Reid, Wilbur a - Regent University Dissertation

Development of an Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Submitted to Regent University

School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

Wilbur A. Reid III

December 2012

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership ii

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Abstract

In Good to Great, one of the best-selling business books in history, Jim Collins

(2001) evaluated companies whose stock market performance rose from good to

great and found they were all led by a CEO with a surprising blend of personal

humility and professional will. These leaders became known as Level 5 leaders.

Although the concept has gained great acceptance in the business community and

popular press, a validated instrument to measure Level 5 leadership has not yet

been developed. The objective of this research project is to develop a validated

scale utilizing the attributes that Collins (2001) used to describe these leaders. This

study began with 99 attributes from Collins (2001) which an expert review

committee refined to 74. An online survey was developed that included the 74

attributes, and 349 subjects evaluated their bosses on a 10-point semantic

differential scale for each attribute. Literature has suggested that Level 5 is the

same as servant leadership, and Collins (2006) proposed eight untested questions to

determine if an individual is Level 5. To test these items, the survey also included a

10-item validated servant leadership scale and Collins’ (2006) eight questions. The

results showed that there are two very distinct constructs within the 74 attributes

that match Collins’ (2001) proposed personal humility and professional will

constructs and explain 55.2% of the variance within the attributes. The final scale

contains five attributes of personal humility and five attributes of professional will.

Reliability is very good with Cronbach’s alpha of .833 and .845 respectively. The

analysis also showed that there is a statistically significant positive relationship

between the Level 5 attributes, servant leadership, and Collins’ (2006) eight

questions. The results of this research open up the doors for implementation in

organizations to identify Level 5 leaders and for a wealth of future research on this

important leadership construct.


Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the first two Wilbur Reids on whose

shoulders I stand. My dad and my grandfather have been the embodiment of Level

5 leadership: personal humility based on the servant leadership modeled by Christ

and an intense professional will to do whatever it took to advance His kingdom. My

grandfather once wrote to me and said: “You wear my name with honor. For this, I

am very pleased.” I pray that this dissertation and my life will bring honor to our

name and to His name.


Acknowledgements

The process of earning a Ph.D. requires support from a variety of sources,

and it is appropriate to acknowledge and thank four specific groups of people who

have provided valuable support throughout the past 4 years.

First, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to sit and learn at the feet of the

professors of the School of Business and Leadership at Regent University.

Specifically, Dr. Bruce Winston, Dr. Corne’ Bekker, Dr. Dail Fields, Dr. Paul Carr,

and Dr. Mihai Bocarnea exemplify the personal humility and professional will of

Level 5 leadership. Special thanks for the coaching and guidance of Dr. Winston as

the chair of this dissertation as well as Dr. West and Dr. Wood as committee

members who provided valuable insight.

The journey throughout this Ph.D. process has been immeasurably more

enjoyable due to my fellow members of the 2009 cohort. We studied hard together,

dialogued online, and truly enjoyed each other’s company. Though not practical to

list everyone, there are several, mostly from Group 3, who deserve special mention:

John Wilson, David Peltz, Andrea Ramirez, David Oginde, Laurel Emory, and

Heidi Frederick.

The support of friends, notably at Journey Christian Church, SP Richards,

and on Facebook, has been a great encouragement to continue forward.

Finally, my family has been awesome. When I told my beautiful wife Chris

that I wanted to go back to school to get a Ph.D., her first reaction was, “You are

nuts!” When she realized that I was serious, she was very supportive and

encouraging. My teenage daughters Chelsea, Kerri, and Kayleigh were

understanding and patient when I retreated to the mancave for hours at a time to

work on papers. Dad and mom, Wilbur and Linda Reid, Jr., have shown their pride

in what I am doing, which has also been an encouragement.


Table of Contents

Abstract.....................................................................................................................iii

Dedication.................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................v

List of Tables and Figures......................................................................................viii

Chapter 1 – Introduction............................................................................................1

Theory of Level 5 Leadership.............................................................................2

Method and Analysis..........................................................................................4

Research Goals....................................................................................................6

Limitations of Study...........................................................................................6

Chapter 2 – Literature Review...................................................................................7

Personal Humility...............................................................................................8

Professional Will...............................................................................................10

Servant Leadership............................................................................................12

Charisma...........................................................................................................15

Secondary Literature.........................................................................................16

Summary of Characteristics..............................................................................18

Chapter 3 – Method..................................................................................................22

Determine Clearly What it is You Want to Measure........................................22

Generate an Item Pool.......................................................................................22

Determine the Format for Measurement...........................................................23

Expert Panel Review.........................................................................................23

Consider Inclusion of Validation Items............................................................28

Administer Items to a Development Sample....................................................29

Evaluate the Samples........................................................................................29

Reliability and Validity.....................................................................................30

Chapter 4 – Results..................................................................................................32

Demographic Variables....................................................................................32

Factor Analysis.................................................................................................34

Defining Variables............................................................................................42

Discriminant Validity Tests..............................................................................46


Final Instrument................................................................................................54

Summary...........................................................................................................56

Chapter 5 – Discussion.............................................................................................57

Evaluation of Findings......................................................................................57

Implications of Research...................................................................................58

Limitations of Study.........................................................................................59

Recommendations for Future Research............................................................59

Summary...........................................................................................................60

References................................................................................................................61

Appendix A – Survey Summary..............................................................................67

Appendix B – Human Subjects Review Board Application....................................79


List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Professional Will and Personal Humility Results........................................5

Table 2: Positive and Negative Terms Describing Personal Humility and

Professional Will (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins &

Hanson, 2001; Collins & Rose, 2009)..............................................................19

Table 3: Expert Panel for Instrument Verification...................................................24

Table 4: Average Scores of Relevance from Expert Panel......................................25

Table 5: Reliability as Measured by Cronbach’s Alpha..........................................31

Table 6: Gender and Age of Subjects......................................................................32

Table 7: Gender of Participant and Boss..................................................................33

Table 8: Age of Participant and Boss.......................................................................33

Table 9: Boss Position and Type of Organization...................................................34

Table 10: Religious Affiliation and Religious Commitment of Boss......................34

Figure 1: Scree plot for principal component analysis.............................................35

Table 11: Total Variance Explained........................................................................36

Table 12: Structure Matrix of Two Components.....................................................40

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Four Key Variables for Each Leader (N = 349)42

Table 14: Reliability of Scales.................................................................................43

Figure 2: Professional will and personal humility results (N =349)........................44

Table 15: Collins’ (2006) Eight Questions Total Variance Explained....................44

Table 16: Tests of Normality...................................................................................45

Table 17: Correlation Coefficients Using Spearman’s Rho.....................................46

Table 18: Leaders Identified as Level 5 Compared to Individual Constructs..........47

Table 19: Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances to Determine if Responses are

Normally Distributed........................................................................................47

Table 20: Independent Samples Test of L5 Within Key Variables.........................48

Table 21: Demographic Comparisons Between Level 5 and non-Level 5 Leaders.49

Table 22: Significance of Level 5 Leader by Demographic Variable.....................51

Table 23: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Religious Commitment of Level 5 Leaders

...........................................................................................................................52

Table 24: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Organization Type of Level 5 Leaders... .53


Table 25: Level 5 Leadership Scale Attributes........................................................54

Table 26: Final Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS) Attributes..................................55

Table A1: Level 5 Leadership..................................................................................68

Table A2: Servant leadership...................................................................................72

Table A3: Collins’ Eight Questions.........................................................................73

Table A4: Demographics.........................................................................................76


Chapter 1 – Introduction

Jim Collins is a business consultant, professor, and author who has studied

the rise and fall of organizations and sold more than 10 million books with

observations and conclusions regarding the drivers of success and failure (Collins,

2012; Woolridge, 2011). Collins’ first two books, Built to Last (Collins & Porras,

1994) and Good to Great (Collins, 2001), became seminal publications for this

generation of business leaders. They were both listed among the top 20 most

influential business books by Forbes Magazine (Ackman, 2002) and occupied

positions on the Businessweek best-seller list for over 6 years each, selling millions

of copies in dozens of languages (Bennett, 2011). The books have “made a

worldwide impact on management and leadership practice and research” (Caulkins,

2008, p. 217). The books’ peculiar terms and phrases have become part of the

lexicon of American business: getting the right people on the bus, facing the brutal

facts, big hairy audacious goals (BHAGs), first who. . . then what, the flywheel and

the doom loop, the hedgehog concept, clock building and time telling, and Level 5

leadership (Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1994). Of all the ideas that Collins has

shared in his books, perhaps the most surprising and meaningful concept is Level 5

leadership. Collins found that companies that rose from good to great were all led

by humble CEOs who had “an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition

for the organization” (Collins, 2009, 1:15). Collins identified this as Level 5

leadership. There are, however, no instruments to measure Level 5 leaders

(Liccardo, 2007). May (2006) summarized this problem in a book review:

Level 5 leadership is vague. The only trait people seem to agree on is that

level 5 leaders have humility. Humble leaders can be a good thing, but if

Jim Collins can’t even tell whether or not Jack Welch was a level 5, what

chance do the rest of us have? Isn’t Collins supposed to be the expert on

Level 5 leadership? Hasn’t more been written about Jack Welch than about

most other CEOs? And Collins can’t tell? He’s either being diplomatic and

refusing to say “no, Welch wasn’t” or Level 5 leadership is business jibber

jabber. (para. 8)

1


The purpose of this dissertation is to develop a scientifically validated

instrument to measure Collins’ (2001) Level 5 Leadership. Collins theorized that

there are many people who have the seed of Level 5 leadership but have not

achieved the higher titles of leadership such as CEO because the ambition and

egoistic needs that often drive people into leadership stand at odds with the

humility and servanthood that is required for Level 5 leadership. Collins (2001)

stated,

I believe—although I cannot prove—that potential Level 5 leaders are

prevalent in our society. The problem is not, in my estimation, a dearth of

potential Level 5 leaders. They exist all around us, if we just know what to

look for. (p. 37)

In a recent speech, Collins (2011) added that “our problem is not a lack of Level 5

leadership. Our problem is the lack of wisdom to put Level 5 at the top” (0:01).

Collins’ organization, ChimpWorks LLC, confirmed, however, that there is no

research data in this area (S. B. Toll, personal communication, February 28, 2012).

An instrument to identify the complementary presence of professional will and

personal humility in individuals provides an actionable tool to identify the seeds of

Level 5 leadership.

Theory of Level 5 Leadership

An overview of the literature from Collins provides the foundational

concepts to research and understand the levels of leadership. Collins and his

research team examined the stock performance of 1,435 corporations over a period

of 40 years, looking for companies that had a history of being good but then

became great. They identified 11 corporations as having a period of sustained

growth and success, far outpacing the market and industry.

The company's fifteen-year cumulative stock returns had to be at or below

the general stock market, punctuated by a transition point, and then

cumulative returns had to be at least three times the market value over the

next fifteen years. (Collins, 2001, p. 6)

2


The good-to-great company performance had to be independent of its industry.

These good-to-great companies were benchmarked to a comparable company from

the same industry that did not achieve greatness. One of the key characteristics that

separated these good-to-great companies from comparison companies in the same

industry that did not become great was the leadership style of the CEO. Collins

identified a hierarchy of five levels of people in an organization: “1) highly capable

individual, 2) contributing team member, 3) competent manager, 4) effective

leader, and 5) level 5 executive” (Collins, 2001, p. 20). Descriptions of Level 3 and

Level 4 leaders are brief because Collins (2001) indicated that they are “discussed

extensively by other authors” (p. 21). A Level 3 leader is a competent manager who

“organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of

predetermined objectives” (Collins, 2001, p. 20). A Level 4 leader is an effective

leader who “catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and

compelling vision, and stimulates the group to high performance standards”

(Collins, 2001, p. 20). Since it took 15 years of great performance to identify Level

5 leadership, it is difficult to recognize these valuable leaders quickly.

Level 5 leadership is unique. Collins (2001) defined a Level 5 leader as one

who “builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility

and professional will” (p. 20). This is the highest and most effective level of

leadership. Level 4 leaders are often charismatic and egocentric and do not set up

their successors for success, whereas Level 5 leaders are more “plow horse than

show horse” (Collins, 2001, p. 39). They are self-effacing and understated and

make sure that those around them are set up for success. They defer praise and

share it with their team; however, this meekness and servant approach should not

be misinterpreted as weakness. Level 5 leaders have a fierce stoic resolve and are

ambitious first and foremost for the organization.

The study of Level 5 leaders must utilize two distinct constructs. “Level 5

leaders are a study in duality: modest and willful, humble and fearless” (Collins,

2001, p. 22). The first construct is one of a humble, servant leader. Collins used the

following words to describe this characteristic of Level 5 leaders: modest, servant,

shy, awkward, humble, quiet, reserved, placid persona, gracious, mild-mannered,

3


self-effacing, and understated. A Level 5 leader demonstrates a compelling

modesty, shunning public adulation and never boasting. A Level 5 leader acts with

quiet, calm determination and relies principally on inspired standards rather than

charisma to motivate. He or she channels ambition into the company, not the self,

and sets up successors for even greater success in the next generation. Collins

(2001) described how Level 5 leaders look out the window, not in the mirror, to

apportion credit for the success of the company, attributing the success to other

people, external factors, and good luck.

In trying to decide on a term to describe these Level 5 leaders, the research

team considered using the term servant leader (Collins, 2001). They decided

against it, however, because it was not a comprehensive description that accounted

for the idea of professional will, and the research team was afraid people would

perceive that these leaders were meek or weak. Despite this concern, servant

leadership may be a valid description of the first construct of Level 5 leadership.

The second construct of Level 5 leadership is professional will. Collins

(2001) also described this as ferocious and unwavering resolve, inner intensity,

stoic resolve, ambition first and foremost for the company, and “an absolute,

obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition for the organization” (Collins, 2009, 1:25).

The leader with a strong personal will

creates superb results, a clear catalyst in the transition from good to

great . . . . Demonstrates an unwavering resolve to do whatever must be

done to produce the best long-term results, no matter how difficult. . . . Sets

the standard of building an enduring great company; will settle for nothing

less . . . . Looks in the mirror, not out the window, to apportion

responsibility for poor results, never blaming other people, external factors,

or bad luck. (Collins, 2001, p. 36)

Method and Analysis

An instrument to measure Level 5 leadership required an online survey with

a list of leadership characteristics compiled from a review of the literature,

interviews, and presentations from Collins regarding Level 5 leadership and all of

4


the relevant keywords and synonyms. Subjects were asked to think of their current

or most recent boss and to what extent their boss exhibits the characteristics of the

various Level 5 traits (e.g., “To what extent does your boss exhibit humility?”). The

subjects chose from a 10-point semantic differential scale, ranging from 1 (not at

all) to 10 (exactly). Factor analysis determined the number of latent variables that

exist in the original pool of terms that describe personal humility and professional

will. The items were condensed so that the variation was accounted for by the

smallest number of items that best describe the variation. Cronbach’s alpha of at

least .70 insures reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). The

results were tested for content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct

validity. DeVellis (2012) developed a methodology for scale development that

functioned as a guide for developing a scale to measure Level 5 leadership.

The personal humility and professional will responses were summed for

each leader to determine two separate scores for humility and will. These scores

were then benchmarked against the aggregate score for each attribute to determine

if each leader was either above average or below average in each category. The

leaders were assigned to one of four categories: (a) weak leadership, below average

in both categories; (b) humble, above average humility but below average will; (c)

strong will, above average professional will but below average humility; and (d)

Level 5, above average humility and above average will (see Table 1).

Table 1: Professional Will and Personal Humility Results

Professional will weak Professional will strong

Humility weak Weak leadership Strong will

Humility strong Humble Level 5

In addition to this list of characteristics to determine humility and will, there

are two instruments that have been suggested as possible measures of Level 5

5


leadership. Patterson, Redmer and Stone (2003) and Drury (2004) suggested that

servant leadership may be the same as Level 5 leadership and recommended

empirical research to determine the relationship between the two. In addition,

Collins (2006) suggested that there are eight questions that can be asked to

determine if a person is a Level 5 leader. These eight questions and a validated

servant leadership scale were added to the extensive list of factored and validated

leader traits to determine if there is a relationship between the leadership

characteristics of servant leadership, Collins’ Level 5 questions, and the

characteristics of Level 5 leaders. The literature review in Chapter 2 articulates the

specific details of this theory. The survey was administered through Survey

Monkey™ to a wide variety of subjects who were reached using social media.

Research Goals

The core research problem is that there is no way for leaders to measure

Level 5 leadership within their organizations. This study will answer three research

questions: (a) Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature, can a

statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? (b) Is the

personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership?

(c) Do Collins’ (2006) eight questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the

attributes and characteristics that he used to describe Level 5 leadership? The goal

of this study is to provide an accurate and effective instrument to measure Level 5

leadership within individuals.

Limitations of Study

There are a number of applications of an instrument to measure Level 5

leadership that are not addressed in this study. For example, how does Level 5

leadership compare to John Maxwell’s (2011) five levels of leadership or Likert’s

System 5 leadership (Likert & Likert, 1976)? Common method variance and social

desirability response bias are minimized because (a) this is not a self-reporting

survey and (b) responses are evaluated relative to each other instead of a

comparison to an established benchmark.

6


Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Jim Collins (2001) provided the primary literature surrounding Level 5

leadership. In addition to the introduction of the term in Good to Great (Collins,

2001), Collins either authored or was extensively quoted in diverse journal and

popular press articles published in Harvard Business Review (Collins, 2005),

Strategy and Leadership (Finnie & Abraham, 2002), and Newsweek (McGinn &

Silver-Greenberg, 2005). In addition, he published three videos and 16 audio clips

regarding Level 5 leadership on his website (www.jimcollins.com) and provided

interviews and presentations that are available on his YouTube channel (Collins,

2009, 2011; Collins & Rose, 2009). Secondary literature sources come from a

variety of sources from a diverse pool of authors.

Collins embarked on the good-to-great project with a team of researchers

and a tremendous amount of data. Once the research team identified the 11 good-

to-great companies and the comparison companies, they began to pour through the

data to identify the characteristics that distinguished the great company from the

good company. Collins specifically instructed the team to ignore leadership as a

factor because he believed it was a general answer that was often used to explain

anything that researchers did not understand. To his surprise, he walked into the

research room one day and found that the research team had locked arms and stated

“Today is the day, Jim, that we have decided to tell you that you are wrong”

(Collins & Rose, 2009, 4:22). The research team had discovered that, although

there was strong leadership in both the great and comparison companies, the great

companies were led by people who were “cut from the same cloth” (Collins, 2001,

p. 22). They were different than that of the comparison leaders.

To illustrate the difference between these leaders who presided over the

change from good to great, Collins (2001) presented stories about three of the

leaders: Darwin Smith from Kimberly-Clark, Colman Mockler from Gillette, and

David Maxwell from Fannie Mae. Smith was Kimberly-Clark’s in-house attorney

who did not feel qualified to take the reins of the paper giant. He and his leadership

team decided that K-C’s core business of paper was doomed to mediocrity and

made the stunning decision to sell the paper mills and reinvest the proceeds in the

7


consumer business to develop brands like Kleenex, Huggies, Kotex, Depends, and

Cottonelle. Mockler was a quiet gentleman who displayed fierce resolve to stave

off a hostile takeover bid and retain control of the company that he guided to

greatness. Maxwell displayed a commitment first and foremost for the company

when he gave up $5.5 million in bonuses at retirement for the good of Fannie Mae

(Collins, 2001). The following sections provide an overview of the literature

regarding the two constructs of Level 5 leadership: personal humility and

professional will.

Personal Humility

The first construct of Level 5 leadership is personal humility. Collins (2001)

defined this idea of humility by first describing the characteristics of some of the 11

good-to-great leaders. Darwin Smith of Kimberly-Clark was described as a shy

man who had a lack of any pretense or air of self-importance. He felt unqualified to

accept the job of CEO. At his retirement 20 years later, he said that “he never

stopped trying to become qualified for the job” (Wicks, 1997, p. 10). Though Smith

was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, he avoided the spotlight and was an

ordinary man who usually associated with people that society would not consider

important. Colman Mockler was described as a quiet, reserved, courteous, gracious,

gentleman with a placid persona. David Maxwell was highlighted because his

ambition was first and foremost for the company and not himself. Ken Iverson’s

lifestyle was described as simple, humble, and modest. The Level 5 leaders did not

talk about themselves; when others talked about them they said that “it wasn’t just

false modesty. Those who worked with or wrote about the good-to-great leaders

continually used words like quiet, humble, modest, reserved, shy, gracious, mild

mannered, self-effacing, understated, did not believe his own clippings; and so

forth” (Collins, 2001, p. 27). In addition to these three good-to-great CEOs, Collins

(2001) also featured Abraham Lincoln as a Level 5 leader and cited his personal

modesty, shy nature, and awkward manner. Level 5 leaders are selfless and servant

leaders. In the research interview, Alan Wurtzel of Circuit City was asked to

describe the difference between himself and his Level 4 counterpart at the

8


comparison company. He stated that it was the difference between “the show horse

and the plow horse—he was more of a show horse, whereas I was more of a plow

horse” (Collins, 2001, p. 33).

Although people in the organization and outside observers credited the

Level 5 leaders as the key to elevating the company from good to great, these

leaders do not accept the credit and often credit luck.

Level 5 leaders look out the window to apportion credit to factors outside

themselves when things go well (and if they cannot find a specific person or

event to give credit to, they credit luck). At the same time, they look in the

mirror to apportion responsibility, never blaming bad luck when things go

poorly. (Collins, 2001, p. 35)

In contrast, the Level 4 leaders of the comparison company did just the opposite,

taking credit for success and blaming bad luck for failures. The Level 5 leaders of

the good-to-great companies were contrasted with the Level 4 leaders in the

comparison companies like Lee Iacocca of Chrysler and Al Dunlap of Scott Paper.

The Level 4 CEOs were described as charismatic, egocentric, tyrannical,

celebrated, personally ambitious, and larger-than-life celebrities. They had

gargantuan personal egos and were seekers of fame, fortune, adulation, and power.

These leaders were boastful and concerned with their own personal greatness,

loudly beating their own chest and bragging about their accomplishments. Level 4

leaders do not set up successors for success. Iacocca was described as treating

successor candidates “the way Henry the VIII treated wives” (Taylor, 1992, p. 1).

In contrast to the Level 4 leader, the Level 5 leader can be summarized as

one who demonstrates a compelling modesty, shunning public adulation and never

boastfing. He or she acts with quiet, calm determination, relying principally on

inspired standards, not inspiring charisma, to motivate. He or she channels

ambition into the company, not the self, and sets up successors for even greater

success in the next generation. The Level 5 leader looks out the window, not in the

mirror, to apportion credit for the success of the company, crediting other people,

external factors, and good luck (Collins, 2001). Collins (as cited in Serfontein &

Hough, 2011) concluded that humility is key to successful leadership: “we cannot

9


see something from the perspective of another if we do not have deep humility,

because without it we impose our own perspective or analyze things from our own

perspective only; we will not see the other person’s viewpoint” (p. 396). Leaders,

therefore, must reassess their role regarding practice and power within the

organization, and the organization must consider whether their leaders recognize

and appreciate the implications of their power (Goleman, 2000).

Professional Will

The second construct of Level 5 leadership is professional will. Ten years

after Good to Great was published, Collins acknowledged that his description of

Level 5 leadership “focused heavily on the humility aspect of Level 5 leaders”

(Collins & Hanson, 2011, p. 32) but said the most important trait of Level 5 leaders

is that they are “incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for

the cause, for the company, for the work, not themselves” (Collins & Hanson, 2011,

p. 32). Although Collins and secondary writers seem to have dwelled more on the

concept of personal humility in leaders because it seems to be a novel concept in

the corporate world, Level 5 leadership is equal parts humility and “ferocious

resolve, an almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the

company great” (Collins, 2001, p. 30). Collins (2009) described this professional

will in Level 5 leaders as “an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition that

was not about them” (1:15). After describing Darwin Smith’s personal humility

previously referenced, Collins (2001) stated that “if you were to think of Darwin

Smith as somehow meek or soft, you would be terribly mistaken. His awkward

shyness and lack of pretense was coupled with a fierce, even stoic, resolve toward

life” (p. 18). This intense, ferocious resolve was coupled with an incredible work

ethic (Collins, 2001). Colman Mockler was described as a strong and tireless

fighter with an inner intensity to make whatever he touched the best that it could

be. David Maxwell was ambitious for the company, not himself. “Level 5 leaders

are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results” (Collins,

2001, p. 30). Level 5 leaders are fearless and not afraid to “draw a line in the sand”

(Collins, 2005, p. 8). They have a workmanlike diligence, are a clear catalyst in the

10


transitions from good to great, and set the standard of greatness. They will settle for

nothing less.

Although the term professional will has not been utilized in academic

research, there are other terms that Collins (2001) used to describe professional will

that are supported by academic research. Three of the more prominent terms that

have been utilized in research are intrinsic motivation, self-determination, and work

ethic. Like the professional will of a leader who is focused intently on the

organization, motivation is about energy and direction of behavior (Deci & Ryan,

1985). Maslow (1946) stated that “man is a perpetually wanting animal” (p. 370)

and defined a hierarchy of needs that man seeks to fulfill (Maslow, 1954).

However, there are varying levels of motivation within each person based on innate

and social influences (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence, and equifinality—all

aspects of activation and intention. Motivation has been a central and

perennial issue in the field of psychology, for it is at the core of biological,

cognitive, and social recognition. Perhaps more important, in the real world,

motivation is highly valued because of its consequences: Motivation

produces. It is therefore of preeminent concern to those in roles such as

manager, teacher, religious leader, coach, health care provider, and parent

that involve mobilizing others to act. (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 69)

Intrinsic motivation does not rely on exterior sources of influence but is a person’s

“natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and

exploration” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).

Since it is often difficult to differentiate between extrinsic and intrinsic

motivation, self-determination theory has gained widespread attention as a theory

of work motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Self-determination theory is concerned

with the intrinsic motivation behind the choices that people make and identifies

three innate needs that must be satisfied for optimum growth: competence,

relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals with high levels of

intrinsic motivation and self-determination are more likely to succeed in their work

(Deci & Ryan, 1985). A leader who exhibits intrinsic motivation and self-

11


determination to perform at a high level on the job will likely meet the definition of

professional will that is found in Collins literature (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005,

2009).

Within the construct of professional will, Collins (2001) identified Level 5

leaders as exhibiting a strong work ethic. Work ethic has been described as “the

complete and relentless devotion to one’s economic role on earth” (Lim, Woehr,

You, & Gorman, 2007, p. 319). Although the term work ethic has been used for

centuries, it was popularized and connected to religion in the 20th century by

Weber (1958) in his seminal publication titled The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit

of Capitalism (Miller, Woehr, & Hudspeth, 2001).

The religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly

calling, as the highest means to asceticism, and at the same time the surest

and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the

most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward

life which we have here called the spirit of capitalism. (Weber, 1958, p.

172)

Protestants in early America adopted scriptural commands such as the following:

“Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col 3:17,

New International Version), “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the

proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up” (Gal 6:9), and “The one

who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thess 3:10). The concept of professional

will, therefore, may have some relationship to religious commitment.

Servant Leadership

A common perception among business leaders is that Level 5 leadership is

just another name for servant leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2010). Additionally, in

academia, Patterson et al. (2003) and Drury (2004) suggested that Level 5

leadership may be the same as servant leadership. Wong and Davey (2007)

concluded that servant leaders are more likely to be Level 5 leaders, van

Dierendonck (2011) stated that there is a clear overlap between Level 5 and servant

leadership, and Morris, Brotheridge, and Urbanski (2005) found that “there are

12


marked similarities between the behavior of those termed Level 5 leaders and the

servant or humble leader” (p. 1323). Greenleaf (1970, 1977) introduced the concept

of servant leadership in the modern era. The focus of servant leadership is on the

development and performance of the follower (Winston & Fields, in press).

Greenleaf (1977) described the motivation behind the desire to lead:

The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that

one wants to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.

That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps

because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire

material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve—after

leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two

extreme types. Between them are shadings and blends that are part of the

infinite variety of human nature. . . . The difference manifests itself in the

care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest

priority needs are being served. (p. 13)

As Collins’ research team was searching for a term to describe this new type of

leadership seen in the good-to-great companies, there was some discussion

regarding calling it servant leadership. According to Collins (2001), however,

Members of the team violently objected to these characterizations. Those

labels don’t ring true. . . . It makes them sound weak or meek, but that is not

at all the way that I think of Darwin Smith or Colman Mockler. They would

do almost anything to make the company great. (p. 30)

The modern idea of servant leadership is particularly popular in Christian

cultures as a result of the teachings of Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. Although Jesus

did not use terms that are translated as leader or leadership, he described the

positions, characteristics, and actions of people in leadership such as teacher, lord,

and great. An example of the teachings of Jesus on servant leadership followed a

mother’s request to exalt her sons:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the

Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over

them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you

13


must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve. (Matt 20:25-

27)

Jesus put his teachings into actions in the upper room before the Passover shortly

before his death. There was no servant to wash the feet of the group. The custom

was that the lowest ranked non-Jewish slave would wash the feet of the dinner

guests upon arrival; however, the Messiah, son of God, put a towel around his waist

and proceeded to wash the feet of each individual disciple.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned

to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.

“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.

Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should

wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I

have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his

master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you

know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. (John 13:12-17)

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul captured the significance of the humility of

Jesus and exhorted his readers to follow His example.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value

others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you

to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have

the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not

consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he

humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that

is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in

heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge

that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:3-11)

14


Following the introduction of servant leadership into modern leadership

research by Greenleaf (1970, 1977), studies have sought to define measures to

quantify the attributes of a servant leader (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson,

2003; Winston, 2003; Winston & Fields, in press). Winston and Fields identified 10

essential servant leader behaviors:

1. Practices what he or she preaches;

2. Serves people without regard to their nationality, gender, or race;

3. Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others;

4. Genuinely is interested in employees as people;

5. Understands that serving others is most important;

6. Is willing to make sacrifices to help others;

7. Seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity;

8. Is always honest;

9. Is driven by a sense of higher calling; and

10. Promotes values that transcend self-interest and material success.

Winston and Fields’ behaviors help determine the relationship between personal

humility and Level 5 leadership. Based on a review of the key attributes of servant

leadership, it seems that servant leadership does not account for the professional

will element of Level 5 leadership, but it may be the same as the construct part of

personal humility within Level 5 leadership.

Charisma

Charismatic leaders have been notably successful in political, religious, and

societal contexts and are now being studied more in the context of business,

military, and educational contexts (Bass, 2008). Because “charismatics exude

confidence, dominance, a sense of purpose, and the ability to articulate the goals

and ideas for which followers are already prepared psychologically” (Bass, 2008, p.

576), it was quite a surprise in Good to Great (Collins, 2001) when the comparison

companies were the ones that were led by charismatic leaders and the good-to-great

companies were not. The fact that the findings “fly in the face of our modern

business culture and will, quite frankly, upset some people” (Collins, 2002, p. 1).

15


The idea of charisma and charismatic leadership is scarcely mentioned in

Good to Great (Collins, 2001), but the reader response to this surprising conclusion

of Level 5 leadership led Collins to address the topic in subsequent speeches,

interviews, and publications. In a 2009 speech, Collins said that some of the great

Level 5 leaders seemed to have a charisma bypass and that “we should never

confuse charisma for leadership” (0:21) . In an interview, Collins stated that

charisma is negatively correlated to leading a company from good to great, and a

leader must overcome the handicap of charisma to be successful (Collins & Rose,

2009). Charisma is considered to be a handicap because, if you are a charismatic

leader, you can “convince everyone you are right to the power of your personality”

(Collins, 2009, 3:08); however, leaders without charisma must lead by the merit of

their ideas and strong team support. Sam Walton is recognized as a great leader

who overcame his charisma to build a strong team and become a Level 5 leader

(Collins & Rose, 2009).

Collins and Porras (1994) described the difference between a time teller and

a clock maker. A time teller is a great visionary leader who can look out on the

horizon, determine what time it is, and then communicate the discovery to the rest

of the organization. When the time teller is no longer there, however, nobody else

in the organization can determine the time. Time tellers are not Level 5 leaders and

may be referred to as a “genius with a thousand helpers” (Collins & Rose, 2009,

1:46). Lee Iacocca is an example of a charismatic time teller who led Chrysler to

greatness for a few years; but, he was not able to sustain the greatness by himself,

and the company slipped back to mediocrity (Collins & Rose, 2009). In contrast to

the time teller leader, clock makers build a clock so that others in the organization

can determine the time long after the clock maker is gone. Level 5 leaders are clock

makers who surround themselves with quality individuals and strive to develop

them into leaders.

Secondary Literature

Since the publication of Good to Great (Collins, 2001), interest in the

concept of Level 5 leadership has remained popular in press and literature around

16


the world. The majority of the secondary references simply pass along descriptions

of Level 5 leadership as Collins (2001) described it, without adding value to the

discussion other than educating readers to the concept. Although professional will

seems to be accepted as a given for effective leadership, and humility in leadership

is not a new concept in American leadership, the idea of effective leadership being

driven by personal humility seems to resonate with leadership experts around the

world (Baale, 2011; Ling, 2009; “Taking Russia From Good to Great,” 2012;

Pimolsaengsuriya, 2012; Smith, 2005). Many leadership books now include

references to Level 5 leadership (Fullan, 2004; Ogden & Meyer, 2007; Tokunaga,

2003; Williams, 2005). The Schumpeter column in The Economist bemoaned the

lack of flamboyant and colorful leaders in business across the globe and blamed

Collins as one of the reasons:

Facelessness—or at least humility—is also the height of fashion among

management consultants and business gurus. Corporate headhunters are

helping firms find “humble” bosses. Jim Collins, one of America's most

popular gurus, argues that the best chief executives are not flamboyant

visionaries but “humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls”. Business

journalists have taken to producing glowing profiles of self-effacing and

self-denying bosses such as Haruka Nishimatsu, the boss of Japan Airlines,

who travels to work on the bus and pays himself less than his pilots, and

Mike Eskew, the former boss of UPS, who flew coach and shares an

administrative assistant with three other people. (Woolridge, 2009, p. 1)

Despite the desire of some for a star CEO, Malmendier and Tate (2008) found that

CEOs who have won prestigious business awards subsequently underperform both

their own previous performance and the performance of CEOs who do not win

awards. “Our results suggest that the ex-post consequences of media-induced

superstar status for shareholders are negative” (Malmendier & Tate, 2008, p. 1593).

A common question regarding Level 5 leadership is: “Can you learn to

become Level 5?” (Collins, 2001, p. 35). Collins’ understanding of the answer to

this question has evolved with him now seeing Level 5 leadership as more

17


learnable than he used to believe (Bisoux, 2007). Yet, he cautioned that “the truth is

that Level 5 leadership is painful—not everyone is up to it” (Bisoux, 2007, p. 18).

There are two primary criticisms of the research that led to Level 5

leadership: lack of disconfirming research (May, 2006) and evidence of leaders

who are successful and clearly do not exhibit Level 5 characteristics. The lack of

disconfirming evidence suggests that there may be numerous Level 5 leaders who

are not successful.

Collins’ team looked at the companies that went from good to great and said

“What do all these have in common?” They never went back and said “are

there any companies that have these traits that did not make the leap from

good to great?” And I understand why they didn’t. Because these principles

are vague and it would be hard to debate whether or not an unsuccessful

company was doing these good-to-great things. (May, 2006, p. 1)

Some critics have pointed to great leaders like Lee Iacocca, Steve Jobs, Jack

Welch, and Donald Trump who have tremendous egos and, yet, are considered

great leaders. Collins readily admitted that there are egocentric leaders who

demonstrate great results for a period of time, but Level 5 leaders build a strong

team around them so the organization remains great when they are no longer there.

Summary of Characteristics

A simple 2x2 grid summarizes the characteristics the literature review

captures. There were originally a total of 99 items: (a) 55 describing personal

humility and (b) 44 describing professional will. Personal humility and professional

will can be described with both positive and negative terms. For example, positive

attributes such as humble describe the Level 5 leader, while negative attributes such

as egocentric describe a leader who is not Level 5. Table 2 summarizes the terms

that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins & Hanson, 2001; Collins

& Rose, 2009) has used to describe Level 5 leaders.

18


Table 2: Positive and Negative Terms Describing Personal Humility and

Professional Will (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins & Hanson,

2001; Collins & Rose, 2009)

Positive Negative

Personal humility

Humble Egocentric

Set up others for success Arrogant

Genuine Overbearing

Lack of pretense Condescending

Gives others credit for success Patronizing

Accepts responsibility when things

don’t go well

Pretentious

Modest Talks about themselves a lot

Authentic Does not set up successors for success

Team player Large personal ego

Sets up successors for success Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and

power

Self-effacing Boastful

Gracious Self-serving (at the expense of others)

Unpretentious Acts superior

Courteous Large ego

Understated Air of self-importance

Servant attitude Rude

Doesn't seek spotlight Snooty

Reserved personality Seeks personal greatness

Placid persona (pleasantly calm or

peaceful)

Charismatic leadership

Selfless (puts the needs of others first) Brash

Unassuming Confident

Low-key Personal ambition

19


Positive Negative

Reserved Larger-than-life

Quiet Gutsy

Associates with unimportant people Big personality

Shy Socially awkward

Simple

Mild-mannered

May feel unqualified for the job

Professional will

Resolve Unmotivated

Inner intensity Lazy

Gets results Undisciplined

Self-motivated Weak leader

Ferocious resolve Afraid to take a chance

Intense resolve Surrounded by “yes-men”

Drive Cowardly

Self-control Motivated by financial gain

Strength of character

Courageous

Bold

Builds strong team

Strong work ethic

Clear catalyst in achieving results

Ambitious for organization

Fearless

Results oriented

Self-determination (determination not

influenced by outsiders)

Enthusiastic desire to produce results

Unafraid to take risk

20


Positive Negative

Intense personality

Will settle for nothing less than the best

Pride in the organization

Dedication to the organization

Willpower (able to control one's

impulses and actions)

Backbone

Daring: willing to take a chance

Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred

based on emotional ups and downs

Fanatically driven to achieve results

Stoic determination

Desire for organization

Will

Gutsy

Workmanlike diligence

Obsession for organization

Fanatically driven

21


Chapter 3 – Method

With the lack of an instrument to measure this important concept of Level 5

leadership, the characteristics of Level 5 leadership were explored to develop a

parsimonious scale to identify the Level 5 traits of leaders. Three research

questions were asked: (a) Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature,

can a statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? (b)

Is the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant

leadership? and (c) Do Collins’ (2006) eight questions to test Level 5 leadership

correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he used to describe Level 5

leadership? This study provides an accurate and effective instrument to measure

Level 5 leadership within individuals.

This chapter outlines the steps utilized to develop the Level 5 leadership

instrument. The literature review in the previous chapter identified 99 attributes in

the item pool that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) highlighted to

describe Level 5 leaders. DeVellis (2012) defined eight steps for scale

development: (a) determine clearly what it is you want to measure, (b) generate an

item pool, (c) determine the format for measurement, (d) have initial item pool

reviewed by experts, (e) consider inclusion of validation items, (f) administer items

to a development sample, (g) evaluate the samples, and (h) optimize scale length.

Determine Clearly What it is You Want to Measure

The research task is to develop an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership,

as described by Collins (2001). Since there are no empirically tested tools currently

to identify Level 5 leaders within organizations, the constructed tool will be

necessarily new and unique. Servant leadership was also measured to determine if

there is a relationship between servant leadership and Level 5 leadership, as has

been suggested by Patterson (2003) and Drury (2004).

Generate an Item Pool

The researcher identified 99 unique attributes and characteristics that

Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) utilized in literature as well as video

22


interviews and speeches. There is some redundancy in the list, but DeVellis (2012)

pointed out that redundancy enhances reliability and is not bad: “At this stage of the

scale development process, it is better to be more inclusive” (p. 78). A key

objective in this task is to ensure that items will be clear and unambiguous to the

person responding to the survey. The items selected have a blend of positive and

negative characteristics.

Determine the Format for Measurement

The semantic differential scaling method was utilized to collect the

responses of subjects to the attributes and characteristics describing Level 5 leaders.

This method is highly compatible with theoretical models like the researcher is

addressing in this study (DeVellis, 2012). Subjects were asked the following

question:

On a scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do the following characteristics

describe your boss? 1 indicates that this characteristic does not describe

your boss at all, while a 10 indicates that it describes him/her exactly.

Not At All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Exactly

Expert Panel Review

After identifying the attributes and characteristics that Collins (2001, 2002,

2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) used to describe Level 5 leaders, it is necessary to

determine which of these characteristics is the most relevant for further

consideration. This was effectively accomplished by engaging a panel of experts.

Four authors who have published on the topic of Level 5 leadership or scale

development of servant leadership agreed to participate in the study (see Table 3).

Collins’ organization, ChimpWorks LLC, declined to participate in the expert

panel.

23


Table 3: Expert Panel for Instrument Verification

Expert Relevant publication titles

Dr. Kathleen Patterson,

Regent University, Virginia

Beach, VA

Transformational Leaders to Servant Leaders

versus Level 4 Leaders to Level 5 Leaders—The

Move from Good to Great (2003)

Dr. Douglas Caulkins,

Grinnell University, Grinell,

Iowa

Re-theorizing Jim Collins’s Culture of Discipline

in Good to Great (2008)

Dr. Dail Fields, Regent

University, Virginia Beach,

VA

Seeking the Essence of Servant Leadership

(Winston & Fields, in press)

Dr. Sabrina Liccardo,

University of

Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, South Africa

Level 5 Leaders and the Romance of Leadership

Construct (2007)

An online survey was created using Survey Monkey™ that listed the 99

attributes Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) has used to describe Level

5 leaders. The experts were asked to rate each of the attributes as either highly

relevant, somewhat relevant, or not at all relevant. In addition, a comment box was

provided by each attribute to allow the expert to expand on the rating by indicating

when an attribute was ambiguous, confusing, or required context. The results were

quantified by assigning a score of 3 to highly relevant attributes, 2 to somewhat

relevant, and 1 to not at all relevant. An average score of at least 2 indicates that the

experts believe the attribute has relevance for measuring Level 5 leadership.

Twenty-five attributes received a score of less than 2 and were removed from the

final survey. Some of the items removed included items that were ambiguous such

as low-key or big personality, and others were removed because they were not clear

without additional context, including gutsy and simple. Table 4 shows the 99

24


attributes reviewed by the expert panel, including the average score that the panel

rated the relevance of the item (1.00 to 3.00) with an indication that a score of less

than 2.00 was to be removed from the list. The outcome of the feedback from the

expert team was a list of 74 attributes to be tested.

Table 4: Average Scores of Relevance from Expert Panel

Attributes Average score Action

Positive attributes of humility

Humble 3.00

Set up others for success 3.00

Genuine 3.00

Lack of pretense 3.00

Gives others credit for success 3.00

Accepts responsibility when things don’t go well 3.00

Modest 2.75

Authentic 2.75

Team player 2.75

Sets up successors for success 2.75

Self-effacing 2.50

Gracious 2.50

Unpretentious 2.50

Courteous 2.50

Understated 2.25

Servant attitude 2.25

Doesn't seek spotlight 2.25

Reserved personality 2.00

Placid persona (pleasantly calm or peaceful) 2.00

Selfless (puts the needs of others first) 2.00

Unassuming 1.75 REMOVE

25



Low-key 1.67 REMOVE

Reserved 1.67 REMOVE

Quiet 1.50 REMOVE

Associates with unimportant people 1.50 REMOVE

Shy 1.25 REMOVE

Simple 1.25 REMOVE

Mild-mannered 1.25 REMOVE

May feel unqualified for the job 1.25 REMOVE

Socially awkward 1.00 REMOVE

Negative attributes of humility

Egocentric 3.00

Arrogant 3.00

Overbearing 3.00

Condescending 3.00

Patronizing 3.00

Pretentious 3.00

Talks about themselves a lot 3.00

Does not set up successors for success 3.00

Large personal ego 3.00

Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and power 3.00

Boastful 2.67

Self-serving (at the expense of others) 2.33

Acts superior 2.33

Large ego 2.33

Air of self-importance 2.33

Rude 2.00

Snooty 2.00

Seeks personal greatness 2.00

Charismatic leadership 2.00

26



Brash 1.67 REMOVE

Confident 1.67 REMOVE

Personal ambition 1.67 REMOVE

Larger-than-life 1.33 REMOVE

Gutsy 1.00 REMOVE

Big personality 1.00 REMOVE

Positive attributes of will

Resolve 3.00

Inner intensity 3.00

Gets results 3.00

Self-motivated 3.00

Ferocious resolve 3.00

Intense resolve 3.00

Drive 2.75

Self-control 2.75

Strength of character 2.75

Courageous 2.75

Bold 2.75

Strong work ethic 2.75

Clear catalyst in achieving results 2.75

Ambitious for organization 2.67

Fearless 2.50

Results oriented 2.50

Self-determination (determination not influenced

by outsiders)

2.50

Enthusiastic desire to produce results 2.50

Unafraid to take risk 2.33

Intense personality 2.33

Will settle for nothing less than the best 2.33

27



Pride in the organization 2.25

Dedication to the organization 2.25

Willpower (able to control one's impulses and

actions)

2.00

Backbone 2.00

Daring: willing to take a chance 2.00

Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred based on

emotional ups and downs

2.00

Fanatically driven to achieve results 2.00

Stoic determination 1.75 REMOVE

Desire for organization 1.75 REMOVE

Will 1.67 REMOVE

Gutsy 1.67 REMOVE

Workmanlike diligence 2.67 REMOVE

Obsession for organization 1.50 REMOVE

Fanatically driven 1.33 REMOVE

Negative attributes of professional will

Unmotivated 3.00

Lazy 3.00

Undisciplined 3.00

Weak leader 3.00

Afraid to take a chance 3.00

Surrounded by “yes-men” 3.00

Cowardly 2.67

Motivated by financial gain 1.67 REMOVE

28


Consider Inclusion of Validation Items

DeVellis (2012) recommended utilizing validation items for scales,

particularly when they are self-assessments, because some individuals are “strongly

motivated to present herself or himself in a way that society regards as positive” (p.

101). A scale measuring social desirability can help eliminate this error. However,

since this instrument is not based on self-assessment, validation items would not be

meaningful.

Administer Items to a Development Sample

The online survey created for the experts on Survey Monkey™ contained

four sections: (a) the 74 attributes of Level 5 leaders taken from Collins’ literature,

speeches, and interviews; (b) the 10 items from the servant leadership scale

(Winston & Fields, in press); (c) the eight questions that Collins (2006) claimed

can identify Level 5 leaders; and (d) demographic information. The survey was

disseminated through the snowballing technique utilizing email and the social

media platforms Facebook and LinkedIn. Nunnally (1978) recommended 300

subjects for scale development, and DeVellis (2012) confirmed that 300 “should be

sufficiently large to eliminate subject variance as a significant concern” (p. 102).

Evaluate the Samples

The researcher constructed three different components of the survey: Level

5 attributes, servant leadership, and Collins’ (2006) eight questions for Level 5

leadership. The objective of developing this scale was to identify items highly

correlated to a true score of Level 5 leadership. However, since the true score is not

known, the next best option is to identify the scale items that are highly

intercorrelated (DeVellis, 2012). The first step of analysis is to determine the

number of latent variables that underlie this set of 74 items. This was accomplished

utilizing principal component analysis for factor analysis in SPSS. In the factor

analysis, rotation increased “interpretability by identifying clusters of variables that

can be characterized predominantly in terms of a single latent variable” (DeVellis,

2012, p. 133). Direct Oblimin rotation is more effective when the factors are

correlated (DeVellis, 2012). By condensing the information so that the variation

29


can be accounted for by the fewest number of variables, the instrument becomes

more desirable and usable for respondents. Since the number of factors is not

known prior to the research, the researcher relied on existing theory and literature

that indicated that one or more factors will comprise personal humility and one or

more factors will comprise professional will. To determine the items that load on

each factor, a .30 level is considered to be an acceptable minimum factor loading

because it shows that about 10% of the variance for a corresponding variable has

been explained by a factor (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). The length of the scale was

optimized to balance the desired reliability of lengthy surveys and the desirability

of shorter surveys that reduce the burden of the respondents.

The responses from the validated Winston and Fields (in press) servant

leadership instrument were summed into one servant leadership score per

participant, so that a higher score indicates a higher level of servant leadership.

Likewise, responses from Collins’ (2006) eight questions were summed into a

single score per participant, so that a higher score indicates a higher level of Level

5 leadership. The servant leadership scores were then compared to the personal

humility attribute scores using paired-samples t tests to determine if servant

leadership is the same as the humility construct of Level 5 leadership. The results

from Collins’ (2006) eight questions were then compared to the list of Level 5

leaders who were determined using the attributes of personal humility and

professional will. The leader designations from the Level 5 attributes were

dichotomous; the leader is either Level 5 or is not Level 5. The scores from

Collins’ (2006) eight questions are continuous. Therefore, a biserial correlation was

utilized. A biserial correlation is simply a special case of a Pearson product moment

correlation and is used when one variable is artificially dichotomous and the other

is truly continuous (IBM, 2012).

Reliability and Validity

The reliability of a scale is the measure of how accurately the scale

represents the true score of the latent variable in a consistent and predictable

manner (DeVellis, 2012). “If the items of a scale have a strong relationship to their

30


latent variable, they will have a strong relationship to each other” (DeVellis, 2012,

p. 34). The internal consistency reliability of the Level 5 leadership scale was

measured using Cronbach’s alpha. The guidelines provided by DeVellis were used

to determine the acceptability of Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 5).

Table 5: Reliability as Measured by Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s alpha Acceptability

Below 0.60 Unacceptable

.60 to .65 Undesirable

.65 to .70 Minimally acceptable

.70 to .80 Respectable

.80 to .90 Very good

Above .90 Consider shortening scale

Note. From Scale Development. Theory and Applications (p. 109), by R.F. DeVellis, 2012, Los

Angeles, CA: Sage. Copyright 2012 by DeVellis. Adapted with permission.

Once the reliability of the scale has been determined to be consistently and

reliably describing the latent variable, one must determine if that variable being

described is actually Level 5 leadership. There were three different types of validity

considered: content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity

(DeVellis, 2012). Content validity reflects the accuracy that the items in the scale

reflect the latent variable. Since the original item set contained all of the

descriptions that Collins (2001) used for Level 5 leaders, the scale achieved content

validity. Construct validity reflects the relationship between the theoretical and

actual behavior of the construct.

31


Chapter 4 – Results

To establish a scientifically validated instrument to measure Level 5

leadership, 349 subjects evaluated their bosses in an online survey. Four key

variables were analyzed: (a) personal humility, attributes derived from Collins

(2001); (b) professional will, attributes derived from Collins (2001); (c) Collins’

(2006) eight questions to determine Level 5 leadership; and (d) servant leadership.

The scores from the personal humility and professional will results were utilized to

define a new Level 5 variable. The new Level 5 variable was then compared to

Collins’ (2006) eight questions and servant leadership to determine if all of these

constructs are actually the same, as literature has suggested.

Demographic Variables

The sample size of 349 exceeds the 300 recommended by Nunnally (1978)

and DeVellis (2012). Participation was solicited through email and social media

platforms, and responses were collected between September 26 and October 6,

2012. Demographic questions were included to better understand the subjects and

the bosses being evaluated. The demographic questions identified the gender and

age of the participant, the gender and age of the boss, the position of the boss in the

organization, the type of organization, and the religious affiliation and commitment

of the boss (See Tables 6-10).

Table 6: Gender and Age of Subjects

Age

Total24 or

younge

r

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-6465 or

older

Gende

r

Male 2 16 63 81 44 16 222

Femal

e

2 19 28 46 19 11 125

32


Total 4 35 91 127 63 27 347

Table 7: Gender of Participant and Boss

Boss gender

TotalMale Female

Subject

gender

Male 201 21 222

Female 88 37 125

Total 289 58 347

Table 8: Age of Participant and Boss

Boss age

Total25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

65 or

older

Subject

age

24 or

younger

0 1 2 0 1 4

25-34 5 8 10 10 1 34

35-44 2 28 41 20 0 91

45-54 3 16 69 35 5 128

55-64 1 14 27 17 3 62

65 or

older

0 2 7 7 9 25

Total 11 69 156 89 19 344

33


Table 9: Boss Position and Type of Organization

Organization type

Total

Fortune

500 Public Private

Nonprofi

t

Boss

position

Executive 17 9 36 37 99

Officer 31 19 16 38 104

Director 36 14 16 23 89

Manager 30 9 4 4 47

Supervisor 2 1 1 4 8

Total 116 52 73 106 347

Table 10: Religious Affiliation and Religious Commitment of Boss

Religious commitment

Total

Leade

r Committed Somewhat

Not

committed

Religious

affiliation

Catholic 4 17 8 9 38

Evangelical 55 37 12 6 110

Mainline 8 18 9 1 36

Christian -

other

2 6 4 5 17

Other

religion

0 3 1 8 12

Nonreligious 1 0 1 14 16

Total 70 81 35 43 229

Factor Analysis

The first step in analyzing the data was to determine if the 74 attributes of

Level 5 leaders that were derived from Collins’ (2001) literature can be factored

34


into meaningful scales. Negative attributes such as arrogant were recoded so that

the scores correspond with the positive attributes such as humble. Therefore, a boss

who was rated a 10 in arrogance was recoded as a 1 so that the negative attributes

could be scored with the positive attributes. Principal component analysis in SPSS

showed that the significant majority of variability in the data could be explained in

two components (see Figure 1). As detailed in Table 11, 55.24% of the total

variance is explained in the first two components. Since the factors are correlated

with one another, direct oblimin rotation was used.

Figure 1: Scree plot for principal component analysis.

35

Table 11: Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadingsRotation sums of

squared loadingsa

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total% of

VarianceCumulative % Total

1 19.21 39.21 39.21 19.21 39.21 39.21 18.06

2 7.85 16.03 55.24 7.85 16.03 55.24 11.12

3 1.64 3.34 58.58

4 1.29 2.63 61.20

5 1.24 2.53 63.73

6 .99 2.03 65.76

7 .98 1.99 67.75

8 .89 1.82 69.57

9 .87 1.77 71.34

10 .74 1.52 72.89

11 .72 1.48 74.33

12 .68 1.39 75.72

13 .63 1.29 77.00

14 .58 1.19 78.19

Component


squared loadingsa



15 .58 1.18 79.37

16 .56 1.13 80.50

17 .51 1.04 81.54

18 .50 1.02 82.56

19 .47 .97 83.53

20 .46 .94 84.46

21 .44 .90 85.36

22 .43 .87 86.23

23 .42 .85 87.08

24 .41 .84 87.91

25 .38 .78 88.70

26 .37 .74 89.44

27 .34 .69 90.14

28 .33 .68 90.82

29 .33 .66 91.48

Component


squared loadingsa



30 .32 .65 92.12

31 .29 .60 92.72

32 .28 .57 93.30

33 .27 .55 93.85

34 .26 .54 94.39

35 .26 .52 94.91

36 .24 .50 95.41

37 .24 .49 95.90

38 .22 .45 96.35

39 .21 .44 96.79

40 .21 .43 97.21

41 .20 .40 97.61

42 .19 .39 98.01

43 .18 .36 98.37

44 .16 .32 98.69

Component


squared loadingsa



45 .15 .31 98.10

46 .14 .28 99.27

47 .13 .27 99.54

48 .13 .26 99.80

49 .10 .20 100.00

a When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.


As was expected from literature and theory, the two components of the

attributes match the two constructs of Level 5 leadership: personal humility and

professional will. Values below .50 and crossloaded items were removed from the

analysis. Component 1 consists of 30 of the attributes that describe the humility of

the leader. Component 2 consists of 19 of the attributes that describe the

professional will of the leader (see Table 12).

Table 12: Structure Matrix of Two Components

AttributesComponent

1 2

Arrogant .88

Acts superior .84

Egocentric .84

Large personal ego .82

Air of self-importance .84

Genuine .81

Pretentious .80

Condescending .80

Humble .80

Talks about themselves .78

Overbearing .78

Self-serving .78

Modest .77

Boastful .77

Seeks fame .77

Snooty .77

Gracious .75

Rude .74

Selfless .73

40


AttributesComponent

1 2

Team player .73

Patronizing .72

Unpretentious .72

Courteous .70

Does not set up successors .64

Placid .64

Will power .58

Self-control .58

Servant attitude .55

Doesn’t seek spotlight .54

Surrounded by yes men .53

Drive .81

Intense resolve .76

Courageous .78

Catalyst .78

Gets results .77

Will Not Settle .76

Backbone .76

Resolve .75

Bold .72

Fearless .71

Results oriented .69

Strong work ethic .68

Self-motivated .68

Inner intensity .65

Charismatic -.61

Dedication to the organization .59

Fierce resolve .56

41


AttributesComponent

1 2

Fanatically driven .53

Intense personality .50

Since Collins believed that charisma is negatively correlated to Level 5

leadership (Collins & Rose, 2009), charisma scores were recoded to reflect this

belief. However, the recoded charisma attribute is now negatively correlated to the

other Level 5 leadership attributes, meaning that charisma is, in fact, positively

correlated to Level 5 leadership attributes.

Defining Variables

In order to simplify the scales for analysis and further measure the Level 5

attributes, a new score for each leader was created by summing the scores of the top

10 factor-loaded items for personal humility and the top 10 for professional will.

The four key scales are now personal humility, professional will, servant

leadership, and Collins’ (2006) eight questions. Table 13 presents descriptive

statistics for the four scales. Cronbach’s alpha is very high with at least .92 on each

(see Table 14).

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Four Key Variables for Each Leader (N = 349)

Scale M SD

Humility 69.69 24.38

Will 73.12 17.54

Servant leadership 37.34 9.05

Collins’ (2006) eight questions 30.17 7.49

42


Table 14: Reliability of Scales

Scale Cronbach’s alpha

Servant .95

Collins .93

Humility .95

Will .92

To derive a score for Level 5 leadership, leaders were divided into four

categories based on their humility and will score. Each leader was identified as

having either an above average or below average score for humility, and above or

below average score for professional will. Based on those identifications, the

leaders were then assigned to one of four leadership identifiers: (a) weak

leadership, below average in both categories; (b) humble, above average humility

but below average will; (c) strong will, above average professional will but below

average humility; and (d) Level 5, above average humility and above average will.

The results showed that 31% of the leaders were categorized as Level 5 (see Figure

2).

The scores from the 10-item, validated servant leadership scale from

Winston and Fields (in press) and the eight questions from Collins (2006) were also

summed. A component factor analysis of Collins’ (2006) eight questions showed

that the questions factored into one component that explained 68.73% of the

variance (see Table 15).

43


Professional will

weak

Professional will

strong

Humility

weak

Bad leaders

n =102

Strong will

n =71n =173

Humility

strong

Humble

n =67

Level 5

n =109n =176

n =169 n =180

Figure 2: Professional will and personal humility results (N =349).

Table 15: Collins’ (2006) Eight Questions Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial eigenvalues

Extraction sums of squared

loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 5.50 68.73 68.73 5.50 68.73 68.73

2 .55 6.83 75.56

3 .42 5.22 80.78

4 .41 5.09 85.87

5 .34 4.23 90.10

6 .32 3.98 94.08

7 .26 3.20 97.28

8 .22 2.72 100.00

44


The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shaprio-Wilk tests measure the normality of

a dataset. Shaprio-Wilk is the most effective for datasets of less than 2,000 items.

Both Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov show a significance less than .05, so

the data are not normally distributed (see Table 16). This is consistent with the

observation that most subjects identified their bosses in a positive manner and the

median on the personal humility and professional will scores were 7.5, indicating

that the distribution of responses was negatively skewed. Since the data of all four

scales are not normally distributed, nonparametric analysis is used when applicable.

Table 16: Tests of Normality

ScaleKolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df p Statistic df p

Servant .09 349 .000 .95 349 .000

Collins .11 349 .000 .93 349 .000

Humility .12 349 .000 .92 349 .000

Will .11 349 .000 .94 349 .000

a Lilliefors significance correction.

Spearman’s Rho was used to show the convergent validity between the four

variables (see Table 17). The strongest correlation is between Collins and servant

leadership, but all correlations are statistically significant at the .01 level.

45


Table 17: Correlation Coefficients Using Spearman’s Rho

Servant Collins Humility Will

Servant –

Collins .83** –

Humility .75** .68** –

Will .52** .65** .34** –

**p < .01.

Discriminant Validity Tests

In his literature, Collins (2001) did not usually refer to leaders along a

continuum to Level 5 or as weak, just humble, or just strong will. He referred to

them as either Level 5 or not Level 5. Therefore, the leaders in this study were

separated into the group of 109 Level 5 leaders and 240 non-Level 5 leaders.

Discriminant validity tests were run to determine if these designations were

consistent with the new Level 5 scale, servant leadership, and Collins’ (2006) eight

questions (see Table 18). The various scores of Level 5 leaders (L5) were

consistently higher than the scores of leaders who were not Level 5 (Not L5).

Levene’s test for equality of variances was used on the variables together and

shows that equal variances between the means cannot be assumed (see Table 19).

An independent samples t test shows that the difference between means is

statistically significant (see Table 20).

46


Table 18: Leaders Identified as Level 5 Compared to Individual Constructs

Variables N M SD SE

ServantNot L5 240 34.03 8.74 .56

L5 109 44.62 4.14 .40

CollinsNot L5 240 27.40 7.18 .46

L5 109 36.28 3.44 .33

HumilityNot L5 240 60.09 23.39 1.51

L5 109 90.83 6.94 .67

WillNot L5 240 66.77 17.23 1.11

L5 109 87.12 6.86 .66

Table 19: Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances to Determine if Responses are

Normally Distributed

F p

Servant 39.38 .000

Collins 45.03 .000

Humility 145.93 .000

Will 55.32 .000

Level 5 380.05 .000

47

Table 20: Independent Samples Test of L5 Within Key Variables

Scale t df p ΔM ΔSE

95% Confidence interval of

the difference

Lower Upper

Servant -15.36 346.41 .000 -10.59 .69 -11.95 -9.23

Collins -15.61 346.02 .000 -8.88 .57 -10.00 -7.76

Humility -18.63 314.47 .000 -30.74 1.65 -33.99 -27.49

Will -15.75 342.62 .000 -20.35 1.29 -22.89 -17.81

Note. Equal variances not assumed.


Overall, 31% of bosses were considered to be Level 5 leaders. Table 21

shows the percent of Level 5 bosses by demographic category. ANOVA was

performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between

the Level 5 leaders and non-Level 5 leaders within a demographic category.

Table 21: Demographic Comparisons Between Level 5 and non-Level 5 Leaders

non-Level 5 Level 5

Subject gender

Male 68% 32%

Female 70% 30%

Boss gender

Male 69% 31%

Female 67% 33%

Participant age

24 or younger 50% 50%

25-34 77% 23%

35-44 67% 33%

45-54 75% 25%

55-64 62% 38%

65 or older 52% 48%

Boss age

24 or younger 0% 0%

25-34 45% 55%

35-44 70% 30%

45-54 72% 28%

55-64 66% 34%

65 or older 53% 47%

Boss position

Executive 64% 36%

49


non-Level 5 Level 5

Officer 67% 33%

Director 74% 26%

Manager 70% 30%

Supervisor 75% 25%

Boss religious affiliation

Catholic 74% 26%

Evangelical 59% 41%

Mainline 74% 26%

Christian - Other 86% 14%

Other Religion 54% 46%

Nonreligious 84% 16%

Boss religious commitment

Leader 48% 52%

Committed 63% 37%

Somewhat 86% 14%

Not Committed 88% 13%

Organization type

Fortune 500 78% 22%

Public 81% 19%

Private 70% 30%

Nonprofit 52% 48%

Total 69% 31%

Religious commitment and organization type are statistically significant

variables in identifying Level 5 leaders. Other demographic variables do not have a

statistically significant impact on the data (see Table 22).

50


Table 22: Significance of Level 5 Leader by Demographic Variable

SS df MS F p

Gender

Between groups .02 1 .02 .09 .761

Within groups 79.95 345 .23

Total 79.97 346

Boss gender

Between groups .01 1 .01 .07 .797


Total 48.33 347

Age

Between groups 3.23 1 3.23 2.62 .106

Within groups 425.76 346 1.23

Total 428.99 347

Boss age

Between groups .17 1 .17 .22 .642


Total 274.23 343

Boss position

Between groups 2.09 1 2.09 1.75 .187


Total 416.10 347

Religious affiliation

Between groups 3.90 1 3.90 1.96 .162


Total 502.68 252

Religious commitment

Between groups 30.38 1 30.38 28.28 .000


Total 282.81 236

51


SS df MS F p

Organization type

Between groups 26.98 1 26.98 18.48 .000


Total 530.69 346

Bonferroni post hoc tests show that Level 5 leaders are more likely to be

leaders in their religious community or at least committed to their religion and that

they are more likely to work for a nonprofit organization than any other type of

organization (see Table 23).

Table 23: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Religious Commitment of Level 5 Leaders

ΔM (I-J) SE p95% Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Leader

Committed .59 .2

9

.255 -.18 1.36

Somewhat 1.51* .3

7

.000 .53 2.50

Not committed 1.56* .3

4

.000 .69 2.47

Committed

Leader -.59 .2

9

.255 -1.36 .18

Somewhat .92 .3

6

.067 -.04 1.88

Not committed .99* .3 .015 .13 1.86

52




3

Somewhat

Leader -1.51* .3

7

.000 -2.50 -.53

Committed -.92 .3

6

.067 -1.88 .04

Not committed .07 .4

0

1.00

0

-.99 1.13

Not committed

Leader -1.56* .3

4

.000 -2.47 -.69

Committed -.99* .3

3

.015 -1.86 -.13

Somewhat -.07 .4

0

1.00

0

-1.13 .99

*p < .05.

Table 24: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Organization Type of Level 5 Leaders



Fortune 500

Public .13 .30 1.000 -.67 .93

Private -.31 .27 1.000 -1.03 .41

Nonprofit -1.03* .24 .000 -1.67 -.38

Public

Fortune 500 -.13 .30 1.000 -.93 .67

53




Private -.44 .33 1.000 -1.31 .43

Nonprofit -1.16* .31 .001 -1.97 -.34

Private

Fortune 500 .31 .27 1.000 -.41 1.03

Public .44 .33 1.000 -.43 1.31

Nonprofit -.72 .28 .056 -1.45 .01

Nonprofit

Fortune 500 1.03* .24 .000 .38 1.67

Public 1.16* .31 .001 .34 1.97

Private .72 .28 .056 -.01 1.45

*p < .05.

Final Instrument

The final step in developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership is

to select the attributes that will provide a parsimonious scale with sufficient

reliability. Principal component analysis identified 30 attributes of personal

humility and 19 attributes of professional will (see Table 12) with a Cronbach’s

alpha of .951 and .923, respectively. For a Cronbach’s alpha greater than .900,

DeVellis (2012) recommended shortening the scale (see Table 5).

To shorten the scale, negative attributes that would require recoding were

removed. This left 13 attributes for personal humility and 18 attributes for

professional will. From the personal humility list, placid was removed because

many subjects may not know the meaning of the word, and will power and self-

control were removed because Collins (2001) used them to describe professional

will, not personal humility. The remaining 18 professional will attributes were

narrowed to 10 by removing duplicate concepts with lower factor loadings. For

example, intense resolve was retained, and resolve and fierce resolve were

removed. Likewise, clear catalyst for results was retained, and gets results and

54


results oriented were removed. The remaining top 10 factor-loaded attributes for

personal humility and professional will were retained to create a 20-item scale (see

Table 25).

Table 25: Level 5 Leadership Scale Attributes

Personal humility Profession will

1 Humble Drive

2 Genuine Intense resolve

3 Modest Courageous

4 Selfless Clear catalyst for change

5 Gracious Will not settle

6 Courteous Bold

7 Unpretentious Strong work ethic

8 Team player Self-motivated

9 Placid Dedication to the organization

10 Self-control Gets results

Cronbach’s alpha is .929 for personal humility and .918 for professional

will. DeVellis (2012) recommended reducing the number of items if Cronbach’s

alpha is over .900. Again, duplicate concepts with lower factor loadings were

removed. For example, humble was retained, and modest was removed. In addition,

concepts that Collins did not use often to discuss Level 5 leaders, such as courteous

and courageous, were also removed. The final 10-item instrument to measure Level

5 leadership contains 5 items that capture personal humility and 5 items that

capture professional will (see Table 26). Cronbach’s alpha is .833 for personal

humility and .826 for professional will. This exceeds the threshold of .800 that

DeVellis established to be considered very good reliability. This scale will be

referred to as the Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS). In this research study, a score

55


of more than 37 for BOTH personal humility and professional will were considered

to identify a Level 5 leader.

Table 26: Final Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS) Attributes

Personal humility Profession will

1 Genuine Intense resolve

2 Humble Dedication to the organization

3 A team player A clear catalyst in achieving results

4 Servant attitude Strong work ethic

5 Doesn’t seek spotlight Self-motivated

Summary

In order to address the questions regarding Level 5 leadership, this chapter

presented findings from the responses of 349 subjects who described their bosses.

Three research questions were proposed in Chapter 1: (a) Utilizing the attributes

and characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be developed

to measure Level 5 leadership? (b) Is the personal humility construct of Level 5

leadership the same as servant leadership? (c) Do Collins’ (2006) eight questions to

test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he used

to describe Level 5 leadership? To answer the first question, principal component

analysis confirmed Collins’ (2001) claim that there are two primary components of

the Level 5 construct: personal humility and professional will. Therefore, a

statistically validated instrument can be used to measure Level 5 leadership. The

second question was answered by the statistically significant correlation between

the personal humility score and the servant leadership score. Finally, the third

question was also answered positively with the statistically significant correlation

between Collins’ (2006) eight questions and the Level 5 leadership scores derived

from the personal humility and professional will scores.

56

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership 57


Chapter 5 – Discussion

This study explored Collins’ (2001) concept of Level 5 leadership to

determine if, in fact, the attributes described in the literature could be developed

into a statistically validated instrument. This research shows that Level 5 is a

construct of leadership that can be measured with a valid instrument to identify

Level 5 leadership. This chapter discusses the findings of the research, the

implications of the research, the limitations of the study, and recommendations for

future research.

Evaluation of Findings

The research findings were consistent with expectations established from

existing literature. Although Collins’ research team wanted to stay away from the

term servant leadership to describe this new breed of leader that had been

identified as taking organizations from good to great (Collins, 2001), Patterson,

Redmer, and Stone (2003) and Drury (2004) were correct in suggesting that they

are actually the same leaders. Although the data show that servant leaders and

Level 5 leaders are the same people, the qualities of servant leadership align most

closely with the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership and do not seem

to account for the idea of professional will. Therefore, a scale that measures equal

parts personal humility and professional will provide the most robust measure of

Level 5 leadership.

Since the eight questions from Collins (2006) were shown to identify the

same Level 5 leaders, it might seem reasonable to utilize those questions instead of

a new scale. However, there is an advantage to using the new Level 5 Leadership

Scale (L5LS). By separating the two constructs of Level 5 leadership, a more

accurate and comprehensive assessment of Level 5 leadership can be ascertained.

The eight questions from Collins are focused more on the personal humility

attributes. When a principal components analysis encompasses all of the attributes

and the eight questions together, all eight questions factor with the personal

humility attributes. None of the questions factor with the professional will

attributes. By balancing the personal humility and professional will attributes

58


evenly, both factors are given equal weight so that the scale does not favor humble

leaders who may not have professional will to outperform their peers.

Implications of Research

Collins (2001) identified at least two practical implications of this research:

(a) identifying CEOs to lead organizations from good to great and (b) finding the

seeds of Level 5 leadership within organizations and developing them. There is

now a validated two-factor instrument so that organizations can identify Level 5

leaders. The premise of Good to Great (Collins, 2001) is that organizations that

grew from good to great were led by CEOs who were Level 5 leaders. Therefore, a

board of directors searching for their next CEO should utilize the L5LS to

determine which candidates are Level 5 leaders. This process may also be utilized

in the process of hiring leaders who are below the CEO level. The greatest

challenge may be finding objective subjects who will provide an unbiased

assessment of a candidate’s attributes.

Within organizations, Level 5 leaders must be identified and developed.

Collins (2001) stated:

I believe—although I cannot prove—that potential Level 5 leaders are

prevalent in our society. The problem is not, in my estimation, a dearth of

potential Level 5 leaders. They exist all around us, if we just know what to

look for. (p. 37)

The use of 360-degree performance ratings is growing to more organizations and to

more people within the organizations (DeVito, 2012). This simple 10-item scale

can be included in a 360-degree evaluation so that individuals, peers, subordinates,

and superiors can identify Level 5 leaders within their organization.

Once the Level 5 leaders are identified within the organization or in the

interview process, they should be developed through mentoring. In American

corporations, mentoring is correlated with “increased job satisfaction, higher salary,

faster promotion, firmer career plans, and the increased probability that the protégé

will also become a mentor” (Wright & Wright, 1987, p. 204). One of the

characteristics of Level 5 leaders is that they surround themselves with strong

59


leaders and develop them into stronger Level 5 leaders so that the organization

remains healthy and vibrant, regardless of the individual at the helm (Collins,

2001).

Limitations of Study

This research effort forwards the body of literature on Level 5 leadership by

providing the first instrument to measure Level 5 leadership. However, there are

limitations. By utilizing a snowball methodology to gain participation in the survey,

the subjects fit a demographic profile similar to the researcher: middle-aged,

evangelical Christian men. Though the questions were not asked on the survey,

anecdotal feedback would indicate that most of the subjects are also Caucasians

who live in Georgia and Tennessee.

Recommendations for Future Research

The next step in the utilization of the L5LS to measure Level 5 leadership

could be to compare the actual results and accomplishments of leaders and potential

leaders to their Level 5 scores. Theory would indicate that Level 5 leaders should

be more effective in their outcomes. This research would utilize success criteria

within the organization such as sales growth or a 360-degree performance review

compared with L5LS results to determine if, in fact, Level 5 leaders are more

effective.

It is possible that good leadership is being identified with the L5LS, but

there may not be much difference between Level 5 leadership and a variety of other

types of good leadership such as authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) as

measured by the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa, Avolio,

Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) or transformational leadership as measured

by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1990, 2008). This study has

already shown the similarity between Level 5 leadership and servant leadership;

therefore, future research should evaluate the differences between these various

leadership constructs to confirm that they are not all measuring the same concepts.

Collins (2009) described professional will in Level 5 leaders as “an

absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition that was not about them” (1:15).

60


The results of this research show a correlation between personal humility and

dedication to the organization, a relationship that should be explored further. There

also seems to be a correlation between religious commitment and subjugating the

desires of self in leadership to a greater good, as evidenced in personal humility and

dedication to the organization.

Future research in the area of Level 5 leadership is also recommended

across a variety of cultural settings. As noted in the section with regards to

limitations, this research was performed on a fairly homogenous population.

Additional research in a variety of cultures and nationalities would provide

assurance that these concepts are universally valid.

Summary

This study explored the concept of Level 5 leadership from an academic

perspective to develop an instrument to accurately measure the concept of Level 5

leadership. Research has confirmed that the constructs of personal humility and

professional will that Collins (2001) proposed in Good to Great are valid and

separate constructs. Research also has confirmed that Level 5 attributes, Collins’

(2006) eight questions, and servant leadership are statistically the same. A simple

10-item scale (the L5LS) was developed that now can be utilized to identify these

leaders.

61


References

Ackman, D. (2002, September). The 20 most influential business books. Retrieved

from http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/30/0930booksintro_2.html

Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to

the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-

338.

Baale, L. (2011, October 22). Nigeria: Humility as a great attribute of true

leadership. Africa News. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/stories/

201110220126.html

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to

share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial application (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bennett, D. (2011, August 11). Business bestseller. Businessweek. Retrieved from

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/tom-rath-08112011.html

Bisoux, T. (2007, January-February). Thinking big. BizEd, 6(1), 16-21. Retrieved

from http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/58065/17

Caulkins, D. (2008). Re-theorizing Jim Collins’ culture of discipline in Good to

Great. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,

21(3), 217-232.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and

others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Collins, J. (2002). Reading guide: Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Collins, J. (2005). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve.

Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76.

Collins, J. (2006). Where are you on your journey from good to great? Good to

Great™ diagnostic tool. Retrieved from

http://www.jimcollins.com/tools/diagnostic-tool.pdf

Collins, J. (2009, September 21). From good to great: What defines a Level V

leader? [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-

KyQ90XByY

62


Collins, J. (2011, March 25). Our problem is not a lack of Level 5 . . . [Video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9-u8xv4vE

Collins, J. (2012). About Jim. Retrieved from http://www.jimcollins.com/about-

jim.html

Collins, J., & Hanson, M. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck—

Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary

companies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Collins, J., & Rose, C. (2009, March 4). Level 5 Good to Great [Video]. Retrieved

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature

=endscreen&v=wfaZ4pw99hc

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

bebavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Dennis, R., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership

assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

25(4), 600-615.

DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeVito, A. (2012, October 25). Performance management specialists echoSpan

discuss 360-degree reviews getting longer, more widely used. Retrieved

from http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/903908

Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by

level and with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Virginia

Beach, VA: Regent University.

Finnie, W., & Abraham, S. (2002). Getting from good to great: A conversation with

Jim Collins. Strategy and Leadership, 30(5), 10-14.

Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Goleman, D. (2000, March-April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business

Review , 79-90.

63


Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader. Retrieved from

http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2005). Multivariate

data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

IBM. (2012, September). Point-biserial correlations in SPSS. Retrieved from

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21476004

Liccardo, S. (2007). Level 5 leaders and the romance of leadership. Johannesburg,

South Africa: University of Witwatersrand.

Lichtenwalner, B. (2010). Servant leadership lessons: Jim Collins at Chick-Fil-A

leadercast. Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servant-

leadership/servant-leadership-lesson-jim-collins-at-chick-fil-a-leadercast/

Likert, R., & Likert, J. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York, NY:

McGraw Hill Book.

Lim, D., Woehr, D., You, Y., & Gorman, C. (2007). The transalation and

development of a short form of the Korean language version of the

multidimensional work ethic profile. Human Resource Development

International, 10(3), 319-331.

Ling, T. (2009, December 12). Bland CEOs versus raging egomaniacs: Are the

world’s best leaders flamboyant visionaries or self-effacing individuals. The

Business Times Singapore. Retrieved from

http://a1preview.asia1.com.sg:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/ index.jsp?

vgnextoid=4fc4c0d825b85210VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextch

annel=73873060b6822110VgnVCM100000bd0a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=pr

int

Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Superstar CEOs. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 124(4), 1593-1638.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impications for cognition,

emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

64


Maslow, A. (1946). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),

370-396.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personailty. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Maxwell, J. (2011). The 5 levels of leadership. New York, NY: Hachette Book

Group.

May, R. (2006, January 31). Why “Good to Great” isn’t very good. Retrieved from

http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/

McGinn, D., & Silver-Greenberg, J. (2005, December 19). A “Great” second act:

Biz guru Jim Collins has advice for do-gooders. Newsweek, 146(25).

Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/12/11/a-

good-to-great-second-act.html

Miller, M., Woehr, D., & Hudspeth, N. (2001). The meaning and measurement of

work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional

inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1-39.

Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership:

Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations,

58(10), 1323-1350.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Ogden, G., & Meyer, D. (2007). Leadership essentials: Shaping vision, multiplying

influence, defining character. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect.

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Virginia Beach, VA:

Regent University.

Patterson, K., Redmer, T., & Stone, A. (2003). Transformational leaders to servant

leaders versus Level 4 leaders to Level 5 leaders—The move from good to

great. CBFA Annual Conference. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.

Pimolsaengsuriya, A. (2012, May 13). Taking leadership to the next level. The

Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Coach-Talk-Column-Taking-

leadership-to-the-next-le-30181862.html

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitaion of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American

65


Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Serfontein, K., & Hough, J. (2011). Nature of the relationship between strategic

leadership, operational strategy, and organizational performance. SAJEMS

NS, 14(4), 393-406.

Smith, F. (2005, July 19). Great companies know a humble truth. Australian

Financial News, 53.

Taking Russia from good to great. (2012, June 3). Moscow Times. Retreived from

http://www.investmentclimate.ru/en/invest-climate-in-media/1421/

Taylor, A. (1992, April 20). Iacocca’s last stand at Chrysler: His anointed successor

must launch new models, shore up a shaky balance sheet, and find the

controls of the company fast. But is Chairman Lee ready to give them up?

Fortune. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/

fortune_archive/1992/04/20/76315/index.htm.

Tinsley, H., & Tinsley, D. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology

research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424.

Tokunaga, P. (2003). Invitation to lead: Guidance for emerging Asian American

leaders. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal

of Management , 37(4), 1228-1261.

Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008).

Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based

measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York,

NY: Scribners.

Wicks, W. (1997). Shared values: A history of Kimberly-Clark. Greenwich, CT:

Greenwich.

Williams, M. (2005). Leadership for leaders. Oxfordshire, UK: Thorogood.

Winston, B. (2003). Extending the servant leadership model: Coming full circle.

Paper presented at Regent University’s Servant Leadership Roundtable,

Virginia Beach, VA.

66


Winston, B., & Fields, D. (in press). Seeking the essense of servant leadership:

Identifying core servant leader behaviors.

Wong, P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Paper

presented at Regent University’s Servant Leadership Roundtable, Virginia

Beach, VA.

Woolridge, A. (2009, November 12). The cult of the faceless boss. The Economist.

Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/14844995

Woolridge, A. (2011, November 26). Built to last: Jim Collins has stayed at the top

by practicing what he preaches. The Economist. Retreived from

http://www.economist.com/node/21540219

Wright, C., & Wright, C. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of

young professionls. Family Relations, 36(2), 204-208.

67


Appendix A

Survey Summary

Informed Consent Statement: I would appreciate your assistance with this research project on developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined by Jim Collins in Good to Great. The project is being conducted by Wilbur Reid for a dissertation for Regent University.

All you need to do is complete this survey, which should take approximately 15 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary, so you have the option to skip questions or to stop participating at any time. If you do not wish to participate, simply exit from the web site.

Responses will be completely anonymous; your name will not appear anywhere on the survey.

By completing and returning the questionnaire you are acknowledging that you are 18 years of age or older and are consenting to participate in this study.

If you have any questions regarding the research, contact Wilbur Reid at [email protected] or 404-202-1924.

Thank you again for your help.

68

mailto:[email protected]

Table A1: Level 5 Leadership

On a scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do the following characteristics describe your boss? A 1 indicates that this characteristic does not describe your boss at all,

while a 10 indicates that it describes him/her exactly.

Answer options1

Not At All2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10Exactly

N/ARating average

Response count

Humble 26 26 34 27 36 22 33 43 55 40 6 6.05 348Set up others for success

24 18 21 13 31 21 36 60 61 56 5 6.74 346

Genuine 12 11 13 17 20 21 30 51 77 88 8 7.52 348Lack of pretense 27 26 30 27 47 21 23 49 42 37 13 5.89 342

Gives others credit for success

7 13 16 13 20 19 27 56 85 83 8 7.61 347

Accepts responsibility when things don’t go well

16 9 22 16 24 20 39 62 61 61 16 7.07 346

Modest 22 27 23 42 29 30 37 50 41 43 4 6.09 348Authentic 9 14 8 18 31 29 21 55 71 88 4 7.47 348Team player 8 11 15 16 26 24 33 64 63 79 8 7.41 347

Sets up successors for success

24 22 15 28 30 24 34 55 46 39 30 6.31 347

Self-effacing 40 28 44 24 46 35 34 39 27 16 12 5.16 345Gracious 8 21 20 17 34 35 31 61 53 59 8 6.87 347Unpretentious 22 21 25 26 31 22 26 42 58 63 7 6.55 343Courteous 6 9 19 18 31 23 29 66 55 83 8 7.38 347Understated 31 34 42 34 40 27 31 38 30 22 8 5.27 337Servant attitude 52 35 25 33 28 21 28 33 38 48 7 5.50 348Doesn't seek spotlight 29 32 37 35 28 24 27 52 37 45 3 5.83 349Reserved personality 52 56 43 33 27 20 21 34 27 31 3 4.80 347

Placid persona 23 31 41 21 39 27 24 53 45 41 3 5.96 348

Answer options1

Not At All2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10Exactly

N/ARating average

Response count

(pleasantly calm or peaceful)

Selfless (puts the needs of others first)

24 19 39 21 34 30 44 53 38 42 4 6.13 348

Egocentric 89 76 41 15 25 18 24 20 17 20 2 3.88 347Arrogant 109 68 33 15 19 24 22 24 15 16 4 3.72 349Overbearing 79 63 52 21 25 24 26 23 13 17 5 3.99 348Condescending 95 85 32 23 21 18 21 19 17 12 3 3.61 346Patronizing 91 70 44 21 29 21 22 19 14 13 3 3.72 347Pretentious 95 74 46 19 23 26 18 11 15 15 4 3.59 346

Talks about themselves a lot

82 66 45 18 38 17 22 17 17 20 7 3.96 349

Does not set up successors for success

96 53 36 22 23 19 13 22 18 20 23 3.90 345

Large personal ego 83 62 39 23 25 16 24 25 20 26 4 4.21 347

Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and power

90 59 42 23 33 18 22 16 20 22 2 4.00 347

Boastful 89 68 50 23 23 28 20 16 16 12 3 3.72 348

Self-serving (at the expense of others)

114 76 41 16 21 13 16 19 16 14 2 3.42 348

Acts superior 75 59 49 24 23 21 24 25 23 22 4 4.27 349Large ego 79 59 41 24 18 22 17 33 23 28 4 4.38 348Air of self-importance 75 59 41 12 27 25 25 29 26 24 4 4.46 347Rude 149 67 38 17 23 16 13 8 11 5 1 2.82 348Snooty 148 60 41 24 16 11 21 5 9 9 4 2.88 348Seeks personal greatness

44 51 35 18 30 28 31 42 35 27 6 5.22 347

Charismatic leadership

21 23 42 29 27 33 38 54 39 38 2 6.02 346

Answer options1

Not At All2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10Exactly

N/ARating average

Response count

Resolve 8 7 10 7 28 24 46 69 80 60 5 7.55 344Inner intensity 7 8 11 19 29 30 49 62 70 56 5 7.29 346Gets results 5 2 8 11 24 25 41 71 93 61 4 7.77 345Self-motivated 4 5 3 3 18 10 31 53 102 109 10 8.38 348Ferocious resolve 20 18 20 17 38 42 47 50 53 34 5 6.41 344Intense resolve 10 8 19 16 29 36 43 62 76 42 4 7.06 345Drive 1 6 9 3 22 26 43 59 88 84 7 7.99 348Self-control 9 4 13 16 33 27 41 62 73 65 3 7.40 346Strength of character 7 7 9 13 22 18 43 47 80 90 10 7.78 346Courageous 5 10 12 20 24 36 59 68 58 47 7 7.16 346Bold 7 9 18 17 28 40 49 74 61 43 2 7.05 348Builds strong team 15 20 13 15 30 25 41 62 55 66 3 6.99 345Strong work ethic 9 4 7 5 15 10 31 48 83 122 13 8.27 347

Clear catalyst in achieving results

8 13 13 18 26 29 36 77 63 54 7 7.19 344

Ambitious for organization

7 9 12 9 16 18 34 70 88 77 8 7.78 348

Fearless 10 13 19 19 40 31 52 77 53 28 6 6.70 348Results oriented 2 4 9 10 16 22 28 54 102 96 5 8.15 348Self-determination (determination not influenced by outsiders)

9 7 19 17 20 21 41 60 88 59 7 7.40 348

Enthusiastic desire to produce results

3 3 8 11 21 17 34 67 79 101 2 8.08 346

Unafraid to take risk 20 11 24 10 32 27 48 69 66 38 2 6.78 347Intense personality 21 29 32 24 35 30 45 38 42 46 5 6.09 347

Will settle for nothing less than the best

8 12 10 13 39 27 44 76 71 43 5 7.16 348

Answer options1

Not At All2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10Exactly

N/ARating average

Response count

Pride in the organization

4 2 2 6 19 14 28 59 78 124 9 8.41 345

Dedication to the organization

4 2 5 7 10 9 30 55 80 136 9 8.54 347

Willpower (able to control one's impulses and actions)

5 11 19 19 30 26 44 55 73 59 7 7.22 348

Backbone 8 11 10 18 22 32 37 65 80 62 5 7.40 350

Daring: willing to take a chance

13 14 19 17 29 30 51 71 59 44 1 6.88 348

Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred based on emotional ups and downs

16 12 15 19 42 28 45 49 60 49 12 6.79 347

Fanatically driven to achieve results

29 23 26 19 31 45 44 53 42 31 4 6.05 347

Unmotivated 173 92 46 7 8 2 3 6 7 3 2 2.12 349Lazy 204 60 36 7 11 7 4 5 5 6 3 2.12 348Undisciplined 136 75 57 24 14 10 5 8 9 6 2 2.68 346Weak leader 107 67 40 19 18 21 26 14 16 16 3 3.64 347Afraid to take a chance

79 80 59 31 25 20 15 14 12 8 6 3.47 349

Surrounded by “yes-men”

82 59 52 32 27 19 19 20 9 21 6 3.87 346

Cowardly 143 81 47 27 12 11 3 7 7 3 5 2.49 346


Table A2: Servant leadership

To what extent does each of these statements describe the behavior of your boss?

Answer optionsDefinitel

y noNo Neutral Yes

Definitely yes

Rating average

Response count

Practices what he/she preaches

11 33 45 156 105 3.89 350

Serves people without regard to their nationality, gender, or race

6 17 28 127 172 4.26 350

Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others

12 52 72 123 91 3.65 350

Genuinely interested in employees as people

19 26 60 126 119 3.86 350

Understands that serving others is most important

18 56 92 118 65 3.45 349

Willing to make sacrifices to help others

13 41 86 132 78 3.63 350

Seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity

23 44 49 122 112 3.73 350

Is always honest 16 44 49 128 112 3.79 349Is driven by a sense of higher calling

17 45 104 92 91 3.56 349

Promotes values that transcend self-interest and material success

16 51 81 125 76 3.56 349

73

Table A3: Collins’ Eight Questions

How does your boss exemplify the following characteristics?

Answer options

A = Exemplifies this trait

exceptionally well—there is

limited room for improvement.

B = Often exemplifies this

trait, but has room for

improvement.

C = Some evidence of this trait, but record

is spotty.

D = Little evidence that this

trait is exemplified, and there are obvious contradictions.

F = Operates almost entirely contrary to this

trait.

Not applicable

Response count

Is ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the organization, the work—not themselves—and they have an iron will to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition.

111 133 56 30 17 1 348

Displays an ever-improving track record of making decisions that prove best for the long-term greatness of the company and its work.

97 139 66 22 16 6 346

Practice the window and the mirror. They point out the window to people and factors other than themselves to give credit for success. When confronted with failures, they look in the mirror and say, “I am responsible.”

84 126 65 39 26 6 346

Although he or she might be charismatic, this is not the primary source of their effectiveness. They inspire

113 109 62 36 24 4 348

Answer options

A = Exemplifies this trait

exceptionally well—there is

limited room for improvement.

B = Often exemplifies this

trait, but has room for

improvement.

C = Some evidence of this trait, but record

is spotty.

D = Little evidence that this

trait is exemplified, and there are obvious contradictions.

F = Operates almost entirely contrary to this

trait.

Not applicable

Response count

others primarily via inspired standards—excellence, hard work, sacrifice, and integrity—not with an inspiring public persona.Values substance over style, integrity over personality, and results over intentions. 131 136 39 31 11 1 349

Dialogues and debates in search of the best answer (not for the sake of looking smart or winning a point) up until the point of decision.

120 113 61 31 23 0 348

Unifies behind a decision to ensure success—even if disagreed with the decision. 84 142 69 33 17 3 348

Cultivate leaders who are highly capable individuals, strong contributing team members, competent managers, and effective leaders.

91 137 62 34 22 2 348


Table A4: Demographics

Answer options % n

What is your gender?

Male 64.1% 223

Female 35.9% 125

What is the gender of your boss?

Male 83.4% 291

Female 16.6% 58

What is your age?

24 or younger 1.1% 4

25-34 10.0% 35

35-44 26.1% 91

45-54 36.7% 128

55-64 18.3% 64

65 or older 7.7% 27

What is the approximate age of your boss?

24 or younger .0% 0

25-34 3.2% 11

35-44 19.8% 69

45-54 45.0% 157

55-64 25.5% 89

65 or older 5.4% 19

Which level best describes your boss’ position?

Executive, C-level (i.e.,

CEO, COO, CIO,

president, senior pastor,

etc.)

28.9% 101

Officer of the company

(i.e., vice president, dean,

principal, etc.)

29.8% 104

77


Answer options % n

Director/senior manager 25.5% 89

Manager 13.5% 47

Supervisor/team leader 2.3% 8

Which of the following best describes your boss’ religious affiliation?

Christianity - Catholic 13.2% 46

Christianity - Evangelical

(Christian church,

Church of Christ,

Baptist, etc.)

33.0% 115

Christianity - Mainline

Protestant (Lutheran,

Presbyterian, Methodist,

etc.)

11.2% 39

Christianity - Other 6.3% 22

Other religion (Judaism,

Islam, Hindu, Buddhist,

etc.)

3.7% 13

Nonreligious (atheist,

agnostic, secular)5.5% 19

Don’t know 27.0% 94

To the best of your knowledge, which description best describes the religious

commitment of your boss?

A leader: involved in

leadership and is very

committed

20.7% 72

Committed (attends

services regularly)23.9% 83

Somewhat committed

(attends services

10.1% 35

78


Answer options % n

occasionally)

Not committed 13.8% 48

Don’t know 31.6% 110

What type of organization do you work for?

Large, Fortune 500

corporation33.3% 116

Small to medium-sized

corporation (publicly

traded on a stock

exchange)

14.9% 52

Privately owned

company (not publicly

traded on a stock

exchange)

21.3% 74

Nonprofit organization 30.5% 106

79


Appendix B

Human Subjects Review Board Application

Please submit one electronic copy of this form and any supporting documents to your

dissertation chair or to the SBL IRB representative, Dr. Emilyn Cabanda at:

[email protected] .

1. PROJECT REVIEW

New Project (The HSRB will assign an ID#) ___________________________

Revised Project (Enter ID#) ___________________________

Renewal (Enter ID#) ___________________________

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR _____Wilbur Reid______________________

Address_2936 Summitop Road, Marietta, GA 30066_ Phone __404-202-1924____

E-Mail [email protected]_________________ Date __Nov. 10, 2012____

List of all project personnel (including faculty, staff, outside individuals or

agencies) Wilbur Reid, Dr. Bruce Winston (chair)_______________________

__________________________________________________________

If you are a student, please provide the following additional information:

This research is for Dissertation Thesis Independent Study

Other ___________________________________________

Faculty Advisor’s Name: ____Dr. Bruce Winston_______________________________

3. TRAINING: The National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research

offers free self-paced online training at phrp.nihtraining.com.

I have completed human subjects research training. Training Date: _9/30/12__

4. PROJECT TITLE Development of an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership

5. IS THIS RESEARCH BEING SUBMITTED AS PART OF A FUNDED

RESEARCH PROPOSAL? Yes No

80

http://phrp.nihtraining.com/



If yes, please identify the funding source: ________________________________

6. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF HUMAN SUBJECTS CONTACT:

Beginning Date Sept 2012___________ Ending Date __Nov. 2012_________

7. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS:

Number __349_____ Age Range ___18-90________

Briefly describe subject population Participants are a diverse group of adults

working at a variety of levels in a variety of organizations solicited through

snowballing in social media. The majority of participants were male (70%),

between the ages of 35 and 64 (81%), Christian (87%) and/or work for a for-profit

organization (70%). Though the survey did not include questions regarding

geography, anecdotal evidence and feedback indicates that the majority of

participants are likely from the states of Georgia and Tennessee.

8. INDICATE THE REVIEW CATEGORY FOR WHICH YOU ARE

APPLYING.

Further information about each review category can be found at

http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/IRB/guidelines.cfm

I am applying for an exempt review, based on one or more of the following categories (check all that apply):Note: Exempt review cannot be claimed for any research involving prisoners and most research involving children.

Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings and involving normal educational practices such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods

Research involving the use of survey procedures, educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), interview procedures or observation of public behavior, if information from these sources is

81

http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/IRB/guidelines.cfm


recorded in such a manner that participants cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation Note: This category cannot be used for research involving children

Research involving the use of survey procedures, educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), interview procedures, or observation of public behavior, if (i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter

Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects

Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of federal department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs

I am applying for an expedited review, based on meeting all of the following conditions (check all that apply):Note: Expedited review cannot be claimed for research involving prisoners.

Research poses no more than minimal risk to subjects (defined as "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.")

Research limited to one or more of the following data collection procedures:

Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice

Research involving materials (data, documents, records, or specimens) that have been collected, or will be collected solely for nonresearch purposes

Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes

Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication,

82


cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologiesNote: Some research in this category may be classified as

exempt; this listing refers only to research that is not exempt.

Continuing review of research previously approved by the convened HSRB as follows: (a) where (i) the research is permanently closed to the enrollment of new subjects; (ii) all subjects have completed all research-related interventions; and (iii) the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of subjects; or (b) where no subjects have been enrolled and no additional risks have been identified; or (c) where the remaining research activities are limited to data analysis.

I am applying for full board review.

9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Briefly describe (or attach) the methodology and objectives of your research

(including hypotheses and/or research questions), the data collection procedures,

and any features of the research design that involve procedures or special

conditions for participants, including the frequency, duration, and location of their

participation. The description should be no longer than 3 pages single space.

Attach addendums for materials and detailed descriptions of the research if more

space is needed. Please note that complete chapters of thesis/dissertation

proposals will not be accepted.

There is currently no instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined

by Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001).Therefore, an exploration of the

characteristics of Level 5 leadership was conducted to develop a

parsimonious scale to identify the Level 5 traits of leaders. The three

research questions that were answered were: Utilizing the attributes and

characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be

developed to measure Level 5 leadership? Is the personal humility construct

of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership? Do Collins’ eight

questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and

characteristics that he uses to describe Level 5 leadership? The goal of this

83


study is to provide an accurate and effective instrument to measure Level 5

leadership within individuals.

To accomplish this objective, a 92 item survey was administered to 349

adults representing a diverse set of organizations and work experiences.

Responses were collected via Survey Monkey ™ online and are

anonymous. Each participant completed one survey, which took about 15

minutes. Reliability was very high, with Cronbach’s alpha of at least .92 on

all components.

HSRB Project Description Checklist

a) Is your data completely anonymous, where there are no possible identifications of the participants.

No Yes

b) Will you be using existing data or records? If yes, describe in project description (#9 above)

No Yes

c) Will you be using surveys, questionnaires, interviews or focus groups with subjects? If yes, describe in #9 and include copies of all in application.

No Yes

d) Will you be using videotape, audiotape, film? If yes, describe in #9 No Yes

e) Do you plan to use any of the following populations? Regent students, Regent employees, Non-English speaking, cognitively impaired, patients/clients, prisoners, pregnant women? If yes, describe which ones in #9

No Yes

f) Do you plan to use minors (under 18)? If yes, describe in #9 and give age ranges

No Yes

g) Are sites outside of Regent engaged in the research? If yes, describe in #9 and give consent letter or their IRB information

No Yes

h) Are you collecting sensitive information such as sexual behavior, HIV status, recreational drug use, illegal behaviors, child/elder/physical abuse, immigrations status, etc? If yes, describe in #9.

No Yes

i) Are you using machines, software, internet devices? If so describe in #9 No Yes

j) Are you collecting any biological specimens? If yes, describe in #9 No Yes

k) Will any of the following identifying information be collected: names, telephone numbers, social security number, fax numbers, email addresses, medical records numbers, certificate/license numbers, Web

No Yes

84


universal resource locators (URLs), Internet protocol (IP) address numbers, fingerprint, voice recording, face photographic image, or any other unique identifying number, code or characteristic other than “dummy” identifiers? If yes, describe in #9

l) Will there be data sharing with any entity outside your research team? If so, describe who in #9

No Yes

m)Does any member of the research team or their family members have a personal financial interest in the project (for commercialization of product, process or technology, or stand to gain personal financial income from the project)? If yes, describe in #9.

No Yes

n) As applicable, do you plan to provide a debriefing to your participants? If written, include in application as addendum

No Yes

o) Will there be any inducement to participate, either monetary or nonmonetary? If there is inducement please describe how the amount is not coercive in #9.

No Yes

p) Will there be any costs that subjects will bear (travel expenses, parking fees, professional fees, etc. If no costs other than their time to participate, please indicate)? If yes describe in #9

No Yes

q) Will subjects be studied on Regent University campus? If yes, please describe where the study will be done in #9

No Yes

r) Will subjects be obtained by internet only? If yes, please describe what internet forums or venues will be used to obtain participants in #9

No Yes

s) Are you using the Regent University consent form template? Whether using the template or requesting an alternate form, you must include a copy in your submission.

No Yes

10. PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT

Describe the sources of potential participants, how they will be selected and

recruited, and how and where you will contact them. Describe all relevant

characteristics of the participants with regard to age, ethnic background, sex,

institutional status (e.g., patients or prisoners), and their general state of mental and

physical health.

Participants are a diverse group of adults working at a variety of levels in a variety

of organizations solicited through snowballing in social media. The majority of

participants were male (70%), between the ages of 35 and 64 (81%), Christian

(87%) and/or work for a for-profit organization (70%). Though the survey did not

85


include questions regarding geography, anecdotal evidence and feedback indicates

that the majority of participants are likely from the states of Georgia and

Tennessee. Each of the participants is employed and the state of physical and

mental health of the participants is believed to be sound.

11. INFORMED CONSENT

Describe how you will inform participants of the nature of the study. Attach a

copy of your cover letter, script, informed consent form and other information

provided to potential participants.

Informed Consent Statement: I would appreciate your assistance with this research project on developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined by Jim Collins in Good to Great . The project is being conducted by Wilbur Reid for a dissertation for Regent University.

All you need to do is complete this survey, which should take approximately 15 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary, so you have the option to skip questions or to stop participating at any time. If you do not wish to participate, simply exit from the web site.

Responses will be completely anonymous; your name will not appear anywhere on the survey.

By completing and returning the questionnaire you are acknowledging that you are 18 years of age or older and are consenting to participate in this study.

If you have any questions regarding the research, contact Wilbur Reid at [email protected] or 404-202-1924.

Thank you again for your help.

** EXEMPT APPLICATIONS SKIP TO QUESTION 17: ATTACHMENTS **

12. WRITTEN CONSENT

I am requesting permission to waive written consent, based on one or

more of the following categories (check all that apply):

86



The only record linking the subject and the research would be the

consent document, and the principal risk would be potential harm

resulting from a breach of confidentiality.

The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects

and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally

required outside of the research context.

I will be using a written consent form. Attach a copy of the written

consent form with this application.

13. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA

What procedures will be used to safeguard identifiable records of individuals and

protect the confidentiality of participants?

__________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

** EXPEDITED APPLICATIONS SKIP TO QUESTION 17: ATTACHMENTS **

14. RISKS AND BENEFITS

Describe in detail the immediate or long-range risks, if any, to participants that

may arise from the procedures used in this study. Indicate any precautions that will

be taken to minimize these risks. Also describe the anticipated benefits to

participants and to society from the knowledge that may be reasonably expected to

result from this study.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

15. DEBRIEFING STATEMENT

The two major goals of debriefing are dehoaxing and desensitizing. Participants

should be debriefed about any deception that was used in the study. Participants

87


also should be debriefed about their behavioral response(s) to the study. Please

describe your debriefing plans and include any statements that you will be

providing to the participants.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

16. DISSEMINATION & STORAGE OF RESULTS

a) How and where do you plan on disseminating the results of your study?b) For electronic data stored on a computer, how will it be stored and

secured (password, encryption, other comparable safeguard)?c) For hardcopy data, how will it be stored (locked office or suite, locked

cabinet, data coded by team with master list secured separately, other)?d) What are your plans for disposing of data once the study is ended (give

method and time)?__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

17. ATTACHMENTS:

Attach copies of all relevant project materials and documents, including (check all

that apply):

A copy of your training certificate (required for principal investigator)

Surveys, questionnaires, and/or interview instruments

Informed consent forms or statements

Letters of approval from cooperative agencies, schools, or education boards

Debriefing statements or explanation sheet

18. AFFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE:

By submitting this application, I attest that I am aware of the applicable principles,

policies, regulations, and laws governing the protection of human subjects in

research and that I will be guided by them in the conduct of this research. I agree

88


to follow the university policy as outlined in the Faculty & Academic Policy

Handbook (available online at

http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/handbook.cfm) to ensure that

the rights and welfare of human participants in my project are properly protected. I

understand that the study will not commence until I have received approval of

these procedures from the Human Subjects Review Board. I further understand

that if data collection continues for more than one year from the approval date, a

renewal application must be submitted.

I understand that failure to comply with Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46, available

online at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html ) can

result in confiscation and possible destruction of data, suspension of all current and

future research involving human subjects, or other institutional sanctions, until

compliance is assured.

89

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/handbook.cfm

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership 90

Reid, Wilbur a - Regent University Dissertation

Documents

Transcript of Reid, Wilbur a - Regent University Dissertation