What Makes a Transformational Leaders
-
Upload
andhika-putra-kresnandito -
Category
Documents
-
view
139 -
download
4
Transcript of What Makes a Transformational Leaders
WHAT MAKES A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ANTECEDENT EXPERIENCES OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS
by
WILLIAM J. SCHELL IV
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in The Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering and Engineering
Management to
The School of Graduate Studies of
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA
2010
UMI Number: 3410783
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3410783
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
ii
In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree from The University of Alabama in Huntsville, I agree that the Library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by my advisor or, in his/her absence, by the Chair of the Department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to The University of Alabama in Huntsville in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in this dissertation. ___________________________ _______ (student signature) (date)
iii
DISSERTATION APPROVAL FORM
Submitted by William J. Schell IV in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial and Systems Engineering, with a concentration in Engineering Management and accepted on behalf of the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies by the dissertation committee. We, the undersigned members of the Graduate Faculty of The University of Alabama in Huntsville, certify that we have advised and/or supervised the candidate on the work described in this dissertation. We further certify that we have reviewed the dissertation manuscript and approved it in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial and Systems Engineering. ___________________________________ Committee Chair Dr. Dawn R Utley (Date) ___________________________________ Dr. Philip Farrington (Date) ___________________________________ Dr. Sampson Gholston (Date) ___________________________________ Dr Julie Fortune (Date) ___________________________________ Dr. Anthony Morris (Date) ___________________________________ Department Chair Dr. James Swain (Date)
___________________________________ College Dean Dr. Philip Farrington (Date) ___________________________________ Graduate Dean Dr. Debra Moriarity (Date)
iv
ABSTRACT
School of Graduate Studies The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy College/Dept.: Engineering/Industrial
Systems Engineering and Engineering Management
Name of Candidate: William J Schell IV Title: What makes a transformational leader: An Investigation into the Antecedent Experiences of Transformational Leaders
The headlines of any major newspaper give evidence that American culture is
fascinated with the results of its leaders, whether they are political or sports leaders.
The scholarly work on leaders is also vast. While recent history may show an increasing
level of study, human interest in leadership is not a recent phenomenon. Discussion of
the study of leadership can be found in the classical works of the Greeks, Romans and
Chinese. Leadership has an impact on all areas of society. The empirical literature has
shown that good leadership promotes good organizational performance while bad
leadership degrades the quality of life for those associated with it. Additional research has
shown that transformational leadership is akin to good leadership. For this reason,
researchers are drawn to better understand transformational leadership and how it is
developed.
Leadership development is a vast area of literature, but there is little research that
promotes an understanding of how development experiences influence the types of
leadership behaviors displayed by leaders. This dissertation sought to address this gap in
two ways. First, a new instrument was developed, the Lifetime Leadership Inventory
(LLI), that enables researchers to understand the development experiences of the
respondent. Second, the LLI was utilized to examine the development experiences of
v
leaders of entrepreneurial companies and correlate those experiences with the behaviors
measured by the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) using correlation analysis
and Structured Equation Modeling (SEM).
The study found significant (α = 0.05) correlation between many of the antecedent
areas explored and the components of transformational leadership measured by the MLQ.
These included positive correlations between transformational leadership components
and experiences with mentors, professional leadership experiences, and formal leadership
development programs. A negative correlation was found between transformational
leadership components and leadership experiences in high school and college. The
practical results of the study include implications for hiring decisions and the design of
leadership training programs.
Abstract Approval:
Committee Chair:
Dr. Dawn R Utley
Department Chair:
Dr. James J. Swain
Graduate Dean:
Dr. Debra M. Moriarity
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Dr. Paul Schillings, thank you for encouraging a freshman engineering student
to pursue graduate work and a career in academia. If not for you, this journey would
likely never have started, someday I’ll fulfill that vision of moving into your old office.
To Geert Letens at Royal Military Academy, Belgium and Verne Harnish at
Gazelles, Inc., without your assistance to gain access to participants for this dissertation,
its completion would not have been possible.
To the staff of the UAH Salmon Library who have built a remarkable collection
of electronic reference materials. If not for the instant access and powerful search
capabilities those collections provide to distance learning students, I would still be
wading through the leadership literature.
To my dissertation committee, Dr. Dawn Utley, Dr. Phillip Farrington,
Dr. Sampson Gholston, Dr. Julie Fortune and Dr. Anthony Morris, thank you for your
support and guidance. I would like to provide special acknowledgement to my Chair,
Dr. Utley, for your encouragement and coordination and to Dr. Morris for pushing me to
take the right steps to develop the LLI and for consistently being my most vocal
supporter as the research began to take shape.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Importance of Leadership................................................................ 2 1.2 The Need For Transformational Leadership........................................... 4 1.3 The Antecedents of Transformational Leadership ................................. 5 1.4 A Study into Transformational Leaders in Entrepreneurial
Organizations.......................................................................................... 7 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......................................................... 9 2.1 What Is Leadership ............................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Leadership Defined for this Dissertation ................................... 11
2.1.2 Pioneering Leadership Concepts................................................ 122.1.3 Leadership or Management........................................................ 152.1.4 Why Study Leadership............................................................... 17
2.2 General Leadership Theories................................................................ 18 2.3 Transformational Leadership................................................................ 20 2.3.1 The Full Range Leadership Model ............................................ 23
2.3.2 Transformational Leadership vs. Transactional Leadership...... 24 2.4 Leadership Effectiveness ...................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Examples and Definitions of Leadership Effectiveness ............ 26
2.4.2 Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership .......................... 27 2.5 Measuring Transformational Leadership.............................................. 29 2.5.1 The Leadership Practices Inventory........................................... 29
2.5.2 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire................................ 31 2.6 Previous Studies into Leadership Antecedents..................................... 34 2.7 Review Summary.................................................................................. 37 III. RESEARCH STATEMENT............................................................................. 39 3.1 Research Questions, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses..................... 40 3.2 Importance of Research and Contribution............................................ 42
viii
IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 44 4.1 Study Overview .................................................................................... 44 4.2 Instrument Selection ............................................................................. 47 4.3 Development of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI)................... 49 4.3.1 The Nature of Key Relationships............................................... 50
4.3.2 Early Development Experiences................................................ 514.3.3 Exploratory Experiences............................................................ 514.3.4 Early / Previous Work Experience............................................. 524.3.5 Formal Development Experiences............................................. 524.3.6 Demographic Questions............................................................. 53
4.4 Refinement of the LLI .......................................................................... 53 4.4.1 Initial LLI Pilot Study................................................................ 54
4.4.2 Reduction of LLI Question Set into Final Form........................ 55 4.5 Description of the Survey Population................................................... 55 4.6 Deployment of the Study Instruments .................................................. 56 4.7 Data Collection and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 58 V. DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 60 5.1 Pilot Study and Refinement of the LLI................................................. 62 5.1.1 LLI Pilot Study Data Analysis................................................... 63
5.1.2 Reduction of the LLI Data Set ................................................... 67 5.2 Demographic Analysis of the Study Data Set ...................................... 68 5.3 Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) ............ 71 5.3.1 Comparing the Leadership Measures of the Study and MLQ
Population .................................................................................. 715.3.2 Examination of the MLQ Factor Structure ................................ 755.3.3 Comparing the Factor Loadings of the Study Data with the
MLQ Population ........................................................................ 79 5.4 Analysis of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI) .......................... 80 5.4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the LLI............................................... 82
5.4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LLI .................................. 83 5.5 Exploring the Relationship Between the LLLI and the MLQ Using
Correlation ............................................................................................ 86 5.6 Structured Equation Modeling Between the LLI and MLQ................. 89 5.6.1 Further Reduction of the LLI and CFA Revisited ..................... 90
5.6.2 SEM Analysis Description and Results ..................................... 91 5.7 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Questions and the MLQ ............... 93 5.8 Analysis Summary................................................................................ 94
ix
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................... 96 6.1 Hypothesis Testing Results and Contribution to the Body of
Knowledge............................................................................................ 97 6.2 Theoretical Implications of Study ........................................................ 99 6.3 Implications for the Engineering Manager .........................................103 6.4 Limitations Of The Study ...................................................................104 6.5 Areas for Future Research ..................................................................105 APPENDIX A: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ................................................108APPENDIX B: Initial Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions...................111APPENDIX C: Refined Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions................113APPENDIX D: Mind Garden Permissions...................................................................115APPENDIX E: Gazelle’s Participant Invitations .........................................................120APPENDIX F: LLI Correlation Analysis ....................................................................123APPENDIX G: Factor Analysis Of Alternative LLI Model ........................................130 G.1 Exploratory Analysis of the LLI .............................................131 G.2 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the
Two Factor MLQ ....................................................................136 G.3 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the
Nine Factor MLQ....................................................................137APPENDIX H: Structured Equation Model Output.....................................................139APPENDIX I: Study Approval from IRB...................................................................152 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................154
x
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Leadership Literature Review Pyramid...................................................................10
3.1 Study Conceptual Model .........................................................................................41
4.1 Overview of Theoretical LLI Model .......................................................................50
5.1 Overview of Analysis Methodology .......................................................................61
5.2 Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study....................................................64
5.3 LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram Using Ward's Method ..............................................65
5.4 Scree Plot Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the MLQ...............................78
5.5 Factor Model for Idealized Influence (Attributed) as Measured by the MLQ........79
G.1 Dendrogram from Cluster Analysis of Full LLI Data Using Ward Linkage ........ 131
G.2 Scree Plot of Exploratory Factor Analysis on the LLI.......................................... 134
xi
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Leadership Measure Selection Criteria and Winner ................................................ 47
5.1 Pilot Study Population Overview ............................................................................ 62
5.2 Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary............................................................. 67
5.3 Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender ........................................ 69
5.4 Participant Job Level Demographics by Source ...................................................... 69
5.5 Participant Experience Level Demographic Information by Source ....................... 69
5.6 Participant Education Level Demographic Information by Source......................... 69
5.7 Descriptive Statistics for MLQ Results ................................................................... 73
5.8 P Values for Comparisons of MLQ Scores.............................................................. 74
5.9 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Score for Nine Factor MLQ Components .................. 75
5.10 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Alternate MLQ Models ............................. 76
5.11 Factor Loading Comparisons for Individual MLQ Questions within their
Expected Factor ....................................................................................................... 81
5.12 Descriptive Statistics for LLI Pillars........................................................................ 82
5.13 Loadings of Individual LLI Questions within their Hypothesized Factors ............ 85
5.14 Correlation Coefficients and Significance for LLI Pillars & Nine Factor MLQ..... 88
5.15 Correlation Values Found with SEM....................................................................... 93
5.16 Significant Correlations Between LLI Questions and MLQ Leadership Factors... 94
G.1 Varimax Factor Loadings from LLI Exploratory Factor Analysis ........................ 135
G.2 Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Two Factor MLQ ......... 137
G.3 Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Nine Factor MLQ......... 138
DEDICATION
For Ana and Megan, thank you for being a daily source of inspiration and
fascination to your daddy. Thank you for your patience while I was locked in the office
at home, out at the library, or in Alabama - even if you didn’t understand why I was still
in school as a grown up. Someday you’ll get to tell your new little brother about all of
the fun he missed before his arrival. We’ll now have more time to spend together and
I’m looking forward to it more than you will ever know.
For Melanie, thank you for all of your support throughout the years, during this
work and on oh so many other things. Who would have guessed when this process
started, that we’d live in a different time zone, have one more kid (almost two) and see
countless other changes big and small in careers and life before it was done. Through it
all, the constant has always been us and my love for you.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
“The gift of leadership belonged to him in supreme degree.”
- Gifford Pinchot speaking of President Theodore Roosevelt (1947)
One need look only as far as the headlines of any major newspaper on any given
day to see the culture of America is focused on the accomplishments and failings of its
leaders. Whether it is the challenges faced by a major political initiative backed by the
President, the fall from grace of leading sports figures, or the compensation packages of
executives, the public appears very interested in getting a regular feed of information on
those who hold leadership positions. This interest in leaders is not just a popular culture
phenomenon. The scholarly work on leaders is also vast, as a current Google Scholar
search on the word generates over 2.4 million results in English (Google 2010). But why
are leaders so important that interest in them borders on obsession? Why did the topic of
leadership generate such interest that no fewer than 2,800 books on the topic were
published in 2008 and 2009 (Amazon 2010)? What is this gift of leadership that
Roosevelt had and what is known about it?
2
1.1 The Importance of Leadership
While recent history may show an increasing level of study, human interest in
leadership is not a recent phenomenon. Discussion of the study of leadership can be
found in the classical works of the Greeks, Romans and Chinese (Bass 1981). The study
of leadership through human history eventually found its way into two camps at the dawn
of the 20th century. The first typified by Carlyle’s (1888) belief that “The history of the
world is but the biography of great men.” The second captured by Tolstoy (1869), “In
history, so-called Great Men are but labels serving to give a name to historical events,
and like labels they have the least possible connection with the event itself.” Gergen
(2005) argues that the first half of the 20th century served to resolve this conflict of
opinion, stating that leaders do matter, a lot. The 20th century dawned with hopes for a
new golden age, as European nations had not engaged in war for over 80 years. But the
century hit its mid point having seen two of the bloodiest wars in human history while the
economy of the world suffered. Why was this the result when hopes were so high?
Keegan (2002) argues the answer to this question can be found in the biographies of
six men: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Churchill, and Franklin Roosevelt. The first
four acted as tyrants and could have destroyed the world, if not successfully challenged
by the other two men.
The first half of the 20th century acts as an extreme example for why Bennis
(2004, 331) states that the “quality of our lives is dependant on the quality of our
leadership.” The importance of leadership, while often most visible in politics, is not
limited to this arena. Leadership has an impact on all areas of society. In sports, the
differences in leadership can be seen by the championships amassed by coaches
3
Lombardi, Auerbach and Jackson. In business, leadership drove the success of General
Electric under Jack Welch, Microsoft under Bill Gates and Apple under Steve Jobs. The
empirical literature has shown that good leadership promotes good performance while
bad leadership degrades the quality of life for those associated with it (Hogan and Kaiser
2005) and that leader differences do account for a substantial degree of an organization’s
performance variation (Thomas 1988).
It is this power of leadership that draws researchers to better understand the topic.
Subsequent to the Great Man theory, the quest to understand leadership has generally
fallen into two categories. The first, trait theories, generally hold that effective leaders
possess different traits than their less effective counterparts (Bass 1981). The second
group, behavioral theories, generally holds that the behaviors of leaders impact their
effectiveness. These behaviors are typically combined into groups similar to those of
Katz and Kahn (1952), who categorized behaviors as task oriented, relationship oriented,
and participative leadership. The relationship oriented behaviors led to the development
of charismatic leadership theories (Barbuto 2005). But these categories have often fallen
into dispute, a dispute summed up by Drucker (2001a, 269 - 270):
What then is leadership if it is not charisma and not a set of personality traits? The first thing is that it is work […] The foundation of effective leadership is thinking through the organization’s mission, defining it, and establishing it, clearly and visibly. The leader sets goals, sets the priorities and sets and maintains the standards. […] The second requirement is that the leader sees leadership as a responsibility, rather than as rank and privilege. […] [The leader] holds himself ultimately responsible for the mistakes of his associates and subordinates, he also sees the triumphs of his associates and subordinates as his triumphs […].
In this statement, Drucker captures the need for transformational leadership. This type of
leadership is defined as being able to lift a team above the day-to-day preoccupations to
4
rally around a common purpose (Burns 1978). Transformational leadership differs from
transactional leadership which is more focused on a cost benefit, economic exchange
with subordinates (Bass 1985).
1.2 The Need for Transformational Leadership
“Since the 1980s, research has supported the idea that transformational leadership
is more effective than transactional leadership in generating the extra effort, commitment,
and satisfaction of those led” (Avolio and Bass 2002, 1). Transformational leadership
has been shown to have strong positive impacts on the performance of organizations from
financial firms (Walumba, et al. 2005), to school environments (Higgins 1998,
Blatt 2002), to sales forces (Jolson, et al. 1993), to the U.S. Navy (Murphy 2002), to
IBM, and the Third Army (Bass 1985). But if transformational leadership is so effective,
why has it not become part of the lexicon of the average American? Perhaps it is because
transformational leadership has often been found to be most effective in creating success
regarding organizational change (e.g., Ozaralli 2003, Zagorsek, et al. 2009) and most
people have a natural discomfort with change. However, in times of complex systems
and high technology, change is constantly on the horizon. Now seems an opportune time
to better understand transformational leadership and capture its benefits.
While it seems that most generations claim that their generation is in the most
turbulent times, Friedman (2005) has made a popularly accepted argument that the
current rate of change is the most rapid in human history. As times become more
challenging, it is held that leadership becomes more important (Goldsmith 2007, Collins
2009). How does transformational leadership fit into these challenging times?
5
In times of turbulence, it has been shown that charismatic leadership, an important
subcomponent of transformational leadership, has a predictive relationship with
performance (Waldman, et al. 2001). Furthermore, one of the greatest impacts a leader
can have on their organization is to set and reinforce the values, mission and culture of an
organization (Phills 2005, Bossidy 2002, Peters and Waterman 1982). Transformational
leadership, by its very definition, is concerned with the motivation of followers through
idealized influence, creating a common purpose around which to rally (Bass 1985).
Since transformational leadership appears to hold the potential of being a powerful asset
within these turbulent times, the question arises, how is it developed?
1.3 The Antecedents of Transformational Leadership
Leadership development is a vast area of literature (Bass 1981). As mentioned
previously, most studies in this area focus on one of two paths to leadership development,
trait and behavioral. Studies of the trait theories sought to determine what innate traits
made a leader effective, the research of these theories sought to understand and identify
traits, not develop them (Bass 1981). Conversely, studies of the behavioral theories
looked to identify the behaviors that made effective leaders, so the behavior could be
taught (McCauley, et al. 1998). Both of these development theories are well understood,
with vast supporting literature. An area that is not as well understood is the effect that
experiences have on an individual’s leadership development (Bennis and Thomas 2002).
Research on how experience effects leadership development has been completed
through a variety of studies. These include investigations into leadership crucibles
(Bennis and Thomas 2002, Bennis 2004), studies into the impacts of parental
6
relationships on leadership (e.g., Avolio 1994, Towler 2005), and research into the
impacts of previous leadership experiences on current leadership behavior (e.g., Howard
and Bray 1988, Atwater, et al. 1999). While some of these studies (e.g., Avolio 1994,
Atwater, et al. 1999, Towler 2005) specifically looked at the development of
transformational leadership, none investigated the breadth of development experiences
discussed in the literature. Examples of these development experiences include
relationships with mentors (e.g., Atwater, et al. 1999), activities in high school
(e.g., Avolio 1994), and exploratory experiences (e.g., Louv 2005, Evans and
Cope 2003). Clearly there is a gap in understanding, but why does this gap exist? One
reason for this gap appears to be the lack of an available instrument that explores a broad
range of potential leadership development experiences. Because of this missing
instrument, existing experience focused research has been largely completed through
structured interview techniques (e.g., Bennis and Thomas 2002, Wong 2004), which lack
the breadth of exploration and sample size generally developed through instrument based
studies. This gap in the literature points to a need to develop an instrument that could aid
in understanding the breadth of experiences that may lead to development of measurable
leadership behaviors.
The purpose of such an instrument would be to understand the development
experiences of a leader or potential leader who responds to the instrument. These
experiences could be broken into five different theoretical groups based on the different
types of development experiences examined in the literature. The first group would seek
to understand the nature of the key relationships of the participant, including their
relationships with parents and mentors (e.g., Towler 2005, Sosik, et al. 2004). The
7
second group would seek to understand the early development experiences of the
participant, including high school and college activities (e.g., Muldoon, et al. 2005). The
remaining groups would investigate the exploratory experiences (e.g., Louv 2005), early
work experiences (e.g., Howard and Bray 1988), and formal development experiences
(e.g., McCauley, et al. 1998) of the participant. By utilizing this rationalized set of
experiences investigated in previous literature, the research is able to better understand
the experiences of the participant. This dissertation will then look to correlate those
experiences with the participants’ displays of transformational leadership. But the
question remains, what population of leaders should be included in the study? Since the
end of the economic crisis of the late 2000’s is expected to be driven by growth in small
entrepreneurial companies (e.g., Obama 2009, United States Small Business
Administration 2009), a study targeted to this population of leaders, that aides in the
understanding of the development of transformational leadership may be beneficial.
1.4 A Study Into Transformational Leaders in Entrepreneurial Organizations
Prior to the current global economic challenges, Drucker (2001b) argued for the
importance of an entrepreneurial society, a society in which innovation and
entrepreneurship are normal, steady, and continual. This focus on steady and continual
improvement can only be completed in a culture that is open to, even welcoming of
change. The literature has shown that a culture welcoming of change is effectively
created with transformational leadership. How can a study be structured to learn more
about leaders in these types of organizations?
8
The answer came with access to the readers of the Gazelles weekly newsletter.
The newsletter serves a group of readers who are leaders of mid-market companies
focused on growth, coming from all industries (Gazelles 2009). This population was
studied to begin to learn more about these leaders, including their leadership styles and
development experiences. The study expects to have two contributions to the
Engineering Management body of knowledge. The first contribution will be the
development of a new data collection instrument that allows the researcher to understand
the experiences that may contribute to the leadership behaviors of the participant. The
second contribution will be any correlations identified between development experiences
and displays of transformational leadership in the study population.
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The available literature in the area of leadership, both in the popular press and
scholarly work is vast and continues to expand rapidly due to a “great interest in the
phenomenon of leadership by both academicians and practitioners” (Antonakis, et al.
2004a, vii). However, the body of knowledge presents problems to the researcher. First
not only is the literature vast, it is often disparate and inaccessible. Second, much of the
published information in the field regarding what makes a leader effective, has minimal
scientific backing, if any at all (Antonakis, et al. 2004a). In order to clarify the literature
and attempt to deal with these shortcomings, this review takes a macro to micro
approach, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. The review starts with definitions of leadership and
an investigation of foundational leadership theories, then discusses leadership and
management and the importance of leadership, and then introduces transformational
leadership, before stepping through leadership effectiveness, methods to measure
leadership and the antecedents of leadership in light of both general leadership theories
and transformational leadership. In this manner, the literature provides a multi-layered
foundation for the pinnacle of this pyramid, the proposed research investigation of the
antecedent experiences of transformational leaders.
10
Leadership Antecedants
Measuring TL
Leadership Effectiveness
Transformational Leadership (TL) and the Full Range Model
Leadership or Management and the Importance of Leadership
Definitions and Foundational Theories of Leadership
Leadership Antecedants
Measuring TL
Leadership Effectiveness
Transformational Leadership (TL) and the Full Range Model
Leadership or Management and the Importance of Leadership
Definitions and Foundational Theories of Leadership
Figure 2.1 – Leadership Literature Review Pyramid
2.1 What is Leadership
What is leadership? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2007) defined
leadership simply as “the office or position of a leader.” Follett (1949) held a different
opinion of what defined leadership, noting nothing of the position, but instead stating that
it had two key tenets. First, a leader does not lead by personality, but by superior
knowledge of a situation. Second, that leadership is not only an innate quality, but is a
skill that can be learned. This concept of leadership as a born trait has its beginnings in
the Great Man Theory (Carlyle 1888), while the concept that leadership is a set of skills
that can be learned was furthered by the personality school of leadership research (Bass
1981).
11
This conflict and confusion about leadership theory is not new. Almost 50 years
ago, Bennis (1959, 259) surveyed the leadership literature and concluded “it seems the
concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its
slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to
deal with it . . . and still the concept is not sufficiently defined.” Nor has this conflict
been satisfactorily mediated in the intervening years, as Antonakis, et al. (2004b, 5) more
recently noted that “given the complex nature of leadership, a specific and widely
accepted definition of leadership does not exist and might never be found.”
2.1.1 Leadership Defined for this Dissertation
Despite the lack of a general agreement in the way that leadership is defined, in
order to continue this discussion, a broad definition is needed. For this dissertation the
general definition of leadership created by Antonakis, et al. (2004b, 5) will be utilized.
This definition is
leadership can be defined as the nature of the influencing process – and its resultant outcomes – that occurs between leader and followers and how the influencing process is explained by the leader’s dispositional characteristics and behaviors, follower perceptions and attributions of the leader, and the context in which the influencing process occurs.
This definition is consistent with those commonly used in investigations of
transformational leadership. For example, McLaurin and Bushanain Al Amri (2008, 15)
utilize a similar definition where “leadership is a dynamic relationship which is based on
mutual influence between leaders and followers which results in a higher level of
motivation and technical development as it promotes changes.”
12
2.1.2 Pioneering Leadership Concepts
While the written material on leadership can often be found in studies of human
history, the professional study and research into leadership can be found in those
publications interested not in studying the past, but in how to build things with greater
efficiency. A key contribution in this area can be attributed to Taylor and his study of
scientific management (Russell 1987). In 1916, Taylor published his definitions of
scientific management principles, key among them that management could improve the
output of an organization by the scientific study of work. This study led to a better
understanding of the job and how to better fit workers to the job. Additionally, Taylor
(1916, 17) identified what he referred to as the “highest type of management” where
employers deliberately set out to make conditions for their employees better than the
conditions found at other employers. This type of action is a precursor to the
individualized attention concept included in transformational leadership (Bass 1985).
From Taylor, the research began to focus more completely on ways to understand
and motivate employees. This need to motivate employees is closely tied to the leader’s
ability to influence followers, included in this dissertation’s working definition of
leadership. This area of study began with Maslow (1950) who defined a framework for
understanding the needs of human beings in a hierarchical format. In addition to
developing the framework, Maslow contributed a deep understanding of how people
move from one level to another on the hierarchy and the ability for multiple levels to be
simultaneously partially satisfied and partially unsatisfied. In this way, Maslow provided
the foundation to understand human behavior that was applied by a number of
management philosophers in their work about how to effectively motivate employees.
13
McGregor (1957) took the conventional view of management’s role to harness
and control employee actions and behavior to meet the needs of the employer and labeled
it Theory X management. He went on to challenge the view of management – that
control of employees was necessary due to employees inherently passive nature, similar
to Taylor’s soldiering (1919) – as the cause of this behavior not the result. As a solution
for this behavior, McGregor offered an alternative set of management behaviors which he
matched to different assumptions about employee behavior; these assumptions were
labeled Theory Y. Under this set of assumptions, management’s core responsibility is to
arrange the organization so that employees can once again find their motivation, and use
that motivation to determine their own path to successfully complete the goals of their
role. In this way, employees are given the autonomy to do their best work and
management is simply capturing the inherent skill in employees to deliver the results that
are needed by the organization.
The motivation thread of leadership research continued with a notable step being
taken by Herzberg et al. (1959), who outlined a two factor model for employee
motivation - hygienes and motivators. This work was further clarified to make it more
actionable almost 10 years later (Herzberg 1968). In this framework, the key was to
recognize that many of the reward approaches utilized by organizations have limited use,
since they focus on areas labeled hygienes. These hygienes possess limited opportunity
to truly engage employees and benefit from higher performance. Instead, managers
should focus on job enrichment with the intent to improve aspects that truly motivate
employees such as the opportunity for responsibility and achievement. This research
thread continues, with such researchers as Daniels (2009) and his best practices for
14
eliminating practices that demotivate employees, Tompkins (2007) and his bold
leadership theories for motivations and Jacobs (2009) and his investigations into what is
wrong with employee feedback practices from the perspective of neuroscience.
In addition to the research into how to best motivate employees, a related research
stream investigated how organizational outcomes could best be achieved through
effective goal setting at both an individual and organizational level. Key concepts in this
area were developed by Drucker (1958) who presented the framework for successfully
managing the enterprise of business through the use of objectives. House and Mitchell
(1974) combined the two streams of understanding employee motivation and managing
performance toward organizational objectives with the Path Goal Theory. In their
research the authors found empirical support for higher performance against goals where
the followers were motivated by the achievement of objectives. Furthermore, that
motivation leads to greater performance against future objectives. In this environment, it
is the role of the leader to increase the motivational factors associated with goal
achievement while communicating the types of paths that might be taken to achieve the
objectives.
As Path Goal theory began to look at management as leader behaviors that
influence the resultant outcomes of an organization (House and Mitchell 1974), a number
of other investigators began to more fully focus on behaviors as the key to successful
leadership. These investigations included Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) theory of
Situational Leadership and Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) concept of the leadership
continuum. With these studies the line between what constituted effective management
and effective leadership begins to become broader and less well defined.
15
2.1.3 Leadership or Management
The review of the leadership related literature clearly points to studies that fall
into two categories, those interested with effective management and those interested in
effective leadership. But what is the difference between these two categories? Just as
there are conflicts in what the exact definition of leadership is, there exist conflicts in
how leadership and management are or are not inter-related. In his seminal work,
Sheldon (1923) developed a professional creed for managers to ensure that industry was
run with the greatest efficiency possible. Included in this creed were key tenets regarding
how management should be incorporated as a stabilizing influence on industry, one that
safeguards against disruptive change. This tenet runs in conflict with the concept of
leadership as the catalyst for managing and even promoting change in an organization to
enable further growth and success discussed by many authors including Collins (2001)
and his discussion of the Level 5 leader who quietly moves his organization forward to
greatness and Tompkins (2007) and his discussion of the bold leader who energizes the
organization to move and grow.
This division between the meaning of management and leadership is a relatively
recent split within the literature. In his extensive review of the literature in this area, Rost
(1998) found the words used interchangeably beginning in the 1930’s and continuing on
in some research areas through the 1980’s. The effort to split the meaning of the
two words began in the late 1950s and remains unresolved. Rost notes that a key gap in
these efforts to split the meaning of the two words is the tendency of researchers to
denigrate management to ennoble leadership. Or as Mintzberg (2009, 12) states simply:
“ever since the distinction was made between leadership and management – leadership
16
somehow being the important stuff and management being what surgeons call the scut
work – attention focused on leadership.”
This increase in attention has seemingly driven an increase in the confusion
between the two terms, created by their being used interchangeably (Hunt 2004). To
avoid this overlap, Kotter’s (1990) distinction can be utilized. In this definition,
management, including its planning function, makes an operation run smoothly, and
leadership, including direction setting, closely related to planning, makes an organization
produce or adapt to change. In this way, management and leadership are two sides to a
coin and both are needed to successfully move an organization forward. Leadership
could be considered the key part of what Mintzberg (1971) described as the interpersonal
work of managers. A view he echoed almost four decades later when he said:
My view is that management without leadership is disheartening or discouraging. And leadership without management is disconnected, because if you lead without managing, you don’t know what’s going on. It’s management that connects you to what’s going on. (Mintzberg 2009, 12)
This understanding of the differences, both perceived and real, between
management and leadership is important because of its relationship to transformational
leadership. As will be discussed in later sections, oftentimes the break between
transformational leadership and transactional leadership is considered to be akin to the
break between leadership and management (Graham 1988).
17
2.1.4 Why Study Leadership
Why is the topic of leadership so interesting and important to human kind that the
depth and breadth of research on the topic is so great? Put simply, it may be the very fact
that the “quality of our lives is dependant on the quality of our leadership” which occurs
because “leaders wield power, and so we study them with the same self-interested
intensity with which we study diabetes and other life-threatening diseases” (Bennis 2004,
331). Given the disproportionate impact that leaders can have on the population, it is of
little wonder that so much effort is dedicated to the pursuit. However, this answer does
not appear to be sufficient. For while Bennis’ words are dramatic, they best support the
interest in studying political and military leaders and do little to support the level of
interest in business and other leaders who do not hold a position with potential for life
and death impacts.
To understand the high interest in industrial and other organizational leaders,
other sources must be investigated. Beginning with early studies, the interest in
understanding leadership springs from self interest, whether it was the work of Taylor
(1916) showing how better organizational leadership lead to better working conditions or
Follett (1949) who noted that good leaders assume grave responsibilities and play a
creative part in the success of a large portion of our society. This vein of research
pioneered by Follett, where the actions of leaders were thought to impact the output of
business, has gained even more focus with the ongoing struggles of the performance of
the world economy in 2009, driven in part by ethical lapses in business leadership
(George and McLean 2007, Palmer 2009). Just as the actions of a small number of
business leaders had a large negative impact on the global economy, this highly leveraged
18
impact of business leadership can create large positive impacts for humanity’s largest
problems (Maak and Pless 2009). For these reasons, even though the impact of business
leadership may not involve life and death, it can have material repercussions on society.
2.2 General Leadership Theories
It seems that leadership has been viewed as an important area of study for much
of human history. Discussions of the study of leadership can be found in the classical
works of the Greeks, Romans and Chinese (Bass 1981). Over time, the study of
leadership generally began to follow one of two paths: trait and behavior theories.
The first path, trait theories, has its origins in the Great Man theory (Carlye 1888).
This theory is focused on the traits of leaders and how those traits set the leader apart
from his followers (Bass 1981); it also sets effective leaders apart from ineffective ones
(Higgins 1994). Generally, trait are built on the idea that a leader is born, not made. As
such, the research is focused on identification of leadership traits, so the successful future
leader can be identified and hired. The research into trait theories was extremely active
in the first part of the 20th century, before falling out of favor (Bass 1981). The reason
for this change included the studies of Bird (1940), who found little agreement in a meta
study of leadership traits regarding which traits were truly important for leadership
effectiveness; Jenkins (1947) who found little agreement on important traits in a meta
study of military leadership studies; and Stogdill (1948) who, used a meta study that
found clusters of items that were more generally important than the findings of Bird or
Jenkins, identified that the importance of the cluster varied based on the situation. With
these studies pointing to a general inadequacy in the trait theories, leadership research
19
faced its first crisis (Antonakis et al. 2004b). As a result of that crisis, researchers began
to focus their efforts on the identification of what was hoped to be a more universal set of
findings regarding effective leaders, which lead to the behavioral theories.
The second path, behavioral theories, looks at leadership as a series of behaviors.
This path had its origins in the studies of Lewin and Lippitt (1938) which investigated
democratic vs. autocratic leaders. The seminal works in this space were completed
through the University of Michigan (Katz, et al. 1951) and Ohio State (Stogdill and
Coons 1957) studies that identified two dimensions of leadership. The first dimension,
generally referred to as consideration, seeks to capture a leader’s employee orientation.
While the second, initiating structure, is concerned with the production of the
organization. These concepts where furthered by other researchers, notably Blake and
Mouton (1964) who developed the two-dimensional managerial grid as a guide to
understanding leader behavior in terms of a focus on people vs. a focus on production.
By breaking leadership into multiple dimensions based on the actions of the leader, the
behavioral school of research set the groundwork for the new leadership school
promoting visionary or charismatic leadership theories (Antonakis, et al. 2004b).
Included in these theories was the beginning of transformational leadership.
20
2.3 Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has been called the new paradigm of leadership
(Bryman 1992) and is generally considered to have its foundation in the work completed
by Burns in political leadership in the late 1970’s (Barbuto 2005). At that time, Burn’s
(1978, 20 - 21) explained that transformational leadership:
. . . occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. [. . .] But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both.
This foundation was furthered by the work of many, predominately Bass (1985,
1990) who defined the components of the full range leadership model, including
transformational leadership, and co-researchers, notably Avolio (1994, 2005), who
completed many studies that further refined the questions and factor structure of the
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) instrument utilized to measure the full
range of participant leadership, and Kouzes and Posner (1995), who defined the concept
of exemplary leadership (Barbuto 2005). Bass (1985) was the first to publish a multi-
factor definition of transformational leadership. In his definition, which has become the
dominant definition in the research space, transformational leadership has
four dimensions:
• Charisma – The degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause
followers to identify with and trust the leader. This trait is about the leader
21
providing a role model for the followers (Bass 1985). The label of charisma was
later changed to Idealized Influence when the concept of charisma was criticized
as being incompatible with transformational concepts (Barbuto 2005).
• Inspirational Motivation – The degree to which a leader articulates a vision that
appeals and inspires followers. These leaders challenge followers with high
standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide meaning for the
task at hand (Bass 1985).
• Intellectual Stimulation – The degree to which a leader stimulates new ideas and
creative solutions from their followers by challenging assumptions and
encouraging risk taking (Bass 1985).
• Individualized Consideration (or Individualized Attention) – The degree to which
the leader understands the individual needs of each of their followers and attends
to those needs (Bass 1985).
While each of these individual components, is itself, an important set of leadership
behaviors, it is the combination of the four areas that leads to successful transformational
leadership behavior that motivates others to do more than they thought possible (Avolio
and Bass 2002).
An alternate framework for transformational leadership is provided by Kouzes
and Posner (1995) who defined the concept of exemplary leadership, sometimes referred
to as transformational leadership (e.g., Bell-Roundtree 2004, Barbuto 2005), as
characterized by five leadership practices:
22
1) Challenge the process – leaders who venture out and accept challenge.
2) Inspire a shared vision – leaders who have a clear vision for the future and can
articulate that vision in an inspiring way to followers.
3) Enable others to act – leaders who recognize that it takes a team action to
accomplish organizational objectives and empower the team to take the actions
needed to achieve success.
4) Model the way – leaders who go first, by setting the example they build
commitment and create progress and momentum.
5) Encourage the heart – leaders who show others that they can win, they
understand the needs of their followers and provide appropriate encouragement.
Although the exemplary leadership model has been utilized with the label
transformational leadership, it is both similar to and different than the complete definition
of transformational leadership created by Bass (1985). The key difference is that Bass
(1990) holds that charisma is a key component of the success of the transformational
leader, while Kouzes and Posner (1995) view charisma as a myth of leadership, stating
that leaders do not posses special powers, but instead hold strong beliefs in a purpose and
a willingness to express those convictions. Despite this difference in components, both
models hold that transformational leadership delivers results by going beyond the
individual leader and follower needs and focusing on a common purpose, vision, set of
values, commitment and intrinsic rewards (Bass 1985, Kouzes and Posner 1995).
However, the single largest difference in the two models was in their development
approach. Bass (1985) developed a theoretical model based on the work of Burns (1978)
and then built an instrument to validate that model. The approach has been the
23
foundation of extensive research, resulting in evidence supporting the model (Antonakis,
Avolio and Sivasubramaniam 2003). In contrast, the exemplary leadership model was
developed by analyzing the “personal best” memoirs of a sample of leaders to identify
specific characteristics of each case and then building a long list of questions on
leadership behavior, from which factor analysis was used to extract the five key
behaviors (Kouzes and Posner 1995). This empirical case data approach provides the
Kouzes and Posner model with strength in its basis of evidence (Sashkin 2004). In this
way, Kouzes and Posner (1995) developed a model with behaviors that are much more
specific than the dimensions developed by Bass (1985). However, the exemplary
leadership model focuses almost entirely on behavior, ignoring situational context and
leadership traits and there does not appear to be any clear theory base for the model
(Sashkin 2004). For this reason and others discussed later in the measurement section,
this dissertation will focus its work on the transformational leadership framework
developed by Bass.
2.3.1 The Full Range Leadership Model
Transformational leadership is only one component of the framework Bass (1985)
developed, which he named the full range leadership model. It includes not only
transformational, but also transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership (or the
absence of leadership). In this way, Bass utilized his definition of transactional
leadership to incorporate the behavioral leadership approaches studied earlier (Sashkin
2004). Transactional leaders use conventional reward and punishment to gain
compliance from their followers – both the leader and the follower influence each other
24
to ensure that each receives something of value (Yukl 1981). The relationship becomes
one of mutual dependence where the leader must continue to be aware of changes in
follower’s expectations in order to meet them and remain successful (Kuhnert and Lewis
1987). Bass’s (1985) definition has two components:
• Contingent Reward – In this system a bargain is struck and a contract signed
between leader and subordinate. From that time forward, the employee’s efforts
(transactions) are actively monitored and when the terms of the contract are met,
positive reward in the form of praise, salary increases or promotion are provided.
When the terms of the contract are not met, penalization occurs. When utilized
consistently, contingent reward can be an effective form of leadership; however, it
is seldom maintained at the level of consistency required for sustained
performance.
• Management by Exception – This form of management is far more passive.
Since, as long as the contract is honored by the employee, there tends to be little
feedback provided to the employee. Instead there is a mode of silence when all is
well, and when something drops below standard, there is a reaction, including
negative feedback. This mode of leadership can be effective in teaching new
employees what not to do; however, it has minimal effect in teaching employees
what to do. The behavior follows directly from the role of manager as controller.
2.3.2 Transformational Leadership vs. Transactional Leadership
The differences between transformational leadership, an active leadership style,
and laissez-faire leadership, a passive style, are clear and easily identifiable (Bass 1985).
25
However, since both are active styles of leadership, the differentiation between
transactional and transformational leadership, viewed as two ends of the continuum
(Burns 1978), is not as well defined and therefore more researched (Den Hartog, et al.
1997). Generally, the findings have supported that transactional leadership can be
effective when done well (e.g., Yukl 1999, Kuhnert and Lewis 1987, Tracey and Hinkin
1998). However, this effectiveness appears to be limited to environments where
organizational transformation is not an imperative (Tichy and Devanna 1990). In this
way, the split between transactional and transformational leadership can be considered to
be similar to the differences noted between management and leadership (Graham 1982).
2.4 Leadership Effectiveness
The apparent holy grail of leadership theory and research is determining what
makes a leader effective. While the numerous theories of leadership are disparate in
many ways, most share a common goal – to identify components of leadership that make
an organization effective in achieving its goals and use the identified components to
determine a methodology for creating more effective leaders.
Perhaps the simplest definition of leadership effectiveness is what Yukl (1981, 5)
notes as the most common measure, where “effectiveness is the extent to which the
leader’s group or organization performs its task successfully and attains its goals.” The
problem with this simple definition is that it misses two key components: first, it can only
utilize strictly quantifiable aspects of performance, and may miss critical subjective
measures; second, it fails to include the perceptions of the subordinates with regard to
26
their leader (Yukl 1981). If these missing components are included, then the definition of
successful leadership becomes as complex as the definition of leadership itself.
2.4.1 Examples and Definitions of Leadership Effectiveness
Popular literature is quick to canonize the leader of highly successful businesses;
from the leaders of companies that were built to last (Collins and Porras 1994), to specific
leaders, such as Jack Welch of General Electric (Robinson and Robinson 2001, Slater
1998), Bill George of Medtronic (George 2003), and Bill Gates of Microsoft (Wallace
and Erickson 1992). Popular literature is equally quick to demonize those at the top of
failed enterprises such as Enron (McLean and Elkind 2003) or WorldCom (Jester 2003).
While these texts provide interesting reading, they do little to create a definition for
successful leadership. Available definitions for leadership success are present in the latest
leadership research. Is success defined as
• the ability of an individual to receive positive ratings from their leaders and peers
(e.g., Leslie and Fleenor 1998), or
• to move up the corporate ladder (e.g., Howard and Bray 1988), or
• the ability to lead an effective organization (e.g., Denison 1990), or
• the success of the organization in terms of productivity (e.g., Likert 1961, 1967),
or a composite success measure (e.g., Day 2001), or is it
• the ability to successfully bring about change (e.g., Collins 2002, Senge 1990,
Beer 1988)?
Despite the differing methods for defining successful leadership, one thing is clear, most
leadership studies now attempt to distinguish the level of success associated with the
27
behaviors or other patterns being studied (McCauley 2004). This study will take the
same approach. Due to the nature of the benefits purported from transformational
leadership (e.g., Bass 1985, Avolio 2005) and the challenges associated with leadership
in times of great change (Goldsmith 2007, Collins 2009), this dissertation defines
successful transformational leadership by the performance of the organization and / or its
ability to successfully adapt and change.
2.4.2 Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership
“Since the 1980s, research has supported the idea that transformational leadership
is more effective than transactional leadership in generating the extra effort, commitment,
and satisfaction of those led” (Avolio and Bass 2002, 1). It is this claim, and those like it,
that drew this dissertation into the path of investigating what makes a transformational
leader. Is this claim of transformational leadership success supported? Yes, according to
a wide variety of research in a number of industries and environmental conditions,
transformational leadership is an effective leadership style. At the very beginning of the
transformation leadership research boom, Bass (1985) cited numerous examples of
transformational leaders who successfully changed organizations, including Thomas
Watson at IBM and George Patton with the Third Army. More empirical examples soon
followed, from studies of sales force effectiveness (Jolson, et al. 1993), to the employee
satisfaction and commitment at financial firms (Walumba, et al. 2005,) to the climate of
learning created in school environments (Blatt 2002), to the success of large corporations
(Antonakis and House 2004). In all of these cases, a positive correlation was found
between displays of transformational leadership and desired organizational outcomes.
28
In a military setting, Murphy (2002) found that transformational leadership
behaviors had a significant correlation with respondent perceptions of employee
satisfaction, effort and effectiveness as well as organizational effectiveness. In this
manner, Murphy’s research supports the success measure of promoting change, but not
that of organizational success. A similar level of success regarding organizational change
is found in the research of Ozaralli (2003) and Zagorsek et al. (2009). Ozaralli (2003)
completed a study of 152 individuals in a variety of private Turkish businesses finding a
strong correlation (r = 0.619) between leader’s transformational leadership behaviors and
the team’s perceived value of their own effectiveness. Zagorsek (2009) found a
correlation of 0.79 on the organization’s behavioral and cognitive changes as measures of
organizational learning. While neither of the above studies showed a correlation to core
organizational effectiveness measures, they all showed strong influences on other areas of
organizational behavior which have been shown to positively impact organizational
outcomes. These included organizational learning (e.g., Senge 1990), team
empowerment (e.g., Katzenbach and Smith 1993), and employee satisfaction (e.g.,
Buckingham and Coffman 1999).
Transformational leadership’s impact on organizational success, is shown in the
study of education in Ohio performed by Blatt (2002). This study found a statistically
significant correlation (p < 0.001, r = 0.569) between displays of transformational
leadership by the school’s top leader and a positive school climate. In this case, school
climate was used as a key measurement of the health and effectiveness of the school in
educating their students. A further example of transformational leadership’s impact on
core organizational outcomes is found in the work of Jolson, et al. (1993), who in their
29
case driven studies, noted a positive impact in sales performance with the implementation
of transformational leadership behaviors within sales management. Finally, Avolio and
Bass (2002) completed case study analyses that looked at the organizational performance
of several companies under top level leaders who display strong transformational
leadership behaviors, notably Larry Bossidy at Allied Signal and Gertrude Boyle at
Columbia Sportswear.
2.5 Measuring Transformational Leadership
In the vast literature surrounding leadership effectiveness, there are a number of
instruments developed to measure leadership practices and effectiveness. In their
overview of measuring leadership, Kroeck, et al. (2004) identify 30 unique survey
instruments that have been or are being utilized to measure leadership and leadership
effectiveness. Of these instruments, the two that appear to be most commonly utilized for
measuring transformational leadership in the literature are Kouzes and Posner’s
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (e.g., Bell-Roundtree 2004, Day 2003) and Bass’
Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (e.g., Antonakis, et al. 2003, Murphy 2002,
and Bass 1985).
2.5.1 The Leadership Practices Inventory
The LPI is a two part instrument requiring the participation of the leader and
subordinates. The first part of the instrument is a 30 question survey completed by the
leader, based on their perception of their own behavior. Each question is rated on a
10 point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 (almost never engage in this behavior) to 10
30
(almost always engage in this behavior). The second instrument is a 30 question
instrument completed by the subordinates using the same scale on their perceptions of the
behaviors exhibited by the leader. The LPI was thoroughly validated by Kouzes and
Posner throughout its development and implementation (1995).
The LPI has been widely used to measure leadership behaviors including recent
dissertation work. Bell-Roundtree (2004) utilized the LPI to understand leader behaviors
as they related to knowledge worker job satisfaction within the Department of the Army
and its support contractors. The study included a total of 190 respondents, with 181
completing all three instruments. Bell-Roundtree then utilized multiple regression to
better understand the relationship between employee satisfaction and commitment and
each of the five leadership behaviors measured by the LPI. The research found each of
the five behaviors (challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act,
model the way, encourage the heart) to significantly correlate to employee commitment
and satisfaction. No validation of the LPI was conducted, as its reliability had been
previous proven by three referenced studies with Cronbach’s alpha from 0.75 to 0.93
(Bell-Roundtree 2004). In another recent dissertation, Day (2003) utilized the LPI to
understand the leadership practices of project scientists in research and development
(R&D) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Similar to the
work discussed above, Day did not perform a validation on the LPI instrument, instead
referring to the work completed by Kouzes and Posner (1999). The study obtained a self-
report sample of 59 NASA scientists and 120 project member surveys (Day 2003). The
study combined the results of the LPI with a self-reported survey of how the project
scientists spent their day. Day (2003) utilized ANOVA to find a significant relationship
31
between the self reported amount of time spent on leadership duties and the exhibition of
transformational leadership behaviors. These findings were then generalized to conclude
that the more time a project scientist spent focused on leadership, the more effective they
were.
Like most of the instruments examined in this research, the LPI has its detractors.
A study completed by Carless (2001) found that the LPI had weak discriminant validity
on a single company sample of 1400 employees. The study also suggested “that while it
is possible to distinguish conceptually among separate transformational leader behaviors,
either these distinctions are not captured by the LPI or subordinates do not notice the
differences” (Carless 2001, 237).
2.5.2 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Like the LPI, the MLQ is typically utilized as a two part instrument with a self
report form for managers and a second form for raters. The instrument includes 45 items
rated on a five point Likert scale measuring how frequently the behavior fits the person
being rated, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). The MLQ was
thoroughly validated by Bass (1985) during its initial design and has undergone revisions
and additional validations (e.g., Bass and Avolio 1995, Avolio, et al. 1999) over the past
22 years. Appendix A contains a sample of MLQ questions.
The literature supporting the use of the MLQ is substantial and includes
two recent dissertations as well as an application by Towler (2005) similar to the
proposed research. In the first dissertation, Murphy (2002) utilized the MLQ to study the
leadership styles within the United States Navy and correlated those styles to the
32
effectiveness of Navy reengineering programs. Using a sample of 289 respondents, the
study found that transformational leadership behaviors had a significant correlation with
respondent perceptions of employee satisfaction, effort and leader effectiveness as well as
organizational effectiveness. However, no significant relationship was found between
actual goal attainment and any of the leadership styles measured. The second dissertation
was completed by Blatt (2002) and investigated the correlation between transformational
leadership, using two instruments, the MLQ and the Charles F. Kettering School Climate
Profile. The study had a sample of 201 teachers from the Ohio vocational school system.
Blatt’s findings (2002) included significant relationships between two leadership styles
and school climate. A significant positive relationship was found between directors who
utilized transformational leadership and school climate, while a significant negative
relationship was found between school climate and laissez-fare leadership.
Similar to the LPI, the MLQ’s use and reliability has been questioned by some in
the literature. Specifically, Carless (1998) using a large sample (1440) from a single
organization used factor analysis to find the MLQ to be a more suitable measure of a
single higher order model than the multi-factor model that had been validated previously.
This view is also supported by Tejeda, et al. (2001), who utilized a total sample of over
1300 participants, gathered through four distinct samples from three different
organizations. Their study found evidence of an improved model being obtained by
simplifying the transactional components of the MLQ to a three-item subscale using
Factor Analysis. In their proposed version of the MLQ, the instrument would have only
27 items. Interestingly for this dissertation, the issues found with the MLQ were isolated
to the transactional and laissez-fare components of the MLQ (Tejeda, et al. 2001), which
33
are not the focus of the research presented here. These issues with non-transformational
components of the MLQ are similar to the findings of Den Hartog, et al. (1997).
However, these questions of the MLQ’s validity appear to be refuted by more recent
work by Antonakis, et al. (2003), which found the full nine factor model valid in large
homogenous samples. It was also refuted by Rowold and Heinitz (2007) who found
transformational leadership highly convergent with charismatic leadership and both to be
divergently valid from transactional leadership. These results indicated criterion validity
against subjective and objective business performance.
In addition to these two primary instruments, one additional instrument identified
by Kroeck, et al. (2004) was investigated. The Leadership Behavior Questionnaire,
Revised (LBQ) was of interest due to its self-reporting nature and basis in the managerial
grid theory (Kroeck, et al. 2004). However, further investigation yielded a very small
research space using the instrument, with the preponderance of those studies dating back
over 30 years. For this reason, that instrument was removed from consideration.
Armed with an understanding of transformational leadership and its impacts, this
literature review investigated how it might be measured. After identifying an acceptable
option for measuring transformational leadership, this literature review sought to
understand how transformational leadership is developed. In order to better understand
the potential paths for development of transformational leadership, a broad understanding
of how leadership is developed must first be established.
34
2.6 Previous Studies into Leadership Antecedents
The Handbook of Leadership Development (McCauley, et al. 1998) defines
six leadership development experiences, three formal (360-degree format, feedback
intensive programs, and skill-based training) and three informal, sometimes occurring
naturally and sometimes by design (job assignments, developmental relationships, and
hardships). Bennis and Thomas (2002) utilized structured interview techniques to
understand the leadership of a small group of leaders, separated in age by two or three
generations. One of the key findings of their study was the identification of what they
termed leadership crucible experiences. These leadership crucibles appeared to be a
leading indicator of leadership success in the study group. These crucible experiences
included experiences at war or serving in the military, imprisonment, challenges in a
wilderness setting, and significant business challenges. Bennis (2004) has continued to
investigate these experiences and noted that the area remained rich for potential
additional research.
Muldoon and Miller (2005) investigated the life experiences of managers within
the context of a Manager Quad (MQ) defined by an individual success and a career
success axis. In the two quadrants of the MQ most related to transformational leadership,
excellent managers, (high, high) and achievement managers (low, high), they noted
similar behaviors to some of those included in the definition of transformational
leadership. These included effective managers displaying strong other-orientation,
notably when engaged in hardship situations. This other orientation often manifested
itself as a focus on the work unit or company over self. When investigating the
antecedent experiences of managers in these quadrants, they found leaders who often
35
reported having support networks and groups as role models, as well as childhood’s rich
with experience, vividly recalling positive and negative elements.
In an investigation of army leaders in Iraq, Wong (2004) utilized interview
techniques to draw general experience antecedents that appear to be contributing to the
development of innovative leaders within the army. These elements included
successfully dealing with complexity, a behavior learned through holding complex roles;
understanding cultural differences, new war techniques, and rapid change; and being part
of a team unified in a common purpose. These innovative leaders appear to share some
similarity with transformational leaders, so their development experiences are of interest.
Atwater, et al. (1999) investigated a sample of 236 male cadets over a four year
period at a military college to identify predictors of those who would later gain leadership
roles. The study investigated the cadets on seven factors: cognitive ability,
conscientiousness, self-esteem, hardiness, moral reasoning, physical fitness, and prior
influence experiences, in addition to administering the Leader Potential Index (LPI) and
tracking changes in each dimension over time. The effectiveness of the cadets’
leadership was measured using the rank achievement of the cadets at the end of the study,
combined with peer rankings utilized by the institution. The study used regression and
found physical fitness (r = 0.22, p < 0.01) and prior influence experiences (r = 0.24,
p < 0.01) to be most strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness. The study further
hypothesized that physical fitness may be a surrogate for other personality traits such as
perseverance and self-confidence.
In perhaps the most wide ranging study, Howard and Bray (1988) studied a group
of managers over a 30 year period at Bell Labs (now AT&T). The key antecedent
36
findings of that research included a negative correlation between family orientation (r
between -0.34 and -0.18) and career success with positive correlations from projected
career ambition (r between 0.28 and 0.40).
In the two most closely related studies to the research presented in this
dissertation, Towler (2005) utilized the MLQ to understand the parental attachment of
emerging college age leaders and Avolio (1994) utilized a Life History Survey to
investigate potential antecedents to transformational leadership as measured by the MLQ.
Towler’s (2005) study utilized the Parental Attachment Questionnaire and Parental
Psychological Control instruments. This study found that parental attachment style, a
measure of the level of nurturing behavior of the parents toward their child, to be
positively correlated (r = 0.32, p < 0.001) with transformational leadership. Conversely,
father’s parental control was negatively correlated to transformational leadership,
showing that the more controlling the father was, the less likely the child was to display
transformational leadership. Avolio (1994) investigated 182 community leaders’
development along seven dimensions: parental interest, parental educational background,
parent characteristics, extra curricular activities and life satisfaction. The study found life
satisfaction, school experience, and positive work experience to have a significant
relationship to self reported transformational leadership behaviors, while parental interest
and parental moral standards were significant to follower perceptions of transformational
leadership. Overall, the relationships were weaker than anticipated, which Avolio (1994)
confessed may be largely due to the marginal reliability of the life experiences
instrument.
37
2.7 Review Summary
The review has followed the leadership related literature using a macro to micro
approach. It provided an understanding of some definitions of leadership, selecting the
influence and perception based definition from Antonakis, et al. (2004b, 5) for the
discussion moving forward. From there, a discussion of the published investigations into
leadership was followed, leading into an understanding of the conjectured differences
between leadership and management, where management is made up of the activities that
make an operation run smoothly, and leadership is what makes an organization produce
or adapt to change.
Once that foundation was established, a discussion of the importance of
leadership’s role in the world set the stage for a review of the development of leadership
theories in the research literature, eventually leading to transformational leadership and
the full range leadership model. This discussion and comparison provided the rationale
for why transformational leadership, as defined by Bass (1985), may be worthy of further
investigation, but it was not adequate a foundation to fully justify the need for the study.
For that justification, studies into general leadership effectiveness were
investigated. Additionally, specific findings of the benefits of transformational
leadership were discussed, which further strengthened the reason transformation
leadership should be of interest, especially in times of high change and challenge. This
led to the review of how transformation leadership is measured. This review provided
the evidence to show that transformational leadership can be reliably studied. However,
despite the depth and breadth of the review, it failed to identify how transformational
leaders develop. This development path is a gap in the available literature.
38
This gap lead to a review of the studies into the antecedents of leadership. This
area of study is compelling, but has very few empirical studies into how transformational
leaders develop. Thus there is a need and justification for the proposed research. A study
to determine what the antecedents are, that when discovered and nurtured, could lead to
the development of transformational leaders. This dissertation intends to close that gap
with an investigation into the development experiences of leaders and identification of
those experiences that correlate to transformational leadership behaviors.
39
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH STATEMENT
The impact of leadership on company success continues to see growing interest
and emphasis in both the popular media and the research literature. One of the primary
areas of leadership research involves examining the leaders of successful companies to
determine what makes them unique from their peers. These differences are of interest
since leadership effectiveness is believed to have a direct relationship to business
performance (e.g., Collins 2001, George 2003, Bossidy and Charan 2002). However, the
theories on what constitutes leadership effectiveness are varied, and sometimes
conflicting (Kroeck, et al. 2004).
Transformational leadership is a set of theorized leadership behaviors that has
been shown to correlate well with organizational success in a variety of environments,
examples include the United States Navy (Murphy 2002), NASA (Day 2003) and
education (Blatt 2002). In other research (Bennis and Thomas 2002), the experiences
that might make a leader effective have been examined. Examination of these studies
raises the question of whether the development experiences of a leader influence their
displays of transformational leadership.
40
3.1 Research Questions, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
What is missing from these various research streams is a study into what
experiences appear to have helped form the behaviors of transformational leaders. The
research literature contains studies into the impacts of experiences on later displays of
leadership (e.g., Howard and Bray 1988, Atwater, et al. 1999), investigations into the
personality and cognitive predictors of transformational leadership (Bass 1996,
Bass 1998), and explorations of limited developmental experiences as predictors of
transformational leadership, such as parental attachment (Towler 2005) or high school
activities (Avolio 1994). However, the literature lacks an investigation into the breadth
of leadership development experiences during a leader’s lifetime that may influence their
displays of transformational leadership. This research will explore this gap in the
literature by investigating the experiences of leaders and analyzing the correlations
between those experiences and the leader’s display of behaviors across the full range
model of leadership measured by the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The
general research questions that will be investigated in this dissertation are
• What types of experiences may influence later displays of transformational
leadership?
• Are there types of experiences that correlate (positively or negatively) with
displays of transformational leadership?
The specific conceptual model that the study will investigate includes multiple parts.
First, the study will seek to define and explore a set of development experiences that the
literature suggests will impact leadership development. Second, these experiences will
be examined in an attempt to group them into logical development subsets, initially based
41
on the findings in the research literature and subsequently supported with study data.
Finally, these experience groupings will be examined for a relationship with the
leadership elements measured by the MLQ. Figure 3.1 provides a visual representation
of the conceptual model of the study.
Figure 3.1 - Study Conceptual Model
Addressing these questions will provide insight into the development of leaders
who display the full range of leadership behaviors measured by the MLQ. The collection
and analysis of data in this study will enable answers to the following hypotheses:
1. Ho: Leadership development experiences cannot be grouped into logical
factors.
Ha: There are logical groupings of leadership development experiences
that can be grouped through Factor Analysis.
42
2. Ho: No grouping of development experiences correlate to later displays
of transformational leadership.
Ha: There are groups of development experiences that can be shown to
correlate to displays of transformational leadership.
3. Ho: No individual development experiences can be shown to correlate to
displays of transformational leadership.
Ha: There are individual development experiences that can be shown to
correlate to displays of transformational leadership.
3.2 Importance of Research and Contribution
Numerous studies indicate a positive correlation between the transformational
style leadership and business results (e.g., Bass 1985, Bass and Avolio 1995, Antonakis,
et al. 2003). Because of this correlation between business results and transformational
leadership, business should be interested in hiring leaders who exhibit transformational
leadership behaviors, or at least have the potential for such.
The problem is a limited understanding of the factors and experiences that enable
a leader to develop and apply transformational behaviors. While there have been some
studies into the development of transformational leadership, notably Towler’s (2005)
investigation into the influences of parental attachment and Avolio’s (1994) study into
the influences of high school and other early experiences, the understanding is not robust.
A study to identify the roots of transformational leadership would be useful on many
levels. The primary benefit to engineering managers will be to leverage study findings
for hiring decisions. A secondary benefit could include the development of training
43
programs that lead to improved exhibition of transformational leadership qualities within
the leaders of an organization. This dissertation will identify characteristics or
experiences that have a correlation to transformational leadership behaviors. Finally, this
dissertation will introduce a new instrument into the body of knowledge that will be
useful for understanding the leadership development experiences of a sample of
experienced leaders.
44
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The objective of this dissertation is to better understand transformational leaders.
In order to obtain this objective, an investigation into the development experiences of a
population of leaders was planned and executed. Since the population of leaders studied
was expected to contain transformation leaders, this study is expected to indentify
antecedents of displays of transformational leadership behaviors.
4.1 Study Overview
In order to complete this investigation, a study was prepared using a two part
instrument. The first instrument, the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is
designed to measure leadership behaviors across the full range leadership spectrum
including transformational leadership (Bass 1985, Bass and Avolio 1995). In order to
understand the development experiences of transformational leaders, a second instrument
to investigate those experiences was developed and deployed. The investigation used
these instruments to look for correlation between transformational leadership behaviors
and specific antecedent experiences.
This two instrument approach is similar to other studies looking into the
development of leadership. Over a 30 year study with Bell Labs (now AT&T) Howard
45
and Bray (1988) utilized a variety of predictive instruments to find correlations between
experiences and attitudes and career success. Mumford, et al. (1993) developed a robust
background data measurement instrument and then correlated that information with
leadership displays of military academy cadets using the Collegiate Activities Scale.
Atwater, et al. (1999) used a variety of instruments to examine potential correlations to
leadership effectiveness in a class of military cadets.
Several studies into the development of transformational leadership using a
similar methodology have also been conducted and while the majority have focused on
personality expectations and “the empirical support has been spotty" (Bass 1998, 122),
there are a number of studies of both personality and other factors worth noting. Avolio
(1994) linked a Life History Survey to leadership measures from the MLQ. Avolio and
Bass (1994) studied community leaders responses to the Gordon Personality Profile and
the MLQ and found several significant correlations. Popper, et al. (2000) found a
relationship between the attachment of the followers to the leader and transformational
leadership as measured by the MLQ using Bartholomew’s Relationship Questionnaire
(Griffin and Bartholomew 1994). Gershenoff (2003) examined participant’s perceptions
of self descriptive adjectives using the Adjective Checklist (Gough and Heilbrun 1983) to
investigate displays of transformational leadership in leaderless groups finding no
significant relationships between transformational leadership and components associated
with the enabling behaviors (pragmatism, nurturance, and femininity).
Bommer, et al. (2004) used cynicism about organizational change as measured by
Reichers, et al. (1997) as a predictor of transformational leadership behaviors as defined
by Podsakoff, et al. (1990). Rubin (2003), also used the transformational leadership
46
measures of Podsakoff, et al. (1990) and compared them with measures of leader
personality traits (Goldberg 1999) and the leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) using
combined measures of emotion recognition (Nowicki and Duke 2001) and ability to
maintain mood (Watson, et al. 1988). Kudo (2005) examined the emergence of
transformational leadership in adolescents using the MLQ and a combination of
four other instruments investigating parenting styles. Towler (2005) found a relationship
between parental attachment and student displays of charismatic leadership as measured
by the MLQ. Brown, et al. (2006) failed to find a correlation between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership, while Barbuto (2005) found significant
correlation between leader’s results on the Motivation Sources Inventory (Barbuto and
Scholl 1998) and the MLQ.
While many of these studies looked for, and found, antecedents to the types of
leadership being studied, the majority focused on either personality or behavioral aspects
of the leader in question, not the experiences that preceded the displays. The most
notable exception to this is the work of Howard and Bray (1988), a thirty year study of
the development of leaders within Bell Labs (now AT&T). However, this seminal study
did not investigate transformational leadership. Instead, the Howard and Bray study
investigated the development experiences of these Bell Labs leaders in order to find
predictors of career success within the company.
In the transformational arena, the most similar study to the research outlined in
this dissertation is the work of Kim (2003) who examined the ability of formal action
learning experiences (group problem solving sessions with a specific focus on learning)
to develop transformational leadership. Antecedent experiences similar to Kim’s action
47
learning experiences are included in this dissertation through the fifth pillar of the LLI as
part of the formal development experiences examined. These studies provide
foundational support for the proposed methodology while further highlighting the
potential contribution this dissertation to society’s understanding of leadership and in
particular transformational leadership.
4.2 Instrument Selection
As noted in the literature review, in research on transformational leadership, there
are two main instruments utilized to understand the behavior of the leader, the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI, Kouzes and Posner 1995) and the Multi-factor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ, Bass and Avolio 1995). While both instruments have been
thoroughly validated, the MLQ holds advantages over the LLI for the proposed research.
Specifically, the MLQ has a greater depth of supporting literature and the instrument
measures the full range of leadership behaviors. For these reasons, the MLQ was selected
as the instrument for this dissertation despite the additional costs for the instrument.
Table 4.1 summarizes the comparisons made between the two instruments.
Table 4.1 - Leadership Measure Selection Criteria and Winner
Criteria MLQ LPI 1. Instrument measures desirable transformational leadership behaviors. 2. Instrument is well supported in the literature. 3. Instrument provides opportunity to compare and contrast other leadership styles. 4. Instrument cost. 5. Instrument can be deployed electronically. 6. Length of instrument is reasonable for completion when combined with the antecedent instrument.
48
Once the MLQ was selected for measurement of transformational leadership, an
instrument was needed to investigate the antecedents of these leadership behaviors.
Using Tests in Print (Buros Institute 1999, Hersen 2004), a variety of tests in the area of
interest were located. Of these, four candidate instruments were investigated more
thoroughly: the Work Profile Questionnaire (Cameron unknown), the Social Insight Test
(Cassel 1959), the Measures of Psychosocial Development (Hawley 1988) and the
Experience and Background Inventory (Baehr and Froemel 1996).
The instrument that appeared, to be the best fit for the antecedent areas discussed
in the research literature was the Work Profile Questionnaire (Cameron, unknown).
Unfortunately no literature around this instrument was located and the Buros Institute
(2009) found the instrument not worthy of review. The Social Insight Test (Cassel 1959)
focused almost exclusively on personality measures, not the participants’ experiences.
The Measures of Psychosocial Development (Hawley 1988), found its areas of study also
along the lines of personality, with some expansion into relationships, one of the key
areas of antecedent interest.
The most promising instrument in terms of antecedent experiences was the
Experience and Background Inventory (Baehr and Froemel 1996). This instrument
included six subscales to represent various experiences in life including Work
Experience; Activities and Interests; Educational Experience; Financial Responsibility;
Financial Experience; and Leadership and Responsibility. Unfortunately, outside of the
studies done by the authors of the instrument, there was little literature in support of the
instrument and Ferrara (2003) found the content of the instrument confusing with poor
reliability scores. These difficulties, combined with the high cost of the instrument,
49
removed from consideration. The results of this review reconfirmed the initial findings
of a gap in the literature concerning actual experiences as antecedents. Due to these
deficiencies, the decision was made to develop a new instrument. After this decision was
discussed and finalized with the author’s doctoral committee on 30 January 2009, the
development of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI) began.
4.3 Development of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI)
Using the literature review as a foundation for determining what types of
experiences might correlate to later displays of transformational leadership, a theoretical
model was created. This model includes five pillars that support the development of a
transformational leader. The pillars are used as the hypothesized factors for the question
set included in the LLI. Each question in the LLI is scored on a 5 point Likert scale.
Figure 4.1 presents a summary of these pillars. The following sections provide more
detail on the theoretical development of these pillars and the instrument developed to test
the theory.
50
Figure 4.1 - Overview of Theoretical LLI Model
4.3.1 The Nature of Key Relationships
The questions included in this pillar are designed to better understand the impacts
on the respondent by those who might have a significant relationship with the respondent
and may have influenced the development of their leadership style. These relationships
include those with parents (e.g., Mumford, et al. 1993, Muldoon and Miler 2005,
Towler 2005) and those with mentors (e.g., Atwater, et al. 1999, Sosik, et al. 2004). In
order to better understand these relationships and the experiences surrounding them, a set
of twenty three questions was created to explore this area. Example questions include
• My father provided an environment that supported growth and learning.
• During my career I have developed formal relationships with a mentor(s) to
support my development.
51
4.3.2 Early Development Experiences
The questions in this pillar are designed to understand the experiences the
respondent had at a young age that may have had an impact on the development of the
respondent’s leadership. This includes being active in sports and other groups as a youth
(e.g., Goertzel and Goertzel 1962) and extracurricular activities in high school and
college (e.g., Avolio 1994, Muldoon and Miller 2005). A set of 25 questions was
developed to understand these experiences, including the following examples
• In high school, I was active in student government.
• In college, I was active in club athletics.
4.3.3 Exploratory Experiences
In many biographically based studies into leadership, the strong leaders discuss a
transformational experience that defined their later leadership style (e.g., Bennis and
Thomas 2002, Strock 2003). Since these instances often involve an experience outside of
the working world, this area of exploratory experiences is of interest. The most
commonly researched exploratory development experience involves experiences in
nature (e.g., Stoltz 1992, Burnett and James 1994, Louv 2005). Additional areas include
travel and other forms of cultural immersion (e.g., Evans and Cope 2003); work with
service organizations (e.g., Carlson, et al. 1999); and moments of extreme challenges
(e.g., Bennis and Thomas 2002, Wong 2004). A set of 28 questions was developed to
understand these experiences, including the following examples
• During childhood, my family spent vacation time in natural settings.
52
• During childhood or adolescence, I lived in a culture other than my current
culture.
4.3.4 Early / Previous Work Experience
The questions in the fourth pillar are designed to garner an understanding of the
specific experiences in the respondent’s work history that may have influenced leadership
development. This question set is based on the body of knowledge that generally
involved longitudinal studies of leadership development (e.g., Howard and Bray 1988,
McCauley, et al. 1998, Atwater, et al. 1999). This pillar had twelve questions, including
• I held my first regular job while still a teenager.
• In my career, it has been common for me to lead people older than myself.
4.3.5 Formal Development Experiences
The final pillar in the hypothetical model of leadership development experiences
captures those experiences designed to examine a combination of what McCauley, et al.
(1998) described as formal and informal development experiences. These experiences
are frequently purported to impact leadership behavior, but are less frequently examined
for correlation. The types of training experiences include formal training courses
(e.g., Bass and Avolio 1992, Keller and Olson 2000), management coaching using
360-degree feedback (e.g., Kirkbride 2006, van Rensburg and Prideaux 2006) and job
rotation (e.g., Howard and Bray 1988) among others. The question set developed to
explore this pillar was the smallest in the instrument, with seven questions. These
include
53
• My career experience included a deliberate rotation through multiple job
assignments with a single company.
• I have received beneficial feedback through 360-degree feedback
4.3.6 Demographic Questions
In order to supplement the correlation analysis between the data elements
included in the LLI and the MLQ, the survey participants were also asked to answer the
following five demographic questions:
• years of professional experience, rated on a seven point scale;
• current job level, rated on a five point scale;
• gender;
• level of education, rated on a five point scale, plus no response;
• ethnicity, rated on a standard eight point scale.
These demographic questions were used to look for differences in the displays of
leadership and types of antecedent experiences within the subgroups.
4.4 Refinement of the LLI
As discussed above, the initial LLI was developed to examine each of the five
theoretical pillars of antecedent experiences. Using the background information
identified in the literature review and a series of interviews with current leaders who were
familiar with the MLQ survey, the initial set of questions was developed. This question
set included over 120 questions related to antecedents. Samples can be found in
Appendix B. The set was reviewed with members of the author’s doctoral committee. A
54
number of questions were removed to eliminate obvious content redundancies or other
errors. This reduction left a total of 98 questions plus demographic questions. Sample
questions from this draft of the LLI is located in Appendix B. Before beginning to utilize
the LLI with the target study population a pilot study was performed to better understand
the performance of the draft instrument.
4.4.1 Initial LLI Pilot Study
An initial pilot study using the draft LLI was completed using data from
three sample groups. The first two groups were made available through the Belgian
Armed Forces. These groups included student participants in the Belgian Armed Forces
Officer’s Course (Group 1, n = 9) and students in the Senior Officer’s Course (Group 2,
n = 21). The third group included current graduate students in the Engineering
Management program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (n = 29). While these
populations were not expected to be a representative sample of the target study
population (growth company entrepreneurs and senior leaders), it provided useful
insights into the behavior of the draft instrument. The instrument was deployed
electronically to all three groups by building the survey in the online tool
Zoomerang.com and providing a link to the survey via email to the targeted population.
The data obtained from this initial pilot study was analyzed in a number of ways,
including cluster and correlation analysis. A description of this analysis is included in
Chapter 5. The objective of this analysis was to further reduce the LLI question set in
order to develop a more user-friendly and reliable questionnaire. This was done by
identification and elimination of problematic or potentially redundant questions.
55
4.4.2 Reduction of LLI Question Set into Final Form
As noted above, the goal of the pilot analysis of the LLI was to understand the
behaviors of the draft instrument and reduce the overall question set. This reduction was
completed using three primary tactics. First, redundant questions regarding the
respondent’s relationship with their mother and father were replaced with single
questions referring to parents. Second, questions that had significant (p ≤ 0.01) cross
pillar correlations were eliminated. These were questions that had significant correlation
(p ≤ 0.01) with one or more questions from a different hypothesized pillar. The third and
final strategy was the elimination of highly redundant questions within a single
hypothesized pillar. This redundancy was determined by the number of significant
(p ≤ 0.01) correlations with other questions within the same pillar. These actions reduced
question set of the LLI down too 57 questions. These included 16 questions in Pillar 1 –
Nature of Key Relationships, 13 in Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences, 16 in Pillar
3 – Exploratory Experiences, seven questions in Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work
Experiences and five questions in Pillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences.
Appendix C contains sample questions from the final LLI instrument. With the LLI
refinement completed, the study was ready to move into data collection from the target
population.
4.5 Description of the Survey Population
The focus of the study is to identify the antecedents of transformational
leadership. As such, a group of transformational leaders needed to be identified and
asked to participate in the study. Based on the theories of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985)
56
and studies of Atwater and Atwater (1994) and Avolio and Bass (2002), it is reasonable
to assume that a population of entrepreneurs in the United States would include a number
of transformational leaders. In order to gain a broad spectrum sample from a population
of entrepreneurs, personal contacts were utilized to access members of the Gazelles
group, an executive training and development firm, with the assistance of Gazelles Inc.
CEO, Verne Harnish. Members of the Gazelles group include mid-market companies
focused on growth, coming from all industries. Gazelles members are typically the
thought leaders within their industry (Gazelles 2009). The population targeted from this
group included readers of the company’s weekly newsletter, “Verne’s Insights” with a
total readership of over 10,000.
In order to obtain a greater balance of leaders who displayed transactional
leadership behaviors as well as transformational behaviors, a second population was also
sought. This population included members of the researcher’s LinkedIn contact network,
known to the researcher to currently hold or have recently held leadership positions, with
people management responsibilities, in large companies. Ninety individuals were invited
to participate in the study through this population.
4.6 Deployment of the Study Instruments
Once agreement was received from Verne Harnish to survey his readers, final
preparations were completed to launch the data collection. These preparations started
with purchasing sufficient licenses for use of the MLQ from Mind Garden (2010). Proof
of these purchases is located in Appendix D. Once the needed permissions were
purchased, the MLQ questions were deployed using an online survey platform. When
57
combined with the finalized questions from the MLQ along with the demographic
questions, this resulted in a combined instrument with 104 questions.
Once the online instruments were completed and their functionality tested, the
data collection began with an invitation to the readers of the weekly newsletter. The first
invitation to participate was sent by Harnish to his readers as part of the weekly
newsletter on 18 September 2009. The complete text of that newsletter, including the
invite is included in Appendix E. This invitation was the lead article in the newsletter
and incentivized readers to participate in the survey by offering a free 360-degree survey
with a testimony from Harnish regarding the time needed to participate. This request
generated 413 visitors of which 137 began to complete the survey instrument with 125
completing all questions. Of these 125 full completions, 120 visited the survey to
participate in the 360-degree and 63 completed the needed information to take advantage
of the incentive and obtain their feedback.
A second round of data collection with this audience was launched on
12 November 2009. This time, the 360-degree incentive was not offered, and the article
was placed in the middle of the newsletter. The full text of the newsletter and the request
is located in Appendix E. This request generated 105 visitors of which 63 began the
survey and 53 completed all requested information. Tools within the online platform
were utilized to ensure that readers of the newsletter could only complete the instruments
one time to avoid duplicate data collection.
In addition to the second round of Gazelles data collection, the instrument was
launched with the LinkedIn population defined previously. The instrument was sent to
this population on 14 September 2009. This request generated 35 visitors of which 29
58
began the survey and 27 completed all requested information. The responses from this
population were housed in a separate collection instrument within the online platform to
ensure that the data could be easily separated for analysis. Overall the three data
collection efforts yielded a total of 229 responses to the instruments with 205 completing
all questions.
4.7 Data Collection and Analysis Plan
The data was initially collected in the online platform. Once data collection was
complete, the raw data was downloaded for manipulation in Excel, Minitab, JMP, and
LISREL. Excel tools were utilized to summarize the demographic data collected on the
response population, score the MLQ in terms of the full range leadership model (Bass
and Avolio 1995) and prepare the data for entry into Minitab, JMP, and LISREL.
Following the entry of data into Minitab, JMP, and LISREL, analysis of the data
was completed to test the research hypotheses. The analysis was broken into three parts.
The first part utilized Minitab and LISREL to perform Confirmatory Factory Analysis
(CFA) on the factors of the MLQ using the study data set. The results of this CFA were
compared with the results obtained through similar analysis completed by Avolio and
Bass (2004) on the large data set discussed in the MLQ users guide.
The second phase of the analysis examined the performance of the LLI. This
analysis was completed in two parts. The first part utilized Minitab and LISREL to
complete a CFA on the LLI using the hypothesized five pillars discussed earlier. The LLI
was then analyzed using exploratory Factor Analysis techniques and the Minitab toolset.
59
This second level of analysis was completed to search for better models contained within
the LLI than the originally conceptualized pillar model.
The final phase of the analysis, the relationship between the MLQ and LLI was
explored. This exploration was completed using correlation analysis tools in JMP and
Minitab, regression analysis tools in JMP and Minitab and Structured Equation Modeling
tools in LISREL. The investigations were conducted seeking relationships between the
factors of the LLI and the factors of the MLQ, and between individual elements of the
LLI and the factors of the MLQ. The detailed review of results of this analysis are
presented in Chapter 5.
60
CHAPTER V
DATA ANALYSIS
The objective of the study is to better understand the development experiences of
transformational leaders. This objective has been accomplished through the creation of a
new instrument to understand the leadership development experiences of participants, the
Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI), and the comparison of this instrument with the
Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). This comparison was completed using a
sample of leaders of entrepreneurial companies. The data collected was analyzed in a
number of ways, in three distinct phases. In the first phase, a series of exploratory
analyses was completed on pilot studies of the LLI to refine the instrument and prepare
the instrument for use in the final study.
In the second phase, the complete study data was analyzed in a number of steps.
First, an exploration of the demographic data of the participants was performed and
compared to other known groups of leaders. Next, the behaviors of both the LLI and
MLQ instruments were examined for their psychometric properties using Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques. The results of the CFA analysis were also compared
against results of similar analysis for other studies using the MLQ. In the final step of
this phase, correlation analysis was completed between the pillar scores of the LLI and
61
the leadership scores of the MLQ. This analysis enabled development of the initial set of
relationships between the two instruments was developed.
In the third phase, the information found through the CFA of the LLI was utilized
to reduce the question set of the LLI even further. This reduction enabled the completion
of a Structured Equation Model (SEM) between the LLI and MLQ. This model was then
utilized to finalize the relationships discovered between the two instruments. Figure 5.1
contains a summary of the analysis methodology.
Figure 5.1 - Overview of Analysis Methodology
The analysis was completed using several different software tools. Microsoft
Excel 2003 spreadsheets were utilized to compile simple demographic information and to
format the output of other software packages into tables for this document. The
Minitab15 statistical software package was utilized to perform comparisons between
different demographic subsets in the data collected, initial CFA analysis of both the LLI
62
and MLQ, and completion of the correlation analysis between the LLI and MLQ. The
JMP 8 Statistical Discovery software package was utilized to complete the correlation
analysis of elements within the LLI and for the comparison between the LLI and MLQ.
Finally, LISREL 8.8 was utilized to complete the full CFA analysis on both the LLI and
the MLQ.
5.1 Pilot Study and Refinement of the LLI
In order to initially test and refine the content of the Lifetime Leadership
Inventory (LLI) instrument a pilot study of leaders was conducted using the instrument.
This study involved the collection of data from three distinct groups as outlined in
Table 5.1. While useful for the refinement of the instrument, these groups were not
expected to be representative of the population that would be accessed in the primary
study for two key reasons. First, the native languages of over half of the respondents was
something other than English. Second, over 50% of the sample currently served in
military leadership positions which was not expected in the target population.
Table 5.1 - Pilot Study Population Overview Group Participants Description
BAF 1 9The French speaking group of the Belgian Armed forces junior officers course.
BAF 2 21The Dutch speaking group of the Belgian Armed forces junior officers course. (high degree of English fluency)
UAH 1 29A group of graduate students in Engineering Management at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
59
63
5.1.1 LLI Pilot Study Data Analysis
The data set collected through the pilot study was analyzed using a variety of
techniques. Initially the data was explored using cluster analysis (Johnson and
Wichern 2002, Everitt 1993) in order to identify groupings within the data. This analysis
was completed to understand the natural groups apparent in the data set and compare
those groups with the groups created by the hypothesized pillars in the LLI. This analysis
was completed by entering the raw responses (integer values 1 – 5) to the LLI questions
into Minitab 15 and using the cluster analysis toolset to develop the initial set of clusters.
Initially the cluster analysis was completed using the single linkage method, chosen for
its simplicity (Johnson and Wichern 2002). This analysis was performed using
unconstrained parameters in Minitab 15 that allowed the software to identify as many
clusters as available in the data set, with a similarity target of 0.70. Figure 5.2 contains
an example dendrogram from this analysis. As illustrated by Figure 5.2, this method of
cluster analysis was not useful in identifying major clusters in the data set. For this
reason, additional cluster analysis techniques were explored to find a more clearly
differentiated set of clusters.
These additional rounds of cluster analysis were completed using Ward’s
method. The Ward’s method of analysis was selected for its ability to minimize the loss
of information through weighting the clusters (Johnson and Wichern 2002). Using an
unrestrained analysis setting, this method generated a set of eleven clusters as shown in
Figure 5.3. While these new clusters generally aligned with segments of the
hypothesized pillars, they also included some unexpected combinations. These
64
Figure 5.2 - Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study
65
Figure 5.3 - LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram using Ward's Method
66
unexpected combinations indicated a high degree of similarity between the seemingly
disparate questions regarding residing in multiple countries or cultures (questions 10-1
and 10-4) and holding a job while in college (question 9-1). These clusters were further
explored using correlation analysis (Lapin 1990) to better understand the questions that
were grouped together and potential reasons for the grouping. The results of this analysis
can be found in Appendix F. The cluster analysis and supporting correlation analysis of
the initial data set provided an understanding of how the data collected naturally grouped
together. This analysis was completed to ensure that the data was not grouping in an
unexpected way. If the data had grouped in an unexpected way, it would have
necessitated the need to revisit the design of the LLI. Instead, the results provided an
initial validation of the hypothetical pillars included in the LLI.
Upon reviewing the results of the analysis with the committee, a recommendation
was made to further explore the data using a broader correlation analysis than the
technique applied to the individual clusters identified using Ward’s method. This
analysis compared all available pairings of all questions included in the LLI. By
exploring the data in this manner, the intent was to identify questions that could be
eliminated from the LLI, and create a simpler instrument. This analysis proceeded with a
complete correlation analysis of all of the questions in the data set using JMP 8. The
complete matrix of all correlations is included in Appendix F and summarized below in
Table 5.2. Overall, the analysis found 152 significant (α = 0.01) pairings in the data.
Within that group, there were 52 pairings with correlation values of greater magnitude
than ±0.5. This analysis was utilized to refine the instrument by eliminating a number of
questions from the total data set.
67
Table 5.2 - Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5
Total Questions 27 28 31 13 7
Significant Correlations in Pillar (0.01) 48 87 60 20 8Total Correlations in Pillar 231 300 378 66 21
Percent of Correlations Significant 20.8% 29.0% 15.9% 30.3% 38.1%
Significant Cross Pillar Correlations 17 59 60 64 30Total Cross Correlations 1584 1725 1848 984 609
Percent of Correlations Significant 1.1% 3.4% 3.2% 6.5% 4.9%
5.1.2 Reduction of the LLI Data Set
The effort to eliminate questions from the data set utilized the correlation analysis
combined with some expert opinions to drive the reduction. These eliminations were
completed using three rules:
• Combination of mother / father repetitive questions into a series of parents
questions with the addition of a mother / father differentiation question.
• Elimination of cross pillar questions – questions that correlated significantly
with a number of questions from a different pillar and whose elimination did
not appear to cause a degradation in the quality of the data collected.
• Elimination of redundant questions – questions that had a large number of
significant correlations within the pillar.
• These reductions resulted in a refined instrument with 57 questions. Samples
from this refined question set are located in Appendix C. This refined LLI
had a substantial reduction in the number of cross pillar correlations and
redundancy within a single hypothesized pillar.
68
The pilot study and subsequent analysis provided a better understanding of the
behaviors of the LLI and enabled a substantial reduction in the question set. The factors
identified through exploratory Factor Analysis partially support the hypothesized pillar
models of the LLI described earlier. Based on the decision of the committee, the study
moved forward using the hypothesized pillars of the LLI. From this point, the study
moved into the full data collection and analysis using the final 57 question instrument.
5.2 Demographic Analysis of the Study Data Set
As detailed in Chapter 4, the full data collection process was completed with two
different populations – respondents generated from the Gazelles weekly newsletter
readership and the author’s online connections through LinkedIn. The Gazelles group
was expected to include a disproportionate number of transformational leaders which
created the concern that there would not be a large enough spread in leadership types to
allow for meaningful results from the study. In order to address this concern and seek a
greater diversity in the types of leaders examined, the LinkedIn group was added. These
two sources generated a total of 205 complete responses. Respondents were
predominately male and Caucasian, and included a range of experience, education and
position levels. Notably, nearly 80% of the population identified their business role as
executive level, nearly 90% of respondents had ten or more years of professional
experience, and nearly 85% held at least a Bachelor’s degree with a full 43% holding
advanced degrees. Tables 5.3 through 5.6 contain summaries of the key demographic
information of the participants.
69
Table 5.3 - Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender
Asian
Black, African,African
AmericanNative
American OtherPrefer not to answer
Spanish, Hispanic,
Latino
White, Caucasian,
EuropeanGrand Total Percent
Female 1 1 2 2 30 36 17.6%Male 12 1 1 8 2 143 167 81.5%Prefer Not to Answer 2 2 1.0%Grand Total 13 1 1 9 2 4 175 205
Percent 6.3% 0.5% 0.5% 4.4% 1.0% 2.0% 85.4%
Table 5.4 - Participant Job Level Demographics by Source
SourceExecutive (President, VP,
Senior Officer, etc.)Individual Contributor
(Engineer, Analyst, etc.)Manager (Director,
Department Head, etc.) Not ApplicableSupervisor (Team Lead, Assistant Manager, etc.) Grand Total
Gazelles 147 1 20 7 3 178LinkedIn 12 6 7 1 1 27Grand Total 159 7 27 8 4 205
Percent 77.6% 3.4% 13.2% 3.9% 2.0%
Table 5.5 - Participant Experience Level Demographic Information by Source Source 3-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 21-30 yrs 31+ yrs Grand TotalGazelles 1 19 57 83 18 178LinkedIn 3 10 10 4 27Grand Total 1 22 67 93 22 205
Percent 0.5% 10.7% 32.7% 45.4% 10.7%
Table 5.6 - Participant Education Level Demographic Information by Source Source
High school graduate (or equivalent) Some college
Associate degree (2 year degree)
Bachelor's degree (4 year degree)
Graduate or professional degree
Prefer Not to Answer Grand Total
Gazelles 10 16 4 76 71 1 178LinkedIn 1 8 18 27Grand Total 10 17 4 84 89 1 205
Percent 4.9% 8.3% 2.0% 41.0% 43.4% 0.5%
In order to understand how the demographics of the leaders who participated in
this study differed from other populations of leaders, a comparison was made with the
2009 listings of the Inc. 500 (Buchanan 2009) and findings of the Spencer Stuart CEO
Study (2006), which utilized publically available information to define the demographics
of the 502 CEO’s of the S&P 500 companies. This data allowed direct comparisons of
70
the study data with the S&P 500 leaders in the area of education and with the Inc.
500 leaders in the areas of ethnicity and gender. Using Minitab 15 to perform
two proportion tests for all available comparisons in the data found only
four comparisons with significant differences (α = 0.05, p < 0.001):
• A higher percentage, 62.9 vs. 43.4, of S&P leaders hold advanced degrees than
found in the study population.
• A higher percentage, 97.0 vs. 86.7, of S&P leaders hold college degrees than
found in the study population.
• The study population included a higher percentage of women, 17.6 vs. 2.0, than
the Inc. 500 leadership.
• The study population included a higher percentage, 13.8 vs. 8, of non-Caucasians
that the Inc. 500 leadership.
Initially, these differences raised a concern that the data collected in this
dissertation was not a representative sample of leaders. However, due to the unique
nature of the comparison groups, which included only the top executive of large and
successful companies, versus the broader sample of leader roles included in the
dissertation data this concern was not valid. Since the CEO position represents a unique
subset of the population, it was not unexpected to find differences between the two
groups. Therefore the initial doubts raised by the comparisons were determined to be
unfounded.
71
5.3 Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
Once the demographics of the study participants were understood, the next step in
the analysis was to understand the behaviors of the MLQ within the study data set. The
analysis completed first compared the behavior of the leadership measures found in the
study against the known population of MLQ data using the nine factor model of the
MLQ. Next the factor structure of the MLQ was explored using confirmatory factor
analysis. The results of this analysis for the data collected in this dissertation were then
compared to the known population of MLQ studies.
5.3.1 Comparing the Leadership Measures of the Study and MLQ Population
In a manner similar to that completed by Avolio and Bass (2004) participant
responses were compiled, based on the various leadership measures contained within the
nine factor model of MLQ. The output of these calculations is contained in Table 5.7.
The results of the measures were then compared for each of the different groups to
determine any statistically significant differences.
These comparisons were made using a single sample Z-test (Johnson 1994). This
test was utilized because the data set compiled in the MLQ User Manual (Avolio and
Bass 2004) was considered the population of the instrument, defined here as the
comparison population. The sub groups within the study data set were compared
utilizing the two sample T-test (Johnson 1994). All comparisons against the Avolio and
Bass (2004) data set were made using their results for self-rating responses, the same
instrument utilized for this study. These tests found a number of significant differences
in the data set for this study, summarized as follows:
72
• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.003) greater
tendency toward Idealized Influence (Behavior) characteristics than did the
comparison population.
• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05, p < 0.001) greater
tendency toward Inspirational Motivation behaviors than did the comparison
population.
• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.008) greater
tendency toward Management By Exception (Attributed) behaviors than did
the comparison population.
• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.019) greater
tendency toward Management By Exception (Passive) behaviors than did the
comparison population.
• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.002) greater
tendency toward Laissez-faire behaviors than did the comparison population.
The comparisons between the two groups included in the study data set, Gazelles
readers and the LinkedIn group, did not find the same number of significant differences.
Those found were as follows:
• The Gazelles population displayed a significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.02) greater
tendency toward Management by Exception (Passive) behaviors than the
LinkedIn study group, which did not display a significant difference between
the Avolio and Bass population (2004).
• The Gazelles population displayed a significantly (α = 0.05, p = 0.02) greater
tendency toward Laissez-faire behaviors than did the LinkedIn population.
73
Table 5.7 - Descriptive Statistics for MLQ Results
Scal
eM
ean
SDR
ange
Mea
nSD
Ran
geM
ean
SDR
ange
Mea
nSD
Ran
geIIA
3.00
0.72
4.00
3.00
0.75
4.00
2.93
0.56
2.23
2.95
0.53
3.50
IIB3.
110.
804.
003.
140.
814.
002.
910.
642.
502.
990.
593.
75IM
3.21
0.76
4.00
3.22
0.80
4.00
3.16
0.43
1.50
3.04
0.59
3.50
IS3.
000.
724.
002.
990.
754.
003.
150.
481.
752.
960.
523.
50IC
3.10
0.74
4.00
3.08
0.77
4.00
3.28
0.47
1.75
3.16
0.52
3.00
CR
2.93
0.76
4.00
2.92
0.76
4.00
2.96
0.76
3.50
2.99
0.53
3.50
MBE
A1.
730.
753.
501.
730.
753.
501.
690.
723.
001.
580.
794.
00M
BEP
1.17
0.70
4.00
1.21
0.72
4.00
0.93
0.54
2.00
1.07
0.62
4.00
LF0.
720.
724.
000.
750.
754.
000.
510.
431.
500.
610.
523.
50
Lege
nd:
IIA =
Idea
lized
Influ
ence
(attr
ibut
ed)
Key
of F
requ
ency
:4.
0 =
Freq
uent
ly, i
f not
alw
ays
IIB =
Idea
lized
Influ
ence
(beh
avio
r)3.
0 =
Fairl
y of
ten
IM =
Insp
iratio
nal M
otiv
atio
n2.
0 =
Som
etim
esIS
= In
telle
ctua
l Stim
ulat
ion
1.0
= O
nce
in a
whi
leIC
= In
divi
dual
ized
Con
side
ratio
n0.
0 =
Not
at a
llC
R =
Con
tinge
nt R
ewar
dM
BEA
= M
anag
emen
t by
exce
ptio
n (a
ctiv
e)M
BEP
= M
anag
emen
t by
exce
ptio
n (p
assi
ve)
LF =
Lai
ssez
-faire
MLQ
5x
2004
Sel
f (N
=3,3
75)
(Avo
lio a
nd B
ass,
200
4)To
tal S
ampl
eG
azel
les
Gro
upLi
nked
In G
roup
(n =
205
)(n
= 1
78)
(n =
27)
74
Some of the differences in these populations, notably the increased propensity of
the study population to simultaneously display stronger tendencies toward certain
transformational and transactional components, were unexpected. Table 5.8 shows the
complete results of these comparisons, displaying first the p-values obtained when
comparing the dissertation study group and the comparison population and then the p-
values obtained comparing the two groups contained within the dissertation study.
Table 5.8 – P Values for Comparisons of MLQ Scores
LLI Study Data IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LFFull Set (n = 205) 0.223 0.003 <0.001 0.181 0.129 0.088 0.008 0.019 0.002
LLI Study IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LFLinkedIn (n = 27) 0.570 0.100 0.560 0.146 0.068 0.800 0.791 0.021 0.020
Legend: IIA = Idealized Influence (attributed) IS = Intellectual StimulationIIB = Idealized Influence (behavior) IC = Individualized ConsiderationIM = Inspirational Motivation
CR = Contingent Reward MBEP = Mgmt by exception (passive)MBEA = Mgmt by exception (active) LF = Laissez-faire
MLQ 5x 2004 Self (N=3,375) - (Avolio and Bass, 2004)
LLI Study Data - Gazelles Group (n = 178)
The primary reason for performing these comparisons made in this section was to
determine if the study participants were a representative sample of the known MLQ
respondent population. While the comparisons of the study population did find some
statistically significant differences, the practical difference in the results is limited. The
area of greatest interest in the MLQ information for this study is the measures of
transformational leadership. In these measures, the largest difference can be found in
measure of Inspirational Motivation, with a 5% difference, while the average difference
of all five measures is only slightly more than 2%. The differences in the transactional
75
and laissez-faire components are larger, up to 18% for laissez-faire, but since these areas
of leadership are of secondary interest in this study, these differences are of little practical
consequence. For these reasons, the study data represents the known MLQ population in
practical terms. Once these behaviors of the study data set were understood, the next step
in the analysis was to move from this comparison to an examination of the behavior of
the factor structure of the MLQ using the data collected for this dissertation.
5.3.2 Examination of the MLQ Factor Structure
In order to understand how the measures within the MLQ behaved within the
study sample, the data was first examined to understand the internal reliability of the
hypothesized factors measured by the MLQ using Cronbach’s alpha (1951). Using the
nine factor model MLQ discussed in the previous section, transformational components
ranged in reliability from a low of 0.74 to a high of 0.87. All of these components
exceeded the general rule of a desired internal consistency of 0.70 or above (Cronbach
2004, Gliem and Gliem 2003, George and Mallery 2003). While the transactional
components scored consistently lower, ranging from 0.67 to 0.74. These results included
two factors that scored below the acceptable target of 0.70 and into the questionable
range (George and Mallery 2003). It is of note that this difference has little practical
impact given that the lower of the two measures is only 0.03 below the target threshold.
The results of this analysis are contained in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9 - Cronbach Alpha Reliability Score for Nine Factor MLQ Components
Reliability Scores for Study Data with Nine Factor MLQ Model
IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF Cronbach's
Alpha 0.80 0.82 0.87 0.80 0.83 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.68
76
In addition, the MLQ data was evaluated using Item Analysis for the
hypothesized three factor, two factor and single factor models (Avolio and Bass 2004).
These investigations found some support for earlier researchers (e.g., Carless 1998,
Tejeda, et al. 2001) who found the MLQ may be a better measure of a higher order model
than the nine factor model most commonly utilized in current research (Avolio and Bass
2004). The additional exploration included the three factor model - transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire, the two factor model – transformational and transactional
and a single factor model. Using George and Mallory (2003) thresholds for Cronbach’s
alpha, the study found all of these multi-factor variants had results that showed the
transformational factor had an excellent alpha value, in excess of 0.9, while the
transactional factor had a poor alpha value, below 0.6. The results of all the models are
summarized in Table 5.10.
Table 5.10 - Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Alternate MLQ Models
Transformational Transactional Laissez-faireCronbach's Alpha 0.95 0.58 0.68
Reliability Scores for Study Data with 3 Factor MLQ Model
Transformational TransactionalCronbach's Alpha 0.95 0.57
Reliability Scores for Study Data with 2 Factor MLQ Model
Reliability Scores for Study Data with 1 Factor MLQ Model
Cronbach's Alpha 0.88
The single factor model presents some concerns with its good alpha score of 0.88.
Specifically, this result brings into question the validity of the multi-factor model if a
77
single factor model can score so well. In addition to the alpha score for the single factor
model shown in Table 5.10, an exploratory factor analysis (Stevens 2002, Johnson and
Wichern 2002) of the data was completed. This analysis yielded a model with one factor
many times stronger than the next closest item, explaining 35.5% of the variance. These
results are displayed in the scree plot shown in Figure 5.4. However, while the plot
shows one factor with an Eigen value of nearly four times the next highest scoring factor,
it also displays eight factors that meet the threshold of significance, by holding an Eigen
value greater than 1.0 (Johnson and Wichern 2002).
While the performance of the models with fewer factors raise some questions
about the performance of the MLQ in the full nine factor model, the results are not
raising any question about the instrument beyond what had already been raised in other
research (Avolio and Bass 2004). Since there are no new finding here, the alpha scores
for each of the five transformation components of primary interest in the research were at
a good level of 0.8 or above (George and Mallery 2003), the Eigen values of the first
8 factors were all above 1.0 (Johnson and Wichern 2002) and the detailed work of Avolio
and Bass (2004) has shown the nine factor model has the greatest model fit scores; this
dissertation will simply note that alternate models of the MLQ are available, and
conclude their availability does not negate the validity of the nine factor model. For that
reason, the nine factor model was utilized throughout the remainder of the study.
78
Figure 5.4 - Scree Plot Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the MLQ
Following the initial exploration of the data, the nine factor model was more
thoroughly examined using the confirmatory factor analysis (Albright and Park 2009,
Stevens 2002, Johnson and Wichern 2002) tools available through LISREL 8.8. This
analysis is similar to that published in the MLQ users manual (Avolio and Bass 2004).
The steps included in this analysis were defining each of the nine expected factors
contained within the MLQ, using path diagrams, and running LISREL 8.8 to determine
the factor loadings for each of the questions included in the theoretical factors.
Figure 5.5 displays an example of the path diagram created in this analysis, showing the
path for the Idealized Influence (Attributed) factor within the MLQ.
79
Figure 5.5 - Factor Model for Idealized Influence (Attributed) as Measured by the MLQ
5.3.3 Comparing the Factor Loadings of the Study Data with the MLQ Population
Completing this analysis provided the factor loading values for each question
contained in the MLQ for its expected factor. Once again the results of the analysis
performed on the study data were compared with the same output calculated in the MLQ
users manual (Avolio and Bass 2004) to confirm that there were no abnormalities
contained within the data collected for this dissertation. Table 5.11 contains the full
results of this analysis with a side by side comparison of the results obtained by Avolio
and Bass (2004).
The results of these comparisons show that the factor loading scores of any given
question in its factor varied by as much as 59% between the two data sets. These
80
differences averaged 21% across the 36 questions. While these differences may appear
large, using Hair, et al. (1998) guidance for significance within factor analysis based on
sample size, every question loads significantly, ±0.30, within its respective factor for the
given sample size. Additionally, 67% of the questions meet the ±0.50 threshold for
practical significant within both data sets and 97% meet the threshold within at least one
data set. Furthermore, it is notable that the factor loadings for this dissertation are
relatively stronger than those of the Avolio and Bass (2004) study when sample size is
considered. Therefore, there is no practical difference between the findings of the
participants in the dissertation study and the known population of MLQ participants.
This lack of difference supports the decision to move forward with the nine factor model
of the MLQ for the remainder of the dissertation.
5.4 Analysis of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI)
Once the behavior of the MLQ was understood, the next step in the study was to
develop a similar understanding of the behaviors of the LLI. In order to develop this
understanding, the questions of the LLI were put through a similar analysis to what was
completed with the MLQ. This analysis started by analyzing the pillar scores of the LLI
and comparing the scores obtained for each of the two data sources utilized in the
dissertation data set and then proceeded into a CFA of the LLI.
81
Table 5.11 - Factor Loading Comparisons for Individual MLQ Questions within their Expected Factor
Item
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
Item
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
Item
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
IIA 1
00.
610.
58IIB
60.
760.
48IM
90.
680.
63IIA
18
0.59
0.39
IIB 1
40.
770.
71IM
13
0.67
0.72
IIA 2
10.
750.
57IIB
23
0.57
0.36
IM 2
60.
750.
70IIA
25
0.54
0.53
IIB 3
40.
740.
68IM
36
0.71
0.63
Item
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
Item
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
IS 2
0.67
0.42
IC 1
50.
760.
56C
R 1
0.53
0.24
IS 8
0.80
0.48
IC 1
90.
610.
37C
R 1
10.
720.
56IS
30
0.71
0.68
IC 2
90.
650.
49C
R 1
60.
730.
60IS
32
0.71
0.66
IC 3
10.
650.
74C
R 3
50.
600.
52
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
LLI S
tudy
MLQ
5x
2004
MBE
A 4
0.54
0.60
MBE
P30.
670.
58LF
50.
590.
53M
BEA
220.
750.
70M
BEP1
20.
640.
71LF
70.
680.
38M
BEA
240.
420.
63M
BEP1
70.
430.
33LF
28
0.70
0.57
MBE
A 27
0.77
0.69
MBE
P20
0.55
0.68
LF 3
30.
430.
54
MLQ
5x =
Sel
f rep
orte
d qu
estio
nnai
re d
ata
from
Avo
lio a
nd B
ass
(200
4), N
= 3
,375
Fact
or IC
Fact
or IM
Fact
or M
BEP
Fact
or IS
Fact
or L
F
Fact
or C
R
Fact
or II
AFa
ctor
IIB
Fact
or M
BEA
82
5.4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the LLI
As discussed in Chapter 4, the final version of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory
(LLI) developed for the study included a total of 57 questions split between
five theoretical factors as follows:
• Pillar 1 - Nature of Key Relationships, 16 questions
• Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences, 13 questions
• Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences, 16 questions
• Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences, 7 questions
• Pillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences, 5 questions
In the first step of the analysis, the instrument was broken into its factors and the
descriptive statistics for each factor was calculated. Table 5.12 contains this data for the
entire data set as well as the separate groups involved in the study.
Table 5.12 - Descriptive Statistics for LLI Pillars
Scale Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD RangePillar 1 3.30 0.52 2.50 3.30 0.52 2.50 3.30 0.51 1.81Pillar 2 2.58 0.62 2.92 2.56 0.62 2.92 2.68 0.68 2.62Pillar 3 3.27 0.46 2.88 3.25 0.47 2.88 3.41 0.38 1.94Pillar 4 3.42 0.67 4.71 3.40 0.69 4.71 3.54 0.52 2.00Pillar 5 3.34 0.86 5.00 3.31 0.88 5.00 3.56 0.74 3.20
Legend: Pillar 1 - Nature of Key Relationships, 16 questions Frequency Key: 5.0 = Strongly AgreePillar 2 – Early Development Experiences, 13 questions 4.0 = AgreePillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences, 16 questions 3.0 = NeutralPillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences, 7 questions 2.0 = DisagreePillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences, 5 questions 1.0 = Stongly Disagree
Total Sample Gazelles Group LinkedIn Group(n = 205) (n = 178) (n = 27)
The results of the pillar scores were then compared for the Gazelles and LinkedIn
groups using the nonparametric Kruskal Wallace test (Rice 1995) in Minitab 15 for each
of the pillars. This test was selected because all pillars, except Pillar 3, failed the
83
Anderson Darling test for normality (Rice 1995). The tests failed to reject the null that
there was no difference between the means of the two groups (α = 0.05) for any of the
comparisons with p-values ranging from a low of 0.15 to a high of 0.77. The exception
to this high p-value was Pillar 3, with a p-value of 0.07. Due to this low score, and Pillar
3 failing to reject the Anderson Darling normality test (p = 0.36), this comparison was
run again using the 2 sample t test, which again failed to reject the null (p = 0.07). The
variances of the data were then compared using Levene’s test for Pillars 1,2,4,5 and an F-
test for Pillar 3 (Johnson 1994). The results of these tests failed to reject the null
hypothesis, indicating that the variances of the two groups were equal, with p-values
ranging from 0.20 to 0.61. Since all tests failed to find a difference between the Gazelles
and LinkedIn sources, these groups were combined into a single data set for further
analysis. Once the decision to combine the two data sources was made the analysis
moved to studying the factor structure of the LLI. This phase of the analysis follows the
same steps as were completed previously when the factor structure of the MLQ was
examined.
5.4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LLI
The initial phase of the confirmatory factor analysis of the LLI focused on
evaluating Cronbach’s alpha (1951) for each hypothesized factor (i.e., pillar). The results
of this analysis found Pillars 1 – 3 meeting George and Mallory’s (2003) acceptable
criteria with alpha scores of 0.73, 0.72 and 0.72, respectively. Pillars 4 and 5 fall into the
questionable category, scoring 0.62 and 0.67 respectively; however, both are in a range
that is commonly deemed acceptable for behavioral data (Stevens 2002). Additional
84
analysis performed on the data utilizing this tool set failed to find a better sub grouping
for the elements included in the final two pillars.
As was done with the MLQ data, LISREL 8.8 was then utilized to complete full
confirmatory factor analysis (Albright and Park 2009, Stevens 2002, Johnson and
Wichern 2002) with the LLI data. This process provided the individual factor loading
calculations shown in Table 5.13. Perhaps the most notable part of the results were the
loadings within Pillar 1. In this group, using the significance threshold of 0.30
recommended by Hair, et al. (1998) only the mentor and leader related questions loaded
at significant levels for the given sample size. All of the parent related questions loaded
below the 0.30 minimum level of significance. These results indicated the potential for
two distinct factors within Pillar 1.
Overall, these loadings were not as clean as those found for the MLQ, with only
52% of the items loading at the level of practical significance for the sample size (Hair,
et al. 1998). This result was not surprising given the difference in age and refinement of
the two instruments. However, if the factor loadings are reviewed using the ±0.30
minimum significance level recommended by Hair, et al. (1998), then a full 70% of the
individual questions load significantly within their hypothesized factor.
Utilizing this lower level as the criterion for acceptance and the Cronbach’s alpha
values found through the earlier item analysis, it seems the model is acceptable and can
be utilized for further analysis. This decision is also supported, by examining the
goodness of fit statistics provided by LISREL 8.8. This analysis utilized, the root mean
85
Table 5.13 - Loadings of Individual LLI Questions within their Hypothesized Factors
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading1A-P_Env 0.00 2B-P_Eth -0.05 4E-M_Meet 0.941B-P_Cont 0.06 3-P_LstNum 0.00 5A-L_RM 0.501C-P_Advice 0.15 4A-M_Form 1.03 5B-L_DRM 0.331D-P_Share 0.16 4B-M_LdGd 1.04 5C-L_Und 0.461E-P_MoD -0.03 4C-M_Adv 0.972A-P_ActCom 0.01 4D-M_FdBk 0.95
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading6-Ch_CG 0.42 7E-HS_Hlp -0.85 8D-C_ResL -0.497A-HS_Aspt -0.38 7G-HS_NCSp -0.52 8E-C_Pol -0.627B-HS_ASG -0.91 8A-C_SG -0.65 8F-C_NCSp -0.577C-HS_AIG -0.83 8B-C_Grk -0.357D-HS_SCpt -0.55 8C-C_VSpt -0.28
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading10A-Cu_Ocnt 0.33 11B-RA_VacN 0.34 12B-EE_SO 0.2810B-Cu_Ocul 0.43 11C-RA_CRA 0.37 12C-EE_ND 0.1910C-Cu_Live 0.71 11D-RA_Lfun 0.29 13A-B_Sac 0.2510D-Cu_TrvE 0.79 11E-RA_Tadv 0.49 13B-B_Lrn 0.2710E-Cu_TrvC 0.54 11F-RA_ExpE 0.3711A-RA_NatS 0.32 12A-EE_Inc 0.09
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading14A-Wk_Teen 0.24 14D-Wk_LOld 0.74 9A-CE_Emp 0.3114B-Wk_Lmil 0.15 15E-D_Func 0.45 9B-CE_Mgmt 0.5214C-Wk_LEar 0.95
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading15A-D_Rot 0.87 15C-D_360 0.77 15F-D_PLrn 0.3615B-D_Train 0.87 15D-D_Org 0.62
Key: Questions indicated with the number (group) the appeared withinthe instrument and a brief description (e.g. P_Env indicates Parentenvironment and M_FdBk indicates mentor feedback)
Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences
Pillar 1 - Nature of Key Relationships
Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences
Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences
Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences
square error of approximation (Steiger 1990), a standardized measure of error
approximation, defined by
86
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−
Θ= 0,1)(max
ndfFRMSEA ,
where F(Θ) is the maximum likelihood fit function.
RMSEA was selected since it provides a measure that is “essentially a measure of
lack of fit per degree of freedom” (MacCallum 1995, 30). For this data, the RMSEA was
0.075. This score did not meet the threshold of 0.05 that would indicate a close
approximation (Browne and Cudeck 1993) or a good fit (Kenny 2009). However, since it
was below 0.08, it indicated a reasonable fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993) and falls
squarely in the middle of the range between a good and bad fit (Kenny 2009).
Additionally, the 90% confidence interval, (0.072 ; 0.079), had an upper threshold below
0.08, indicating a reasonable model fit (Kenny 2009).
In summary, these measures indicate a useful model. While the fit is not great, it
meets needed measures of acceptability. For this reason, the initial analysis seeking a
relationship between the LLI and MLQ utilized the LLI in this form. This relationship
analysis was completed utilizing correlation analysis techniques.
5.5 Exploring the Relationship Between the LLI and the MLQ Using Correlation
The exploration of a potential relationship between the LLI and MLQ was done
using a series of correlations that evaluated the relationships of the factors of the
two instruments. This type of analysis was widely utilized in the literature, including a
number of studies attempting to relate one or more instruments to the MLQ (e.g., Avolio
87
1994, Avolio and Bass 1994, Bono and Judge 2003) and two dissertations comparing the
results of two or more instruments (Utley 1995, Bell-Roundtree 2004).
Minitab 15 and JMP 8 were utilized to generate a correlation matrix of the factors
of the two instruments. In the first comparison, the Pillars of the LLI were correlated
with the nine factors of leadership measured by the MLQ. This comparison found that all
Pillars had a significant (α = 0.05) correlation with one or more components of
transformational leadership measured within the MLQ. The strongest relationships
occurred between
• Pillar 3 (Exploratory Experiences) with Idealized Influence (Behavior) and
Inspirational Motivation, correlation at least 0.250
• Pillar 4 (Early / Previous Work Experience) with Contingent Reward, 0.265
Overall, the correlations averaged 0.195 for all 25 comparisons with a maximum value of
0.254 and a minimum value of 0.120. These scores compare favorably with those of
other studies that compared the MLQ with another instrument, including Avolio and Bass
(1994) who found correlations between the MLQ and the Gordon Personality Profile
between 0.21 and 0.25 and with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator between -0.25 and
0.20.
The strength of the correlation between the LLI Pillars and the transformational
factors of the MLQ showed a strong contrast. These comparisons found minimal
correlation between the Pillars and the transactional components of the MLQ, as there
were no significant correlations between the Pillars and three of the four transactional
factors. These comparisons had an average correlation score of 0.009. The exception in
this category was the comparison with Contingent Reward leadership, where all
88
correlations were significant (α = 0.05, p-value between <0.001 and 0.012) and the
average correlation value was 0.205. Table 5.14 provides the full output of this
comparison.
Table 5.14 – Correlation Coefficients & Significance for LLI Pillars and Nine Factor MLQ
IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LFPillar 1 0.160 0.269 0.159 0.192 0.237 0.219 0.023 -0.045 0.008Pillar 2 0.176 0.159 0.224 0.220 0.203 0.179 0.071 0.002 -0.075Pillar 3 0.120 0.251 0.254 0.216 0.245 0.187 0.048 -0.060 0.040Pillar 4 0.145 0.204 0.205 0.193 0.213 0.265 -0.004 0.021 0.021Pillar 5 0.070 0.164 0.124 0.223 0.236 0.175 0.102 -0.001 -0.009
Bold Significant, α = 0.05
Bold Significant, α = 0.01
This clear difference between the strength of the correlation between the LLI and
transformational components of the MLQ and lack of correlation with the transactional
components raised an additional question. Would the LLI correlate more clearly with the
two factor model of the MLQ than the standard nine factor model? A similar correlation
analysis was then completed using the two factor model. This analysis failed to provide a
clear distinction between the relationship the LLI held with the transformational and
transactional components. This lack of distinction is due to the strength of the
relationship the LLI holds with Contingent Reward leadership, which is included in the
transformational component. For these reasons, the comparisons between the LLI and
the nine factor model of the MLQ were retained and the comparisons with the two factor
model were discarded.
The correlation analysis found a number of significant relationships between the
elements of the LLI and the MLQ. While these relationships provided sufficient
89
evidence to complete the hypothesis tests included in this dissertation, the collected data
contained additional information that could be understood with additional advanced
analysis. This analysis was completed using Structure Equation Modeling to investigate
the presumed cause and effect relationships (Johnson and Wichern 2002) between the
LLI and the MLQ.
5.6 Structured Equation Modeling Between the LLI and MLQ
The correlation analysis above yielded a number of significant relationships
between the LLI models and the MLQ. Additionally, the correlation analysis techniques
used above are well supported by the literature for applications such as this within the
social sciences (e.g., Avolio 1994, Avolio and Bass 1994, Stevens 2002). Despite this
support, it was hoped that a complete SEM would yield additional understanding of the
relationship between the two instruments. When considering utilizing a full SEM model
to compare the LLI factor structure with the MLQ factor structure, a number of problems
that raised concern about the technique for this data set were encountered. First, since
SEM is in “broad terms [the] amalgamation of multiple regression and confirmatory
factor analytic techniques” (Brewerton and Millward 2004, 165), the fact that the data did
not meet the required regression assumptions of normality could result in a failure.
However, this issue can be overcome by the modeling tools within LISREL 8.8
(Scientific Software 2009). Second, the data set is not large enough to meet the
expectation of 15 cases per predictor (Stevens 2002) and does not meet the perfectly well
behaved assumptions needed to move to five cases per parameter (Bentler and
Chou 1987). For these reasons, the initial SEM attempt in LISREL 8.8 failed.
90
However, as noted earlier, a number of questions included in the LLI failed to
meet the needed thresholds of significance within the CFA of the instrument. If these
questions were eliminated from the LLI could two benefits be achieved? First, would the
five pillar model of the LLI become better fitting. Second, would the reduction in the
question set enable the existing data set to be large enough to complete the full SEM on
the LLI and MLQ. Using these questions as the objectives of the analysis, an effort was
made to further reduce the elements included in the LLI.
5.6.1 Further Reduction of the LLI and CFA Revisited
Returning to the results of the CFA on the LLI in Table 5.13 shows that there are
fifteen questions within the 57 that fail to meet the target significant loading of 0.30
(Hair, et al. 1998). However, this table also indicates that if all elements below that
threshold were eliminated than the content of Pillars 4 and 5 would no longer be
sufficient for analysis. For this reason, the reduction of the LLI was completed using a
step wise method, with the hope that elimination of very low value questions would cause
the loading in certain borderline questions to increase.
The first round of reduction was done targeting the questions that appeared to add
close to zero value to the model. This was completed using 0.1 as a threshold and
resulted in the elimination of six items and a 51 question instrument. These reductions
caused the hoped for results with some of the previously low loading questions seeing an
increase in their loadings. The next round of reduction applied the 0.30 (Hair, et al.
1998) threshold. This resulted in the reduction of eleven additional questions. From
there, two additional rounds of the CFA were run. These rounds utilized a threshold of
91
0.36 based on the sample size threshold recommended by Stevens (2002), considering the
205 items included in this study. This new threshold was developed to address concerns
regarding the 0.30 standard threshold initially raised through the work of Cliff and
Hamburger (1967) and extended by Stevens (2002). These reductions ended with a 28
item instrument with all items meeting or exceeding the 0.36 threshold for significance of
factor loadings. These newly constituted pillars are defined below:
• Pillar 1 – Relationship with Mentors and Leaders: seven questions, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.87.
• Pillar 2 – High School and College Activities: ten questions, Cronbach’s = 0.68
• Pillar 3 – Cultural Exploration: four questions, Cronbach’s = 0.64
• Pillar 4 – Early Leadership Experiences: four questions, Cronbach’s = 0.61
• Pillar 5 – Structured Leadership Development : four questions, Cronbach’s = 0.66
While these reductions did lower the reliability scores of two pillars that previously met
the 0.70 desired threshold for internal consistency (Cronbach 2004, George and Mallery
2003) below that threshold, all of the pillars remained above the 0.60 threshold
commonly indicative of a marginal model fit (George and Mallery 2003). It appears that
this degradation is more than offset by the fact that all of the questions now load
significantly within their pillar.
5.6.2 SEM Analysis Description and Results
In order to begin the Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) process for evaluating
the relationship between the LLI and MLQ, the overall path diagram indicating the
expected relationships between the questions contained in the LLI and MLQ and their
92
factors was built. This diagram, along with the LISREL 8.8 outputs are located in
Appendix H. Once the model was built in LISREL 8.8, the analysis engine was run. The
results of the analysis indicated that the model was essentially a close approximation of
the data with an RMSEA value of 0.054 only 0.004 away from the 0.05 threshold
(Browne and Cudeck 1993).
Additionally, using the generally accepted |2.0| threshold of significance for the t
value generated by LISREL 8.8 (Stevens 2002), the SEM found significant relationships
between the LLI and MLQ that were more differentiable than those found with the earlier
correlation analysis. Specifically, while each pillar held a significant relationship with at
least two subcomponents of transformational leadership, only three found significant
relationships with Contingent Reward leadership (earlier analysis showed all five pillars
significantly correlated with CR); Pillar 2 (early leadership experiences) indicates an
opposite relationship than all other Pillars; Pillars 3 and 5 load on mutually exclusive
leadership components; and only Pillars 1 and 2 load on the Idealized Influence
(Attributed) component. The SEM found a similar lack of significant relationships
between the pillars and management by exception and Laissez-faire behaviors as was
found in the earlier correlation analysis. These differences in loadings indicate a more
complete contribution to the understanding of the relationship between development
antecedents and transformational leadership than was found through the more simple
correlation analysis. Table 5.15 displays the correlation values found with the SEM
analysis.
93
Table 5.15 - Correlation Values Found with SEM
Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5IIA 0.18 -0.17 0.10 0.14 0.03IIB 0.36 -0.23 0.21 0.21 0.14IM 0.20 -0.25 0.19 0.23 0.07IS 0.16 -0.28 0.15 0.20 0.18IC 0.26 -0.30 0.13 0.25 0.20
CR 0.26 -0.24 0.15 0.25 0.09MBEA 0.07 -0.05 -0.07 0.00 0.09MBEP -0.04 -0.02 -0.09 -0.01 0.00
LF 0.03 0.04 0.02 -0.10 0.00
indicates significant correlation
5.7 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Questions and the MLQ
The exploration of potential relationships between the individual questions contained
in the LLI and leadership measures of MLQ was completed through correlation analysis.
Minitab 15 and JMP 8 were utilized to generate a correlation matrix of these
comparisons. This analysis found a total of nineteen questions that had a significant
correlation with one or more subcomponents of the nine factor model of the MLQ at α =
0.05, while fourteen of those had a significant correlation at α = 0.01. In total, there were
72 significant (α = 0.05) correlation relationships, including 31 pairings significant at α =
0.01. These significant correlations were predominately with transformational factors of
the MLQ, a total of 59 significant relationships, 82% of all significant pairings. The
contingent reward factor of transactional leadership had twelve of the remaining thirteen
significant relationships. The full results of these pairings are shown in Table 5.16.
94
Table 5.16 - Significant Correlations Between LLI Questions and MLQ Leadership Factors
LLI Question IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LFM_Form 0.189M_LDGD 0.266 0.149 0.208 0.213M_ADV 0.169 0.298 0.187 0.181 0.258 0.251M_FDBK 0.176 0.331 0.214 0.197 0.308 0.276M_MEET 0.149 0.235 0.173 0.175 0.209HS_HLP 0.149 0.158 0.182 0.206 0.22HS_NCSP 0.193 0.149C_SG 0.163 0.224 0.215 0.217C_POL 0.142 0.161 0.146 0.225C_NCSP 0.144 0.141 0.173 0.18 0.166 0.142CU_OCUL 0.141 0.202 0.138 0.145CU_LIVE 0.153 0.146CU_TRVE 0.145WK_LEAR 0.15 0.161 0.162 0.176 0.216WK_LOLD 0.139 0.15 0.158 0.2D_FUNC 0.14 0.206 0.16 0.146D_ROT 0.138D_360 0.143 0.219 0.255 0.163D_ORG 0.225 0.181 0.138 0.143
= Significant at α = 0.01
MLQ Factor
5.8 Analysis Summary
As previously discussed, the objective of the study was to better understand the
development experiences of transformational leaders. By utilizing a three phase
approach to the analysis of the data collected for the study, this objective was completed.
In the first phase, the instrument utilized to understand the development experiences of
leaders, the LLI, was explored and refined utilizing correlation analysis. In the second
phase, the behaviors of the LLI and MLQ were understood by using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis to understand their psychometric behaviors within the study group, and a
comparison population, and correlation analysis was utilized to understand any
relationship between the two instruments. This exploration included the search for
relationships between the factors contained in both instruments, as well as relationships
between the individual questions of the LLI and the leadership measures of the MLQ. In
95
the third and final phase, the LLI was further refined using CFA tools and then the
relationship between the refined LLI and MLQ was explored utilizing SEM techniques.
The results of this analysis have enabled the study to address each of the hypothesis tests
in the dissertation, as discussed in the following chapter.
96
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The intent of this dissertation was to investigate the development of
transformational leadership within individual leaders and increase the body of knowledge
regarding what development experiences correlate to displays of transformational
leadership. The need for this study was indicated by a review of the literature. This
review found extensive literature on the influence of personality and other psychological
constructs on leadership (e.g., Towler 2005, Bono and Judge 2003, Avolio and Bass
1994), but few examples investigating the development experiences of leaders (e.g.,
Avolio 1994, Howard and Bray 1988). Of the literature that did investigate experiences
as a developmental precursor to leadership, none attempted to explore all of the myriad of
hypothesized development experience types in the literature (Schell, et al. 2008). The
results of this study begin to address this gap.
In order to make this contribution, a two part study was needed. One of the
reasons that no previous study had examined the impact of a breadth of potential
development experiences, was that no reliable instrument to explore these experiences
existed. Therefore, the first part of the study was the development of a new instrument,
the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI). The LLI was designed to measure the
leadership development experiences of respondents. The second step distributed the LLI
97
along with the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to a population of small
business leaders and a second group of a variety of leaders known to the author, in order
to gain breadth in the study population. The responses of these leaders were examined
for correlations between the two instruments, and a number of significant correlations
were found. These findings led to the rejection of the three null hypotheses formulated in
the study.
6.1 Hypothesis Testing Results and Contribution to the Body of Knowledge
The study investigated three separate hypotheses related to the development of
transformational leadership as detailed in Chapter 3. The first hypothesis looked to the
creation of a new instrument to understand the development experiences of leaders. This
hypothesis was
Ho: Leadership development experiences cannot be grouped into logical
factors.
Ha: There are logical groupings of leadership development experiences
that can be grouped through Factor Analysis.
The analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null. This
rejection was accomplished through Item Analysis in Minitab and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) using LISREL. As detailed earlier, the results of the initial model using
LISREL found a number of significant loadings with an overall reasonable (Browne and
Cudeck 1993) model fit, using the RMSEA. Further refinement of the instrument to
prepare for Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) resulted in a reduced question set of
28 items. This resulted in a model where every question had a significant loading in its
98
hypothetical pillar and an improved RMSEA value of 0.054, an indication of good model
fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993).
The next hypothesis explored the correlation between the groupings of
development experiences and displays of transformational leadership:
Ho: No grouping of development experiences correlate to later displays of
transformational leadership.
Ha: There are groups of development experiences that can be shown to
correlate to displays of transformational leadership.
The analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null. Analysis
of the LLI factors against the nine factor MLQ model found a number of significant (α =
0.05 and α = 0.01) relationships between the pillars of the LLI and the leadership factors
of the MLQ. Specifically, the hypothesized pillars in the LLI correlated significantly
with all transformational components in the nine factor model of the MLQ, while
exhibiting a significant correlation with only the contingent reward (CR) component of
the transactional factors.
The final hypothesis looked in greater detail at the individual effects of specific
LLI questions on the factors of the MLQ:
Ho: No individual development experiences can be shown to correlate to
displays of transformational leadership.
Ha: There are individual development experiences that can be shown to
correlate to displays of transformational leadership.
Once again, the analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null.
Analysis of the LLI questions against the nine factor MLQ model found a number of
99
significant (α = 0.05 and α = 0.01) relationships between the pillars of the LLI and the
leadership factors of the MLQ. Specifically, a total of nineteen questions had a
significant correlation with one or more subcomponents of the nine factor model of the
MLQ at α = 0.05, while fourteen of those had a significant correlation at α = 0.01. In
total, there were 72 significant (α = 0.05) correlation relationships, including 31 pairings
significant at α = 0.01. These significant correlations were predominately with
transformational factors of the MLQ, a total of 59 relationships. The contingent reward
factor of transactional leadership had twelve of the remaining thirteen significant
relationships.
While the analysis shows proof of statistical significance for the results of the
study, what does it mean? What are the theoretical implications to future studies of
leadership development? What practical applications can be made by the engineering
manager? How do the results fit in with those of previous studies into leadership
development? The following sections address these questions, explore the limitations of
the study and suggest avenues for future research.
6.2 Theoretical Implications of Study
One of the key motivations for the study was to understand the breadth of
leadership experiences that were important in the development of leaders. This interest in
a breadth of experiences led to the development of the LLI, an instrument that addressed
the relatively narrow scope of other instruments that sought to investigate leader
experiences by exploring five distinct areas of experience, the LLI Pillars. By developing
this instrument and subjecting it to statistical validation, a new avenue for understanding
100
the development experiences of leaders, through the efficient means of a survey
instrument rather than the lengthy process of interviewing of earlier studies (e.g., Howard
and Bray 1988, Bennis and Thomas 2002) has been made available to researchers.
The results of the study also have theoretical implications. By examining the
questions reduced from the LLI three separate implications are noted. First, in its final
version, the LLI contains no questions regarding the influence of parents on the leader.
These results suggest that the influence of parents is not important in the development of
transformational leadership. However, these findings conflict with the theories of
McCauley, et al. (1998) and the empirical findings of Towler (2005) and Mumford, et al.
(1993). Given the literature, these findings were unexpected and may be influenced by
the decision early in the development of the LLI to focus questions on parents, rather than
separate mother and father related inquiries. Second, in its final version, the LLI includes
no questions designed to identify the extreme experiences identified by Bennis and
Thomas (2004) as Leadership Crucibles. The elimination of these questions raises
concerns about the broad applicability of the findings from Bennis and Thomas (2004)
interview based findings from a sample of 43 leaders. Finally, the questions regarding
exploratory experiences in natural settings were eliminated from the instrument, bringing
into question the applicability of the findings of Louv (2005) regarding child social
development on later leadership development.
The next group of theoretical implications comes from the results of the
correlation analysis between the Pillars of the LLI and the leadership factors of the MLQ,
shown in Table 5.15. When reviewing these results, it is quickly noticed that all of the
Pillars of the LLI have two or more significant positive correlations with the
101
transformational factors of the MLQ, except Pillar 2 (High School and College
Activities), which has a number of significant (α = 0.01) negative loadings on these same
transformational subcomponents. What makes this pillar differ from the others contained
in the LLI? Initially, it is noted that the time lag of those elements contained in Pillar 2
are greater than others in the LLI, but this explanation appeared incomplete. Instead, a
more complete theoretical answer for the difference is found in the types of experience
contained in the pillar. Specifically, each of the elements in Pillar 2 investigated either
group involvement or leadership roles held at an early age. Since these experiences are
likely to be very structured leadership roles, due to the setting of the organization and age
of the participants, it is theorized that these roles teach the young leader how to be a
transactional leader. The correlations indicate that the strength of the leader’s
transactional leadership may then fade over time, but the experience remains a negative
influence on their transformational leadership.
The second notable theoretical implication of the relationships between the pillars
of the LLI and the leadership factors of the MLQ was seen with the behavior of Pillar 5,
Structured Leadership Development. This pillar examined the participant’s experience
with 360-degree feedback, leadership training, and job rotations. It was the pillar that
had the least number of significant correlations. Those relationships were held only with
the Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration aspects of transformational
leadership, most other correlations were close to 0. This tends to indicate that formal
leadership development activities can be utilized to teach and create behaviors that match
the more concrete aspects of transformational leadership while having nearly no
influence on the more abstract elements, such as Inspirational Motivation.
102
The third theoretical implication examines the behavior of the Contingent
Reward component of transactional leadership. Throughout the study, a relationship
between the leadership predictors and Contingent Reward was consistently found to more
closely mimic transformational components. A potential reason for this relationship is
that the predictors of the LLI are an indication of the effectiveness of the leader, since
Contingent Reward has been theorized to be an effective leadership type when done well
(e.g., Bass 1985, Burns 1978). If not this, then it is suggested by the study that the
development Contingent Reward is a better fit with transformational leadership
components than the transactional grouping assigned by the MLQ (Avolio and Bass
2004).
The final theoretical implication of the finding of the study regards the strength of
the influence of a mentoring relationship on a leader. The role of a mentor has been
shown to have a significant influence, more than any other predictor that was examined.
In this study, this significant relationship was found for all transformational leadership
factors and Contingent Reward, with an average correlation of 0.24. In addition,
mentoring had close to zero correlation (average = 0.02) with the remaining transactional
components. This can be theorized to be driven by the fact that when the mentor takes an
active interest in the development of the leader, it causes the leader to become a more
active leader in their life. Additionally, it appears that a mentor can have a positive
influence on not only the concrete elements of transformational leadership, e.g.,
Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration, but also on the more abstract
concepts, such as Inspirational Motivation.
103
While these theoretical implications are interesting and lay the groundwork for
other potential areas of exploration, how can they be made actionable? What learnings
are important to share with practicing engineering managers? And what areas of business
can the learnings be applied to? These findings contribute to the Engineering
Management body of knowledge in that each significant relationship can be utilized to
better understand the influences on the development of a leader’s ability to display
certain behaviors.
6.3 Implications for the Engineering Manager
The first implication for the engineering manager comes in the area of position
hiring. When the desirable leadership behaviors for a given position are understood, the
results of the study can be utilized to seek a leader who is more likely to display those
leadership behaviors. For instance, if a highly inspirational leader is desirable for a given
opening, the selection team should look for a candidate who has held leadership roles
early in their career (Pillar 4, correlation 0.23), had meaningful influences on their
leadership from a mentor (Pillar 1, 0.20), experience with exploring other cultures
(Pillar 3, 0.19) and was not highly involved with high school and college leadership
activities (Pillar 2, -0.25).
The second implication for the engineering manager is in the design, development
and implementation of employee development programs. It is clear from the data that a
mentoring program can have a real impact on the tendency of an individual to display
transformational leadership behaviors. It appears that this common development engine
can be an effective tool, especially if meetings are held regularly and the mentor strives to
104
provide constructive feedback. Additionally, formal development programs, such as
360-degree surveys, can be an effective tool to develop certain transformational
leadership characteristics, such as Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized
Consideration.
6.4 Limitations of the Study
The study has limitations that restrict the overall applicability of its findings.
First, the study was completed using a target population of leaders in small and growing
companies. Since this was a focused population, the findings cannot be generalized to
apply to leaders within other types of organizations (including large corporations,
military or academics), especially since the types of organizations included in the first
group of participants were unique (Gazelles 2009), and little is known about the
organizations of the second group of participants.
Second, individual respondents’ organizations are unknown, making it impossible
to investigate potential confounding variables (e.g., organizational culture), on the types
of leadership behaviors displayed. Other potential influences, such as peer groups or peer
behaviors cannot be investigated.
Third, the study utilized only the manager’s self reported information on their
leadership style. It is possible that the leader’s self image is vastly different than the
perception of their employees, peers and leaders. If this difference did exist, it may be
found that there are different items which correlate with the leadership behaviors reported
by others, or that the strength or direction of the correlations would change.
105
Fourth, while the analysis of the LLI instrument did reject null Hypothesis I, it is
still an instrument in development. The final version of the LLI has strong psychometric
properties and produced strong results using the SEM between the LLI and MLQ,
however, its refinement caused a number of elements to be dropped from the original
hypothesized pillars. It is possible that additional study would identify a way that other
questions related to these hypothesized areas could be effectively included in the LLI
while maintaining its psychometric properties. This would improve the usefulness of the
LLI by increasing its ability to measure a broad spectrum of leadership development
experiences.
Finally, the data set utilized for the study is relatively small. While it is was
sufficient to generate meaningfully significant statistical tests, and is in line with other
similar studies (e.g., Roper 2009, Bell-Roundtree 2004, Blatt 2002), it lacks an
exhaustive investigation of multiple populations, like that included in the comparison
MLQ population (Avolio and Bass 2004). These limitations generally hamper the ability
of the findings to be interpreted broadly.
6.5 Areas for Future Research
The study has demonstrated that the development experiences can be grouped into
explainable factors and that those factors can be significantly correlated with different
types of leadership behaviors. While doing this, it has raised additional questions. The
recommended areas for future study are as follows:
• Refinement of the LLI: The MLQ, initially developed and deployed nearly
twenty five years ago, has been utilized in dozens and dozens of studies and
106
revised no fewer than five times (Avolio and Bass 2004). The LLI appears to
have merit that could give it a robust pedigree over time, but additional
refinement is needed through exposure to greater populations and
experimentation with additional questions.
• Exploration of a Relationship Between the LLI and MLQ for Other Populations
(or a larger population): It is expected that significant relationships could be
found between the LLI and MLQ with other populations including military and
large corporate entities. It is also reasonable to believe that the value of the study
could be increased with a larger sample.
• Further Exploration of the Components of Transformational Leadership within
the Study Population: Specifically, why does Contingent Reward leadership
appear to behave more like a transformational leadership component in terms of
its antecedents than its previously demonstrated grouping (e.g., Avolio and Bass
2004) as part of the transactional leadership behaviors.
• Utilization of 360-degree Results for a Relationship between the LLI and MLQ:
As mentioned in the limitations, there is potential that the perception of others
than the leader’s regarding the leader’s leadership behaviors may yield different
results.
• Exploration of the MLQ Leadership Outcomes Factors – Form5x-Short of the
MLQ includes nine questions that purport to rate the success of the group being
led by the participant (Avolio and Bass 2004). Since these questions are not well
documented in the literature, they were not included in the correlation study but
should be explored in the future.
107
APPENDICES
108
APPENDIX A
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONAIRE
109
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009
MLQ, © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved.Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyrightmaterial;
Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
for his/her thesis research.
Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal, thesis, ordissertation.
The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other publishedmaterial.
Sincerely,
Robert MostMind Garden, Inc.www.mindgarden.com
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009
MLQ, © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved.Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
MLQ Multifactor Leadership QuestionnaireLeader Form (5x-Short)
My Name: ______________________________________________________________ Date: ______________
Organization ID #: _____________________________ Leader ID #: __________________________________
This questionnaire is to describe your leadership style as you perceive it. Please answer all items on this answersheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank.
Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each statement fits you.The word “others” may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these individuals.
Use the following rating scale:
Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently,if not always
0 1 2 3 4
1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts..............................................................0 1 2 3 4
2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate .......................................0 1 2 3 4
3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious .................................................................................0 1 2 3 4
4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards ....................0 1 2 3 4
5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise ..........................................................................0 1 2 3 4
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Continued =>
110
111
APPENDIX B
INITIAL LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS
112
Full Question PillarQuestion 1: My father provided an environment that supported growth and learning. 1
Question 1: My mother provided an environment that supported growth and learning. 1Question 1: My father tried to control many aspects of my life. 1Question 2: My father served as a role model for highly ethical behavior. 1Question 2: My mother served as a role model for highly ethical behavior. 1Question 3: I lost a parent during childhood (prior to high school / grade 9) 1Question 4: During my career I have developed formal relationships with a mentor(s) to support my development. 1Question 4: I often seek constructive feedback from a mentor. 1Question 4: At times, I have met regularly with a formal or informal mentor. 1
Question 5: Early in my career, I had a strong role model of the leader I wanted to be. 1Question 6: As a child, I was an officer in student government. 2Question 7: In high school, I was active in sports 2Question 7: In high school, I was involved in non competitive sports. 2Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or sorority). 2Question 8: In college, I was active in varsity athletics. 2Question 8: In college, I served in a leadership position for my dormitory / residence life organization. 2Question 9: In college, I typically was employed during the school year. 4Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I lived in a country other than my current country. 3Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I learned to speak more than one language. 3Question 10: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or sorority). 3Question 11: During childhood, I could walk to natural settings (woods, ponds, etc.). 3Question 11: During childhood, I often spent play time in natural areas (woods, ponds, etc.). 3Question 11: In college, I took trips to natural settings (National Forests, Parks, etc.) 3Question 11: I spend my leisure time engaged in activities I really look forward to. 3Question 11: My recreational activities are very active. 3Question 11: When I travel, I tend to do more than simply see the sights. 3Question 12: I have been incarcerated. 3Question 12: I served full time in a service organization (e.g. Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.). 3Question 12: I've lived through a natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane, etc.) that devastated the home of me or my family 3Question 14: I held my first regular job while still a teenager. 4Question 14: I served in leadership positions in the military. 4Question 14: In my career, I have led a turn-around effort. 4Question 15: I have received substantial training through my employers on becoming an effective leader. 5Question 15: During my career I have participated in 360-degree surveys. 5Question 15: The majority of my career positions involved a great deal of learning. 5
113
APPENDIX C
REFINED LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS
114
Question Full Question PillarP_Env Question 1: My parents provided an environment that supported growth and learning. 1
P_Cont Question 1: My parents tried to control many aspects of my life. 1P_Advice Question 1: I often seek the advice of my parents. 1M_Form Question 4: During my career I have developed formal relationships with a mentor(s) to
support my development.1
C_SG Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in student government. 2C_Grk Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or
sorority).2
C_VSpt Question 8: In college, I was active in varsity athletics. 2C_ResL Question 8: In college, I served in a leadership position for my dormitory / residence life
organization.2
C_Pol Question 8: In college, I was active in political groups. 2Cu_Ocul Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I lived in a culture other than my current
culture.3
RA_VacN Question 11: During childhood, my family spent vacation time in natural settings. 3RA_CRA Question 11: In college, I spent free time participating in outdoor recreation. 3Wk_LOld Question 14: In my career, it has been common for me to lead people older than myself. 4
D_Rot Question 15: My career experience included a deliberate rotation through multiple job assignments with a single company / organization.
5
D_360 Question 15: I have received beneficial feedback through 360-degree feedback. 5D_Org Question 15: I am or have been active in professional organizations focused on
leadership development.5
D_Func Question 15: I have held positions in a variety of functional areas in my career (e.g. finance, operations, etc.)
4
115
APPENDIX D
MIND GARDEN PERMISSIONS
116
MLQ, © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved.Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyrightmaterial;
Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
for his/her thesis research.
Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal, thesis, ordissertation.
The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other publishedmaterial.
Sincerely,
Robert MostMind Garden, Inc.www.mindgarden.com
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on September 28, 2009
117
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on September 28, 2009
Permission for William Schell to reproduce 200 copies within oneyear of September 28, 2009
Multifactor Leadership QuestionnaireLeader Form, Rater Form and Scoring Key
(Form 5X-Short)
by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc.
Copyright © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. It is your legalresponsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in anymedium. The copyright holder has agreed to grant one person permission to reproduce thespecified number of copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for non-commercial and personal use only. Non-commercial use means that you will not receive paymentfor distributing this document and personal use means that you will only reproduce this work foryour own research or for clients. This permission is granted to one person only. Each personwho administers the test must purchase permission separately. Any organization purchasingpermissions must purchase separate permissions for each individual who will be using oradministering the test. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.
118
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009
MLQ, © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved.Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyrightmaterial;
Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
for his/her thesis research.
Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal, thesis, ordissertation.
The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other publishedmaterial.
Sincerely,
Robert MostMind Garden, Inc.www.mindgarden.com
119
For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009
Permission for William Schell to reproduce 100 copies within oneyear of August 19, 2009
Multifactor Leadership QuestionnaireLeader Form, Rater Form and Scoring Key
(Form 5X-Short)
by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass
Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc.
Copyright © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. It is your legalresponsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in anymedium. The copyright holder has agreed to grant one person permission to reproduce thespecified number of copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for non-commercial and personal use only. Non-commercial use means that you will not receive paymentfor distributing this document and personal use means that you will only reproduce this work foryour own research or for clients. This permission is granted to one person only. Each personwho administers the test must purchase permission separately. Any organization purchasingpermissions must purchase separate permissions for each individual who will be using oradministering the test. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.
120
APPENDIX E
GAZELLE’S PARTICIPANT INVITATIONS
121
Bill Schell
From: [email protected] on behalf of Verne's Insights [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:58 PMTo: [email protected]: CEO of the Decade; Message Timing; Idea Paint; Three Advantages"...keeping you great" (Print-friendly Version >) HEADLINES: Steve Jobs Named CEO of the Decade -- let me take a pause from the Growth Summit highlights and pay kudos to Steve Jobs, named CEO of the Decade by Fortune magazine last week. Why? He's transformed four industries - computers in the 80s; music, movies, and mobile phones this decade. And Apple's market cap started the decade at $5 billion; today it's $170 billion, slightly bigger than Google. Take five minutes and read this awe-inspiring article and click through previously unseen photos of Steve. And you can see the list of the other 12 runners-up for CEO of the Decade along with several other fun "galleries." Steve Jobs Turnaround -- two key points that dovetail on Jim Collins' presentation at the Growth Summit. When Steve took over Apple he did three things: shore up cash by swallowing his pride and getting help from Microsoft; dramatically pruned Apple back to a handful of products so his team could focus; and replaced the top management team which has served as the nucleus of what Fortune calls "Jobs brain trust for the next ten years." Again, take five minutes and read the Steve Jobs story once again and take lessons from this business grandmaster. Message Timing -- one thing admired about Steve is not just the precision of his messaging, but the precise timing of his messaging. That's why I'm especially excited about next week's video webcast. I had my call with Dr. Robert Cialdini yesterday to discuss his presentation next Tuesday (noon -- 1:30pm ET). He left academe in the spring and is devoting full time to writing a brand new book -- not on the content of the message (the essence of his first book) but on the TIMING of the message (the essence of his next book) -- as he mentioned to me "everyone talks about how timing is everything, but no one has ever helped people figure this out." Every leader talks about getting the timing right, but are there definitive research studies and guidelines that will help a leader get it right? In fact, there are. And Dr. Cialdini will spend 15 minutes giving us a glimpse into the new research. Just trying to keep you on the bleeding edge! Three Advantages Over Competition -- Dr. Cialdini also shared with me that three of the six principles of influence, which he'll cover next Tuesday, are especially effective in a crisis when customers are putting off the buying decision. Companies that leverage these three principles to their fullest will continue to have a huge leg up on those that don't. He'll be emphasizing these three and how you apply them next Tuesday during his 90 minutes LIVE video webcast. Idea Paint -- Steve Jobs is also famous for his ideas -- and there's no better way to express those ideas than writing all over the walls, something I saw at 3M's Innovation Center in Austin. To make this easier, check out this product called Idea Paint -- you apply it to any wall and you have an instant white board -- especially fun for painting curved surfaces. Thanks to Bob Hubbard, CEO of Arizona-based Hubbard Family Swim Schools for bringing this to my attention. Are You the Next Leader of the Decade -- and to gauge the leadership effectiveness of Gazelles insight readers (anyone with people reporting to you), we're assisting Bill Schell, VP of Strategy for Printing4Less, with his PhD thesis on leadership. He's particularly looking at leadership traits of executives and managers of growth firms as a tool for helping us choose the kinds of teams that can be our "brain trust for the next decade." Those that take the survey will get to share in the results -- here's a link, takes about 10 minutes. Again, it's open to ALL insight readers if you have people reporting to you. Five Fold Growth in Five Years -- on the eve of hitting $100 million in revenue and celebrating their 2000th associate, I received this note this week from Ajay Prabhu, COO of QuEST Global, whose firm
122
Bill Schell
From: [email protected] on behalf of Verne's Insights [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:35 AMTo: [email protected]: Living Longer; Leading Better; Giving Easier; Sept 21 Hotel Deadline"...keeping you great" HEADLINES: (Print-friendly Version >)
Deadline to Book Hotel Rooms Sept 21 -- the conference rate for the Growth Summit expires on Monday. Participate in Leadership Research for PhD Thesis -- there's a two part anonymous survey that took me ten minutes to complete. Bill Schell, VP Strategy & Development for PrintingForLess, is working on his doctoral dissertation in the area of transformational leadership -- and wants to study entrepreneurial firms. For participating he'll share the full results with all of us. No Cost 360 Degree Survey -- and for participating in Schell's survey, you can also opt in to receive a no cost, confidential, 360 degree survey where they survey your colleagues about your leadership attributes. I've not had one completed on me in years and thought the feedback might be insightful (or scary) -- anyway, I liked the no cost! You'll get back a personal leadership report. Two Virginia Tech Student Entrepreneurs' -- two seniors, Kevin Eberling and Joe Casola, have created a no cost way to earn money for charities (sounds like Alchemy!). All you do is click through NiceBuy.org, a nonprofit organization they founded, before shopping at affiliate sites like Amazon or Best Buy. Then the link percentage they get is passed on to a deserving charity -- right now it's providing renewable electricity for impoverished communities in Nicaragua. The students (whom I know) are not taking a commission or salary, just getting some business experience and raising money for charity. And your name, email, etc. are not gathered, so your personal info cannot be sold nor will you receive emails from NiceBuy. Living Longer: The Blue Zones -- Bob Hubbard, CEO of Hubbard Family Swim School, saw my mention of the Sardinia bike trip last week and pointed me to a book he highly recommended entitled The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer From the People Who've Lived the Longest by Dan Buettner. It highlights four areas in the world where a disproportionate percentage of the population lives to be 100, and Sardinia is one of the four. Buettner went on to study what it was about these places and the lifestyles that contributed to people's longevity (how about using NiceBuy to order the book through Amazon -- so many people win!).
123
APPENDIX F
LLI CORRELATION ANALYSIS
124
1 - Positive View of Parents Appears to cluster with questions that put a positive view of the participants parents
• Contains 18 significant
pairings (alpha 0.01) • Contains 9 pairings where
person correlation is > 0.5
Data appears to show us that several questions could be eliminated with little loss of data. This is unexpected based on other research
Cluster 2 – Strong Leaders This cluster brings together 3 questions relating to strong life influences (controlling mother, strong role models) and an unexpected relationship with making sacrifices to achieve goals.
Of note is that the significant correlations are between:
• A controlling mother and seeking advice from the same as well as working for a leader who understood the participant
• Strong role model questions
No significant correlation exists in the unexpected relationship 4 pairings with significant correlation 0 pairings with correlation value >0.5
125
3 – Mentors
• 20 significant pairings • 6 pairings > 0.5
Cluster 4 – Activities
• 28 significant pairings • 9 pairings correlation >
0.5
126
Cluster 5 – Natural Settings + Challenges
• Surprise correlation with
participation in a church group and natural settings
• 9 significant pairings • 3 pairings correlation >
0.5
Cluster 6 – High School Activities
• 21 significant pairings • 12 pairings correlation >
0.5
127
Cluster 7 – College Service Roles and Recreation
• 31 significant pairings • 8 pairings correlation >
0.5
Cluster 8 – Greek Activities
• Included mistaken duplicate question (10-3)
• Appears that eliminating 8-2 would cause minimal data loss
128
Cluster 9 – College Employment, Cultural
Exploration and Learning “Bent”
• Most diverse grouping of all
the clusters • 7 significant pairings • 5 pairings correlation >
0.5
Cluster 10 – Military Experience
• 10 significant pairings • 8 pairings correlation >
0.5
12
11 – Career Development
• 6 significant pairings • 1 pairing correlation > 0.5
9
130
APPENDIX G
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE LLI MODEL
131
G.1 Exploratory Analysis of the LLI
The search for an improved explanatory model for the LLI structures began with a
cluster analysis using Ward’s linkage method (Johnson and Wichern 2002), similar to the
analysis completed during the pilot study phase on the instrument. In this instance, the
number of clusters were not specified. Instead, Minitab was utilized to specify the final
partition based on a similarity level of 0.70. This threshold was selected for its similarity
with the threshold value that indicate good reliability when utilizing Cronbach’s alpha in
an exploratory factor analysis (George and Mallery 2003). Using this threshold found a
complete model with 6 clusters. The dendrogram generated from this analysis is shown
in Figure G.1. Comparing the generated clusters against the hypothesized pillars
analyzed above found a number of differences.
Figure G.1 - Dendrogram from Cluster Analysis of Full LLI Data Using Ward Linkage
M_M
eet
M_F
dBk
M_A
dvM
_LdG
dM
_For
mD
_360
D_F
unc
D_T
rain
D_R
otL_
Und
L_D
RML_
RMCu
_Trv
CCu
_Trv
ECu
_Liv
eD
_PLr
nD
_Org
B_Lr
nB_
Sac
RA_E
xpE
RA_T
adv
RA_L
fun
Wk_
LOld
Wk_
LEar
Wk_
Teen
CE_M
gmt
CE_E
mp
EE_N
DW
k_Lm
ilEE
_SO
Cu_O
cul
Cu_O
cnt
EE_I
ncCh
_CG
P_Ls
tNum
P_M
oDP_
Cont
C_Re
sLC_
Grk
C_Po
lC_
SGH
S_H
lpH
S_AI
GH
S_AS
GRA
_Vac
NRA
_Nat
SRA
_CRA
C_N
CSp
HS_
NCS
pC_
VSpt
HS_
SCpt
HS_
Aspt
P_Et
hP_
ActC
omP_
Shar
eP_
Advi
ceP_
Env
-46.02
2.65
51.33
100.00
Variables
Sim
ilari
ty
132
Based on the prior analysis, it was expected that the sixth cluster would represent
a split between the parent and mentor / leader related questions included in Pillar 1. This
expectation was only partially met as the tightest cluster, similarity of 75.8, was related to
mentors and consisted of questions, however, solely from Pillar 1. Parent related
questions were split between two other clusters. The first contains only parent related
questions from Pillar 1 and has a similarity of 57.0. All remaining clusters have
substantially lower similarities and are generated from questions from multiple pillars.
By descending similarity, the remaining clusters can be defined as
• Work as development, similarity 35.3 - a mix of questions from Pillars 1, 4 and 5
• A not understood collection of questions from Pillars 1, 2, and 3, similarity 27.22
• Work experience and travel, similarity of 23.5 – 50% of questions from Pillar 3
and 33% of questions from Pillar 4
• A collection of seemingly related high school and college experiences with the
addition of outdoor related experiences, similarity 8.35, 80% of questions from
Pillar 2.
While the results did indicate different groups than those hypothesized, since only
a single cluster in the analysis was created with a similarity greater than 70.0, the results
of the cluster analysis did not indicate a stronger model than the hypothesized model
explored previously. Further exploratory analysis was then completed using factor
analysis in Minitab, thereby avoiding the common pitfall of Confirmatory Factor
Analysis completed using Structured Equation Modeling where researchers interpret the
finding that when “their model fits the data it is the only model that can do so” (Jöreskog
1993, 298).
133
Using the factor analysis tools in Minitab 15, the data in the LLI was examined
using a variety of techniques. Beginning with a baseline, un-rotated analysis (Johnson
and Wichern 2002) and allowing Minitab 15 to extract a large number of factors, the
scree plot in Figure G.2 was generated. Using the Kaiser criterion, where an acceptable
factor having an Eigen value greater than 1.0 (Stevens 2002), the analysis indicated that
the first 18 factors could be recommended for use. The selection of 18 factors would
keep the Q/P ratio close to being under the 0.3 target at 0.31 (Hakstian, et al. 1982).
However, since the number of variables in the study is greater than 30, a graphical
method of analysis using the scree plot is recommended (Stevens 2002). The scree plot is
used in an attempt to identify an inflection point that could limit the factors (Johnson and
Wichern 2002). Since the most obvious inflection point occurs at factor 2, where less
than 20% of the variance is explained, the next inflection point, factor 6 was selected as
the cut-off. By including six factors in the model, 38.5% of the variance is explained.
134
Figure G.2 - Scree Plot of Exploratory Factor Analysis on the LLI
Subsequent analysis using a variety of rotation techniques found that both the
equamax and varimax rotations (Johnson and Wichern 2002) provided the cleanest factor
loadings. The results of these six factor models included 43 significant loadings, greater
than 0.4 (Hair, et al. 1998), with only a single question that loaded significantly on more
than one factor. Both models also had fifteen questions that failed to load significantly
on any of the six factors, 26% of the total question set. The complete table of factor
loadings from the varimax rotation is displayed in Table G.1.
135
Table G.1 - Varimax Factor Loadings from LLI Exploratory Factor Analysis
Question Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6P_Env -0.03 -0.02 0.07 -0.14 -0.69 0.13P_Cont 0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.05 -0.06 -0.17P_Advice 0.13 0.01 -0.04 0.07 -0.70 0.09P_Share 0.14 0.07 -0.01 -0.09 -0.67 0.05P_MoD -0.04 -0.11 0.08 0.07 0.12 -0.01P_ActCom -0.09 0.05 -0.10 -0.18 -0.55 -0.07P_Eth -0.11 -0.03 -0.07 -0.10 -0.67 -0.03P_LstNum -0.16 -0.16 -0.07 -0.19 0.23 0.09M_Form 0.82 -0.13 -0.08 -0.09 0.02 0.00M_LdGd 0.84 -0.13 -0.13 -0.11 -0.01 -0.04M_Adv 0.80 -0.12 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 0.05M_FdBk 0.84 -0.13 -0.12 -0.15 -0.03 0.06M_Meet 0.83 -0.08 -0.06 -0.08 0.05 0.10L_RM 0.36 -0.55 -0.03 -0.09 -0.08 -0.11L_DRM 0.16 -0.60 0.03 0.00 -0.10 -0.29L_Und 0.29 -0.63 -0.05 0.00 -0.09 -0.24Ch_CG 0.01 0.14 0.21 0.13 0.34 0.01HS_Aspt 0.09 -0.12 -0.05 0.09 -0.07 0.71HS_ASG 0.03 -0.14 -0.50 -0.03 -0.25 0.30HS_AIG -0.09 -0.18 -0.54 -0.09 -0.31 0.11HS_SCpt 0.06 -0.11 -0.14 0.19 -0.10 0.72HS_Hlp 0.04 -0.16 -0.43 -0.11 -0.47 0.25HS_NCSp 0.04 -0.12 -0.32 -0.12 -0.09 0.29C_SG 0.07 -0.13 -0.72 0.03 0.03 -0.06C_Grk -0.03 -0.04 -0.36 0.13 -0.17 0.08C_VSpt 0.01 0.00 -0.05 0.01 0.08 0.61C_ResL 0.05 -0.18 -0.41 -0.06 -0.06 0.04C_Pol 0.08 -0.12 -0.71 -0.09 -0.04 -0.10C_NCSp 0.01 -0.08 -0.27 -0.22 -0.10 0.46CE_Emp 0.00 -0.31 0.06 -0.36 0.08 -0.18CE_Mgmt -0.07 -0.39 -0.18 -0.23 0.09 -0.12Cu_Ocnt 0.14 0.15 -0.34 -0.19 0.13 -0.06Cu_Ocul 0.03 0.16 -0.48 -0.23 0.28 0.00Cu_Live 0.02 -0.02 -0.29 -0.56 -0.12 -0.24Cu_TrvE -0.09 -0.03 -0.24 -0.58 -0.01 0.03Cu_TrvC -0.04 0.10 -0.19 -0.57 -0.09 0.00RA_NatS 0.10 -0.13 -0.04 -0.27 -0.08 0.07RA_VacN 0.13 0.03 0.12 -0.44 -0.13 0.01RA_CRA 0.13 -0.07 0.08 -0.43 -0.22 0.39RA_Lfun 0.26 0.01 0.26 -0.51 -0.09 0.27RA_Tadv 0.17 -0.09 -0.08 -0.67 0.05 0.10RA_ExpE 0.05 -0.18 -0.10 -0.58 -0.04 -0.03EE_Inc -0.03 0.09 -0.06 -0.11 0.34 0.21EE_SO 0.10 0.02 -0.47 -0.13 0.02 0.05EE_ND 0.11 -0.02 -0.45 -0.04 0.16 0.08B_Sac 0.20 -0.24 -0.13 -0.21 0.27 -0.01B_Lrn 0.15 -0.25 -0.19 -0.41 0.12 -0.01Wk_Teen 0.22 -0.26 0.14 -0.15 -0.01 -0.13Wk_Lmil 0.02 -0.12 -0.30 -0.11 0.38 0.03Wk_LEar -0.08 -0.54 -0.30 -0.14 -0.04 0.15Wk_LOld 0.09 -0.43 -0.13 -0.17 0.06 0.21D_Rot -0.04 -0.60 -0.09 -0.04 0.07 0.28D_Train 0.05 -0.64 -0.09 0.04 -0.03 0.16D_360 0.23 -0.45 -0.09 -0.09 -0.06 0.09D_Org 0.26 -0.32 -0.10 -0.14 0.03 0.25D_Func -0.01 -0.51 0.00 -0.07 0.09 0.37D_PLrn 0.14 -0.34 -0.05 -0.46 0.01 0.01
5 9 9 10 6 4Number of Significant Loadings in Factor
Factor Loading Scores
136
The significant questions in each factor were then examined using Minitab’s Item
Analysis, as was completed in the confirmatory factor analysis steps above. The
six factors identified by this analysis can be defined as
• Factor 1 – Relationship with Mentors, five questions, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92
• Factor 2 – Influence of early leaders, early leadership experience and experience
with formal development experiences, nine questions, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.79
• Factor 3 – Participation in service organizations throughout life and exposure to
other cultures, nine questions, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.69
• Factor 4 – subset of Pillar 3 focused on exposure to and hunger for new
experiences, 10 questions, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.72
• Factor 5 – Respect for parents and early service experience, six questions,
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.76
• Factor 6 – involvement in sports, four questions, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.69
The average internal consistency within the pillars, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, is
0.76 for the six factors versus 0.69 for the hypothetical factors, a ten percent
improvement. Because of this increase in internal consistency and the 26% reduction in
LLI questions it enables, comparisons between the LLI and MLQ will be completed
using both LLI factor sets.
G.2 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the 2 Factor MLQ
In the second comparison, the LLI factors identified through exploratory factor
analysis were compared with the factors of the MLQ. This comparison found five of the
137
six factors to be significantly (ά = 0.05) correlated with the transformational factor and
two of the five significantly correlated with the transactional factor. The strongest
relationship was found between Factor 4, a subset of Pillar 3, and transformational
leadership. Table 5.16 contains the full output of this analysis. Due to the few
correlations that were not significantly related, the comparisons between the LLI and the
two factor model do not provide much differentiation between the correlated
development experiences of transformational leadership behaviors and transactional
behaviors.
Table G.2 – Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Two Factor MLQ
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6Transform 0.247 0.167 0.227 0.254 0.115 0.157
Transact 0.132 0.178 0.198 0.040 -0.080 0.005
Bold Significant, α = 0.05
Bold Significant, α = 0.01
G.3 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the Nine Factor MLQ
In the next analysis, the LLI factors discovered through exploratory analysis are
compared with the nine factor MLQ model. While the relationships between these
factors and the transformational components of the MLQ are again strong, they are not as
strong as the Pillar factors, with ten of the thirty comparisons not having a significant
relationship and an average correlation of 0.170. There is also a difference in the
correlation these factors have with the transactional components. Once again all eighteen
of the comparisons with all transactional components, except contingent reward are not
significant; however, with these factors, only 66% of the correlations with contingent
138
reward are significant. Factor 5, respect for parents, and Factor 6, involvement in sports,
are not significantly correlated. Table 5.18 contains the full results of these comparisons.
Table G.3 – Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Nine Factor MLQ
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
IIA 0.167 0.072 0.163 0.132 0.092 0.141IIB 0.304 0.120 0.182 0.263 0.108 0.104IM 0.189 0.114 0.235 0.225 0.075 0.157IS 0.166 0.216 0.208 0.227 0.130 0.166IC 0.249 0.215 0.206 0.262 0.098 0.125
CR 0.250 0.214 0.232 0.157 0.019 0.079MBEA 0.007 0.108 0.051 0.002 -0.090 0.015MBEP -0.038 -0.023 0.053 -0.099 -0.070 -0.092
LF 0.005 -0.046 0.005 0.046 0.010 -0.124
Bold Significant, α = 0.05
Bold Significant, α = 0.01
139
APPENDIX H
STRUCTURED EQUATION MODEL OUTPUT
140
141
DATE: 2/15/2010 TIME: 12:45 L I S R E L 8.80 BY Karl G. J”reskog & Dag S”rbom This program is published exclusively by Scientific Software International, Inc. 7383 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Lincolnwood, IL 60712, U.S.A. Phone: (800)247-6113, (847)675-0720, Fax: (847)675-2140 Copyright by Scientific Software International, Inc., 1981-2006 Use of this program is subject to the terms specified in the Universal Copyright Convention. Website: www.ssicentral.com The following lines were read from file C:\Lisrel_Dis\Try3\sem_mlq_lli_explicit.SPJ : Raw Data from file 'C:\Lisrel_Dis\Try3\CFA_Attempt2.psf' -------------------------------- EM Algorithm for missing Data: -------------------------------- Number of different missing-value patterns= 23 Convergence of EM-algorithm in 10 iterations -2 Ln(L) = 31287.78582 Percentage missing values= 0.41 Note: The Covariances and/or Means to be analyzed are estimated by the EM procedure and are only used to obtain starting values for the FIML procedure Latent Variables Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 iia iib im is ic cr mbea mbep lf Relationships M_FORM = Pillar1 M_LDGD = Pillar1
142
M_ADV = Pillar1 M_FDBK = Pillar1 M_MEET = Pillar1 L_RM = Pillar1 L_UND = Pillar1 CH_CG = Pillar2 HS_ASG = Pillar2 HS_AIG = Pillar2 HS_SCPT = Pillar2 HS_HLP = Pillar2 HS_NCSP = Pillar2 C_SG = Pillar2 C_RESL = Pillar2 C_POL = Pillar2 C_NCSP = Pillar2 CU_OCUL = Pillar3 CU_LIVE = Pillar3 CU_TRVE = Pillar3 CU_TRVC = Pillar3 CE_MGMT = Pillar4 WK_LEAR = Pillar4 WK_LOLD = Pillar4 D_FUNC = Pillar4 D_ROT = Pillar5 D_TRAIN = Pillar5 D_360 = Pillar5 D_ORG = Pillar5 MLQ_10 = iia MLQ_18 = iia MLQ_21 = iia MLQ_25 = iia MLQ_6 = iib MLQ_14 = iib MLQ_23 = iib MLQ_34 = iib MLQ_9 = im MLQ_13 = im MLQ_26 = im MLQ_36 = im MLQ_2 = is MLQ_8 = is MLQ_30 = is MLQ_32 = is MLQ_15 = ic MLQ_19 = ic MLQ_29 = ic
143
MLQ_31 = ic MLQ_1 = cr MLQ_11 = cr MLQ_16 = cr MLQ_35 = cr MLQ_4 = mbea MLQ_22 = mbea MLQ_24 = mbea MLQ_27 = mbea MLQ_3 = mbep MLQ_12 = mbep MLQ_17 = mbep MLQ_20 = mbep MLQ_5 = lf MLQ_7 = lf MLQ_28 = lf MLQ_33 = lf iia = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 iib = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 im = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 is = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 ic = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 cr = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 mbea = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 mbep = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 lf = Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 Path Diagram Iterations = 25000 End of Problem Sample Size = 205 Number of Iterations = 50 LISREL Estimates (Maximum Likelihood) Measurement Equations M_FORM = 0.49*cr, Errorvar.= 0.78 , Rý = 0.25 (0.079) 9.90 M_LDGD = 0.54*is, Errorvar.= 0.58 , Rý = 0.34
144
(0.061) 9.36 M_ADV = 0.65*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.62, Rý = 0.40 M_FDBK = 0.55*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.72 , Rý = 0.29 (0.083) 8.67 M_MEET = 0.61*lf, Errorvar.= 0.62 , Rý = 0.37 (0.076) 8.16 L_RM = 0.72*iib, Errorvar.= 0.75 , Rý = 0.41 (0.079) 9.49 L_UND = 0.71*lf, Errorvar.= 0.75 , Rý = 0.40 (0.11) (0.096) 6.47 7.89 CH_CG = 0.67*is, Errorvar.= 0.39 , Rý = 0.55 (0.080) (0.046) 8.31 8.39 HS_ASG = 0.70*im, Errorvar.= 0.45 , Rý = 0.52 (0.049) 9.35 HS_AIG = 0.60*iia, Errorvar.= 0.55 , Rý = 0.40 (0.059) 9.41 HS_SCPT = 0.65*cr, Errorvar.= 0.50 , Rý = 0.47 (0.095) (0.053) 6.86 9.47 HS_HLP = 0.65*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.27 , Rý = 0.61 (0.084) (0.054) 7.73 4.97 HS_NCSP = 0.67*im, Errorvar.= 0.21 , Rý = 0.68 (0.044) (0.025) 15.20 8.54 C_SG = 0.76*iib, Errorvar.= 0.35 , Rý = 0.63
145
(0.080) (0.041) 9.51 8.48 C_RESL = 0.73*ic, Errorvar.= 0.54 , Rý = 0.50 (0.058) 9.27 C_POL = 0.64*cr, Errorvar.= 0.66 , Rý = 0.39 (0.098) (0.068) 6.54 9.68 C_NCSP = 0.43*mbep, Errorvar.= 1.06 , Rý = 0.15 (0.094) (0.11) 4.55 9.48 CE_MGMT = 0.62*iia, Errorvar.= 0.29 , Rý = 0.57 (0.068) (0.034) 9.01 8.75 CU_OCUL = 0.61*ic, Errorvar.= 0.32 , Rý = 0.54 (0.060) (0.035) 10.06 9.11 CU_LIVE = 0.56*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.57 , Rý = 0.35 (0.084) (0.071) 6.67 8.07 CU_TRVE = 0.70*iia, Errorvar.= 0.23 , Rý = 0.68 (0.073) (0.030) 9.63 7.75 CU_TRVC = 0.76*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.65 , Rý = 0.46 (0.12) (0.097) 6.12 6.66 WK_LEAR = 0.63*iib, Errorvar.= 0.42 , Rý = 0.49 (0.073) (0.045) 8.62 9.23 WK_LOLD = 0.43*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.92 , Rý = 0.16 (0.097) (0.097) 4.39 9.45 D_ROT = 0.53*iia, Errorvar.= 0.59 , Rý = 0.33 (0.074) (0.062) 7.24 9.64
146
D_TRAIN = 0.76*im, Errorvar.= 0.31 , Rý = 0.65 (0.036) 8.75 D_360 = 0.79*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.33 , Rý = 0.65 (0.13) (0.084) 6.03 3.93 D_ORG = 0.67*lf, Errorvar.= 0.41 , Rý = 0.52 (0.097) (0.063) 6.88 6.55 D_FUNC = 0.63*ic, Errorvar.= 0.47 , Rý = 0.46 (0.068) (0.050) 9.27 9.42 MLQ_1 = 0.56*is, Errorvar.= 0.30 , Rý = 0.52 (0.068) (0.035) 8.17 8.57 MLQ_2 = 0.66*ic, Errorvar.= 0.21 , Rý = 0.68 (0.059) (0.026) 11.22 8.13 MLQ_3 = 0.65*is, Errorvar.= 0.26 , Rý = 0.63 (0.074) (0.033) 8.74 7.65 MLQ_4 = 0.43*lf, Errorvar.= 0.76 , Rý = 0.19 (0.086) (0.082) 4.94 9.34 MLQ_5 = 0.71*iib, Errorvar.= 0.33 , Rý = 0.60 (0.075) (0.038) 9.37 8.63 MLQ_6 = 0.66*cr, Errorvar.= 0.28 , Rý = 0.62 (0.090) (0.033) 7.32 8.57 MLQ_7 = 0.69*im, Errorvar.= 0.18 , Rý = 0.73 (0.043) (0.022) 16.27 8.05
147
MLQ_8 = 1.03*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.40 , Rý = 0.73 (0.049) 8.05 MLQ_9 = 1.04*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.29 , Rý = 0.79 (0.040) 7.25 MLQ_10 = 0.97*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.60 , Rý = 0.61 (0.067) 8.91 MLQ_11 = 0.96*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.42 , Rý = 0.69 (0.052) (0.051) 18.27 8.30 MLQ_12 = 0.94*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.50 , Rý = 0.64 (0.057) 8.75 MLQ_13 = 0.49*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 1.31 , Rý = 0.15 (0.084) (0.13) 5.80 9.95 MLQ_14 = 0.45*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 1.21 , Rý = 0.14 (0.081) (0.12) 5.55 9.97 MLQ_15 = 0.42*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 2.04 , Rý = 0.078 (0.20) 9.96 MLQ_16 = - 0.88*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.86 , Rý = 0.47 (0.080) (0.10) -10.93 8.30 MLQ_17 = - 0.86*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.82, Rý = 0.48 MLQ_18 = - 0.41*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 2.15 , Rý = 0.071 (0.11) (0.22) -3.57 9.95 MLQ_19 = - 0.83*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.92 , Rý = 0.43 (0.081) (0.11) -10.25 8.57
148
MLQ_20 = - 0.51*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.25 , Rý = 0.17 (0.13) 9.75 MLQ_21 = - 0.66*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.05 , Rý = 0.30 (0.11) 9.38 MLQ_22 = - 0.46*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.27 , Rý = 0.14 (0.13) 9.82 MLQ_23 = - 0.67*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.75, Rý = 0.38 MLQ_24 = - 0.51*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.60 , Rý = 0.14 (0.099) (0.16) -5.17 9.77 MLQ_25 = 0.48*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 1.46 , Rý = 0.14 (0.15) 9.79 MLQ_26 = 0.40*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.76 , Rý = 0.082 (0.11) (0.18) 3.68 9.83 MLQ_27 = 0.54*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.46 , Rý = 0.17 (0.10) (0.15) 5.40 9.48 MLQ_28 = 0.46*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.55 , Rý = 0.12 (0.10) (0.16) 4.49 9.69 MLQ_29 = 0.33*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 0.90 , Rý = 0.11 (0.077) (0.092) 4.24 9.74 MLQ_30 = 1.00*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 0.37 , Rý = 0.73 (0.082) (0.11) 12.23 3.49 MLQ_31 = 0.72*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 0.48 , Rý = 0.52 (0.070) (0.072) 10.32 6.69
149
MLQ_32 = 0.95*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.28 , Rý = 0.41 (0.11) (0.17) 8.68 7.51 MLQ_33 = 0.89*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.94 , Rý = 0.46 (0.097) (0.13) 9.16 7.03 MLQ_34 = 0.73*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.27 , Rý = 0.30 (0.10) (0.15) 7.18 8.57 MLQ_35 = 0.52*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.39 , Rý = 0.16 (0.10) (0.15) 5.14 9.39 MLQ_36 = 0.42*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 1.31 , Rý = 0.12 (0.092) (0.13) 4.59 9.76 Structural Equations iia = - 1.47*Pillar1 + 6.28*Pillar2 + 7.36*Pillar3 - 2.71*Pillar4 + 5.11*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.065 , Rý = 0.94 (0.35) (1.21) (1.04) (1.08) (0.95) (0.040) -4.24 5.21 7.11 -2.50 5.39 1.65 iib = - 1.18*Pillar1 + 5.75*Pillar2 + 6.79*Pillar3 - 2.47*Pillar4 + 4.71*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.065 , Rý = 0.93 (0.31) (1.11) (0.95) (1.00) (0.87) (0.036) -3.76 5.20 7.14 -2.47 5.40 1.80 im = - 1.36*Pillar1 + 5.79*Pillar2 + 6.88*Pillar3 - 2.45*Pillar4 + 4.72*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.089, Rý = 0.91 (0.30) (1.02) (0.80) (0.99) (0.80) -4.48 5.65 8.57 -2.48 5.88 is = - 1.38*Pillar1 + 5.52*Pillar2 + 6.59*Pillar3 - 2.46*Pillar4 + 4.74*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.20 , Rý = 0.80 (0.28) (0.70) (0.93) (0.70) (0.063) -4.98 7.89 -2.66 6.74 3.21 ic = - 1.37*Pillar1 + 5.88*Pillar2 + 6.98*Pillar3 - 2.56*Pillar4 + 4.99*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.050 , Rý = 0.95
150
(0.32) (1.10) (0.91) (1.02) (0.87) (0.034) -4.29 5.36 7.70 -2.51 5.76 1.48 cr = - 1.44*Pillar1 + 6.38*Pillar2 + 7.52*Pillar3 - 2.67*Pillar4 + 5.21*Pillar5, Errorvar.= -0.036 , Rý = 1.03 (0.37) (1.33) (1.22) (1.12) (1.06) (0.040) -3.91 4.78 6.15 -2.38 4.93 -0.91 W_A_R_N_I_N_G : Error variance is negative. mbea = 0.11*Pillar1 - 0.33*Pillar2 - 0.34*Pillar3 + 0.039*Pillar4 - 0.12*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.95 , Rý = 0.019 (0.17) (0.56) (0.63) (0.27) (0.46) (0.27) 0.63 -0.58 -0.53 0.15 -0.26 3.55 mbep = 0.64*Pillar1 - 2.72*Pillar2 - 3.07*Pillar3 + 1.14*Pillar4 - 2.15*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.83 , Rý = 0.16 (0.56) (0.47) (0.44) (0.18) -4.90 -6.58 2.57 4.56 lf = 1.13*Pillar1 - 4.28*Pillar2 - 4.87*Pillar3 + 1.73*Pillar4 - 3.44*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.58 , Rý = 0.42 (0.28) (0.95) (0.89) (0.76) (0.76) (0.15) 4.08 -4.49 -5.44 2.29 -4.53 3.81 NOTE: Rý for Structural Equations are Hayduk's (2006) Blocked-Error Rý Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Pillar1 1.00 Pillar2 -0.23 1.00 (0.08) -3.03 Pillar3 0.27 -0.78 1.00 (0.08) (0.07) 3.34 -11.66 Pillar4 0.22 -0.44 0.49 1.00 (0.08) (0.07) (0.11) 2.87 -6.05 4.41
151
Pillar5 0.33 -0.44 -0.08 0.46 1.00 (0.08) (0.08) (0.13) (0.08) 4.27 -5.55 -0.62 5.75 Global Goodness of Fit Statistics, Missing Data Case -2ln(L) for the saturated model = 31287.786 -2ln(L) for the fitted model = 34577.865 Degrees of Freedom = 1960 Full Information ML Chi-Square = 3290.08 (P = 0.0) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058 90 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = (0.054 ; 0.061) P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.00020
152
APPENDIX I
STUDY APPROVAL FROM IRB
153
154
REFERENCES
Albright, Jeremy J., and Hun Myoung Park. 2009. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using
Amos, LISREL, Mplus, and SAS/STAT CALIS. Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.” http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath/stat/all/cfa/ index.html. Accessed on 3 Jan 2010.
Amazon. 2010. Advanced search performed for books with the word leadership in their
title published during 2008 or 2009. http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Search-Books/b/ref=sv_b_0?ie=UTF8&node=241582011. Accessed on 16 Jan.
Antonakis, John A., Bruce J. Avolio, and Negara Sivasubramaniam. 2003. Context and
leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 261–295.
Antonakis, John, Anna T. Cianciolo, and Robert J. Sternberg. 2004a. Preface: Why the
nature of leadership? in The Nature of Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: vii - viii.
Antonakis, John, Anna T. Cianciolo, and Robert J. Sternberg. 2004b. Leadership: Past,
present and future, in The Nature of Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 3 – 15.
Antonakis, John, and Robert J. House. 2004. On instrumental leadership: Beyond
transactions and transformations. UNL Gallup Leadership Institute Summit, (Jun), 26 pages.
Atwater, Leanne E., and David C. Atwater. 1994. Organizational transformation:
Strategies for change and improvement, in Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, edited by Bass and Avolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 146 – 173.
Atwater, Leanne E., Shelley D. Dionne, Bruce Avolio, John F. Camobreco, and Alan W.
Lau. 1999. A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 52, 12 (Dec): 1543 – 1562.
Atwater, Leanne, Alan Lau, Bernard Bass, Bruce Avolio, John Camobreco, and Neil
Whitmore. 1994. The content, construct, and criterion-related validity of leader behavior measures. ARI Research Note. Virginia Military Research Laboratory.
Avolio, Bruce J. 1994. The natural: Some antecedents to transformational leadership.
International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 9 (September): 1559-1581.
155
Avolio, Bruce J. 2005. Leadership Development in Balance: Made / Born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Avolio, Bruce J., and Bernard M. Bass. 1994. Evaluating the Impact of
Transformational Leadership Training at Individual, Group, Organizational, and Community Levels. Final report to W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, Bruce J., and Bernard M. Bass. 2002. Developing Potential Across a Full Range
of Leadership: Cases On Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Avolio, Bruce J., and Bernard M. Bass. 2004. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
Third Edition Manual and Sampler Set. Mento Park, CA: Mind Garden. Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dennis Young. 1999. Re-examining the
components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441 – 462.
Baehr, Melany, and Ernest C. Froemel. 1996. Experience and Background Inventory
(Form S). London: Reid London House. Barbuto, John E. 2005. Motivation and transactional, charismatic and transformational
leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 4: 26 – 40.
Barbuto, John E., and Richard W. Scholl. 1999. Motivation sources inventory:
Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports, 84: 1087 – 1098.
Bass, Bernard M. 1981. Stodgdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and
Research. New York: The Free Press. Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York:
Free Press. Bass, Bernard M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18: 19 – 31. Bass, Bernard M. 1996. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into
Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Bass, Bernard M. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and
Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
156
Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1992. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15, 5: 21 – 27.
Bass, Bernard, and Bruce Avolio. 1995. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Permissions Set. Mento Park, CA: Mind Garden. Beer, Michael. 1988. The critical path for change: Keys to success and failure in six
companies, in Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing Organizations for a Competitive World, edited by Kilmann and Colvin. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Bell-Roundtree, Carolyn V. 2004. Does Manager Behavior Influence Knowledge
Worker Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Attitudes? A Validation of Kouzes and Posner’s Transformational Leadership Theory. Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Bennis, Warren G. 1959. Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem
of Authority. Boston: Boston University. Bennis, Warren G. 2004. The crucibles of authentic leadership, in The Nature of
Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 331 – 343.
Bennis, Warren G., and Robert J. Thomas. 2002. Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values
and Defining Moments Shape Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Bentler, Peter M., and Chih-Ping Chou. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 1: 78-117. Bird, Charles. 1940. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton – Century. Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Group. Blatt, Dennis A. 2002. A Study to Determine the Relationship Between the Leadership
Styles of Career Technical Directors and School Climate as Perceived by Teachers. Dissertation in Education Leadership. West Virginia University.
Bommer, William H., Robert S. Rubin, and Timothy T. Baldwin. 2004. Setting the stage
for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 2 (Apr): 195 – 210.
Bono, Joyce E., and Timothy A. Judge. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward
understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 554-571.
157
Bossidy, Larry, and Ram Charan. 2002. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Crown Business.
Brewerton, Paul, and Lynne Millward. 2004. Organizational Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Reprint. Brown, F. William, Scott E. Bryant, and Michael D. Reilly. 2006. Does emotional
intelligence – as measured by the EQI – influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 5: 330 – 351.
Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck. 1989. Single sample cross-validation indices
for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 4 (Oct): 445 – 455.
Buchanan, Leigh. 2009. The 2009 Inc. 500. Inc., 7 (Sep): 17 – 55. Buckingham, Marcus, and Curt Coffman. 1999. First, Break All the Rules: What the
World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. New York: Simon and Schuster. Burnett, Donna, and Kim James. 1994. Using the outdoors to facilitate personal change
in managers. The Journal of Management Development, 13, 9 (Jan 1): 14. Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. 1999. Tests in Print V: An Index to Tests, Test
Reviews, and the Literature on Specific Tests. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. 2009. Test Description and Review of the
Work Profile Questionnaire. buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/reviews.jsp?item=07002822 Accessed 29 Nov.
Bryman, Alan E. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. Cameron, Allan. unknown. Work Profile Questionnaire. Oxford, UK: The Test
Agency. Carless, Sally A. 1998. Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader
behavior as measured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71: 353 – 358.
Carless, Sally A. 2001. Assessing the discriminant validity of the leadership practices
inventory (LPI). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 233 – 239.
158
Carlson, Kevin D., Steven E. Scullen, Frank L. Schmidt, Hannah Rothstein, and Frank Erwin. 1999. Generalizable biographical data validity can be achieved without multi-organizational development and keying. Personnel Psychology, 52, 3, (Oct 1): 731 – 755.
Carlyle, Thomas. 1888. On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History. New
York: Fredrick A. Stokes and Brother. Digitized in Google Books. Cassel, Russell N. 1959. Test of Social Insight. New Rochelle, NY: Bruce. Cliff, Norman, and Charles D. Hamburger. 1967. The study of sampling errors in factor
analysis by means of artificial experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 68: 430 – 445.
Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap, and Others
Don’t. New York: Harper Business. Collins, Jim. 2009. How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In.
New York: Collins Business. Collins, Jim, and Jerry I. Porras. 1994. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies. New York: Harper Business. Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 3 (Sep): 297 – 334. Cronbach, Lee J. 2004. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor
procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 3 (Jun): 391 – 418. Daniels, Aubrey. 2009. Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money
(And What To Do Instead). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications. Day, David V. 2001. Assessment of leadership outcomes, in The Nature of
Organizational Leadership, edited by Zaccaro and Klimoski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 384 – 409.
Day, Stacey. 2003. Leadership Practices of Scientists at The United States National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Dissertation in Human and Organizational Systems. Fielding Graduate Institute.
Den Hartog, Deanne N., Jaap J. Van Muijen, and Paul L. Koopman. 1997. Transactional
versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70 (Mar): 19 – 34.
Denison, Daniel R. 1990. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
159
Drucker, Peter F. 1958. Business objectives and survival needs: Notes on a discipline of business enterprise. Journal of Business, 31 (Apr): 81 – 90.
Drucker, Peter F. 2001a. Leadership as work, in The Essential Peter Drucker. New
York: Harper Business: 268 – 271. Drucker, Peter F. 2001b. The coming of an entrepreneurial society, in The Essential
Peter Drucker. New York: Harper Business: 322 – 328. Evans, D.R., and Wendy E. Cope. 2003. Quality of Life Questionnaire. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems. Everitt, Brian. 1993. Cluster Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Halsted Press. Ferrara, F. Felicia. 2003. Review of the experience and background inventory (form s),
in The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook, edited by Plake, Impara, and Spies. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Follett, Mary Parker. 1949. The essentials of leadership in Freedom and Coordination.
London: Pittman. Friedman, Thomas L. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first
Century. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gazelles, Inc. 2009. Who are Gazelles Customers. www.gazelles.com/customers.html.
Accessed 1 Dec. George, Bill. 2003. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating
Lasting Value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. George, Bill, and Andrew McLean. 2007. Why leaders lose their way. Strategy and
Leadership, 35, 4: 4 – 11. George, Darren, and Paul Mallery. 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple
Guide and Reference, 11.0 Update, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gergen, David. 2005. Does leadership matter? U.S. News and World Report, 139, 16
(Oct): 91. Gershenoff, Amy B. 2003. Individual Difference and Leader Emergence In a
Transformational Context: An Examination of Person and Process. Dissertation in Psychology. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
160
Gliem, Joseph A., and Rosemary R. Gliem. 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales, in the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Columbus, OH. 8-10 Oct.
Goertzel, Victor, and Mildred G. Goertzel. 1962. Cradles of Eminence. London:
Constable and Company. Goldberg, Lewis R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models in Personality Psychology Europe 7, edited by Mervielde, Deary, De Fruyt and Ostendorf. Tilberg, Netherlands: Tilberg University Press: 7 – 28.
Goldsmith, Marshall. 2007. What Got You Here Won’t Get You There. New York:
Hyperion. Google. 2010. Search for the term leader using Google Scholar.
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=leader&btnG=Search&as_allsubj=all&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. Accessed 16 Jan.
Gough, Harrison G., and Alfred B. Heilbrun. 1983. The Adjective Checklist Manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Graham, Jill W. 1982. Leadership: A critical analysis, in Conference Proceedings of The
42nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. New York. Aug. Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1998.
Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hakstian, A. Ralph, W. Todd Rogers, and Raymond B. Cattell. 1982. The behavior of
numbers factors rules with simulated data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17: 353 – 365.
Hawley, Gwen A. 1988. MPD, Measures of Psychosocial Development: Professional
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hersey, Paul, and Ken H. Blanchard. 1969. Management of Organizational Behavior:
Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hersen, Michel. 2004. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment,
Volume 4: Industrial and Organizational Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Herzberg, Frederick. 1968. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, (Jan / Feb): 53 - 62.
161
Herzberg, Frederick., Bernard Mausner, and Barbara B. Snyderman. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley.
Higgins, Charles C. 1998. Transactional and Transformational Leadership: An
Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership Orientation and Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness. Dissertation in Education. The George Washington University.
Higgins, James M. 1994. The Management Challenge, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. Hogan, Robert, and Robert B. Kaise. 2005. What we know about leadership. Review of
General Psychology, 9, 2 (Jun): 169 – 180. House, Robert J., and Terence R. Mitchell. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership.
Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn): 81 – 97. Howard, Ann, and Douglas W. Bray. 1988. Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing
Age and Changing Times. New York: Guilford. Hunt, James G. 2004. What is leadership? in The Nature of Leadership, edited by
Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 19 – 47. Jacobs, Charles S. 2009. Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other
Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science. New York: Portfolio. Jenkins, William O. 1947. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to
military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44: 54 – 79. Johnson, Richard A., and Dean W. Wichern. 2002. Applied Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, 5th ed.. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Johnson, Richard A. 1994. Miller and Freund’s Probability and Statistics for Engineers,
5th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Jolson, Marvin A., Alan J. Dubinsky, Francis J. Yammarino, and Lucette B. Comer.
1993. Transforming the sales force with leadership. Sloan Management Review, 34, 3 (Spring): 95 – 106.
Jöreskog, Karl G. 1993. Testing structured equation models, in Testing Structural
Equation Models, edited by Bollen and Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 294 – 313.
Jester, Lynne. 2003. Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
162
Katz, Daniel, Michael Maccoby, Gerald Gurin, and L.G. Floor. 1951. Productivity, Supervision and Morale Among Railroad Workers. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1952. Some recent findings in human relations
research, in Readings in Social Psychology, edited by Swanson, Newcombe, and Hartley. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the
High-Performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Keegan, John. 2002. Churchill. London: Penguin. Keller, Tiffany, and William Olson. 2000. The advisability of outdoor leadership
training: Caveat emptor. Review of Business, 21, 1/2 (Apr): 4-6. Kenny, David A. 2009. Root mean square error of approximation, in Measuring Model
Fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm. Accessed 6 Jan 2010. Kim, Sung Hae. 2003. An Examination of Action Learning as a Method for Developing
Transformational Leadership Behaviors and Characteristics. Dissertation in Education. The George Washington University.
Kirkbride, Paul 2006. Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership
model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38, 1: 23 – 34. Kotter, James P. 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From
Management. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep
Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1999. Psychometric Properties of the
Leadership Practices Inventory (Updated). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer. Kroeck, K. Galen, Kevin B. Lowe, and Kevin W. Brown. 2004. The assessment of
leadership, in The Nature of Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 71 – 97.
Kudo, Franklin T. 2005. Transformational Leadership Development in Adolescent
Youth: Authoritative Parenting, and the Mediating Effect of Psychological Autonomy and Mastery Orientation. Dissertation in Management. Case Western Reserve University.
163
Kuhnert, Karl, and Philip Lewis. 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648–657.
Lapin, Lawrence L. 1998. Probability and Statistics for Modern Engineering, 2nd ed.
Boston: PWS – Kent. Leslie, Jean B., and John W. Fleenor. 1998. Feedback to Managers: A Review and
Comparison of Multi-Rater Instruments for Management Development, 3rd ed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lewin, Kurt, and Ronald Lippitt. 1938. An experimental approach to the study of
autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1: 292 - 300. Likert, Rensis. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Likert, Rensis. 1967. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York:
McGraw-Hill. Louv, Richard. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-
Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Maak, Thomas, and Nicola M. Pless. 2009. Business leaders as citizens of the world.
Advancing humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88: 537 – 550.
MacCallum, Robert C. 1995. Model specification: Procedures, strategies and related
issues, in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, edited by Hoyle. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 16 – 36.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1950. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50:
370 – 396. McCauley, Cynthia D. 2004. Successful and unsuccessful leadership, in The Nature of
Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 199 – 221.
McCauley, Cynthia D., Russ S. Moxley, and Ellen Van Velsor (eds.). 1998. Centre for
Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGregor, Douglas. M. 1957. The human side of enterprise. Management Review,
(Nov).
164
McLaurin, James R., and Mohammed Bushanain Al Amri. 2008. Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership, in the Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. Reno, NV: 15 – 18 Oct.
McLean, Bethany, and Peter Elkind. 2003. The Smartest Guys in the Room: The
Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. New York: Portfolio. Merriam Webster Online. 2007. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leadership.
Accessed 2007 and 2009. Mind Garden. 2010. MLQ for Researchers. www.mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm
Accessed 27 Feb. Mintzberg, Henry. 1971. Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Management
Science, 18(2): 97-110. Mintzberg, Henry. 2009. Debunking management myths: A brief interview with Henry
Mintzberg. Interview by Martha Mangelsdorf. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51, 1 (Fall): 12.
Muldoon, Shane Douglas, and Stephanie Miller. 2005. Leadership: Interpreting life
patterns and their managerial significance. The Journal of Management Development, 24, 1/2: 132 – 144.
Mumford, Michael D., Jennifer O’Connor, Timothy Clifton, Mary S. Connelly, and
Stephen Zaccaro. 1993. Background data constructs as predictors of leadership behavior. Human Performance, 6, 2: 151 – 195.
Murphy, Andre D. 2002. Perception and Reality: An Empirical Assessment of Navy
Leadership Styles and Business Process Reengineering Outcomes. Dissertation in Education. University of San Diego.
Obama, Barack. 2009. President Obama and Secretary Geithner announce plans to
unlock credit for small businesses. White House Press Release. 16 Mar. Ozaralli, Nurdan. 2003. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and
team effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24, 5/6: 335 – 344.
Nowicki, Stephen, and Marshall P. Duke. 1994. Individual differences in the nonverbal
communication of affect: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 1 (Mar): 9 – 35.
Palmer, Daniel E. 2009. Business leadership: Three levels of ethical analysis. Journal
of Business Ethics, 88: 525 – 536.
165
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Phills, James A. Jr. 2005. Leadership matters -- Or does it. Leader to Leader, 36,
(Apr 1): 46-52. Pinchot, Gifford. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Robert H. Moorman, and Richard Fetter.
1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.
Popper Michael, Ofra Mayseless, and Omri Castelnovo. 2000. Transformational
leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 2: 267 – 289 Reichers, Arnon E., John P. Wanous, and James T. Austin. 1997. Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11: 48–59.
Rice, John A. 1995. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Press. Robinson, James W., and James R. Robinson. 2001. Jack Welch and Leadership:
Executive Lessons from the Master CEO. Roseville, CA: Prima. Roper, Everett. 2009. The Relationship Between Organizational Culture, Management
Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment and their Impact on Organizational Outcomes in a High-Technology Organization. Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Rost, Joseph C. 1998. Leadership and management, in Leading Organizations:
Perspectives for a New Era, edited by Gill, Robinson, and Hickman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 97 – 114.
Rowold, Jens, and Kathrin Heinitz. 2007. Transformational and charismatic leadership:
assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 121 – 133.
Rubin, Robert S. 2003. Paddling Upstream in Leadership Research: Exploring
Antecedents of Transformational Leadership Behavior. Dissertation in Organizational Psychology. Saint Louis University.
166
Russell, Robert A. 1987. Retrospective comment on the principles of scientific management, in The Great Writings of Management and Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sashkin, Marshall. 2004. Transformational leadership approaches: A review and
synthesis, in The Nature of Leadership, edited by Antonakis, Cianciolo, and Sternberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: vii - viii.
Schell, William J., Alisha D. Youngblood, and Phillip A. Farrington. 2008. An
investigation into the antecedent experiences of transformational leaders: research approach and initial findings, in the Proceedings of the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, edited by Fowler and Mason. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 17 – 21 May: 1160 – 1165.
Scientific Software. 2009. Structure Equation Modeling. Available at
www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/complexdocs/chapter5_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec. Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday. Sheldon, Oliver. 1923. The Philosophy of Management. New York: Pitman Publishing
Ltd. Slater, Robert. 1998. Jack Welch and the GE Way: Management Insights and
Leadership Secrets of the Legendary CEO. New York: McGraw Hill. Sosik, John J., Veronica M. Godshalk, and Francis J. Yammarino. 2004.
Transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and expectations for career success in mentor–protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 241 – 261.
Spencer Stuart. 2006. Leading CEOs: A Statistical Snapshot of S&P 500 Leaders.
http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_Study_JS.pdf Steiger, James H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval
estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 2 (Apr): 173 - 180. Stevens, James P. 2002. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 4th ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Stogdill, Ralph M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35 – 71. Stogdill, Ralph M., and Alvin E. Coons (eds.). 1957. Leader Behavior: Its descriptions
and Measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
167
Stoltz, Paul G. 1992. An examination of leadership development in the great outdoors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 4 (Winter): 357 – 372.
Strock, James M. 2003. Theodore Roosevelt on Leadership: Executive Lessons from the
Bully Pulpit. New York: Three Rivers Press. Tannenbaum, Robert, and Warren H. Schmidt. 1973. How to choose a leadership
pattern. Harvard Business Review, 51, 3 (May – Jun): 162 – 180. Taylor, Frederick W. 1916. The principles of scientific management. Bulletin of the
Taylor Society, (December): 13 – 23. Tejeda, Manuel J., Terri A. Scandura, and Rajnandini Pillai. 2001. The MLQ revisited:
Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 31 – 52.
Thomas, Alan B. 1988. Does leadership make a difference to organizational
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 3 (Sep): 388-400 Tichy, Noel, and Mary A. Devanna. 1990. The Transformational Leader, rev. ed. New
York: Wiley. Tolstoy, Leo. 1886. War and Peace. 1869. Moscow: Russkii Vestnik (series). Page
numbers from English translation, London: Vizetelly and Co. 1886. Digitized by Google Books.
Tompkins, Jim. 2007. Bold Leadership for Organizational Acceleration. Raleigh, NC:
Tompkins Press. Towler, Annette. 2005. Charismatic leadership development: Role of parental
attachment style and parental control. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 4: 15 – 25.
Tracey, J. Bruce, and Timothy R. Hinkin. 1998. Transformational leadership or effective
managerial practices? Group and Organization Management, 23, 3 (Sep): 220 – 236.
United States Small Business Administration. 2009. Small businesses most likely to
lead economic recovery. The Small Business Advocate, 28, 6 (Jul). Utley, Dawn R. 1995. Empirical Validation of Classical Behavioral Concepts with
Respect to Quality Enhancement Implementation in Engineering Organizations. Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. University of Alabama in Huntsville.
168
van Rensburg, Tony and Geoffrey Prideaux. 2006. Turning professionals into managers using multisource feedback. Journal of Management Development, 25, 6: 561 – 571.
Waldman, David A, Gabriel G. Ramirez, Robert J. House, and Phanish Puranam. 2001.
Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1: 134 – 143.
Walumba, Fed O., Bani Orwa, Peng Wang, and John J. Lawler. 2005. Transformational
leadership, organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 6, 2 (Summer): 235 – 252.
Wallace, James, and Jim Erickson. 1992. Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the
Microsoft Empire. New York: Wiley. Watson, David, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of
brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 6: 1063 – 1070.
Wong, Leonard. 2004. Developing Adaptive Leaders: The Crucible Experience of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Report published by the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College (July). www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi. Accessed 2007.
Yukl, Gary A. 1981. Leadership in Organizations. New York: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, Gary A. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2: 285 - 306. Zagorsek, Hugo, Vlado Dimovski, and Miha Skerlavaj. 2009. Transactional and
transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal for East European Management Studies, 14, 2: 144-165.