Pen1332 1

Candidate number: Pen1332 Martin Davies Hommerton College Supervisor: Lucy Willmott

Title: Assessing Management Leadership Traits in Probation Submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management Jan 2015

Pen1332 2

Summary

The probation service in England and Wales has a long history of change, much of it driven by politics, but today, at the time of writing, probation is on the cusp of its biggest ever change. With much of the work now being placed into the private sector for the first time, leaders are having to drive forward unpopular change while somehow taking staff with them. This research therefore explores probation managers’ leadership traits, looking specifically at ‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ traits using the Avolio and Bass (1995) multifactor leadership questionnaire to assess current traits in the public sector and assess the likely fit with the ‘new world’. The findings support existing research that probation is heavily influenced by a set of high moral values that steers its culture across all levels of management and, perhaps unsurprisingly, support the notion that probation leaders are significantly more likely to be ‘Transformational’ in their leadership style. Interestingly though, it does not appear to be the influence of gender, career, age or seniority that most influences the outcome, but whether managers were employed pre the last significant cultural change in 1997, when the probation service moved away from a mantra of ‘befriend, assist and support’, to an organisation whose priority is ‘public protection’ and ‘law enforcement’ that most impacts on the relevant strength of their ‘Transformational’, or ‘Transactional’ tendencies. Declarations I can confirm the thesis is not more than 18000 words (including notes, excluding any relevant appendices and the bibliography. I can confirm the thesis is not being used for any other purpose than the M.St. for which it is being submitted. I can confirm that, except as indicated by specific references to or acknowledgements of other sources, this thesis is my own work.

Pen1332 3

Acknowledgements I have several acknowledgements I wish to make to those who assisted me complete this thesis. The first is to the ‘class’ which expects to graduate in 2015. All were mutually supportive and together we ensured we were the best year that the Criminology department in Cambridge had ever seen! Specific gratitude should go to ‘Aunty Nell’ and her cake, which provided much-needed sustenance at crucial points. In addition to my colleague students I would like to thank course director Dr Ben Crew for his amazing patience, wit (occasional) and entertainment but, most of all, I wish to thank Dr Lucy Willmott, my supervisor who has been amazing!! Without her support and guidance I doubt this thesis would have ever been completed, and certainly not to anything like the quality you see before you. Thank you Lucy, you’re a star!

Pen1332 4

Contents

Page

Chapter 1 6 Introduction and Background 6 Probation 7 Summary and Aims 9 Research Questions 10 Chapter 2 12 Literature Review 12 Organisational Culture, Public, Private and Probation 12 Leadership styles: public-private, male-female and probation 20 Conclusion 26 Chapter 3 28 Research Design and Methods 28 Population 28 Table 3.1 The total number of staff both national and within the sample at each grade

30

Sampling 30 Research Tools 31 Method 35 Statistical Analysis 37 Ethical Issues 38 Chapter 4 40 Data Analyses and Results 40 Demographic Data 40 Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of Response rates compared with sample population

42

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of Responders demographics by Gender

43

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of Gender and length of Service 44 Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of Operational or Non Operational managers and length of Service

45

Graph 4.1: Frequency Graph of Primary Reasons for Joining Probation

46

Leadership Styles 47 Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of Line Managers MQL Scores in Two Probation areas

48

Graph 4.2: Numbers of Transformational, and Transactional line managers

49

Table 4.6: Results of Qualified and Non-Qualified Management Traits

50

Table 4.7: Results of Operational and Non-Operational Management Traits

51

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of Primary Reasons for Joining Probation and Management Traits Scores

52

Table 4.9: Frequency of High Transactional and Transformational Scores, and low Laissez Faire scores

53

Research Questions 54

Pen1332 5

Chapter 5 58 Discussion 58 Probation Leadership Traits 59 The Impact of Senior Managers Compared to Middle Managers 63 The Impact of Mawby and Worrall’s ‘‘Lifers’’ and their Management Traits

65

The impact of Mawby and Worrall’s ‘Second Careerist’ and their Management Traits

66

Impact of ‘Offender Managers’ and their Leadership Traits 68 Impact of Private versus Public Probation managers 69 Limitations 70 Future Research 72 Chapter 6 74 Conclusion 74 Bibliography 79 Appendix A Demographic Questions 84 Appendix B Sample MQL questions 85 Appendix C Participants consent sheet 86 Appendix D NOMs consent 87 Appendix E List of previous Careers 90 Appendix F Trait Frequency Scores 91

Pen1332 6

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

“Sir Edmund Hillary of Mount Everest fame likes to tell a story about Captain

Scott’s earlier attempts, from 1901 to 1904, to reach the South Pole. Scott led an

expedition made up of men from the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, as well as

a group of scientists. Scott had considerable trouble dealing with the merchant

marine personnel who were unaccustomed to the rigid discipline of Scott’s Royal

Navy. Scott wanted to send one seaman home because he would not take orders

but the seaman refused, arguing he signed a contract and knew his rights. Since

the seaman was not subject to Royal Naval disciplinary action Scott did not know

what to do. Then Ernest Shackleton, a Merchant Naval Officer in Scott’s party,

calmly informed the seaman that he, the seamen, was returning to Britain. Again

the seamen refused – and Shackleton knocked him to the ship’s deck. After another

refusal, followed by a second flooring, the seaman decided he would return home”

(Bass, 1990, 19)

This story encapsulates an interesting divergence of both ‘culture’ and ‘leadership’

between a public (in this case the Royal Navy) and private (merchant navy) sector

organisation. According to Schein (2010) ‘culture’ and ‘leadership’ are different yet

intrinsically linked. While the above ‘struggle’ dates back to the 1900’s, the tensions

between cultures (hieratical or democratic) and leadership styles (authoritative or

collaborative) still exist today, both in society as a whole and within organisations,

particularly at times of radical change (Bass, 1985: Burn, 1978). This study will

examine leadership styles within the English Probation Service at a time of significant

change.

Pen1332 7

Probation

The probation service in England is over 100 years old, with its roots going back as far

as 1876 when Frederick Rainer donated money to the church to intervene with the

treadmill of ‘offenders’ being sentenced to seven days’ custody for being drunk. With

the donation the church set up the police court missionaries who used their “own

religious convictions and inner strength, and fearlessly admonishing, [and] teaching”

(Osler, 1995, 15) to support offender change. This support was reinforced by the

Probation of Offenders Act 1907 which formalised probation and created the mantra ‘to

advise, assist and befriend’ in what at the time commanded support from all sides of

British politics at Westminster (Whitehead and Statham, 2006). Later in 1948, new

powers were given to courts to sentence to a range of probation orders and gave

probation officers increasing powers, still within the overall mantra of ‘advise, assist and

befriend’. This ‘humanistic’ element of probation continued with probation officers

becoming social workers in 1966, almost in an attempt to reinforce its origins (Osler,

1995).

Probation remained pretty static until the introduction of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act.

The Act sought to address what the Conservative Government of the day felt was an

organisational probation culture which no longer fitted the aspirations of government

or the public. In their view probation was ‘too soft’ and lacked what the Government

saw as the necessary ‘teeth’ to manage offenders effectively (Nellis, 2003; Osler, 1995).

This was presented publicly as probation being seen as a ‘failing service’ (Faulkner,

2001) and so the Act sought to reassure both politicians and the public by firmly moving

probation away from any leanings towards social work and instead morphing it into a

Pen1332 8

law enforcement agency with clear lines of accountability. These changes coincided

with a real government push to enshrine ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) ideology

within probation that had, to a large extent, avoided its influence until this point. What

NPM sought to achieve was “to make public sector organisations – and the people

working for them! – much more ‘businesslike’ and ‘market-orientated’, that is

performance, cost, efficiency and audit orientated” (Diefenbach, 2009, 893). Soon

afterwards, in 1997, the training moved sharply away from social work, university-led

training to an employer-led, practice-needs led training where trainees were employed

directly by probation areas (organised around court petty session areas and police

boundaries). With this in mind, performance frameworks appeared with targets for

every kind of measure. Those trained by the employer under the new arrangements

flourished within these new guidelines while those trained before largely resented them

(Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Phillips, 2011).

In May 2013 “Transforming Rehabilitation: A strategy for reform” (Ministry of Justice,

2013) was published. This signalled the end of a completely public-owned probation

service, with seventy percent of its work to be privatised. The existing thirty-five

probation trusts were to be replaced by one publicly-owned National Probation Service

(NPS) which would manage the highest risk of harm offenders1 and advise the courts

and twenty-one privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), to manage

the bulk of offenders. The split occurred on the 1st June 2014, although the CRCs remain

in public ownership at the time of writing but are due to be ‘sold’ to their new owners in

February 2015. To achieve this split, non-operational staff2 were automatically assigned

1"‘serious harm’ is ‘a risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible" (Ministry of Justice, 2009, 5) 2 those with no direct offender contact, such as finance, human resorces and IT officers

Pen1332 9

to the new CRCs, operational staff3 were given the option to choose a preferred

organisation, but where oversupply occurred staff would be chosen for the NPS on the

basis of those who managed the most high risk of serious harm cases on the 1st

November 2013. It was widely reported, that many staff felt aggrieved by the process

(Hughes, 1st July 2014; Travis 19th September 2013) given many indicated a preference

to remain in public service, rather than working for a private organisation.

Summary and aims

Given the imminent changes to probation, now is the perfect time to reflect on probation

management styles. Existing literature (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Handy, 1985;

Lipsky, 2010; Schein, 2010) has demonstrated the key role leaders have in shaping the

organisation’s culture and Mawby and Worrall's (2013) research explored probation

managers belonging to one of three different subcultures: 'Lifers’, 'Second Careerists' or

'Offender Managers'. This research will explore these categories further, identifying

what, if any, impact it has on their leadership traits. Management traits will be explored

by building on Bass's (1985) work of 'Transformational' or 'Transactional' leadership

and his later work with Avolio (1995) that sought to explain the role of individual

recognition and that of meeting individual followers’ 'needs'. By doing this, a greater

appreciation of the leadership traits is gathered, which is important because "a leader's

behavior is never 'context-free' and that even in very weak context, the follower will

invoke experiences from other contexts that will likely affect his or her perceptions of

the leader" (Avolio & Bass, 1995, 206).

3 qualified and non qualified probation officers, and their line managers, along with some administration support

Pen1332 10

Research Questions

This research will aim to explore probation leadership traits using a multi-factor

leadership questionnaire designed and validated by Avolio and Bass (1995) to self-test

managers to establish if they are ‘Transformational’, ‘Transactional’ or ‘Laissez-Faire’ in

their approach and management traits. Additional demographic questions were added

to provide sufficient information to group responders by Mawby and Worrall’s (2013)

theory that probation staff fall into three distinct categories 'Lifers', 'Second Careerists'

and 'Offender Managers'. A further dimension will be also to test if there is a difference

in traits between managers assigned to the 'public' sector or those assigned to the

'private' sector. This leads in to the following research questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between ‘Senior Leader’ managements traits

and ‘Middle Manager’ traits.

2. Is there a significant difference in 'Lifer', as referred to by Mawby & Worrall,

leadership traits to that of the general probation management group?

3. Is there a significant difference in 'Second Careerist', as referred to by Mawby

& Worrall, leadership traits to that of the general probation management

group?

4. Is there a significant difference in 'Offender Manager', as referred to by

Mawby & Worrall, leadership traits to that of the general probation

management group?

Pen1332 11

5. Is there a significant difference in leadership traits between managers in the

public or private sector probation?

Pen1332 12

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This chapter will review existing literature surrounding organisational culture and

leadership styles examining where the probation service of the past, present and future

appears to fit the various models and considering the available empirical evidence on

probation culture.

Organisational culture, public, private and probation

People often refer to culture in a rather casual manner, rarely defining what it is they

are referring to. There almost appears to be a deliberate vagueness in its use, perhaps

unsurprising given the difficulties in defining its meaning. Some such as Goodenough

(1957) claim culture "does not consist of things, people, behaviours or emotions. It is

the forms of things that people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and

otherwise interpreting them" (cited in Dingwell & Strangleman, 2007, 469). Schein

further explores this core definition of culture as a “set of structures, routines, rules, and

norms that guide and constrain behaviour" (2004, 1) and is supported by the writings of

Potworowski and Green who reinforce the image claiming organisational culture is a

display of "social norms, rules, practises, myths, and heroes" (2012, 277). It is these

more ‘grounded’ definitions of culture that this research will seek to explore.

To further explore culture, first the typology of shared culture (Avolio & Bass, 1995;

Bass, 1985; Schein, 2010) will be examined. A very broad definition of such an

organisational culture could be ‘a collectively held (by all employees) vision of culture’.

In other words, managers and employees are singing in harmony, not just creating

Pen1332 13

noise, but music. When looked at in this way, it is easy to see the importance of

management traits because of the influence a manager can have in supporting or

fragmenting that 'culture', like the impact a conductor has over an orchestra. It is their

commitment, along with all other employees, to a common set of beliefs, values and

practices that together create and develop the organisation’s culture. "The outcome of

attempting a new practice can increase or decrease both one’s perception of the

practice’s effectiveness and beliefs in one’s own efficacy" (Potworowski & Green, 2012,

275).

This idea of a shared culture is developed further by Schein (2010), who encouraged

culture to be viewed as tacit with multi layers. The "So-called 'onion' models of culture

(Schein, 2010) generally place hidden assumptions at the centre of culture and the

effects of hidden assumptions radiate outward to the subsequent 'layers' of values, then

behaviours (or practices), and so on" (Potworowski & Green, 2012, 275). This was

explained by Schein (2010) as representing three levels of cultures: Artefacts, Espoused

Values and Basic underlying assumptions. Artefacts become symbolic of the

organisation, usually a visible association such as a branding, which provides clear

demarcation from that of others. Espoused Values are described as ‘taught values’

differing significantly from those values that underpin the culture of an organisation

that are referred to as 'Basic underlying assumptions'. These are so intrinsically meshed

into the organisation that there is no need to formalise or explicitly state openly (Schein,

2010).

While Schein (2004, 2010) primarily reviewed the ‘shared’ organisational culture,

Handy (1985) has been influential in describing the functionality of organisations. He

has argued that organisational cultures fall within four broad categories: Power, Task,

Role and Person. The culture of ‘power’ centres on a highly influential and charismatic

Pen1332 14

leader. This individual is able to show “empathy and personal communication” (Brown,

1998, 66) to invoke a sense of power and trust in their employees to ensure the

organisation’s effectiveness. This is seen as building a dynamic organisation, that is

'fleet of foot' and able to respond to change quickly, providing the leader is able to spot

and drive the necessary change. Organisations that appear to fit this model are Virgin,

with Richard Branson leading from the front, or Apple with Steve Jobs exemplifying the

model of trust and innovation. Although Handy himself did not try to popularise this

model, some have described it as ‘hero making’ or ‘macho’ (Parkin and Maddock, 1995).

This model’s effectiveness has recently been brought into question by large-scale

organisational failures, think Enron or Royal Bank of Scotland (Alimo-Metcalfe and

Alban-Metcalfe, 2008), which have largely been guided by the ideals of one man (sic). In

looking at it another way success or failure of one person dictates whether the

organisation as a whole succeeds or fails!

The second organisational type that Handy (1985) discusses is that of 'Task', historically

closely aligned to public bodies including probation, given its tendencies for

bureaucracy (see for example Lipsky 2010; Stevenson 2013). Policies and procedures

tend to be mapped out, with the aim of building consistency and accountability. The

drawbacks of such a culture are the speed at which it can respond to change, and its

corresponding 'ponderousness', although of course for "individuals who value security

and predictability these sorts of organisations are highly reassuring" (Brown, 1998, 67).

But as Lipsky (2010) highlighted, the methodology for accountability can frustrate

practitioners to levels that hamper the overall goal.

Handy's third type is the 'Role' culture which is closely aligned to a project

management- style of organisation and with similarities to that of 'Power', tends to

promote "flexibility, adaptability, [and] individual autonomy" (Brown, 1998, 69), but

Pen1332 15

clearly is susceptible to the same criticisms of reliance on one or few people being

successful, examples of this would include venture capitalists who buy businesses to

restructure them to sell on quickly for a profit. Finally Handy's 'Personal' culture

represents those who belong to a discreet profession that is limited to a few people with

unique skill sets identified to them, for example, doctors, or lawyers. Although Handy's

work does help to build an understanding of organisational types at a macro level, it

pays little attention to micro cultures that operate within an organisation. It also

virtually ignores the relationship between leader and follower, other than that in the

broadest sense of the Power model.

While Handy (1985) and Schien (2010) have sought to explain organisational culture

from an observational perspective that could be applied to any type of organisation,

public or private, Le Grand (2010) has sought to present an applied perspective. As

senior policy advisor to the Tony Blair Government he brings an insider’s perspective of

organisational culture for public services and includes the perception of Ministers,

senior policy advisors and senior civil servants. Within the model proposed by Le

Grand (2010) he suggests individuals and, ultimately,organisations as a whole are either

‘Knights’ or ‘Knaves’.

“Each contains assumptions concerning the motivation of the professionals and

others who provide the service concerned; that is, the extent to which they are

‘Knaves’, motivated primarily by self interest, or ‘Knights’, motivated by altruism

and the desire to provide public services” (Le Grand, 2010, 56).

Le Grand (2010) goes on to argue that those in government (or at least during his time

as advisor to government) do have an underlying belief that people working in the

public sector are “basically Knights; public spirited altruists committed to the welfare of

Pen1332 16

the people that they were being employed to serve”(Le Grand, 2010, 57). In other

words, government would simply be able to ‘Trust’ probation to get on with the goal in

hand, providing staff’s view of the ‘goal’ is the same as government’s. It is here there is

a potential problem, as for many probation workers the goal is still ‘befriend, assist and

advise’ where as the government wants them to deliver ‘public protection’ duties in a

more authoritarian manner. Given the goals of practitioners and government are not in

alignment, a model of ‘trust’ is unlikely to be successful. With this in mind, it must

discount the notion of ‘Knights’ and instead appeal to practitioner’s self-interest, or to

use Le Grand’s language ‘Knaves’ (2010).

The belief in ‘Knaves’ became increasingly popular by the Blair Government, given that

despite increased funding levels the ‘Knights’’ ideology failed to deliver the expected

performance improvements (Le Grand, 2010) across a broad range of public sectors

including probation.

“If policy was failing, that was because it did not serve the self -interest of the

people delivering the policy. New policies stalled, and good practice did not

spread, partly because they involved change; change was uncomfortable, thus

violating self-interest and making it unpopular” (Le Grand, 2010, 60).

This was certainly the perception the Blair Government had, referring to probation as a

“failed service” (Faulkner, 2001). To challenge a probation culture of high ‘ethical’

values and deeply held moral convictions (Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mawby and Worrall, 2010),

it was deemed that a new performance framework was needed, reminiscent of ‘New

Public Management’ (NPM), to steer probation to a more hardline approach.

Pen1332 17

NPM came straight from the ideology that the private sector knows best (Boyne, 2002:

Diefenbach, 2009). By adopting the techniques of successful business, such as

management objectives, measures for every session of process, clearly defined goals,

and total quality management (Boyne, 2002) it was expected to see improved

performance of the public sector and in a manner that allowed the government of the

day to define success. By removing the control of professionals opponents of NPM

would argue “work is steadily being colonised by management ideology and subject to

more rational modes of top down control and surveillance” (Diefenbach, 2009, 902).

Opponents of NPM would also argue that NPM fails to take account of the cultural

aspects of public sector organisations (Boyne, 2002; Diefenbach, 2009; Turkiewicz,

1998) and as a result staff become cynical and disillusioned with managers who “talk of

a shared organisational mission, commitment to quality and customer responsiveness

[that] flies in the face of their experience” (Diefenbach, 2009, 904).

Private organisations built around principles on which NPM is based are undeniably

successful based on their ultimate goal of profit (Farnham and Horton, 1996, cited in

Boyne, 2002). Think Shell, British Gas, BMW - the list is endless. One of the

fundamental differences in private organisational objectives is the desire to make profit.

Rarely does profit enter the public sector desire but it remains the key driver for almost

all business (Farnham and Horton, 1996, cited in Boyne, 2002). With this clear goal for

private business comes with it simple, distinctive and sharp strategic goals which cannot

be replicated in the public sector (Nutt and Backoff , 1993 cited in Boyne, 2002). What

this clearer objective achieves is to enable individuals in private organisations to

understand their role within the organisation better than their counterparts in the

public sector (Boyne, 2002).

While there is much research and literature on organisational culture as a whole, there

is very little research into probation culture, especially contemporary. The recent

Pen1332 18

qualitative research of Mawby and Worrall (2013) has explored this area interviewing

fifty-two current staff and eight recently retired probation workers to look at the

current culture of probation. In their research they looked to Schein’s (2010) three

level model of culture featuring basic underlying assumptions, espoused values and

artefacts by applying individuals’ espoused values to the culture of the Probation

Service. This resulted in findings that could fit probation workers into three distinct

categories, with the first being 'Lifers'. "For them probation was often regarded as being

a vocation, a lifelong commitment and their one main career" (Mawby & Worrall, 2013,

22). Many joined probation at an early stage in their working career and were well

educated. There are clear links to Le Grand’s (2010) ‘Knights’ and the language, although

different, has clear resonance. The inference is clear in that ‘Lifers’ would see

themselves modelled as ‘Knights’, and one quote within Mawby and Worralls work

articulates this best:

“My father was a consultant psychiatrist,….my mum a nurse and grandfather a

doctor, and a lot of clerics [in the family]. And I declared at the age of four I was

going to be Archbishop of Canterbury” (Unidentified ‘lifer’, in Mawby and Worrall,

2013, 21).

The second category identified by Mawby and Worrall (2013) was:

"the ‘Second Careerists’, [who] form a distinct group by virtue of having already

forged a career seemingly unrelated to probation or by spending a considerable

number of years in several jobs before joining probation" (2013, 26).

The history of previous jobs does not detract from the underlying values of the

individual or indeed of financial reward. “It [was] really poorly paid. But I thought it

Pen1332 19

[was] an opportunity to get involved and help make people change” (Unidentified

‘Second Careerist’, in Mawby and Worrall, 2013, 27). So although not as pictorially vivid

as that of the ‘lifer’ quote above, it remains clear that the ‘Knightly’ values identified by

Le Grand (2010) are just as present in ‘Second Careerist’, and lends further support to

Schein’s (2010) ‘basic underlying assumptions’, which in terms of probation can be seen

as a desire ‘to help people change’.

Finally, Mawby and Worrall (2013) identified the third group as being that of 'Offender

Managers' who "tend to be more recent recruits, principally those who joined the

Probation Service after 1997 and who experienced the trainee probation officer (TPO)

training framework that ran until 2010" (2013, 33). From the descriptions provided by

Mawby and Worrall it is less clear under which banner of Le Grand’s model ‘Offender

Managers’ would fall, although the TPO training referred to was based around a

performance-related framework with rewards (in terms of appraisals and outcomes)

and penalties for failures. This would imply that ‘Offender Managers’ at least would be

well positioned with that of ‘Knaves’ and are well accustomed to the performance

frameworks of NPM. However, what underpinned all three categories of probation

workers, according to Mawby and Worrall, was an underlining belief in rehabilitation,

decency and a sense that they were 'doing' the right thing, along with a strong desire to

reduce reoffending. In other words, they identified a clear set of values that can fit

Schein's (1985, 2010) theory on espoused values and basic underlying assumptions, and

also build on Le Grand’s ideal that they were “public spirited altruists committed to the

welfare of the people that they were being employed to serve”(Le Grand, 2010, 57).

To summarise, although there is only limited literature on probation culture, it is

possible to identify and begin to understand its culture. Schien (2010) talked of a core

belief at the centre of his onion model, which for probation would be the belief that

Pen1332 20

‘people can change’ (Gelthorpe, 2007; Le Grand, 2010; Mair, 2004; Mawby and Worrall,

2013; Nellis, 2003). Views on how this is best achieved may differ, with some

advocating a system of desistance (McNeil, 2012; Maurna, 2010) that builds on the idea

of ‘social bonds’, and others promoting the ‘What Works’ ideology (McGuire, 1995) of

cognitive teaching. This difference in ideology is a simple example of how the Schien

‘onion model’ can work in practice. The core belief remains that of ‘people can change’.

Out of this core belief become delivery models to achieve the outcome and the belief.

Interestingly as probation moves towards a mixed market of public and private it might

be expected to see the ‘artefacts’ of a culture (Schein, 2010), such as branding, diversify

to set the two apart. In this case however both the public service (NPS) and the private

service (CRC) are adopting near identical livery and signage in what appears to be an

almost deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between the two.

Leadership styles, public-private, male-female and probation

Having reviewed literature on organisational culture it is now appropriate to review the

literature on leadership traits and their influence on followers and therefore the

organisational culture as a whole, given that the traits of a manager can have either a

positive or destructive effect on the organisational culture (Burns, 1978).

Many theories on leadership traits are generalised to the leadership population as a

whole, but one that is specific to public sector leadership is that of

Van Wart (2004), whose ‘leadership framework’ can be applied to all levels of the public

sector. What this proposed is that leadership styles and traits could be categorised into

three distinct groups, ‘task-oriented’, ‘people-oriented’ or ‘organisation–oriented’.

Pen1332 21

For those identified as ‘task-oriented’ their “behaviours include those actions related to

monitoring and assessing work, operations planning, clarifying roles and objectives,

informing, delegating, problem-solving, and managing innovation and creativity “(Van

Wart, 2008, 192). Remembering these are now individual leadership traits, as opposed

to organisational cultures, we can see remarkable similarity to Handy’s (1985) cultural

model and in, perhaps unsurprisingly, his model of ‘Task’ cultures, in which the focus on

achieving an objective is paramount and exhaustive. Also by applying Schein’s (2010)

‘multi layer’ model, it is reasonable to assume that an organisation with a large degree of

‘task-oriented’ leaders is likely to create an organisation that is task-focused, because of

the taught values espoused by the leaders.

A ‘people-oriented’ approach is described as “consulting, planning and organising

personnel, developing staff, motivating, building and managing teams, managing

conflict, and managing personnel change” (Van Wart, 2008, 210). Interestingly, we see

close links to the ‘Knaves’ discussed by Le Grand (2010). The method employed by

‘people-oriented’ leaders is about developing a contract with individuals, ‘we’ll invest in

you, if you deliver xx’, so unlike the ‘Knights’ who deliver for ‘altruism’ (Le Grand, 2010),

here we see the ‘people-oriented’ leaders appealing to individuals’ self interest to enable

them to achieve for the organisation.

The third and final category of leadership style proposed by Van Wart (2008) is that of

‘organisation-oriented’ in which we see more visionary and forward thinking

leadership. Their style includes “scanning the environment, strategic planning,

articulating the mission and vision of the organisation, networking and partnering,

performing general management functions such as human resources and budgeting,

decision-making, and management of organisational change” (Van Wart, 2008, 234).

Again we can see clear linkage to the organisational cultures of Handy (1985) and the

Pen1332 22

‘Power’ culture, but in this model there are clear ‘Knight’-like tendencies (Le Grand,

2010). The ability to network, influence and shape others to perform in a manner that

serves as an advantage to the central organisation, is about inspiring others to belief,

adapt and champion the vision.

Van Wart’s (2008) work has helped to provide contextualisation for leadership traits

and behaviours, and it has been seen how these align with organisational cultures, but

what it does not do is provide a way of measuring those traits and behaviours. For this a

more detailed look at leadership traits is required. Burns (1978) differentiated between

'Transactional' and 'Transformational' leaders by describing 'Transactional' leaders as

process- driven, motivating by the use of a form of profit and loss evaluation for effort

versus outcome. This can be likened to Mawby and Worrall's (2013) 'Offender

Manager', at least in terms of process-driven attributes and a balance between risk and

cost. There are also very obvious parallels to Le Grand’s (2010) ‘Knaves’ because of the

contractual nature in which it is managed. 'Transformational' leaders on the other hand

are motivated through creating higher levels of arousal for change (Burns, 1978), so can

be seen as ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 2010) who appeal to individuals’ inner sense of

belonging and belief. This can also be likened to Mawby and Worrall's (2013) 'Lifers’

and ‘Second Careerists' who are committed to change through a strong value base. Zhu

et al (2011) describe leaders who adopt such a position "as being caring, compassionate,

fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking and honest" (Zhu et al, 2011, 803). Again

these are values often associated with probation (Gelsthorpe, 2007; Knight, 2009; Nellis,

2003; Mawby and Worrall, 2013).

Pen1332 23

What Burns’ (1978) work failed to take full account of however, was the role of the

follower and the effect of the transaction between the leader and the follower. Bernard

Bass articulately intertwined the role subordinates play in leadership traits, stating that

the "Transactional leader induces performance amongst followers by negotiating an

exchange relationship with them of reward for compliance, ‘Transformational’

leadership arouses transcendental interests in followers and/or elevates their need and

aspiration levels" (Bass, 1985, 32). In other words, ‘Transactional’ leaders are ‘Knaves’

(Le Grand, 2010). This is not seen as a bad thing and the best ‘Transactional’ leaders are

those that master the art of “recognis[ing] what the subordinates need and want and

clarify how these needs and wants will be satisfied" (Bass, 1985, 12-13), but only after

“clarify[ing] the role and task requirements for the subordinates [to] reach the desired

outcome" (Bass, 1985, 12). In addition it is unlikely that a ‘Transactional’ leader would

question their organisation’s goals or priorities, instead trying to adapt and model their

own view to fit, thus taking the route of easiest resistance. The only time ‘Transactional’

leaders may provide resistance is if the organisational direction began to conflict with

the interest of the manager, for example if the current course of action was likely to

result in bankruptcy this would be resisted but only to protect the individual from loss

of job. Effectively what Bass (1985) was able to demonstrate was that 'Transactional'

leaders, although able to recognise what followers want and need, are unable to illicit

cultural change in the manner of 'Transformational' leaders who can change "the social

warp and woof of reality" (Bass, 1985, 24).

It is ‘Transformational’ leaders who are best able to elicit cultural change through

displays of high degrees of ethical leadership (Zhu et al, 2011). "Leaders are truly

’Transformational’ when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important, and

beautiful; when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-

actualisation; when they foster in followers higher moral maturity" (Bass, 1998, 171). It

Pen1332 24

appears the ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 210) have ridden forward again, and an emphasis on

trust is at the forefront of their behaviour and trait. This in turn ensures “they foster a

culture of creativity change and growth rather than one which maintains the status quo"

(Bass & Avolio, 1993, 113). These levels of change are only achieved by appealing to

followers, not in a manner of rewards, like ‘Transactional’ leaders or ‘Knaves’, but by

recognising the need for contingent reward in followers. In other words:

"Individualised consideration may concentrate on changing followers’ motives,

moving them to consider more than their self-interests but also the moral and

ethical implications of their actions and goals" (Avolio & Bass, 1995, 202).

Interestingly Mawby and Worrall (2013) highlighted the high levels of morals and

values running deep within probation’s veins and that on the whole staff trusted their

senior management, which according to Braun (2012) shows further evidence of

‘Transformationalism’, with “Transformational’ leaders who actively promote individual

followers’ progress and involvement signal their ability to lead as well as their

benevolence and integrity, and will therefore elicit higher levels of trust” (Braun, 2013

273).

What the debate about ‘Transformational’ or ‘Transactional’ leadership has shown us is

a clear linkage to the work of Handy’s (1985) 'Power' and 'Role' cultural types, visionary

versus stability, "working within the organisation culture as it exists [or] change[ing]

the organisation culture" (Bass, 1985, 24). Commentators have not sought to suggest

one trait is better than another, acknowledging different situations call for different

styles, although interestingly “managers who behave like ‘Transformational’ leaders are

more likely to be seen by their colleagues and employees as satisfying and effective

leaders than those who have ‘Transactional’ [traits]” (Bass, 1990, 21).

Pen1332 25

Although a popular leadership traits theory and model, ‘Transformational’ and

‘Transactional’ leadership are not without their critics, with the primary issue being that

around the over-reliance on ‘charisma’. Hogan et al (1990) talk of the ‘dark side of

charisma’ and while acknowledging certain strengths also talk about the ability of

‘charisma’ to act also as an alienator. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot were all arguably graced with

charisma but were deadly dangerous to those outside their ‘circle’. While it is unlikely

an organisational leader would have such power to inflict pain, they still have the ability

to make individuals’ lives uncomfortable and destroy teams and culture (Alban-Metcalfe

and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2013). A further criticism is that similar to the criticism of Handy’s

‘person’ culture and that of a ‘He-Man’ approach (Muir, 15th August 2014) or ‘Hero-

maker’ (Parkin and Maddock, 1995). The implication is that ‘masculine’ traits, such as

“displays a sense of power and confidence” (Avolio and Bass, 1009, 109) are strong

characteristics, although Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Aviolio and Bass (1995) would

counter-argue this by referring to ‘Transformational’ traits as being caring, and

thoughtful, which are perhaps less stereotypical male traits.

The issue of gender is an important one when considering the impact on probation.

Although nearly 90% of offenders managed by probation are male, the organisation as a

whole is predominantly female, with over two-thirds of staff being female (Annison,

2007). Interestingly this is against a backdrop of increasingly hardline views against

public protection from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice (Annison, 2007) with

terms such as “confronting, challenging, enforcing, targeting. This is the language of

contact sports and war. It is male language and its objective is to impress, to impress

with demonstration of power’”(Cordery and Whitehead, 1992, 30). This is further

supported by Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe (2007) who argue that the

characteristics of ‘Transformational’ leaders are male in bias.

Pen1332 26

Research surrounding different management traits between public and private sector

managers differs in its conclusions of differences between the two sets of managers.

Some have shown minimal differences (Boyne, 2002 and Kenny, 1987; Rainey, 1995)

while others have shown the private sector to have more directive styles (Baldwin, 1987

and Solmon, 1986) that could be considered more ‘Transactional’ in nature. Avolio and

Bass (1995) do not distinguish between public and private sector managers. However,

some have argued (Boyne, 2002; Solomon, 1986) that private sector managers are

better at understanding the needs of employees and translating them into ways in which

to motivate suggesting a higher ‘Transactional’ tendency. This would be further

supported by the work of Allison (1979, p462) who “claims that private management

proceeds much more by direction or the issuance of orders to subordinates by superior

managers with little risk of contradiction” (cited in Boyne, 2001, 101). While the

existing research is not conclusive between public and private differences, it does tend

to support private sectors being more ‘Transactional’ in nature than ‘Transformational’,

but this doesn’t necessarily mean the converse is true for the public sector.

To summarise, the existing research fails to give a clear indication of the leadership

traits you could expect to see in probation. An organisation, which is female-dominated,

firmly rooted in the public sector (currently) and displays a culture built on high moral

values. The culture of probation appears to cross over the results of previous research

and fails to identify easily with existing results. This only serves to make the outcome of

this research all the more interesting.

Conclusion

What this chapter has sought to do is highlight the main areas of theory and research

into organisational culture and how it is affected by leadership traits and how ultimately

Pen1332 27

they are intertwined. Schein's (1985, 2010) work on organisational culture shows how

a set of underlying values permeates throughout an organisation from a core belief.

Mawby and Worrall (2013) along with Gelthorpe, 2007; Mair, 2004; Nellis, 2003, have

all suggested the core belief in probation is that ‘people can change’, but reminiscent of

Schien’s (2010) ‘onion model’ ideology to achieve ‘success’ varies between ‘desistence’

(McNeil, 2012) and ‘What Works’ (McGuire, 2010) models but the underlying values

remain (Mawby and Worrall, 2013). What Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) research failed

to examine was the influence of management traits on this culture. This is an

unfortunate omission in their work given "ethical leaders communicate their ethical

standards and moral values to followers within their unit, as well as serve as their moral

role models" (Zhu et al, 2011, 804). In other words, the leaders should be the

embodiment of those ethics, and the guardian. When leaders fail to achieve this and "fail

to live up to and display high ethical standards, we see that group, organisation, and

even societies can become corrupt" (Zhu et al, 2011, 802). How a leader behaves, then,

will be critical to the future of probation during its time of significant change. Leaders

need to be able to deliver change while maintaining their ethical standards. What is

clear from the literature is that leadership traits in the private sector may not be too far

removed from those in the public sector, so the leap may not be as far as some (Knight,

2009) have suggested.

Pen1332 28

Chapter 3

Research Design and Methods

The study followed a quantitative research design, looking at the 'what' question

only: in this case, 'what' are the management traits of probation managers in

England. As a single method research design, self-completing electronic surveys

were sent to approximately seven-hundred (700) probation line managers, in

the form of a hyperlink to an on-line survey.

Although the previous chapter highlights some literature on probation culture

(most notably Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mair, 2004) little of

it, if any, relates directly to management traits. This study will therefore build

on the work of Burns (1978), who developed the idea of ‘Transactional’ and

‘Transformational’ leadership traits, by applying the tools developed by Avolio

and Bass (1995) to test individuals’ perceived management traits.

Population

At the time the research took place, the English National Probation Service (NPS)

had only recently been mobilised into six regions (North East, North West,

Midlands, South East, South West, and London)4. Each region is roughly

comparable with approximately 1800 staff comprising approximately one

hundred and twenty (120) line managers within the NPS. In addition, the

country has been split into twenty one (21) ‘Community Rehabilitation

Companies’ (CRC) which are due to be privatised in late 2014. CRCs vary in size,

4On the 1st June 2014 Probation Trusts were disbanded, with staff transferring into the National Probation Service, or a Community Rehabilitation Company. The survey took place in the first two weeks of July 2014, very soon after the ‘split’.

Pen1332 29

from approximately thirty (30) line managers to about one hundred and twenty

(120).

The survey targeted two NPS regions, the North East and the South West, and

encompassed both NPS line managers and line managers in the nine CRCs who

inhabit the same geographical boundaries as the NPS. In total this would equate

to approximately seven hundred (700) line managers, who were approached to

take part in the survey, representing approximately 30% of all line managers in

probation throughout England. Of these, approximately one-third will have been

allocated to the new 'public' sector probation, with the remaining two-thirds

being allocated to the 'private' sector.

There are six grades of line manager traditionally found in probation in England,

although each grade is not necessarily found in every part of the country. The most

senior grade is chief executive officer (CEO) for CRCs and deputy director (DD) in the

NPS. Each is accountable for all their employees, offenders, buildings and legal

requirements within a defined geographical area (usually coterminous with police and

local authority areas, or multiples thereof). The second most senior grade is that of

assistant chief officer, who along with the CEO or DD make up the ‘senior’ managers of a

chosen area or CRC. Beneath the senior management team is a set of middle managers

Band 6, or Band 5, with it usually being budget responsibilities separating the bandings

with Band 6s managing over £1m and Band 5s under £1m. Band 4s, and very

occasionally Band 3s, represent the more junior management grades and would

normally only line manage one to three staff. Other than CEOs or DDs, managers can be

either ‘operational’, directly managing offender or victim-related services, or ‘non-

operational’, where they manage corporate-style functions, for example finance,

performance, information technology or human resources. It was anticipated after the

Pen1332 30

split between into NPS and CRCs that the vast majority of ‘non-operational’ managers

would find themselves working in the CRC due to the ‘civil service’ machine being able

to absorb these functions for the NPS.

Table 3.1 The total number of staff both national and within the sample at each

grade

Definition Grade National

Numbers

Sample

Response

Actual

Numbers

(%)

Operational

Number

In sample

Non-

Operational

Number in

Sample

Senior

Managers

DD 6 2 (33%) 0 2

CEO 35 7 (20%) 0 7

ACO 234 41 (17.5%) 32 9

Middle

Managers

B6 130 25 (19.2%) 13 12

B5 1257 146 (11.6%) 115 31

B4 & 3 Unknown 20 8 12

Sampling

The sample was designed to enable comparisons between 'public' and 'private'

services. The regions are not 'neighbours' limiting the likelihood of cross-

cultural fertilisation, although it is acknowledged that managers may have

moved between regions, albeit unlikely. The survey targeted all grades of

manager from middle managers to senior managers, including chief executives

or equivalent, and has therefore allowed comparisons between senior and all

Pen1332 31

other managers. It was decided to include all grades of manager to reflect their

role in defining organisational culture (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass, 1985; Schein,

1985) and build the knowledge of leadership culture by examining the traits in

Mawby and Worrall's (2013) theory that probation staff fall into three general

categories, ‘Lifers’, ‘Second Careerists’ or ‘Offender Managers’. In addition to

examining the impact of what some research has suggested as being the

‘feminisation’ of probation (Annison, 2007; and Mawby and Worrall, 2013) the

survey included amongst its demographic questions that of gender, age, length

of service, whether a qualified probation officer, etc. These demographic

questions have been asked to enable respondents to be 'matched' to Mawby and

Worrall's (2013) three categories of probation staff.: ‘Lifers’ have been identified

as those who have not had a previous career and identified this their chosen

career because of an alignment of values between probation and that of the

individual’s ethics; ‘Second Careerists’ are those for whom probation is not their

first career; and ‘Offender Managers’ were identified as being a qualified

probation officer who trained after 1997 when the new diploma in probation

became the standard training mechanism. It is possible that ‘Offender Managers’

may overlap into either of the other categories. Overall the sample was selected

to ensure good generalisation (Bachman and Schutt, 2011) of all probation

managers throughout England.

Research Tool

Recognising that no one type of research design is perfect, consideration was

given to the most appropriate research tool to complete this study. One option

considered was that of a semi-structured qualitative interview design, as it was

recognised that such a methodology would provide scope for the exploration of

wider issues, including individuals’ traits, but it was ultimately rejected, partly

Pen1332 32

due to the need to engage with large volumes to ensure generalisation of

probation managers (Bachman and Schutt, 2011) and the time implications

associated with this, but also because of concerns about reliability. Using a

survey that has been previously tested with strong reliability (Cohen, 1988),

provides additional confidence. This is particularly important when considering

replication in the future, which this research would advocate, to see if, over time,

management traits change following privatisation.

After rejecting the idea of a semi-structured interview, consideration was given

to a participant self-completing survey. The first consideration given to this

methodology was whether there would be a bias in results from self-responders

(Robinson, 2011). Although a possibility, the researcher expected to get

sufficient response to minimise any impact of bias. In addition to the issue of

bias in the sample group willing to complete the survey voluntarily, self-

completing surveys also rely on internal (to the completer) interpretation and

motivation to complete the survey (Robinson, 2011). In this particular study it

was anticipated that these would be minimised for three primary reasons. First,

the sample group is educated and literate, coupled with the intent of the study to

be about how the individual sees their own behaviour and beliefs; the second,

although optional participation for managers previous research (Mawby and

Worrall, 2013) demonstrated that staff wanted people to take more interest and

therefore supported such research; and third, because senior line managers and

NOMs Ethics were endorsing the research and providing work time to managers

to complete the survey. It should however be clearly acknowledged, that

although the timing of the survey was ideal in that it sought to seek differences

between private and public sector probation at the early stage of their inception,

for staff the timing was very challenging due to huge conflicting demands on

Pen1332 33

their time. This was the largest organisational structure change in probation’s

one hundred plus years and this was never going to be achieved without a

degree of stress and pressures across the service. It is therefore highly likely

that participation was lower than might normally have been expected, especially

as, according to media reports, morale was at its lowest-ever point throughout

probation (Hughes, The Guardian, 1st July 2014). In addition to the timing of

the survey, reflection should be given to the differences between qualitative and

quantitative research and participant outcomes. Although Mawby and Worrall

(2013) found that people wanted to be involved in research about themselves,

and supported further work, their research was qualitative in nature, a style

which naturally fits with probation workers’ delivery style, and therefore

naturally appealing, this does not necessarily relate to a quantitative design such

as this study.

The survey that participants were asked to complete was an amalgamation of an

established leadership traits questionnaire referred to as the 'MultiFactor

Leadership Questionnaire' (MLQ) designed by Avolio and Bass (1995) and

additional demographic-type questions such as age, length of time working in

probation, grade of manager and, crucially, whether they are working for the

'public' or 'private' sector probation. A full list of the demographic questions can

be seen in Appendix A, although only a sample of MLQ questions are inserted

due to compliance with copyright (Appendix B). All the questions asked are

either 'categorical' such as gender (male or female) or 'ordinal' such as the MLQ

questions which use the Likert scale of 0 – 4, with zero representing ‘not at all’,

and four representing ‘frequently , if not always’.

Pen1332 34

The MLQ has been chosen for its tested reliabilities which for the "total items

and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .94" (Bass and Avolio,

2004, 49) using a Pearson's correlation co-efficiency rating. This demonstrates a

high correlation according to Cohen (1988) who described anything above 0.5 as

being high or very high. The questionnaire evaluates six main management

traits: Charisma/Inspirational (CI), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), Intellectual

Consideration (IC), Cognitive Reward (CR), Management by Exception (ME) and

finally Passive Avoidance (PA). The participant’s response identifies their

dominant trait as 'Transformational', in that they invoke change through

aspiration or altruism; 'Transactional' by provoking change via appealing to

people’s sense of needs and profits; or 'Laissez-Faire' in only dealing with

change when absolutely necessary (Burns, 1978). It is likely that all responders

will show traits that are both ‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ (Bass and

Avolio, 2004).

The demographic questions, while providing a means to quantify individuals

into Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) classifications, also provide a rich data set that

will allow for additional comparisons to be made by looking at differences in

gender, age, strategic or operational status and, importantly, to assess what, if

any, differences exist between those assigned to 'public' or 'private' probation.

This is particularly important at the current time when the research is

considered a starting point for comparisons at a later stage after the ‘new world’

of probation has been allowed to mature and develop.

Being able to quantify Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) qualitative findings is

important, not just to test and support their own findings by evaluating a larger

sample, but also to evaluate the impact managers have on the culture of an

Pen1332 35

organisation (Schien, 1989; Handy 1985). What Mawby and Worrall were able

to do is capture a culture within probation but what this aims to do is build on

those findings by examining the managers’ traits at all levels that drive the

organisational culture. By examining what the differences in traits are and

whether, following the probation reorganisation, those same cultures exist

evenly in both the NPS and CRC, this research will provide indications for future

cultures and management traits in probation.

Method

In the first instance a pilot study of five individuals working in probation but in

the East Midlands (so outside of the geographical area at which the main survey

was targeted) took place to establish if the introductory information, technology

issues and questions were understood and effective. All five participants

volunteered and all were senior managers. They each accessed the survey using

official machinery to ensure compatibility. Each provided feedback on the use

via email or phone and each completed the test on the same day, ensuring any

changes could be made before the survey went live for the actual sample. The

only negative feedback received was in reference to the spelling of one of the

questions. This was altered accordingly.

The main sample group was then approached via probation email, through the

respective chief executive officer (CEOs) for the CRCs or deputy director in the

NPS. Each had been contacted in person beforehand to gain support for the

study and copies of the NOMS’ Ethics authority was provided when asked. All

nine CRC CEOs and both deputy directors fully-supported the research and sent

personal endorsements along with the email prepared by the researcher

explaining why they had been contacted, the purpose of the study, and that

Pen1332 36

participation was voluntary (See Appendix C). The email contained an electronic

link to a 'Survey-Monkey' site, which is approved for use by the National

Offender Management Service (NOMS) as being a registered site to access from

internal computer systems, thus ensuring staff were able to complete the survey

from their desks at work, helping to increase the response rate. This was

minimised further by the fact that all line managers in probation have access to

an internal computer network. The survey initially remained ‘open’ for two

weeks, but to encourage further responses, it remained open for a further week.

Ideally the researcher would have liked to be able to contact potential research

participants directly to ensure a consistent and closely monitored approach to

the delivery of the survey but this was not possible following recent

organisational changes. As such, the researcher relied on the deputy directors

and CEOs forwarding the survey to relevant staff, endorsing, and encouraging

participation. It is evident that this was done, although the level of enthusiasm

and encouragement each provided is unknown as most did not copy the

researcher into their communications with staff. The researcher was assured by

the relevant CEOs and deputy directors that the request had been forwarded and

chased up with all relevant staff, but it later became apparent when reviewing

the data that one region had no completers raising concern that the survey had

not been distributed. After several phone calls, the survey was distributed as

arranged, delaying the completion of the survey by one week.

In this chapter so far we have highlighted several potential limitations or bias

within the study including comment that ‘Transformational’ leaders are more

likely to complete the survey; there was no direct contact between researcher

and sample group thus relying on third parties to forward information; there

Pen1332 37

was a relatively short window of opportunity to complete the survey; and the

issues around timing and the degree of stress individuals were under at the time.

All are important for contextualisation and will have undoubtedly contributed to

the return rate but another much more interesting limitation is present. The

survey is based solely on the individual’s perceived interpretation of their own

behaviour and in their individual interpretation of the survey questions. This

study does not correlate individual perceived scores with the view of others

about them, in a 360-degree manner. Consideration was given to this, but in the

time available, and the on-going pressures in probation highlighted above, it was

felt that response rates would be so low any results would be meaningless and

unrepresentative (Rea & Parker, 2005). Other solutions were considered, such

as ‘outcomes’ of previous appraisals, which could be used as a checker, but

again it was felt unlikely that participation or disclosure would provide a

meaningful set of data and the idea of observations was rejected due to time

constraints and the desire to have a larger more representative sample. It is also

worth remembering that the MQL survey has been tested with a high degree of

reliability as referred to previously, so while acknowledging that a single

method study does have limitation, the reliability of this survey is high (Cohen,

1988) and therefore confidence can be given that the results will have a high

degree of validity.

Statistical Analyses

The data from the survey was in the first instance uploaded into Microsoft Excel

to perform some basic calculations on the responses to the 45 MLQ questions

completed to define individuals’ ‘trait’ scores for ‘Transactional’,

‘Transformational’, and ‘Laissez-Faire’, using a scoring mechanism provided by

mindgarden.com. Scores range from 4 meaning the trait is highly dominant to 0

Pen1332 38

meaning the trait is largely absent. An additional column was added to the data

to indicate what the responder’s dominant trait was. The original data sets were

left intact for further analysis and were upload into SPSS to allow for more

rigorous analysis. In SPSS respondents’ demographic questions were

categorised by each variable: gender, age category, whether work in NPS or CRC,

region, grade, operational or non-operational, year joined probation, whether a

qualified probation officer or not, first career and, finally, why they joined

probation.

A range of statistical tests were then completed on the data set to assess each

variable and non-parametric tests were completed to identify relationships

between a range of demographics such as gender, age, grade, and length of

service.

Respondents were also categorised and matched, as outlined above, to Mawby

and Worrall’s (2013) three categories of probation culture, ‘Lifers’, ‘Second

Careerists’, and ‘Offender Managers’. This required the use of a Mann-Whitney U

test to check the relationship between two variables (eg: first career, and reason

for joining probation), and then Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for multiples

over two variables.

Ethical Issues

No specific ethical issues have been identified in this research, other than the

standard informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Appendix D is a copy

of the consent from the NOMS Ethics Board. All participants were provided with

detailed information about the aims of the research and how the data provided

Pen1332 39

would be used. In addition all participants have indicated their consent in

completing the survey.

Pen1332 40

Chapter 4

Data Analysis and Results

This study has sought to explore management leadership traits and styles within the

world of the English Probation Service. It has studied the differences, and more

frequently, the similarities between managers on both sides of probation, representing

both the new ‘public’ service (NPS), and the new ‘private’ (CRC) delivery models. This

chapter explores the findings of the data analysis by examining a range of potential

influencing factors such as gender, age, grade, operational history, probation

qualification and moral values. To assist in the analysis the work of Mawby and Worrall

(2013) has been used to categorise managers into ‘Lifers’, ‘Second Careerists’ and

‘Offender Managers’ and then to seek to investigate whether these categories, which

include ‘drivers’ for peoples work, impact on the traits shown by individual managers.

Demographic data

At the time the survey was completed (July 2014) accurate staffing numbers were not

available due to the significant changes taking place in the probation service to

implement the Government’s agenda of ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’, however staffing

levels are available for the 31st March 2014. These show nationally there were 17, 857

staff, (which equates to 16, 256 FTE). Of these, 306 (1.7%) were senior managers (chief

executives, deputy chief officers, or assistant chief officers), and approximately 1641

(9.2%) of other staff were identified as managers (NOMS, 2014a). The term

‘approximate’ is used because some staff that line manage other employees are not

always categorised as managers on the relevant data returns, and so the number is

impossible to confirm at a national level, although it is anticipated that this number

should be very small.

Pen1332 41

In total 271 responses were received representing 14% of the national line managers,

but fifteen needed to be rejected because they failed to answer more than 60% of the

questions, reducing the sample to 256 or 13% of the national line management profile.

To ensure generalisation the population as a whole with a 95% confidence level and a

margin of area of +/- 5%, a sample size of 321 would have been required. As it is, the

sample size provides generalisation with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error

of +/- 6% (Rea & Parker, 2005).

The study targeted two areas within the country: the South West and the North East.

Unfortunately, the only available data on staffing numbers by region or probation trusts

(as still existing in March 2014) are by full-time equivalent (FTE) and so the researcher

has had to make an informed judgement on actual head count for these areas. Data

shows (NOMS, 2014a) that the FTE for probation as a total is 16,110.37, which equates

to 90% of the total staff. There is no way currently of checking the consistency of this

across the country, so for the purpose of this research it has been assumed this to be

linear across the country. Applying this methodology to areas surveyed provides the

following overview:

Pen1332 42

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of Response Rates Compared with Sample

Population

Area Senior

Manager

(Total)

Responses Middle

Manager

(Total)

Responses

NPS*

CRC*

Response

Rate %

NPS*

CRC* Response

Rate %

South

West

35 4 13 49% 188 6 51 30%

North

East

46 20 22 91% 249 67 71 55%

Actual numbers

It is immediately apparent from the above data that more senior managers have taken

part in this study as a percentage than general managers, which has interesting parallels

with the work of Mawby and Worrall (2013), which, like this research, did not set out to

target senior managers only but ended with a disproportionately high amount of senior

manager participation. The difference in response rate between senior managers and

general managers is so stark, using a Chi Square test to a significance level of p=.001, a

significant difference is recorded giving a result of p=.001.

Further analysis of the responses using descriptive statistics reveals the demographics

of the responders by gender. In total, 162 of the responders are female, with 94 being

male.

Pen1332 43

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of Responder Demographics by Gender

NPS CRC Total % of

Sample

Non

responders Female

(67 in

total)

Male

(32 in

total)

Female

(95 in

total)

Male

(62 in

total)

Qualified

Probation

Officer

60

(90%)

24

(75%)

45

(47%)

31

(50%)

161 63%

7

Non-

Qualified

Probation

Officer

7 (10%) 5

(16%)

47

(49%)

29

(47%)

88 34%

Operational

Manager

55

(82%)

25

(78%)

58

(61%)

42

(68%)

180 70%

1

Non

Operational

12

(18%)

7

(22%)

37

(39%)

20

(32%)

76 30%

First Career 30

(45%)

11

(34%)

30

(32%)

14

(23%)

85 33%

5

Multiple

Career’s

36

(54%)

21

(66%)

62

(65%)

48

(77%)

167 65%

Table 4.2 breaks down the number of female and male completers of the survey by

qualification, whether they are currently in an operational or non-operational

management position, and whether probation was their first career or not. None of the

above findings shows significant differences between male or female responders, using

a Chi Square test to a significance levels of less than p=0.05, but it does demonstrate the

Pen1332 44

greater number of female staff over male who took part in the research. The fact that a

greater percentage of staff in the CRC are not probation qualified is no surprise, given

the need to be qualified to manage most of the NPS caseload, and that non-operational

staff were in the first instance allocated to the CRC before being given an opportunity to

apply in competitive interviews for limited posts in the NPS.

Continuing with a descriptive analysis of gender we can compare length of service:

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of Gender and Length of Service

NPS Number Min Max Mean Std.

Deviation

Female 67 1 35 21 7.4

Male 32 1 40 21 9.4

CRC

Female 95 0 42 16 9.5

Male 62 1 41 17 10.8

Table 4.3 shows us that there is very little difference in terms of length of service

between genders in either the NPS or CRC, with the average length of service for both

males and females being 21 years in the NPS, but 16 years for females, and 17 years for

males in the CRCs. So while there is no significant difference in time served between

genders, the above does demonstrate a significant difference between the average time

served between those in the NPS and those in the CRC. Using a T-Test p= 0.01, meaning

the result is significant to 0.01.

The theme of length of service is carried on in the next table to review the impact of

length of service between operational or non-operational staff.

Pen1332 45

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of Operational or Non-Operational Managers and

Length of Service

Number Min Max Mean Std.

Deviation

Operational 180 3 41 19.99 8.671

Non-

Operational

75 1 40 13.71 10.099

It is notable within table 4.4 that the average length of service is significantly different

between operational staff (20 years) and non-operational staff (almost 14 years). Using

an independent sample T Test p = 0.00, meaning the difference is significant to 0.01.

Looking at the data further it seems appropriate to examine the reasons why individuals

joined probation, especially given the claims that probation is steeped in morality and

high ethical values (Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mair, 2004; Mawby and Worrall, 2013). With this

in mind graph 4.1 shows the number of participants who recorded their reason for

joining as either, ‘Value Base’, ‘Financial’, ‘Career’ or ‘Other’.

Pen1332 46

Graph 4.1: Frequency graph of primary reasons for joining probation

Graph 4.1 shows us visually that the primary reason for staff joining probation was

because of an alignment of values (48%), with the next biggest reason being for a career

(35%). Only one percent of responders reportedly joined probation because of financial

gain.

Within the demographic questions asked in the survey, one asked the participant to

disclose their previous career, if indeed they had one. One hundred and sixty-six (166),

or 65% of participants disclosed they had careers prior to joining the Probation Service,

and 105 disclosed that career (a full list can be seen in Appendix E). The titles of many

roles given, such as ‘management,’ fail to distinguish between public or private sectors,

Pen1332 47

but interestingly where the job title gives a clear indication, such as ‘social worker’ or

‘local authority’, they can be grouped to show that 56 people, or 53%, of respondents’

previous careers were also public- or charitably-based compared to 17, or 16%, which

can clearly be identified as ‘private’ sector, for example, ‘building’ or ‘retail’.

Leadership Styles

As the previous chapter explained, in order to assess an individual’s leadership style and

traits participants completed an established MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) (Avolio and Bass, 2004), which sought to identify people’s dominant traits as

either ‘Transactional’, ‘Transformational’ or ‘Passive avoidance’. It is expected that

people will have traits across the spectrum but that ultimately one would normally be

dominant. It is important to remind ourselves that the MLQ survey uses a Likert scale of

0–4, with 0 being ‘not at all’, and 4 being ‘frequently if not always’. Table 4.5

demonstrates the breadth of scores participants recorded for both CRC and NPS.

Pen1332 48

Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of Line Managers’ MLQ Scores in Two Probation

Areas

Number Minimum Maximum Mean Standard

Deviation

NPS

Transformational 99 1.75 3.65 2.86 0.46

Transactional 99 1.38 3.63 2.50 0.44

Passive Avoidance 99 0 2.50 0.93 0.52

CRC

Transformational 157 1.9 3.90 3.07 0.40

Transactional 157 1 3.88 2.56 0.48

Passive Avoidance 157 0 2.25 0.96 0.52

Combined

total

Transformational 256 0.4 3.90 2.97 0.49

Transactional 256 .47 3.88 2.53 0.48

Passive Avoidance 256 .00 2.50 0.99 0.52

As anticipated the above shows a range of management styles within probation.

Looking first at the ‘combined total’ we can see the average score for ‘Transformational’

is 2.97 (with 3 representing ‘fairly often’), compared to the average ‘Transactional’ score

of 2.53 (halfway between ‘fairly often’ (3) and Sometimes (2)). Using a T Test, we can

see that this difference is statistically significant to 0.01, confirming that overall line

managers in the two probation areas are statistically more likely to be

‘Transformational’ in their leadership style. Further analyses of table 4.5, show that by

using an Independent T Test we can confirm there is a statistical difference of greater

than 0.01 between the ‘Transformational’ scores between managers in the NPS and the

CRC, with CRC managers recording stronger tendencies towards ‘Transformational’-

Pen1332 49

style leadership. No other significant differences, even to a level of 0.05, are found in the

above data.

Graph 4.2: Numbers of Transformational, and Transactional Line Managers

The above graph shows that the number of all managers identified as ‘Transformational’

is significantly (to a significance level of 0.01 using a One Sample T-Test) higher (201)

compared to those identified as ‘Transactional’ (50), with five people showing no

dominant trait. Working within either the CRC or NPS appears to have little significance

as to which dominant trait is prevalent, other than the degree of ‘Transformational’ bias

discussed previously.

Pen1332 50

Given that the differences in ‘Transformational’ scores is significantly different between

the CRC and the NPS managers, it seems sensible to check the impact of two variables

which can mainly be found in either the CRC or the NPS, namely ‘qualified probation

officers’ of which 88% of the sample in the NPS are, compared to only 50% in the CRC;

and the impact of ‘non-operational’ staff, of which 36% of CRC are compared to only

19% of NPS staff (see table 4.2).

Table 4.6: Results of Qualified and Non-Qualified Management Traits

Number Mean Std.

Deviation

Sig (2

tailed)

Transactional

Qualified 161 2.54 0.466 0.827

Non-

Qualified

88 2.52 0.492 0.830

Transformational

Qualified 161 2.98 0.445 0.758

Non-

Qualified

88 3.00 0.427 0.755

Table 4.6 clearly shows that there is no relationship between being a qualified probation

officer or not and the scoring of traits for either ‘Transformational’ or ‘Transactional’.

Even to a significance level of 0.05 no significant difference is found. It is not, therefore,

the influence of no probation qualification that has given the CRC a statistically higher

‘Transformational’ score.

Pen1332 51

Table 4.7: Results of Operational and Non-Operational Management Traits

Number Mean Std.

Deviation

Sig (2

tailed)

Transactional

Operational 180 2.56 0.461 0.148

Non-

Operational

76 2.47 0.485 0.158

Transformational

Operational 180 3.00 0.441 0.409

Non-

Operational

76 2.96 0.419 0.400

Although operational managers score slightly higher in both ‘Transformational’ traits

and ‘Transactional’ traits than their non-operational colleagues there is no statistical

significance recorded to a level 0.05. So like the findings in table 4.6 on probation

qualifications, we can rule out the impact of non-operational staff being the underlying

reason for the CRC managers recording higher ‘Transformational’ scores.

The next table (4.8) looks at the impact of the reasons individuals joined probation, and

how that compares to their leadership trait preferences.

Pen1332 52

Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics of primary reasons for joining probation and

management traits scores.

Value Base (122) Finance (4) Career (88) Other (42)

NPS CRC Av. NPS CRC Av. NPS CRC Av. NPS CRC Av.

TA 2.44 2.54 2.50 N/A 2.78 2.78 2.63 2.80 2.73 2.44 2.41 2.42

TF 2.86 3.12 3.00 N/A 3.03 3.03 2.86 3.02 2.98 2.89 3.05 2.99

Lassie

Faire

0.56 0.54 0.55 N/A 0.94 0.94 0.54 0.41 0.44 0.63 0.38 0.42

TA = Transactional

TF= Transformational

None of the average ‘Transactional’ or ‘Transformational’ scores are significantly

different to a value of 0.05 between the four different categories but, interestingly, there

are significant differences in the ’Laissez-Faire’ scores. Although those who joined

probation for financial reasons scored the highest ‘Laissez-Faire’ scores, the difference is

not statistically significant given the low numbers involved (4), but there is a statistical

difference to the level of 0.05% between those who joined for value-based reasons and

those who joined for a career. Using an Independent T Test, it becomes apparent that

the average score of 0.55 for those who joined for value-base reasons is statistically

higher than their ‘Career’-joining colleagues to a level of .05%, given p=0.045. Caution

should be exercised with this result however, when we recall the Likert scale of 0

meaning ‘not at all’ and 1 meaning ‘once in a while’. Given both scores are well below a

score of one, this means for both groups of people this is still a rare trait.

Pen1332 53

Another way to explore the data is to look at the frequency of responders’ overall scores

for ‘Transactional’, ‘Transformational’ or ‘Lassez-Faire’. The range and frequency of

scores can be seen in Appendix F. This allows us to compare probation managers’

leadership traits with that of self-rated scores of private sector managers in the United

States (Avolio & Bass, 2004 p106) and with Metropolitan Police senior managers (Hart,

2012). For this purpose table 4.9 shows the frequency and percentage of times

individuals have scored 3 or more (so ‘Fairly often’ to Frequently if not always’) for

‘Transactional’ and/or ‘Transformational’, and one or fewer (so ‘Not at all’ to ‘Once in a

while’) for Laissez-Faire.

Table 4.9: Frequency of High Transactional and Transformational Scores and Low

Laissez-Faire Scores

Transactional ≥3

Transformational

≥3

Lassie Faire

≤1

Number % Number % Number %

Probation Managers 47 18 155 60 176 69

Metropolitan

Police5

46 34 95 70 114 82

US Self reporting

Managers6

751 20 1878 50 2629 70

What this appears to demonstrate is that compared to police colleagues probation

managers are less extreme in their preferences, adopting a more middling approach in

5 Hart, J (2012) Senior Leadership Styles and Traits in the Metropolitan Police Service, Unpublished Masters Thesis 6 Avolio & Bass (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd Ed) Manual and Sample Set, mindgarden

Pen1332 54

their management styles. Although no significant difference is recorded for the

‘Transformational’ tendency, a Chi Square significance test gives an outcome of p =

0.125, so no significance to a rate of p=0.05. However, when we look at the

‘Transactional’ scores, we see a strong significance rating scoring p=0.001, so it is

significant to greater than 0.01. In other words, senior Metropolitan Police officers

score significantly higher on ‘Transactional’ tendencies than their probation colleagues.

The other notable difference in table 4.9, is in regard to ‘Laissez-Faire’. Again there is a

significant difference between the police and probation managers, with probation

managers being significantly more likely to avoid dealing with an issue to a significance

level of greater than .01, using a Chi Square test gives a result of p = .003.

Research Questions

After reviewing the data to understand demographics and leadership traits, it is now

time to explore the research questions proposed in Chapter One.

1. Is there a significant difference between ‘Senior Leaders’ management

traits and ‘Middle Managers’ traits?

Transformational Transactional No Difference

Senior Leaders (59) 52 (88%) 6 (12%) 1

Middle

Managers(193)

149 (77%) 54 (22%) 4 (1%)

The above table clearly shows the percentage of ‘Senior Leaders’ demonstrating

‘Transformational’ leadership traits is higher than in the general management

population and by completing a Chi-Square test, where p=0.0081, it is confirmed that

this is significant to a level of 0.01, meaning this represents a strong significance rating

Pen1332 55

(Cohen, 1988), and it can be said with a high degree of confidence that senior managers

are more ‘Transformational’ in their leadership style than the probation management

population as a whole.

2. Is there a significant difference in 'Lifers', as referred to by Mawby & Worrall

(2013), leadership traits to the general probation management group?

Transformational Transactional

Lifers (53) 35 (66%) 18 (34%)

Remaining Population 166 (80%) 32 (20%)

Mean Lifer Score 2.920 2.546

Whole Population Mean 3.010 2.539

To the value of less than 0.01% there are significantly fewer ‘Lifers’ with a dominant

‘Transformational’ trait, than the general probation management population given

that P value equals 0.0063 using a Chi-Square test. However, simply to look at the

total numbers as a comparison may be misleading given when you compare the

average scores for both ‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ traits you can see

they are extremely close to the whole population average and no significant

difference is recorded. What this actually tells us is, therefore, that ‘Lifers’ closely

mirror the population as a whole.

3. Is there a significant difference in 'Second Careerist', as referred to by Mawby

& Worrall (2013), leadership traits to the general probation management

group?

Pen1332 56

Transformational Transactional

Second Careerist (164) 138 (84%) 26 (16%)

Remaining Population (87) 63 (72%) 24 (28%)

Mean Lifer Score 3.011 2.522

Remaining Population

Mean

2.945 2.572

To the value of less than 0.05% there is a significant difference given that P value equals

0.0314 using a Chi-Square test, meaning the number of ‘Second Careerists’ who show

dominant ‘Transformational’ traits is significantly higher than the general probation

management population. However, like ‘Lifers’ the average scores for both

‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ are in fact very close to the average scores for the

population sample as a whole and no significant difference is found to a level of 0.05%,

suggesting in reality there is very little difference between ‘Second Careerist’

management traits and their colleagues.

4. Is there a significant difference in 'Offender Manager', as referred to by Mawby

& Worrall (2013), leadership traits to the general probation management

group?

Transformational Transactional

Offender Manager (32) 25 (78%) 6 (19%)

Remaining Population

(219)

176 (80%) 44 (20%)

Mean Offender Manager

Score

3.028 2.674

Whole Population Mean 2.987 2.527

Pen1332 57

Unlike ‘‘Lifers’’ and ‘Second Careerists’ there is no significance to a value of less than

0.05% in the numbers of ‘Offender Managers’ whose dominant trait is either

‘Transactional’ or ‘Transformational’. There is also no significance to a value of 0.05% in

the actual average scores for either ‘Transactional’ or ‘Transformational’. However the

‘Transactional’ score using an Independent T Test produced a result of p = 0.097,

indicating there may be a link even if it is not significant. What this suggests, like

‘Second Careerists’ is that in reality there is very little difference between ‘Offender

Managers’ management traits and their colleagues, other than a slightly stronger leaning

towards ‘Transactional’ tendencies.

5. Is there a significant difference in leadership traits between managers in the

public or private sector probation?

Transformational Transactional

Public -NPS (99) 69 (69%) 28 (28%)

Private – CRC (157) 132 (84%) 22 (14%)

Mean Public NPS Score 2.861 2.504

Mean Private CRC Score 3.071 2.556

The above table reveals some interesting data. Not only is the difference in numbers of

‘Transformational’ managers in the private CRC significantly higher than their public

colleagues to a level of in excess of 0.01%, using a Chi Square test provides a result of

p=.0059, the average scores also provide a significant result to a level of 0.01%. Using

an Independent T-Test provides a significance level of p=0.000, meaning a very strong

relationship exists. This therefore suggests a clear difference between those in the

private CRC and those in the public NPS.

Pen1332 58

Chapter 5

Discussion

This chapter will explore the key findings outlined in Chapter 4 and link them to

the existing research in an attempt to offer an explanation for the findings. It

will do this by looking at the overall findings and then move on to the research

questions. It will also explore the limitations of the design methods and what

impact this may or may not have had on the results, and what the implications of

this study are for future research in this area. The research questions this study

sought to answer were:

1. Is there a significant difference between ‘Senior Leaders’ managements traits

and ‘Middle Management’ traits?

2. Is there a significant difference in ‘Lifers’, as referred to by Mawby & Worrall,

leadership traits to the general probation management group?

3. Is there a significant difference in 'Second Careerist', as referred to by Mawby

& Worrall, leadership traits to the general probation management group?

4. Is there a significant difference in 'Offender Manager', as referred to by Mawby

& Worrall, leadership traits to the general probation management group?

5. Is there a significant difference in leadership traits between managers in the

public or private sector probation?

Pen1332 59

To answer these questions a self-completing survey was used to assess

individual responders’ management traits by ‘Transformational’, those who

elicit change through vision and ability to connect with staff to buy-in and

support the new vision, ‘Transactional’, those who seek to contract with staff

through rewards and punishment tailored to individuals, or ‘Laissez-

Faire’management traits where individuals believe in ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t try

to fix it’. In addition a series of demographic questions allowed participants to

be grouped into Mawby and Worrall (2013) probation culture categories of

‘Lifer’ whose moral values have dedicated their career to probation, ‘Second

Careerist’ who have had multiple and often unrelated careers to probation, and

finally the ‘Offender Manager’ who trained post-1997 under a training regime

that emphasised performance frameworks and greater accountability structures.

In addition, questions were asked which allowed the researcher to distinguish

between senior managers (mainly chief officer grade), middle managers (all

other line management grades), operational managers (directly linked to

offender or victim engagement) and non-operational managers (managing

support functions). Finally the demographic questions provided an opportunity

to assess the differences between those who either chose or were allocated to

the ‘public’ (NPS) probation, and those who either chose or were allocated to

the ‘private sector’ (CRC) probation. The sample size represented 13% of

national probation managers.

Probation Leadership Traits

A significant majority of probation managers assessed themselves as having a dominant

management trait of ‘Transformational’, using the MLQ, with 60% assessing themselves

as either ‘fairly often’ or ‘frequently if not always’ ‘Transformational’. To understand

Pen1332 60

why this is the case, it is important to remind ourselves of ‘Transformational’ attributes

and how these fit within probation. ‘Transformational’ leaders are those “who build on

assumptions such as: people are trustworthy and purposeful" (Bass & Avolio, 1993,

113). This belief, is further supported by Braun who claims ‘Transformational’ leaders

act with “benevolence and integrity” (2013, 273). When we consider these claims in the

light of both public sector morality, described by Le Grand (2010) as ‘Knights’, and the

claims of Mawby and Worrall (2013), that an underpinning of common culture in

probation of high moral values exists, it is perhaps not surprising to see a significant

majority of managers in probation self-report as being ‘Transformational’ with a high

percentage scoring ‘fairly often’ as a minimum.

Looking at other research further supports this. Hart (2012) showed 70% of senior

police officers assessed themselves as at least ‘fairly often’ ‘Transformational’ based on a

sample of 219 senior officers. Hart’s research also talks of ‘trust’ and ‘integrity’ being

key components of police management culture, similar to probation. In contrast, Avolio

and Bass (2004) assessed 3375 private sector managers and found only 50% scored

‘fairly often’ or more frequently, supporting Boyne’s (2002) research that private sector

companies were more likely to embrace a more authoritarian style of leadership to

achieve profit than moral, which potentially sits more comfortably with ‘Transactional’

styles of leadership.

While the ‘Transformational’ outcomes may not have been a surprise given the known

culture and relevant attributes of probation staff the same may not necessarily be said of

the ‘Transactional’ scores. It is worth remembering at this time ‘Transformational’

traits are not mutually exclusive to the ‘Transactional’ tendencies. Compared to senior

police officers in the Metropolitan Police Force, probation managers are statistically less

likely to act in a ‘Transactional’ manner, with only 18% assessing their own behaviour

as acting this way at least ‘fairly often’, compared to 34% in the Police (Hart, 2012).

Pen1332 61

One possible explanation for this is the different kind of structures the two respective

organisations adopt: police with a command and control structure (Densten, 2003),

which Boyne (2002) suggested leant itself to ‘Transactional’ styles, and probation with a

more inclusive management environment (Knight, 2009; McGuire, 1995) in which

’Transactional’ styles are less notable (Boyne, 2002).

A second explanation as to why ‘Transactional’ tendencies are less prevalent in

probation leadership than the Police could be in the organisational goals. For probation,

working with people to invoke change is of paramount importance, it is therefore a

people-focused organisation (Gelsthorpe, 2001; Mair, 2004; Mawby and Worrall, 2013).

While ‘Transactional’ leaders are described as understanding the needs of staff (Avolio

and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), by appealing to their individual drivers

probation work is slightly different. Probation works with offenders to invoke changes

in their behaviour, by championing the work of desistance that “requires social capital -

relationships, connections and networks that facilitate positive change" (McNeill et al,

2012, 45). This methodology of relationship building is much more akin to ‘trust’ and

‘Transformational’ style than the ‘contracting’ of ‘Transactional’ leadership, which are

more prevalent in police leadership.

A third explanation can be found in the work of Schein (2010) and his underlying

assumptions model. Mawby and Worrall (2013) in particular support the notion of an

unsaid culture within probation of high moral values and an underlying belief that

people can change. Given these beliefs are so tacit to working in probation, managers

may simply not be seeking to establish ‘pulls’ or ‘cues’ with individuals, instead

believing a collectively-held view of ‘change’ is simply enough to motivate individuals,

supporting Le Grand’s (2010) model of ‘Knights’. Interestingly however, while the

research has shown 48% of managers’ primary reasons for joining probation was

Pen1332 62

because of an alignment of values base, 52% joined for non-altruistic reasons such as a

career (35%) or financial (1%). Unfortunately the research did not ask if people’s

motives had changed during their time working in probation, which is possible. If

however individuals’ motivation had not changed this would mean 52% of probation

managers are not defined as ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 2010), as implied by Mawby and

Worrall’s (2013) study or the earlier work of Gelthorpe (2007), but instead, managers

demonstrate much more self-interest or ‘Knave-like’ (Le Grand, 2010) behaviour such as

financial reward, career, and/or security. This is important when consideration is given

to the leadership of the organisation. If the leaders misunderstand the motivations of

individuals, then cultivating a culture of change and success will be much more difficult.

Braun (2013) describes the importance of individual contracting and motivation to

achieve the best out of people, and the risk in overly dominant ‘Transformational’

leaders is that if they are unable to win individuals over with their vision and ideology

and are unable effectively to ‘contract’ outcomes with staff, how would change be

effected successfully?

To add further context to the picture of probation management traits the MLQ also rated

individual managers’ ‘Laissez-Faire tendencies. The results from the study showed that

probation managers were significantly more likely to adopt a ‘Laissez-Faire’ stance than

their Metropolitan Police colleagues (Hart, 2012) but were very similar to the stance of

the US private sector managers (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Attributes of ‘Laissez-Faire’

managers include beliefs that, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and, “avoiding making

important decisions” (Avolio and Bass, 2004, 107). Explaining this difference is harder

to understand than either the ‘Transformational’ or ‘Transactional’ outcomes, but is

possibly to do with staff disillusionment. This research found that 48% of leaders joined

overtly due to an alignment of values and other studies have found that even when this

Pen1332 63

wasn’t the case a strong underlying value base was present that is largely ‘humanistic’ in

style (Annison, 2007; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Millar and Burke,

2012). However the service has become increasingly punitive in nature (Gelsthorpe,

2007). Staff and managers have had to accept that their values do not necessarily sit

well with the public or indeed politicians and, because of this, probation has been

described as “failing” (Morgan, 2007, 95) and has experienced a “series of public attacks

and humiliations from both the Conservative and Labour governments......[where]

officers were [seen as being] on the side of the offender and neglecting their duty to

protect the public" (Faulkner, 2001, 313). It is perhaps therefore unsurprising that

“Deering (2010) found some ‘occupational strain’ [in that] they had personal values

conflicting to some extent with the government’s policy agenda” (Millar and Bure, 2012,

322). With people’s own values and beliefs being undermined in such a manner the

altruism held by the ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 2010) becomes fractured. While holding on to

what is left of their values, individuals’ emotional contracting can become self-

preservation, exemplified by the analogy ‘people will do anything for an easy life’. It

would be wrong to suggest this as a dominant factor in probation management given

less than a third of respondents report this behaviour as being as frequently as ‘once in a

while’, it is not therefore commonplace, but the work of Straw (2014) supports the

theory of senior probation management disillusionment at the current time.

The impact of Senior Managers compared to Middle Managers

The study has demonstrated that both ‘middle managers’ and ‘senior managers’ have a

stronger leaning towards ‘Transformational’ leadership traits, which as explored above

is perhaps not that surprising giving the underlying culture and values base. What is

interesting to see though is the difference between the two, with ‘senior managers’

significantly more likely to be ‘Transformational’ than their ‘middle manager’

colleagues.

Pen1332 64

To help explain the reason for this, two ideas are proposed. First is that of ‘task

complexity’ between senior and middle managers which may influence the style of best

fit. Densten (2003) described the differences between senior police officers and middle

ranking police officers as “leaders at the extreme upper levels differ from lower levels in

terms of being engaged in greater task complexity in relation to information load,

diversity and rate of change… While the fundamental purpose of leadership remains the

same across levels, task complexity varies across levels” (Densten, 2003, 400-401) and

arguing, therefore, when assessing an organisation’s management traits you should do

this at an individual’s grade or rank level. The definition Densten provided for the

differences between senior and lower levels of management can equally be applied to

probation. Densten’s research found differences in leadership attributes between each

rank of police officer in Australia, with more senior officers reporting more

‘Transformational’ styles. This research supports the argument that differences exist

between senior probation managers and middle managers and lends support to

Densten’s argument that higher task complexity promotes a ‘Transformational’ style of

leadership.

The second argument this research proposes is the impact of a significant imposed

cultural change in 1997, when the service moved from ‘befriend and assist’ to a ‘law

enforcement agency’ (Gelsthorpe, 2007). To support this argument, let us first look at

the average length of service, which for senior managers is 21 years, and for middle

managers is 16 years. This is significant when we consider the previous cultural change

to probation took place 17 years ago (Annison, 2007; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Millar and

Burke, 2012) in the form of a radical change in probation training. This was allegedly

introduced to address what the Home Office-commissioned Dews report (1994)

suggested was an over-representation of young, unmarried females employed by

probation. In an attempt to address this ‘imbalance’ and cement the ‘new’ mantra

imposed by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 of ‘reinforcement’, ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘public

Pen1332 65

protection’ and build “credibility with the general public, Michael Howard, the

Conservative … Home Secretary, encouraged former members of the armed forces to

apply” (Millar and Burke, 2012, 318-319). This was a deliberate attempt to distance

probation from its roots of social work (Millar and Burke, 2012). Interestingly then, the

average length of service for senior officers in Probation would suggest they began their

own careers under a previous ideology and have needed to adapt as the culture and

course of probation has changed around them. For the half of senior manager

responders who identified themselves as joining because of a sense of shared value or

moral reasons they would need to connect their ‘new’ activity back to their own sense of

values and inspire those around them to the same, a definite ‘Transformational’

characteristic. In other words, they need to see the aim has not changed, only the

method of deployment; in communicating this widely their actions become

‘Transformational’ in nature. Although managers who joined after 1997 may be more

accepting of the defined role of probation they “tend to model their own leadership style

after that of their immediate supervisors” (Bass, 1990, 26) in a learnt manner similar to

that of Bandura’s learnt social cognitive thinking (1991). Although the results of this

study would suggest they achieve this with less conviction.

The impact of Mawby and Worrall’s ‘‘Lifers’’ and their management traits

Significantly fewer ‘Lifers’ have a dominant trait of ‘Transformational’ than the

general probation management group. It would however be misleading to read

into this that ‘Lifers’ are less ‘Transformational’ in their approach than their

colleagues, given their average ‘Transformational’ score is 2.920, compared to

3.010. In other words there is very little difference in the actual score, with both

‘Lifers’ and the remaining population recording their ‘Transformational’

behaviour being ‘fairly often’. Equally of interest is the ‘Transactional’ average

score of 2.546 for ‘Lifers’, which again is remarkably close to that found in the

Pen1332 66

remainder of the management population which records an average of 2.539.

What this tells us is in fact that ‘Lifers’ score pretty close to their colleagues’

averages, and that the traits associated with ‘Lifers’: “vocation, a lifelong

commitment and their one main career” (Mawby and Worrall, 2013, 22) in

themselves are not defining in predicting a likely leadership trait.

To try to understand why ‘Lifers’ have emerged with a relative equilibrium

between ‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ it is worth noting the gender

split, which within the sample amounted to 70% of the ‘Lifers’ were female.

Some critiques have described ‘Transformational’ attributes as being largely

male-orientated such as “heroic” (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007),

“He-Man” (Mair, 15th August 2014) and “Hero-Maker” (Parker and Maddock,

1995). Coupling this with the previously discussed high values and morality

(Gelthorpe, 2007; Mawby and Worall, 2013) that exist within ‘Lifers’ we can

begin to see a mature relationship between ‘Transformational’ and

Transactional’ tendencies. On the one hand there is the ability and need to

inspire change but on the other there is a real desire to understand people and

‘contract’ with them. This is well summarised by an un-named interviewee in

Mawby and Worrall’s research, “I was interested in people and peoples

story…human nature fascinated me” (2013, 24). It is this ‘humanistic’ side that

perhaps supports Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe’s (2007) discussion that

women are less likely to see themselves, or promote themselves in a self

reporting assessment, as having ‘Transformational’ traits.

The impact of Mawby and Worralls ‘Second Careerist’ and their

management traits

Pen1332 67

The impact of previous careers appears to have little impact on the leadership

traits of probation managers, albeit the number whose dominant trait is

‘Transformational’ is significant, the actual average score (3.011), like that of

‘Lifers’ is very close to the remaining population (2.945). This is also replicated

in manner of trend with ‘Transactional’ average score for ‘Second Careerists’

recording an average score of 2.522 compared to 2.572 to the remaining

population. To explain this consideration of the types of previous jobs is

necessary, as they may influence the findings. Fifty-three percent of the ‘Second

Careerists’ clearly identified their previous careers as being in either the public

or charitable third sector with only seventeen percent who clearly identify

previous roles as private sector and the remaining thirty percent non-

identifiable. Interestingly the high proportion with previous careers identified

as either public or charitable may help to distort the moral values influence on

‘Transformational’ or ‘Transactional’ traits given those who work for a

charitable organisation often have a greater sense of value base and altruism

(Lyons et al, 2006) than either those who work in public or private sector

organisations. This would suggest the real ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 2010) of society

are those who work in charitable organisations, although the same research by

Lyon et al, did confirm that public sector workers valued the importance of their

work for society more than their private employer counterparts. Without being

clearer on the previous careers of the 30% it is difficult to conclude the real

impact this has had on their values and leadership traits, but neither should it be

forgotten that previous research (Annison, 2007; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Knight,

2009; Mawby and Worrall, 2013) all find that throughout probation there

remains an underlying belief in values which, like cream, always rises to the top.

It is therefore suggested that the type of previous job has an impact on the

significance of ‘Second Careerists’ and their management traits.

Pen1332 68

Impact of ‘Offender Managers’ and their leadership traits

Unlike the ‘Lifers’ and ‘Second Careerists’ findings, no significant results were

found for ‘Offender Managers’ with ‘Transformational’ scores being 3.028 for

‘Offender Managers’ and 2.987 for the general management, and ‘Transactional’

scores of 2.674 compared to 2.529 for the general management population.

Although not significant, a T-Test revealed a link between higher ‘Transactional’

scores, even if it wasn’t significant. This link was perhaps expected given the

‘classification’ of ‘Offender Managers’ lends itself towards ‘Transactional’ styles

of reward and process. To explore this further we need to look at the findings of

Mawby and Worrall, that claim ‘Offender Managers’ effectively began their

probation career after 1997, and either trained under the new regime, or at least

were more familiar with “computer based risk assessment rather than face to

face engagement” (Mawby and Worrall, 2013, 33). What this amounted to was

effectively a more accountable structure, defined as ‘New Public Management’

(Diefenbach, 2009), which simply amounted to a much more rigorous

accountability framework that for the first time sought to account, through

numbers, for success or failure (Morgan, 2001). What is interesting with this

type of staff, is the identification by Mawby and Worrall of the less dominant

altruistic view points such as “job security, security and promotion” (2013, 34)

being highly valued. This is evidenced well by one interviewee who claimed

when discussing the rationale for joining probation as being “I thought that

sounds nice, they’ll pay us reasonable money to do that and huge public service

holidays, just to be nice to people” (Unidentified TPO7, in Mawby and Worrall,

2013, 34). Given these clear ‘Knave-like’ (Le Grand, 2010) attributes in terms of

Pen1332 69

needs and desires, it might reasonably be expected to have seen individuals who

fall into this typology showing greater ‘Transactional’ tendencies. What the

results showed was indeed greater ‘Transactional’ tendency, albeit not

significantly so. Consistently, those whose primary reasons for joining

probation were not ‘values’ based scored higher ‘Transactional’ scores than

those who joined for ‘value’ reasons, supporting, if not significantly so, the

previous research of this group of staff. Given the needs of this group of staff to

see positive results, and a transaction need of reward (not necessarily financial)

it is hardly surprising this clash of cultures can see tensions, “I’ve had a few run-

ins with one of the officers here, who is very much the social work, ‘befriend,

advise, assist’ and I think has a more relaxed view” (Unidentified Offender

Manager in Mawby and Worrall, 2013, 35).

Impact of private versus public probation managers.

When discussing the results in this section it is worth recalling that all staff until

only two months before this study took place worked for a public sector

Probation Trust. Even when the research took place those working in the

private limited company (CRC) were still actually wholly-owned by the

Government and were awaiting share sale to take place with new private sector

owners or private sector consortia. With this in mind, minimal difference was

expected but actually the findings were very interesting. Those in the soon-to-

be ‘private’ (CRC) organisations were both significantly more likely to

demonstrate a dominant ‘Transformational’ leadership approach and have a

significantly higher ‘Transformational’ score than their public sector (NPS)

colleagues. Given CRCs have a different staffing structure in terms of more non-

operational managers, and fewer qualified officers, it seemed appropriate to

check if these were influencing factors, but the findings discounted these

Pen1332 70

reasons so a further understanding is needed. A look back at the work of Handy

(1985) and his model of ‘power’ may be a useful starting point. While the world

of probation has traditionally been seen as feminine (Annison, 2007; Gelsthorpe,

2007) the world of business is seen more in terms of “hierarchy and role”

(Zeffane, 1994, 977), supporting a language of males (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-

Metcalfe, 2007). This is therefore consistent with criticisms of the notion of

‘Transformational’ typology being male-dominated (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-

Metcalfe, 2013; Muir, 15th August 2014; Parkin and Maddock, 1995). This

research does not however find any significance between the percentage of

female managers between either the CRC or NPS, meaning if this was to explain

the difference it would most likely be about perception of the ‘new’ world, which

Baldwin (1987) claims is about vigour and inspiration but, in reality, numerous

studies (Boyne, 2002; Kenny, 1987; Rainey, 1995) have in fact suggested there is

limited difference. In summary then, it is difficult to explain the significantly

higher ‘Transformational’ scores for those now working in the CRC (private).

One possible explanation, bearing in mind this was a self-reporting study, is that

people assess themselves in a manner which they think the ‘new world’ wishes

them to be moulded in.

Limitations

The study identified a number of limitations which could potentially be

addressed in any future further research into this topic. The first was the direct

control the researcher had, or more accurately did not have, in controlling the

sample. Following the huge organisational changes to probation and the timing

of the research (six weeks after the organisation was split between public and

private) it was not possible for the researcher to control the flow of

Pen1332 71

communications to the potential participants, instead relying on new chief

officers (CRC) or deputy directors (NPS). The impact of this was minimised to a

degree by the simple fact that the researcher had working relationships with all

those involved. Even given these relationships, the exact level of motivation

each gave to their staff to complete the survey is unknown.

Another consideration needed for the results is that of the motivation of

individuals to complete the survey. Although the study was endorsed by NOMS

Ethics and by senior management in both CRCs and NPS, participation was

voluntary for participants. As such, it is right to point out that attributes of

‘Transformational’ leaders such as “I am supportive in meeting others job

related needs” (Avolio and Bass, 1994, 104) might lead to a tendency for

‘Transformational’ leaders to be more likely to complete the survey voluntarily

than managers with a ‘Transactional’ approach whose focus has been identified

as being more directed at the visible outcome for themselves or the business as a

whole (Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Van Wart, 2008).

Along similar lines to motivational reasons for completing the survey, bias should be

considered. While the MLQ has a high degree of validity (Cohen, 1988) given it scored

0.74-0.94 using Pearson’s correlation for coefficiency, without a correlation test

between individual scores and a subordinate completing a 360 degree survey the

researcher is unable to be as confident that people completed the survey, not about the

view of what they ought to say, but in the manner intended, of how they actually behave.

Finally, the researcher considered asking participants about whether they chose to be in

the organisation they have ended up in or whether they were ‘automatically allocated’

or ‘randomly allocated.’ Due to the feeling of resentment around this, (Shaw, BBC News,

Pen1332 72

18th February 2014; Travis, The Guardian, 19th September 2013) a decision was taken

not to ask this, but it may have helped answer questions about the differences in results

between the CRC and the NPS ‘Transformation’ traits.

Future Research

The most obvious implications for future research following this study is what

the future holds. This research has been conducted during a period of massive

change and that change will have a fundamental effect on the future delivery of

probation according to the Ministry of Justice (May 2013). This study is a

snapshot of management traits during a three week period in July 2014 at the

height of this change. While Gelsthorpe (2007), Knight (2009), Morgan (2007)

and Mawby and Worrall (2013) have all discussed the ‘humanistic’ side of

probation being prominent, only Mawby and Worrall (2013), and Millar and

Burke (2012) have specifically talked of a new world of probation accountability

that the CRCs at the very least are expected to adopt in the very near future.

This study provides a reliable benchmark for comparison of management traits

in the future when those changes have ‘bedded in’.

To explore those changes further I would recommend that any future study

draws from respondents who have joined after the changes have taken place and

compare their results to those that have lived through the required change. It

would be interesting to see if the same tensions exist as those identified by

Mawby and Worrall (2013) between those who readily adopt the virtues of

existing probation accountability structures against those who hold dear the

social worker-based model.

Pen1332 73

Future research might also benefit from drawing on whether value bases change

after joining probation, either public or private. This study found that 48%

joined for value reasons, and for the remaining 52% it was another draw. Do

moral values become more or less important over time, or as Mawby and

Worrall (2013) suggest, are people who joined for non-value based reasons

more willing to simply move on to another career when their existing one (with

probation) no longer satisfies them.

Finally I would recommend a similar study be carried out with prison officer

managers. A couple of studies exist on police colleagues (Hart, 2012, and

Densten, 2003) and this is the first (known) to have covered probation

managers. Given the close working relationship of the Police, Probation and

Prison Services a useful study would be to fill the gap, and identify the traits

within prison.

Pen1332 74

Chapter 6

Conclusion

While the Probation Service in England and Wales has a history of change throughout its

107 year life, the change that is about to come will easily eclipse all those that have gone

before. Rather than being an holistic organisation that seeks to intervene positively in

offenders lives to create social change, it will instead be split in two, with one side

(representing about 30% of offenders) remaining in public ownership, while the

remaining work is to be privatised. Organisational change on this scale requires

effective leadership, which research by Mawby and Worrall (2013) and Straw (2014)

have both reported to be alive and present in probation. This change however is not a

popular one (Hughes 2014, Knight 2009, Shaw 2014), it appears at odds with the

existing and historical ‘humanistic’ and ‘caring’ organisational culture of probation

(Gelsthorpe 2007; Mair 2004; Morgan 2007; Nellis and Chui 2003), and so to deliver this

change managers will need to somehow transcend the feelings of betrayal (Hughes

2014, Shaw 2014) and engage staff in a manner that elicits the required change. For

this, effective management traits are critical and Burns (1978) describes essentially two

styles of traits: ‘Transformational’ in which a leader inspires change through aspiration

and conviction or ‘Transactional’ where a leader understands their followers and is able

to connect and appeal to their ‘wants’ (Bass, 1985). This study has sought to understand

these traits within probation leadership and understand what has had an impact on the

creation of these traits.

What the research showed was that overwhelmingly and regardless of grade of

manager, length of service, gender or any other identifiable factor, probation leaders

were predominately ‘Transformational’ in style. Initial instinct suggests this will be

Pen1332 75

positive for eliciting the necessary change in probation given ‘Transformational’ leaders

are able to “elevate the interests of their employee, when they generate awareness and

acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their

employees to look beyond their own self interest for the good of the group” (Bass, 1990,

21). However this assumes probation leaders will not only use these traits to mobilise

change but that followers will ‘buy in’ to the new vision, and not feel that the leaders’

values have strayed so far from their own that they are no longer ‘legitimate’ leaders.

According to much of the probation literature (Annison 2007; Gelshtorpe 2007; Knight

2009; McGuire 1995; Mair 2004; Morgon 2007; Mawby and Worrall 2013; Straw 2014)

‘values’ are central to probation, and this research supports that notion with 48% of

responders claiming they joined probation for reasons of an alignment of values and

beliefs. Unfortunately the research did not explore this issue further with respondents

to see if the views around ‘values’ changed over time working within probation, but the

high presence of values goes some way to supporting the findings that probation leaders

are predominantly ‘Transformational’ given Bass (1995) identified values as a key

component of ‘Transformational’ leaders.

While ‘values’ are of undeniable importance to ‘Transformational’ leaders it should not

be assumed this is the only factor. Interestingly when the research looked at the

differences in leadership traits between senior and middle managers, a significant

difference was found in favour of senior managers being more ‘Transformational’ in

nature. While tempting to attribute this directly to values, other notable differences

exist. Senior managers almost exclusively joined probation pre-1997 (with some

notable exceptions) meaning they trained and experienced a probation service that was

very different to today’s, instead of being a law enforcement agency with an imposed (by

government) value set of ‘public protection’, they come from an era of ‘advise, assist and

Pen1332 76

befriend’. Senior managers have therefore largely had to navigate their way through an

organisation with changing values (Morgan 1997) and have learnt to transcend their

beliefs and values by framing the core belief ‘ people can change’ (Gelsthorp 2007;

Knight 2009; Mawby and Worrall 2013) and holding these sacred in the new world.

Middle managers on the other hand are less likely to have been employed by probation

through this period of transition, many in fact commencing their careers in the world of

accountability and ‘new public management’ ideology which framed people’s ideas and

working careers somewhat differently, identifying process which, if followed, allegedly

produce the required outcome. In other words it is a transaction.

When referring to Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) classifications for probation managers,

it was interesting to see that actually whether someone was a ‘Lifer’ or a ‘Second

Careerist’ made little difference to their management style, with both being

‘Transformational’ in nature. Again at first glance it could be easy to suggest therefore

that previous careers make little difference on how someone leads in probation, but on

closer examination it was found that actually many ‘Second Careerists’’ previous careers

were in fact careers in which we find the same or similar moral values, such as social

workers (Nellis and Chui, 2003) or voluntary and charity sector workers (Rainey, 2005),

suggesting that perhaps individuals are generally attracted to careers that align with

their values rather than specific roles.

For Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) classification of an ‘Offender Manager’, a subtle

difference in outcome was found. Like ‘Lifer’ and ‘Second Careerist’ the dominant trait

was ‘Transformational’,but, unlike the other two classifications, ‘Offender Managers’ had

a noticeably stronger tendency towards ‘Transactional’ attributes. Although these were

not significantly different it does appear to fit with the new training and process-driven

environment that these employees have grown within. It suggests Le Grand’s (2010)

Pen1332 77

ideology that public servants are in fact ‘Knaves’ (seeking personal gain or reward) not

‘Knights’ (acting entirely in a manner of altruism), and with the correct levers change

can be controlled to achieve government’s (or indeed management’s) aims.

Perhaps the most significant finding within this research was that those staff moving

into the privatised probation service were significantly more likely to be

‘Transformational’ in nature than their colleagues who were remaining in the public

sector. Differences in role type, gender and length of service all failed to explain this

outcome when evaluated, leaving the researcher to look to other factors to explain this

difference. Baldwin (1987) claims that the perception of private business is one of

vigour, excitement and inspiration. All of which sit more comfortably with

‘Transformational’ attributes than the process of ‘Transactional’ ideology. Indeed, the

privatising of probation was sold to staff on the basis of less bureaucracy (MoJ, 2013),

leaving the researcher to suggest that many staff who promote ‘Transformational’

attributes positioned themselves towards the private community rehabilitation

companies (CRC). Clearly only time will tell whether the new CRCs are able to operate

within the arena of excitement suggested by government, and believed by staff, but the

signs are ominous as Boyne (2002), Kenny (1987), and Rainey (1995) have all

concluded that actually, other than the goal of profit, there is very little difference

between public and private organisational cultures and, as such, management traits

between the two are remarkably similar.

The timing of this research was interesting in that it sought to provide a snapshot of

management traits right at the time the organisation was splitting into a public/private

hybrid. By doing so, this research is able to be used as a comparator for future studies

into probation management traits once the new organisations have become embedded

Pen1332 78

and therefore provide clearer evidence of the impact of ‘private’ philosophy on

management traits and values.

Pen1332 79

Bibliography Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B (2007) ‘Development of a private sector version of the (engaging) Transformational Leadership Questionnaire’, Leadership and Organisational Devlopment Journal, Vol 28 No 2, 104-121 Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B (2013) Reliability and validity of the "leadership competencies and engaging leadership scale" in The International Journal of public Sector Management, 26.1, 56-73 Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2008) Engaging Leadership: Creating Organisations that Maximise the Potential of their People, Chartered Institute for Personnel Development, London Annison, J. (2007) A gendered review of change within the probation service. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 2:145-61 Antonakis, J. Day, D. and Schyns, B. (2012) Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance, Leadership Quarterly, 23, 643-650 Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B, M (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership quarterly, 6(2) 199-218 Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, www.mindgarden.com Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M (2004)Multifactor Leadership Questionnair 3rd Ed Manual and Sample Set, Mind Garden, www.mindgarden.com Bachman, R., and Schutt, R.K., (2011) The practice of research in criminology and criminal Justice. London, Sage Baldwin, N. (1987) Public versus private: not that different, not that consequential. Public personal management. 16, 181 - 193 Bandura, A. (1991) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol 50(2), Dec 1991, 248-287. Bass, B.M., (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers Bass, B.M. (1990) From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, Vol 18, Issue 3, 19-31 Bass, B.M., (1998) The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (ed) ethics, the heart of leadership (169-192). Westport, CT: Praeger Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993) Transformational leadership and organisational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112-122 Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J., (2004) Mutli-factor Leadership Questionnaire Manual (3rd Ed), Mindgarden

Pen1332 80

Blaikie, N., (2003) Analysing Quantitative Data, London, Sage Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003), “A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks”, Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, Boyne, G (2002) Public and Private Management: Whats the Difference: in Journal of Management Studies, 39:1, 97- 123 Braun, S. Peus, C. Weisweiler, S. Frey, D. (2013) Transformational Leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly 24, 270-283 Burke, L and Collett, S (2010) People are not things: What New Labour has done to Probation. Probation Journal 57 Brown, A D (1998) Exploring Organisational Culture, in Brown, A D (1998) Organisational Culture (2nd Ed), London, Pitman Burns, J.M. (1978) leadership. New York: Harper and Row Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd Ed). Hikksdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cordery, J. and Whitehead, A (1992) ‘Boys’ don’t cry’: empathy, warmth, collusion and crime, in Senior, P and Woodhills (Eds) Gender, Crime and Probation Practise, Sheffield: Pavic Densten, I. (2003) Senior police leadership: does rank matter?. Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management, Vol 26, issue 3, 400-418 Diefenbach, T. (2009) New Public Management in public sector organisations: the dark sides of managerialistic enlightenment. In Public Administration, Vol 87, No 4, 892-909 Dingwall, R and Strangleman, T (2007) Organisational Cultures in the Public Services. In Ferlie, E, Lynn, L and Pollitt, C (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford, OUP Faulkner, D (2001) Crime, State, and Citizen:A field full of folk, 2nd Ed. Winchester, Waterside Press Gelsthorpe, L (2007) Probation values and human rights, in Gelsthorpe, L & Morgan, R (2007) The Handbook of Probation, Cullompton, Willan Handy C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 4th edn. Facts on File Publications, London, Penguin Hart, J (2012) Senior Leadership styles and Traits in the Metropolitian Police, MA Cambridge, unpublished Hirschman, A. O. (1970) Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organisations and states. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass

Pen1332 81

Hogan, R.J., Raskin, R. and Fazzini, D. (1990), “The dark side of charisma”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 343-54. Hughes, J (1st July, 2014) I've quit the probation service over the government's ill thought-out reforms. The Guardian on-line http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/01/quit-probation-service-ill-thought-out-reform-chris-grayling Kenny, G. (1987) Strategic decision making: influence patterns in public and private sector organizations. Human Resources, 40, 613-63 Knight, J. (2009) Speaking up for Probation, in The Howard League Journal, Vol 48, No 4, 327-343 Layder, D. (1998) Understanding Social Theory. London, Sage Le Grand, J. (2010) Knights and Knaves Return: Public Service Motivation and the Delivery of Public Services. International Public Management Journal. 13.1 Lipsky, M., (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York, Sage Lyons, S. Duxbury, L. Higgins, C. (2006) A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public Sector and Parapublic Sector Employees. Public Administration review, July/August 2006, 605-618 McGuire, J (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending, New York, Chichester McNeill, F. Farrell, S. Lightowler, C and Maruna, S (2012) Reexamining evidence based practice in community corrections: Beyond 'a confined view' of what works, Justice Research and Policy, Vol 14, 1 Maruna, S and LeBel, T (2010)The desistance paradigm in correctional practise: from programmes to lives, in McNeill, F. Raynor, P and Trotter, C (eds) (2010) Offender supervision : new directions in theory, research and practice, Collompton, Willian Publishing Mawby, R. C., & Worrall, A., (2013) Doing probation work: identity in. A criminal justice occupation. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York Mair, G. (2004) what matters in probation. Cullompton; Portland, Or: Willan Pub. Morgan, R (2007) Probation, Governance and Accountability, in Gelsthorpe, L & Morgan, R (2007) The Handbook of Probation, Cullompton, Willan

Millar, M. and Burke, L. (2012) Thinking Beyond ‘Utility’: Some Comments on Probation Practice and Training. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 51. Number 3, 317-330 Ministry of Justice (2009) Public Protection Manual, version 4. Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (May 2013) Transformation Rehabiliation: A strategy for reform

Pen1332 82

NOMs (2014a) Probation Service Workforce Information Summary Report Quarter 4 2013/14 Nellis, M. and Chui, W. (2003) The end of Probation, in: Chui, W. and Nellis, M. (Eds) Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Argument and Practise, Harlow: Pearson Osler, A (1995) Introduction to the Probation Service, Winchester, Waterside Press Parkin, D. and Maddock, S. (1995) ‘A gender typology of organizational culture’, in: Itzin, C. and Newman, J (Eds), Gender, Culture and Orgnaisational Change: Putting Theory into practice, London, Routledge Phillips, J. (2011) Target, audit and risk assessment cultures in the probation service, in; European Journal of Probation, Vol 3, No 3, University of Bucharest Potworowski, G.A. and Green, L. A. (2012) Culture and Evidence-Based Management, in: Rousseau, D M (2012) The Oxford Book of Evidence-Based Management, Oxford, OUP Rainey, H (1995) Public and Private managers perceptions of red tape. Public administration review, 55, 567-574 Rea, L.M. and Parker, R.A. (2005) Designing and conducting Survey Research a comprehensive guide (3rd Ed) San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Robinson, C., (2011) Real World Research, second Edn. Chichester, Willey Shaw, D (2014) Hundreds of probation officers appeal against new jobs, on BBC news online 18th February, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26231132 Shein, E H (2010) Organisational culture and leadership (fourth edition) San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Silvia, C and McGuire, M. (2010) Leading public sector networks: An empirical examination of integrative leadership behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 264-277 Solomon, E. (1986) Private and public sector managers: an empirical investigation of job characteristics and organisational climate’ Journal of applied psychology, 71, 247-259 Straw, C (2014) Transforming rehabilitation: occupational cultures and leadership amongst chief executives in Probation in preparing for the planned restructuring of the service, MA Cambridge, Unpublished Stevenson, A. (2013) The Public Sector; Managing the Unmanageable, London, Kogan Page Travis, A (2011) Probation officers spend 75% of time not dealing with offenders, report finds, in The Gardian Newspaper, Wednesday 27th July, 2011) Travis, A (2013) Probation staff to stage walkout over privatisation, in the Guardian Online, 19th September 2013 Turkiewicz, C. Massey, T and Brown, R. (1998) Motivation in Public and private Organisations: A comparative Study in Public Productivity and Management Review, Vol 21, No 3, pp 230-250

Pen1332 83

Van Wart, M. (2008). Leadership in public organizations: An introduction. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Whitehead, P. and Statham, R. (2006) The History of Probation, Crayford, Shaw and Sons Ltd Zeffance, R. (1994) Patterns of orgnaisational commitment and perceived management styles: A comparison of public and private sector Employees, in Human Relations, Vol 47, No 8, 977-1010 Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., Riggio, R.E and Sosik, J.J (2011) The effect of authentic transformational leadership on the follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 801-817

Pen1332 84

APPENDIX A

Demographic questions

1. Are you – Male or Female 2. Which age category do you fall: 16-21, 22-35, 36-50, 51+ 3. Following the Transformational Rehabilitation changes do you work for:

CRC or NPS 4. Which region do you work in: North East or South West 5. What is your current grade: Deputy Director or CEO, ACO, Band 6, Band 5,

Band 4 or Band 3 6. Would you describe your team as: Operational or Non-Operational 7. Which year did you join probation 8. Are you a qualified probation officer: Yes, No 9. Was probation your first career: Yes, No 10. if No to previous question please give details of previous career 11. What was main reason for joining probation? Value Base, Finance

reasons, Career, or Other

Pen1332 85

APPENDIX B

Sample Questions from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Bass, 1995)

1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts

2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are

appropriate

3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious

4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations

from standards

5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise.

NB: limited to 5 questions due to Copyright instructions

Pen1332 86

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INFORMATION SHEET

The information below tells you about the study that we are inviting you to be involved in. Please

ask any questions you want about the research, and we will try our best to answer them.

Who am I? I’m currently the CEO of the Humberside, Lincolnshire, and North Yorkshire CRC. I’m

completing a Masters in Criminology and Management with the Institute of Criminology, University

of Cambridge.

What is this study about? I’m analysing management traits between managers in the NPS and

managers in the CRC in England. By completing a standard management traits questionnaire and

certain demographic questions, I intend to establish whether managers are either ‘Transactional’

or ‘Transformational’ in style.

What will participation involve? Participation will involve filling in an on-line survey. This should

take around fifteen minutes.

Do I have to take part in the study? Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not want to

take part, you do not have to, and this will not count against you in any way.

Will what I say be kept confidential? The information you share in the survey will be kept

COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL and not identifiable to you as an individual. The outcomes of all

the surveys completed will be aggregated and analysed as a whole.

How do I agree to take part in the study? By completing the survey, you are agreeing to take part,

and confirming that you understand what the study involves.

What if I want to withdraw from the study? Given the nature of the survey is non-identifiable to

individuals, once you have completed and submitted the survey it is not possible to withdraw. If

during the completion of the survey you wish to withdraw, simply close down the survey without

submitting.

What will happen to the results of the study? Your survey will contribute to my thesis for my

Masters and may result in publications on similar topics. These will mainly be academic articles

and books. The findings may also be discussed in other academic publications written by the

researchers, and in discussions or presentations with members of the Probation Service or the

National Offender Management Service (NOMS), and other university researchers. Again, this will

be done in such a way that you will not be personally be identified.

Pen1332 87

The study has been reviewed by the National Offender Management Service Ethics Committee,

but if you want further information about its ethics, or if you want to complain about some aspect of

the research, you should write initially to myself.

Thank you for your time in reading this information. If you have any further questions at any stage

of the research, please do not hesitate to ask one of us.

Martin Davies

Pen1332 88

APPENDIX D

NOMs Consent

APPROVED SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS – NOMS RESEARCH

Ref: Cambridge MSt applications Titles: (2014-168) Assessing management leadership traits in Probation, using a multi-facet questionnaire

Dear Ben, The National Research Committee (NRC) is pleased to grant approval in principle for the research applications listed above. For each of these applications, the Committee requests that the applicants consider the following:

If the intention is to conduct research in the prison establishment/NPS division/CRC area which is also the applicant’s usual place of work, the potential for any conflict from the dual researcher/practitioner role should be considered (e.g. impact upon responses) and mitigated wherever possible.

The resource demands upon establishments/NPS divisions/CRC areas (and also data providers) should be fully recognised and minimised where possible.

Bearing in mind that all applicants are conducting the research projects as Cambridge MSt students, the initial approaches to offenders need to be made by appropriately placed practitioners (to verify their willingness to be contacted).

When using intermediaries to assist with recruitment and administration, consideration should be given to the necessary quality assurance, helping to ensure consistency and adherence to agreed criteria/processes.

The following should be considered in terms of sampling and sample sizes: o To identify eligible respondents, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria

should be established for all target groups. o When sampling offenders, consideration should be given to the need

for a minimum level of exposure to the interventions/services covered by the research (to ensure that sufficiently informed opinions can be provided).

Dr Ben Crewe

Cambridge University

Institute of Criminology,

Sidgwick Avenue,

Cambridge

CB3 9DA

bc247@cam.ac.uk

National Offender Management Service

National Research Committee

Email: National.Research@noms.gsi.gov.uk

12 June 2014

Pen1332 89

o For qualitative research, consideration should be given to the need for stratification when sampling to ensure that a sufficient range of views is obtained. Sample sizes should be linked to the point at which saturation of key themes is achieved.

o For quantitative research, it should be verified that the proposed sample sizes are likely to be sufficient for the statistical analysis intended.

o For any surveys, response rates should be monitored and plans established to address low response rates where necessary.

The following should be included in the participation information sheets/consent forms: o Participants should be informed of the time commitment involved. o Participants should be informed how the data will be used and for

how long it will be held. o Participants should be informed that there will be neither advantage

nor disadvantage as a result of their decision to participate or not participate in the research.

o It must be made clear to research participants that they can refuse to answer individual questions or withdraw from the research at any point, and that this will not compromise them in any way.

o Participants should be asked for their consent to the use of audio-recording equipment.

o Participants should consent to any follow-up contact and the method of this contact.

The following should also be included in the participation information sheets/consent forms for offenders: o Access to any NOMS records for the participants should be explicitly

covered. o It needs to be clear that the following information has to be disclosed:

behaviour that is against prison rules and can be adjudicated against, illegal acts, and behaviour that is potentially harmful to the research participant (e.g. intention to self-harm or complete suicide) or others.

o Potential avenues of support should be specified for those who are caused any distress or anxiety.

o The respondent should be asked to direct any requests for information, complaints and queries through their prison establishment/probation trust. Direct contact details should not be provided.

If any individuals are being approached due to their very specific roles, particular attention should be given to ensuring their anonymity. If anonymity cannot be guaranteed, respondents will need to be fully informed about this prior to providing their consent.

Wherever possible, interview/questionnaire schedules should be tested/piloted in the first instance to check understanding, overall length and coverage of key issues. The appropriateness of the questions to the specific respondent groups should be considered (particularly if using any instruments that have not been previously validated for use with offenders).

Pen1332 90

Researchers must store and handle all personal data securely in line with AI 03/2009 and PSO 9015 Information Assurance and PSO 9010 I.T. Security. This includes data required to identify respondents and to link data sources.

When using recording devices, the recordings should be treated as potentially disclosive and it is recommended that devices with encryption technology are used. Recordings should be wiped once they have been transcribed and anonymised unless there are clear grounds for keeping them any longer.

In the research reports, care should be taken to not overstate the potential benefits of the research and the research limitations should be explicitly set out (e.g. samples are not necessarily representative of all those eligible to be included, the findings may not translate to other establishments/areas, lack of any long-term follow-up).

Before the research can commence applicants must agree formally by email to the NRC (National.Research@noms.gsi.gov.uk), confirming that consideration will be given to the points set out above and that they will comply with the terms and conditions outlined below and the expectations set out in the NOMS Research Instruction (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-offender-management-service/about/research). Applicants should also inform the NRC if they have any intention to publish any of their findings. Please note that unless the project is commissioned by MoJ/NOMS and signed off by Ministers, the decision to grant access to prison establishments, National Probation Service (NPS) divisions or Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) areas (and the offenders and practitioners within these establishments/divisions/areas) ultimately lies with the Governing Governor/Director of the establishment or the Deputy Director/Chief Executive of the NPS division/CRC area concerned. If establishments/NPS divisions/CRC areas are to be approached as part of the research, a copy of this letter must be attached to the request to prove that the NRC has approved the study in principle. The decision to grant access to existing data lies with the Information Asset Owners (IAOs) for each data source and the researchers should abide by the data sharing conditions stipulated by each IAO. Please quote your NRC reference number in all future correspondence. Yours sincerely, National Research Committee

Appendix E

Pen1332 91

Previous Career

Job Type Frequency Groupings

Criminal Justice = 5 Education = 8 Care/Health = 16 Public = 56

Armed Forces 3 Academia 1 Administration 8 Teaching 7 Advertising & Marketing 1 Advisor 1 Arts 1 Banking 3 Building 1 Care 1 Catering 1 Charity/3rd Sector 8 Civil Service/Local Authority

12

Consultancy 1 Engineering 2 Entertainment 1 Finance/Accountancy 5 HR 1 Housing 5 IT 1 Journalism 1 Law 2 Logistics 1 NHS 9 Police 3 Management 11 Manufacturing 1 Retail 5 Social Work 7 Travel Industry 1 Total 105

Appendix F Frequency scores

Pen1332 92

Transactional total average score

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid .47 1 .4 .4 .4

1.00 1 .4 .4 .8

1.13 1 .4 .4 1.2

1.25 1 .4 .4 1.5

1.38 2 .7 .8 2.3

1.50 1 .4 .4 2.7

1.63 4 1.4 1.5 4.2

1.75 4 1.4 1.5 5.8

1.88 3 1.1 1.2 6.9

2.00 21 7.4 8.1 15.0

2.13 17 6.0 6.5 21.5

2.25 25 8.8 9.6 31.2

2.38 24 8.4 9.2 40.4

2.50 31 10.9 11.9 52.3

2.53 1 .4 .4 52.7

2.54 2 .7 .8 53.5

2.63 29 10.2 11.2 64.6

2.75 27 9.5 10.4 75.0

2.88 18 6.3 6.9 81.9

3.00 12 4.2 4.6 86.5

3.13 13 4.6 5.0 91.5

3.25 10 3.5 3.8 95.4

3.38 4 1.4 1.5 96.9

3.50 4 1.4 1.5 98.5

3.63 3 1.1 1.2 99.6

3.88 1 .4 .4 100.0

Total 260 91.2 100.0

Missing System 25 8.8

Total 285 100.0

Pen1332 93

Transformational Total Average score

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid .4 1 .4 .4 .4

.4 1 .4 .4 .8

1.8 2 .7 .8 1.5

1.8 1 .4 .4 1.9

1.9 3 1.1 1.2 3.1

1.9 2 .7 .8 3.9

2.0 1 .4 .4 4.2

2.1 1 .4 .4 4.6

2.2 1 .4 .4 5.0

2.2 1 .4 .4 5.4

2.3 1 .4 .4 5.8

2.3 10 3.5 3.9 9.7

2.4 4 1.4 1.5 11.2

2.5 2 .7 .8 12.0

2.5 5 1.8 1.9 13.9

2.6 5 1.8 1.9 15.8

2.6 7 2.5 2.7 18.5

2.7 9 3.2 3.5 22.0

2.7 8 2.8 3.1 25.1

2.8 11 3.9 4.2 29.3

2.8 12 4.2 4.6 34.0

2.9 9 3.2 3.5 37.5

2.9 7 2.5 2.7 40.2

3.0 13 4.6 5.0 45.2

3.0 1 .4 .4 45.6

3.0 14 4.9 5.4 51.0

3.1 16 5.6 6.2 57.1

3.1 6 2.1 2.3 59.5

3.2 10 3.5 3.9 63.3

3.2 13 4.6 5.0 68.3

3.3 7 2.5 2.7 71.0

3.3 12 4.2 4.6 75.7

3.4 16 5.6 6.2 81.9

3.4 7 2.5 2.7 84.6

3.5 11 3.9 4.2 88.8

Pen1332 94

3.5 8 2.8 3.1 91.9

3.6 6 2.1 2.3 94.2

3.7 5 1.8 1.9 96.1

3.7 2 .7 .8 96.9

3.8 4 1.4 1.5 98.5

3.8 1 .4 .4 98.8

3.9 2 .7 .8 99.6

3.9 1 .4 .4 100.0

Total 259 90.9 100.0

Missing System 26 9.1

Total 285 100.0

Management-by-Exception (Passive) average score ie /4

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid .00 9 3.2 3.5 3.5

.25 16 5.6 6.3 9.8

.50 49 17.2 19.1 28.9

.75 50 17.5 19.5 48.4

1.00 52 18.2 20.3 68.8

1.25 38 13.3 14.8 83.6

1.50 12 4.2 4.7 88.3

1.75 13 4.6 5.1 93.4

2.00 8 2.8 3.1 96.5

2.25 6 2.1 2.3 98.8

2.50 3 1.1 1.2 100.0

Total 256 89.8 100.0

Missing System 29 10.2

Total 285 100.0