadership styles
(Bass & Avolio, 2006).
Research Questions
The research questions and related hypotheses for this study are as follows:
Ql: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership
effectiveness of SELs?
Q2: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceived satisfaction of the
leadership style of SELs?
Q3: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon gender?
47
Q4: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon race?
Q5: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon age?
Q6: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon education?
Q7: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon years of military service?
Q8: Do perceptions of the leadership style of SELs differ between the self-
perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates based upon
their assigned military organizational unit?
Hypotheses
Hlo: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and perceptions of junior subordinates.
H l a : Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions
48
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H2o: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H2a: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H3o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
H3a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H4o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
race do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
H4a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
race differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
49
do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H6o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
H6a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
H7o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H7a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
50
H8o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H8a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
Participants
The population in this study consisted of 400 military service personnel from the
U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Based on a power analysis and online
services provided by Creative Research Systems (2010), a random sample was selected
consisting of approximately 300 SELs and junior subordinates. Four leadership styles
(transactional, transformational, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes) were
assessed by the MLQ. Junior subordinates rated the leadership of SELs, and SELs
provided self-perceptions of their leadership. Leadership styles are not mutually
exclusive, and a leader could be described by any, all, or none of these styles (Bass &
Avolio, 2006). The sample provided a confidence interval of 5 points and a confidence
level of 95% (Creative Research Systems).
Two-hundred ninety-six (74%) of the 400 military personnel invited to participate
completed the survey (males = 180, 61%); females =116, 39%). The age of respondents
ranged from 19 to 55 years (M= 33.78, SD = 9.86).
51
Table 1 presents descriptive data regarding the gender and age of respondents.
Sixty-two (57%) respondents were aged 19-23 years or aged 40 and older. Sixty-one
(21%) respondents were aged 24-29 years. Sixty-six (22%) respondents were aged 30-39
years. Fifty-one (17%) respondents were aged 40-44 years, and 56 (18%) respondents
were aged 45+ years.
Table 1
Gender and Age of Respondents
Age Range
Gender 19-23 24-29 30-39 40-44 45+ Total
Female 26 27 33 18 12 116
Male 36 34 33 33 44 180
Total 62 61 66 51 56 296
Table 2 presents data regarding the gender and race-ethnicity of respondents.
Among the 114 (39%) females who completed the survey, 49 (42%) were Black, 20
(17%) were White, 14 (12%) were White, 14 (12%) were non-Hispanic, 14 (12%) were
Hispanic, 9 (7%) were Asian Pacific Islander, and 6 (5%) were Native American or
Alaska Native. Among the 178 male participants, 104 (35%) were Black, 63 (21%) were
White, 42 (14%) were White, non-Hispanic, 35 (11%) were Hispanic, 29 (9%) were
Asian Pacific Islander, and 10 (3%) were Native American or Alaska Native.
Table 2
Gender and Race-Ethnicity of Respondents
Gender Black White White, Hispanic API AIAN Other Total non-Hispanic
Female 49 20 14 14 9 6 2 114
Male 55 43 28 21 20 4 7 178
Total 104 63 42 35 29 10 9 292
52
Table 3 presents data regarding the number of years in current grade among
respondents. Two-hundred three (68.6%) respondents had been in their current grade for
1-3 years. Eighty-six (29.1%) respondents had been in their current grade 4-7 years.
Seven (2.4%) respondents had been in their current grade eight years or more. Almost
98% of respondents had been in their current grade 1-7 years.
Table 3
Years in Current Grade of Respondents
Cumulative
Years F % Valid Percent Percent
1-3 203 68.6 68.6 68.6
4-7 86 29.1 29.1 97.6
8+ 7 2.4 2.4 100.0
Total 296 100.0 100.0
Table 4 presents data regarding the rank and age of respondents. Rank ranged from E l -
E9, and age ranged from 19-55 years. One-hundred seven (36.4%) respondents were the
rank of E8 or E9. Ninety-eight (33.3%) respondents were the rank E-1, E-2, E-3, or E-4,
and 89 (30.3%) respondents were the rank of E-5, E-6, or E-7). The number of
respondents in each age category was similar across categories.
Table 4
Rank and Age of Respondents
Age Range
Rank
E1-E4
E5-E7
E8-E9
19-23
56
6
0
24-29
42
19
0
30-39
0
46
20
40-44
0
14
37
45+
0
4
50
Total
98
89
107
Total 62 61 66 51 54 294
53
Table 5 presents data regarding the status in rank of respondents relative to SELs.
One-hundred twenty-nine (43.6%) respondents were of lower rank than the 147 SELs
(49.7%) in the sample. Seven sample members were equal in rank, and four members
were a higher rank than the SELs they rated.
Table 5
Status in Rank Relative to SELs
Cumulative
Level F % Valid Percent Percent
SEL 147 49.7 49.7 49.7
<SEL 129 43.6 43.6 93.2
Same 7 2.4 2.4 95.6
>SEL 4 1.4 1.4 97.0
No response S3 3J) 3J) 100.0
Total 296 100.0 100.0
Participants were selected with the cooperation of the local Chiefs' Group and the
use of the group e-mail listing of military members at each participating military base
(see Appendix B). Each sample member had completed a minimum of 1 year in-grade
and a minimum of 17 years in the military. After receiving permission to conduct the
study from each individual participant, the Chiefs' Group provided a list of personal
e-mail addresses of SELs and junior enlisted personnel eligible to participate. The
researcher forwarded an invitation via e-mail to eligible participants to request their
participation.
The sample included members from several military organizational units such as
intelligence, logistics, medical, and administrative. Sample members were readily
accessible, active and reserve personnel, with no known language difficulties. The
personnel chosen agreed to complete the online survey democratic questionnaire.
54
Materials/Instruments
Leadership style was assessed using the MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Appendix
A). The score of each of four leadership categories on the MLQ represents the mean of
the total of the specific items in a particular category (see Table 6). The five response
options for each item in the four categories—transformational, transactional, passive
avoidance, and leadership outcomes—ranged from not at all to frequently if not always.
The higher the score, the greater is the perceived occurrence of a particular leadership
style.
55
Table 6
MLQ Scohng
Leadership Style Category Items Items
Transformational leadership 20
Idealized influence 10, 18, 21, 25 (attributed)
Idealized influence 6, 14, 23, 34
(behavior)
Inspirational Motivation 9, 13, 26, 36
Intellectual Stimulation 2, 8, 30, 32 Individualized 15, 19, 29, 31 Consideration
Transactional leadership 8
Contingent Reward 1, 11, 16, 35
management by 4, 22, 24, 27
exception (active)
Passive/avoidance 8
management by 3, 12, 17, 20
exception (passive)
Laissez-faire 5, 7, 28, 33
Leadership outcomes 9
Extra effort 39, 42, 44
Effectiveness 37, 40, 43, 45
Satisfaction 38,41
Originally developed by Avolio and Bass in 1995, the MLQ is based on the Full
Range Leadership Model. The most recent version of the MLQ was used in this study and
has been used in field and laboratory research to study leadership styles—
transformational, transactional, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes.
56
The validity of the MLQ is well-established (Bass & Avolio, 2006; Avolio, Bass,
& Jung, 1999). According to Whitelaw (2001), "The comparative studies and replication
studies confirm that the MLQ can be considered a reliable and valid instrument" (p. 2).
Bass and Avolio reported that the construct validity and reliability of the MLQ was based
upon its administration to 3,786 respondents. The reliability of its scales ranged from
0.74 to 0.94, which fulfills the minimum standard for internal consistency (De Vaus,
2002). The demographic questionnaire contained eight factors: age, education, gender,
race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of
military service. Appendix A lists sample items from the MLQ; Appendix C lists the
items on the demographic survey.
Operational Definition of Variables
The construct variables for this study are idealized influence (attributed),
idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration, contingent reward, management by exception (active),
management by exception (passive), laissez-faire, extra effort, effectiveness, and
satisfaction.
Construct/Variable 1. The dependent (criterion) variable is leadership as
assessed by the four measures of leadership style on the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2006).
Construct/Variable 2. The independent (predictor) variables were age (measured
in years and reported by each participant), gender (reported by each participant), race
(reported by each participant), leadership effectiveness (measured by the MLQ),
leadership satisfaction (measured by the MLQ), military organizational unit (reported by
each participant), education (reported by each participant), and years of military service
57
(measured in years and reported by each participant). SELs and junior subordinates used
the MLQ to rate leadership styles on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 (not
at all) to 5 (frequently).
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
Data were collected from respondents completing the MLQ and a demographic
questionnaire. The advantages of using the World Wide Web as the means for data
collection included anonymity, privacy, less cost to prepare and gather data, access to a
wide base of respondents, time for respondents to formulate answers, and a timely
turnaround. Disadvantages for collecting data online included the potential for a low
response rate, a lack of opportunity to explain the study to individual respondents, and the
lack of personal contact between the researcher and respondents (Trochim & Donnelly,
2008).
SurveyMonkey (2009), an online service for collecting survey data anonymously,
was used for administering the MLQ and the demographic questionnaire. After the
sample was selected, each participant received an e-mail with a hyperlink and password
to access the website to complete the MLQ and questionnaire. SurveyMonkey assigned a
unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or link for participants to access the research
tools. A list of e-mail addresses of potential participants was obtained from the SEL and
NCO local groups. SELs received a hyperlink to the leader form (E7-E9) and junior
subordinates received a link to the rater form (E1-E6).
Two weeks were selected within which participants were asked to complete the
survey. Participants who did not respond received a reminder one week before the
established closing date requesting that they complete the MLQ and questionnaire. These
58
tools were unavailable after the end date. The cover page of the survey explained the
purpose of the study, potential risks, and benefits of participating. Participation in this
study was voluntary, and individual respondent scores remained anonymous.
The first screen of the survey presented an explanation of the purpose, potential
risks, and benefits of participation. Participants were informed that participation was
voluntary, their responses were anonymous, and they could withdraw at any time. The
final statement confirmed their agreement to participate: "I have read the above
description of the study, 'Comparing Leadership Perceptions of Senior Enlisted Leaders
in the U.S. Armed Forces,' and understand the conditions of my participation. By
clicking the 'Take Survey' radio button below, I agree to participate in the study."
Participation of SELs and junior enlisted personnel constituted informed consent.
Participants completed the survey by selecting the "Take Survey" radio button, or
not to complete the survey by selecting the "No Thank You" radio button. Participants
agreeing to complete the MLQ and questionnaire advanced to the next screen to begin.
Participants who selected the "No Thank You" radio button viewed a screen thanking
them for their time. To ensure the anonymity of the respondents, SurveyMonkey (2009)
collected responses anonymously.
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 19; 2010) and Minitab
(Version 16; 2010) were used for exploratory data analysis and data analysis. Exploratory
data analysis was used to create frequency distributions, histograms, and probability
plots. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each data set. A t test of independent
samples was used to test null hypotheses 1, 2, and 3; a one-way and two-way ANOVA
59
was used to test hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Tukey's Honest Significant Difference Test,
a posthoc comparison test, was used to analyze significant F ratios.
Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Limitations of the Study
The data collected in this proposed study were self-reported. Responses were
limited by the perceptions and recall of each participant. The MLQ assesses an
individual's perception of leadership, styles of leadership, and a limited number of
leadership styles. Another possible limitation, response bias, occurs when respondents
answer items or questions with a biased perception, consciously or unconsciously
misrepresenting reality (Zikmund, 2008).
Senior enlisted leaders may have answered survey items in ways that the military
expected or hoped its personnel would respond. Misrepresentation may have also
occurred, SELs fearing that their responses would not remain confidential, particularly
unflattering responses that potentially jeopardized advancement in rank or negatively
described a superior. To allay concerns, respondents were assured that their responses
were recorded anonymously and could not be linked to a particular individual or to a
specific military organizational unit. Additionally, response bias may have occurred
because participants provided responses based on personal experiences, which represent
idiosyncratic perspectives (Zikmund, 2008). A final limitation was whether SELs
responded accurately to the survey items and read the items carefully.
Delimitations
Conducting research presents factors over which researchers lack or have limited
control to establish boundaries, exceptions, reservations, or qualifications (Creswell,
60
2009). This study used data collected from a sample of U.S. military personnel on active
duty stationed at three military bases in the United States. It explored only one model and
theory of leadership. SELs and junior enlisted personnel may respond differently to items
on other assessments of leadership. Junior enlisted personnel from various branches of
the U.S. military may respond differently to survey items.
Ethical Assurances
This study complied with federal regulations regarding the use of human subjects
and professional ethical standards. The researcher submitted the proposed study to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northcentral University for approval. No data were
collected before receiving written approval from the IRB. Every effort was taken to
conform to ethical standards for conducting research with human participants.
To ensure compliance with the four categories of ethical issues—protection from
harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with professional colleagues—
before beginning the online survey, participants received an explanation of the study, its
purpose, participation requirements, research personnel, potential benefits,
confidentiality, withdrawal rights, and benefits of participation.
SELs and junior subordinates understood that participation was voluntary,
responses were anonymous, withdrawal was possible at any time, and implied consent
was a prerequisite for participation. No known or expected physical or psychological
health, safety, or stress factor was associated with participation. Sample members did not
receive any remuneration for completing the research tools. Participants were assured that
the use of the online survey ensured anonymity, and only aggregate data would be
reported. Participants could withdraw from the survey at any point by pressing the "Quit"
61
button at the bottom of each screen. Participants who did not approve the conditions
stated on the informed consent statement were denied access to the survey and directed to
a thank-you page. Information regarding Northcentral University and how to contact the
researcher was displayed on the survey.
Summary
This descriptive study used data collected from a sample of personnel on active
duty from the U.S. Armed Forces who completed the MLQ and a demographic
questionnaire. Quantitative methods of data analysis were used to determine whether
perceptions of leadership styles differed significantly between junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of the same leadership styles among SELs. Four leadership styles were
compared: transactional, transformational, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes.
A / test of independent samples, a one-way ANOVA, or a two-way ANOVA was used to
test the null hypotheses. Tukey's HSD test was used to test significant F ratios.
62
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership
style of SELs as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-perceived by SELs.
The MLQ measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each leadership style,
although leadership styles may coexist and are not always mutually exclusive (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008). In this study, the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2006) was used to compare
responses between SELs and junior enlisted personnel to determine whether self-
perceptions of leadership style among SELs differed from perceptions of their leadership
among junior subordinates.
This chapter presents the results from the data analysis used to address the
research questions and test the null hypotheses. A discussion of the findings follows
including (a) an interpretation of the findings based on the theoretical framework of the
study, (b) how the findings relate to leadership perceptions, and (c) the relationship
between the results to leadership and the retention and recruitment of military personnel.
The chapter concludes with a summary. Descriptive statistics are presented of selected
demographic characteristics of respondents, SELs and junior subordinates. A
/ test of independent samples, a one-way ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA were used to
test the null hypotheses. Tukey's HSD posthoc test was used to analyze the significant F
ratios. The research questions and corresponding null hypotheses follow:
Ql: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership
effectiveness of SELs?
Q2: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceived satisfaction of the
leadership style of SELs?
63
Q3: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon gender?
Q4: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon race?
Q5: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon age?
Q6: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon education?
Q7: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between
the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon years of military service?
Q8: Do perceptions of the leadership style of SELs differ between the self-
perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates based upon
their assigned military organizational unit?
eses
Hlo: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and perceptions of junior subordinates.
Hla: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H2o: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between
the self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H2a: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions
of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.
H3o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
H3a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
gender differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H4o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
race do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
H4a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
65
race differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H5a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age
differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-
perceptions of SELs.
H6o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and
the self-perceptions of SELs.
H6a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
education differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the
self-perceptions of SELs.
H7o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
66
H7a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
years of military service differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H8o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit do not differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
H8a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon
military organizational unit differ between the perceptions of junior
subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.
Results
Research Question 1
Question 1 asked whether perceptions of leadership effectiveness as assessed by
the MLQ differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates (E1-E6, n = 143) and
the self-perceptions of SELs (E7-E9, n = 145). The null hypothesis stated that
perceptions did not differ significantly. The mean score for leadership effectiveness of
SELs was 13.02 (SD = 2.9); the corresponding mean for subordinates was 12.03 (SD =
2.3). See Table 7. A t test of independent samples found a statistically significant
difference between the two groups, ^(286) = 12.91,/? < .001 (see Table 8). The null
hypothesis was rejected: SELs rated their leadership effectiveness significantly higher
than subordinates rated the effectiveness of SELs.
67
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Effectiveness 95% Confidence
_, . Interval for Mean KanK
Lower Upper N M SD SE Bound Bound
Jr. Subordinates 143 12.03 2.28 .19 11.66 12.41 SELs 145 13.02 2.88 .24 12.55 13.49 Total 288 12.53 2.64 .16 12.22 12.84
Table 8
t test of Independent Samples for Leadership Effectiveness
Levene's Test t test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Sig. Interval of the (2- Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Lower Upper
Effectiveness Equal variances 12.91 .001 -3.21 286 .001 -1.59 -.38 assumed
Equal variances -3.22 273.89 .001 -1.59 -.38 not assumed
Research Question 2
Question 2 asked whether perceptions of leadership satisfaction as assessed by the
MLQ differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates (E1-E6, n = 148) and the
self-perceptions of SELs (E7-E9, n = 145). The null hypothesis stated that perceptions
did not differ significantly. Table 9 shows that the mean score for leadership satisfaction
for SELs was 4.92 (SD = 1.83); the corresponding mean for subordinates was 4.96 (SD =
1.48). A t test of independent samples did not find a statistically significant difference for
68
leadership satisfaction between the two groups, ^(291) = 9.86, p = .86 (see Table 10). The
null hypothesis was not rejected.
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Satisfaction 95% Confidence
R . Interval for Mean Lower Upper
N M SD SE Bound Bound Jr. Subordinates 148 4.96 1.48 .122 4.72 5.20 SELs 145 4.92 1.83 .152 4.62 5.23 Total 293 4.94 1.66 .097 4.75 5.13
Table 10
t Test of Independent Samples for Leadership Satisfaction
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Sig. Interval of the (2- Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Lower Upper
Satisfaction Equal variances 9.86 .00 .18 291 .86 -.347 .418 assumed 2 2
Equal variances .18 276.20 .86 -.348 .419 not assumed 1
Research Question 3
Question 3 asked whether the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as assessed by the MLQ
differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs
based upon gender. The null hypothesis stated that perceptions do not differ significantly.
69
Table 11 shows that the mean score for transformational leadership among female SELs
was 72.62 (SD = 8.47); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 62.22
(SD = 11.18). The mean for female SELs was approximately 10 points higher than the
corresponding score of female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between
means for male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 8 points. Female
respondents recorded higher scores than male respondents for all leadership categories.
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores of
transformational leadership between SELs and junior subordinates based upon gender.
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transformational Leadership
Gender Rank M SD N
Female Jr. Subordinates 62.22 11.18 54
SELs 72.62 8.47 55
Total 67.47 11.16 109
Male
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
61.41
68.20
65.02
61.74
69.88
65.98
10.275
8.92
10.12
10.60
8.99
10.59
79
90
169
133
145
278
70
Table 12
Between-Subject Effects for Gender and Transformational Leadership Type III Sum of
Source Squares df MS F Sig. Corrected Model
Intercept
Rank
Gender
Rank * Gender
Error
Total
Corrected Total
5283.16
1156470.65
4887.19
453.27
214.44
25771.75
1241363.00
31054.91
3
1
1
1
1
274
278
277
1761.05
1156470.65
4887.19
453.27
214.44
94.06
18.72
12295.36
51.96
4.82
2.28
.001***
.001***
.001***
.029*
.132
p<*.05 **.01 ***.001
A homogeneity of variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's
test for equality of error variances, p = .348. Although the overall model was significant,
F(3, 274) = 18.72,/? < .001, a significant interaction was not found for gender, F(\, 274)
= 2.28,/? = .132 (see Table 12). A significant main effect, however, was found for gender
and rank. Females rated the use of transformational leadership by SELs significantly
higher than it was rated by males, F(l , 274) = 4.82,/? = .029. Thus, the null hypothesis
was rejected. A significant difference was also found for rank, F( l , 274) = 51.96,/? <
.001. Junior subordinates rated the use of transformational leadership by SELs
significantly higher than it was rated by SELs, F(\, 21 A) 51.96,/? < .001 (see Table 12).
Gender and rank were significant main effects on transformational leadership, with the
greatest range found between female SELs and male junior subordinates (see Figure 1).
71
Estimated Marginal Means of Transformational
72.5-
</i C <« 70.0-61
s "m .5 ?» 67.5-t»
« S
m 65.0-£ & t/i UA
62.5-
60.0-
" ~ V ^
""-, _̂ ̂
* - ~ _
I
"•"V
' V tj"
*-——*-._ fJ
1
Rank -—Jr. Subordinates — SCLs
Female Male
Gender
Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of transformational leadership.
The mean score for transactional leadership among female SELs was 25.13 (SD =
4.46); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 22.54 (SD = 4.64). The
mean for female SELs was approximately 3 points higher than the corresponding score of
female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between means for male SELs
and junior subordinates was approximately 2 points (see Table 13).
72
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transactional Leadership
Gender Rank M SD N
Female Jr. Subordinates 22.54 4.64 59
SELs 25.13 4.46 55
Total 23.79 4.72 114 Male
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
21.98
23.16
22.59
22.21
23.90
23.07
3.63
4.40
4.08
4.07
4.51
4.38
83
90
173
142
145
287
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores of transactional
leadership recorded by SELs and junior subordinates based on gender (see Table 14). A
homogeneity of variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's test for
equality of error variances,/? = .117. A significant interaction was not found in
transactional leadership for gender and rank, F(l,283) = 1.87,/? = .173). The null
hypothesis was rejected: A significant difference was found in transactional leadership
for gender, F(\, 283) = 6.10,/? = .014, and a significant difference was found in
transactional leadership for rank, F(l, 283) = 13.41,/? < .001 (see Table 14). Junior
subordinates rated the use of transactional leadership by SELs significantly higher than it
was rated by SELs. Overall, gender and rank were significant main effects for
transactional leadership, with the greatest range found between female SELs and male
junior subordinates.
73
Table 14
Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Gender
Source
Corrected
Model
Intercept
Gender
Rank
Gender * Rank
Error
Total
Corrected Total p<*.05 **.01 ***.
Type III Sum
of Squares
349.22
147744.125
110.52
243.13
33.88
5130.53
158178.00
5479.74 001
df
3
1
1
1
1
283
287
286
MS
116.41
147744.1
2
110.52
243.13
33.88
18.13
F
6.42
8149.57
6.10
13.41
1.87
Sig.
.001***
.001***
.014**
.001***
.173
The mean score in passive avoidance leadership among female SELs was 9.60
(SD = 9.11); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 12.17 (SD =
7.76). The mean for female SELs was approximately 3 points less than the corresponding
score of female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between means for
male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 4 points (see Table 15).
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for passive
avoidance leadership between SELs and junior subordinates based on gender (see Table
16). Homogeneity of variance was found between groups assessed by Levene's test for
equality of error variances, p < .001. A significant interaction was not found in passive
avoidance leadership for gender, F(l, 280) = .454,/? = .501 (see Table 17). A significant
difference, however, was found for gender, F(\, 280) = 4.36,p = .038, and a significant
difference was found for rank, F(l, 280) = 14.26,/? < .001). The null hypothesis was
rejected. Gender and rank were significant main effects for passive avoidance leadership,
with the greatest range found between female junior subordinates and male S
and female SELs rating their use of passive avoidance leadership lower than
female junior subordinates regarded its use by SELs.
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Passive-Avoidance Leadership
Gender Rank M SD N
Female Jr. Subordinates 12.17 7.76 58
SELs 9.60 9.11 55
Total 10.92 8.51 113
Male Jr. Subordinates 11.00 6.24 81
SELs 7.31 4.79 90
Total 9.06 5.81 171
Total Jr. Subordinates 11.49 6.91 139
SELs 8.18 6.82 145
Total 9.80 7.05 284
Table 16
Between Subjects Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership
Type III Sum of Source Squares
Corrected Model 1002.80
Intercept 27287.52
Gender 203.48
Rank 665.83
Gender* Rank 21.17
Error 13070.77
Total 41345.00
Corrected Total 14073.56
df MS F Sig.
334.27
27287.52
203.480
665.83
21.17
46.68
7.16
584.55
4.36
14.26
.45
.001*
.001*
.038*
.001"
.501
p<*.05 **.01 ***.001
75
The mean score for leadership outcomes for female SELs was 33.38 (SD = 3.79);
the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 28.39 (SD = 5.26). See Table
17. The mean for female SELs was approximately 5 points higher than the
corresponding score for female junior subordinates; the between means difference for
male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 3 points.
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Leadership Outcomes
Gender Rank M SD N
Female Jr. Subordinates 28.39 5.26 56
SELs 33.38 3.79 55
Total 30.86 5.21 111 Male
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
28.27
31.53
29.99
28.32
32.24
30.33
4.67
4.18
4.70
4.90
4.12
4.91
81
90
171
137
145
282
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for leadership
outcomes between SELs and junior subordinates based on gender. A homogeneity of
variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's test for equality of error
variances,/? = .098. A significant interaction was not found in leadership outcomes for
gender and rank, F(l, 278) = 2.50,/? = .115. No significant difference was found in
leadership outcomes for gender, F(\, 278) = 3.24,/? = .073. A significant difference was
found in leadership outcomes for rank, F(\, 278) = 56.90,/? < .001 (see Table 18). The
null hypothesis was not rejected; however, SELs regarded leadership outcomes
significantly higher than junior subordinates regarded their use.
76
Table 18
Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Gender
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df_ MS F Sig.
Corrected Model
Intercept
Gender
Rank
Gender * Rank
Error
Total
Corrected Total
1195.90
248448.04
65.21
1144.18
50.14
5590.76
266258.00
6786.67
3
1
1
1
1
278
282
281
398.63
248448.04
65.21
1144.18
50.14
20.11
19.82
12354.05
3.24
56.89
2.49
.001 **'
.001**'
.073
.001**'
.115
p < *.05 **.01 ***.001
Research Question 4
Question 4 asked whether the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,
transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as assessed by the MLQ differed
between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs based upon
race-ethnicity. Descriptive statistics for leadership and race-ethnicity are presented in Table 19.
A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference for transformational leadership scores
between SELs and junior subordinates based upon race-ethnicity, F(6,260) = 3.13,/? < .01, and
based upon rank, i^ 1,260) = 28.07,/? < .001 (see Table 20). Transformational leadership scores
were affected by race-ethnicity and rank. The null hypothesis was rejected. Blacks recorded
significantly higher scores than White, non-Hispanics; and Whites recorded significantly higher
scores than White, non-Hispanics (see Table 21). APIs and AIANs recorded significantly higher
scores than White, non-Hispanics. The interaction of rank and race-ethnicity, however, was not
significant, F(6, 260) = 1.14,/? = .34. White, non-Hispanics junior subordinates recorded the
lowest scores; SELs who were AIANs recorded the highest scores. Scores recorded by SELs
were significantly higher than scores by junior subordinates.
77
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Race
Rank Race-Ethnicity M SD N_
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Black
White
White, non-
Hispanic
API
AIAN
Other
Total
Black
White
White, non
Hispanic
API
AIAN
Other
Total
Black
White
White, non
Hispanic
API
AIAN
Other
Total
-Hispanic
-Hispanic
-Hispanic
64.27
63.45
54.80
58.63
62.05
58.75
64.50
61.74
72.02
67.47
66.09
69.64
68.89
77.00
70.71
69.72
68.49
65.49
61.63
63.30
64.25
67.88
69.33
65.85
7.99
11.61
14.57
12.70
6.74
13.07
.717
10.60
9.09
8.62
9.25
9.96
6.66
4.69
7.74
9.05
9.40
10.31
12.75
12.36
7.35
13.34
7.25
10.60
45
29
15
19
19
4
2
133
54
30
23
14
9
4
7
141
99
59
38
33
28
8
9
274
78
Table 20
Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Race-ethnicity
Type III
Sum of
Source Squares df MS F Sig.
Corrected Model
Intercept
Rank
Race-Ethnicity
Rank * Race-Ethnicity
Error
Total
Corrected Total
6662.77
511237.08
2590.77
1732.96
629.82
23994.80
1218664.00
30657.56
13
1
1
6
6
260
274
273
512.52
511237.08
2590.77
288.83
104.97
92.29
5.56
5539.60
28.07
3.13
1.14
.001***
.001***
.001***
.01**
.34
p<*.05 **.01 .001
Table 21
Significant Differences for Transformational Leadership and Race-Ethnicity
(I) Race-Ethnicity (J) Race-Ethnicity
Mean
Difference
(l-J) SE Sig.
Black
White, non-
Hispanic
White, non-
Hispanic
White
API
AIAN
-Hispanic 7.70
4.01*
-5.01
-5.03*
-7.43*
1.87
1.95
2.03
2.51
3.75
.001***
.04*
.01**
.05*
.05* p<*.05 ".01 .001
A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for transactional
leadership scores between SELs and junior subordinates based upon race-ethnicity (see
Table 22). No significant main effect was found for race-ethnicity F(6,269) = 1.37,/? =
.23 (see Table 23). A significant main effect, however, was found for rank, 7^(1,269) =
12.16,/? < .001. Race-ethnicity but not rank affected transactional leadership. The
interaction of race-ethnicity was not significant, F(6, 269) = 1.44,/? = .20. The null
hypothesis was not rejected.
79
Table 22
Descriptive Statistics for Transactional
Race-Ethnicity
Black
White
White, non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
API
AIAN
Other
Total
Rank
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Jr. Subordinates
SELs
Total
Leadership
M
23.07
24.54
23.87
23.25
23.03
23.15
20.88
22.43
21.78
21.15
25.07
22.76
21.20
25.33
22.48
21.67
26.25
23.50
20.00
23.14
22.44
22.21
23.96
23.08
and Race
SD
3.65
5.20
4.60
4.15
3.93
4.01
4.92
3.31
4.09
5.32
4.51
5.31
2.07
3.91
3.32
3.44
5.91
4.88
1.41
4.60
4.25
4.07
4.55
4.40
N
45
54
99
32
30
62
17
23
40
20
14
34
20
9
29
6
4
10
2
7
9
142
141
283