Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keywords
Leadership, Questionnaires,
Local government, Validity
Introduction
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280296
[ 280 ]
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
[ 281 ]
[ 282 ]
Present investigation
In devising the TLQ-LGV, care was taken to
ensure that the instrument was based on
constructs elicited from a sample which
comprised an approximately equal number of
male and female managers and managers at
different levels of seniority (executive, top,
senior, middle). Factor analysis of the items
revealed the existence of nine separate
factors, each of which reflected a different
aspect of transformational leadership. Each
factor demonstrated a statistically significant
level of internal reliability (range = 0.85 to
0.97) and convergent validity for the sample
as a whole, or divided by level or sex (range r
= 0.30 to 0.86) (Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe, 1999).
The present investigation was designed to
determine whether the scales derived from
these factors: show convergent validity, even
when the subjects are sub-divided by level of
seniority and sex; and have differential
patterns of relationships with criterion
variables among the sample as a whole, and
[ 283 ]
H2:
Method
In order to examine further the convergent
validity and to determine the discriminant
validity of the TLQ-LGV, five items (criterion
variables) were used. These were designed to
measure the perceived effect of the manager
on the individual's Achievement (``Enables
me to achieve more than I expected''), Job
satisfaction (``Behaves in ways which
increase my job satisfaction''), Motivation
(``Increases my motivation to achieve''), and
Satisfaction with leadership style (``Leads in
a way that I find satisfying''). A single item
criterion variable was added which relates to
Stress (``Leads in a way which reduces my
job-related stress''). Four of these criteria
were chosen since they had been used to
establish the convergent validity of other,
comparable instruments (e.g. Bass and
Avolio, 1990a, 1990b). The items were
included within a pilot instrument, the
Leadership Questionnaire Local
Government Version (LQ-Pilot LGV), which
was distributed among a random, stratified
sample of local authority organisation
in the UK.
It is recognised that the use of singlesource, self-report evidence can be criticised
for leading to possible ``halo effects''.
However, given that the instrument has only
just been developed, evidence from objective
criteria is not yet available; as noted, the
criterion variables chosen were those
employed in the early stages of the validation
of a comparable instrument. More
substantially, to have sought relevant othersource data would have compromised the
construct validity of the instrument, the
integrity of which is predicated on the
[ 284 ]
Results
Usable responses were received from 1,464
managers. These were obtained from
distributing the instrument to a random,
stratified sample of local government
organisations in England and Wales. The
data were analysed in two ways: productmoment correlation coefficients; and stepwise multiple regression equations, were
calculated between the scales and each of the
criterion variables. The step-wise method
was selected since the scales were not
themselves uncorrelated. In each case, an
Table I
Composition of sample, by level and sex
Level/sex
Level 1:
Level 2:
Level 3:
Level 4:
Board/chief executive
Directorate/director
Senior/assistant director
Middle/section-unit head
Male
Female
33
127
346
555
1
22
115
256
1. Product-moment correlations
2. Multiple regressions
Whole sample
Table II
Product-moment correlation coefficients between scales 1-9 and criterion variables, for managers
Factor/criterion variable
Achievement
B
C
job satisfaction
A
B
C
Motivation
B
C
Satisfying leadership
A
B
C
Stress (negative)
A
B
C
M 0.78
F 0.81
0.73
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.87
0.83
0.82
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.89
0.84
0.81
0.87
0.87
0.81
0.89
0.80
0.81
0.84
0.84
0.72
0.76
0.74
0.76
0.75
0.79
M 0.53
F 0.68
0.43
0.37
0.55
0.22
0.51
0.70
0.44
0.39
0.57
0.26
0.54
0.66
0.45
0.42
0.58
0.32
0.51
0.74
0.48
0.42
0.60
0.35
0.42
0.62
0.43
0.41
0.52
0.26
Decisiveness, determination,
self-confidence
M 0.56
F 0.59a
0.60
0.60
0.65
0.62
0.61
0.50a
0.61
0.66
0.67
0.63
0.63
0.60
0.63
0.68
0.67
0.69
0.61
0.72
0.65
0.69
0.71
0.70
0.54
0.60a
0.56
0.60
0.58
0.61
Integrity, trustworthiness,
honesty and openness
M 0.66
F 0.81
0.64
0.67
0.71
0.72
0.81
0.67
0.78
0.82
0.76
0.79
0.71
0.65a
0.74
0.77
0.75
0.81
0.82
0.75
0.79
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.73
0.5a
0.70
0.81
0.69
0.74
M 0.62
F 0.69
0.65
0.74
0.65
0.72
0.68
0.63
0.72
0.75
0.69
0.74
0.71
0.60a
0.68
0.75
0.68
0.74
0.70
0.64
0.67
0.72
0.71
0.74
0.61
0.54a
0.62
0.69
0.64
0.65
Networker, promoter,
communicator
M 0.59
F 0.61
0.62
0.63
0.66
0.61
0.71
0.59
0.66
0.75
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.61
0.67
0.72
0.73
0.69
0.73
0.76
0.69
0.75
0.75
0.68
0.57
0.59
0.62
0.71
0.61
0.56
Accessibility, approachability
M 0.50
F 0.66
0.58
0.64
0.67
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.66
0.69
0.69
0.73
0.60
0.79
0.62
0.69
0.71
0.74
0.66
0.78
0.66
0.70
0.72
0.75
0.62
0.64
0.61
0.65
0.65
0.67
Clarifies boundaries
M 0.52
F 0.64
0.66
0.57
0.67
0.71
0.63
0.59
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.76
0.57
0.62
0.69
0.67
0.71
0.74
0.65
0.66
0.73
0.70
0.73
0.78
0.54
0.62
0.69
0.73
0.62
0.69
M 0.67
F 0.68
0.66
0.81
0.72
0.72
0.78
0.63
0.69
0.72
0.74
0.73
0.73
0.70
0.69
0.74
0.75
0.78
0.76
0.79
0.70
0.72
0.76
0.74
0.59
0.68
0.59
0.67
0.60
0.65
Notes: Level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n 126), females (F) (n 13); Level 3, males (M) (n 294), females (F) (n 88); Level 4, males
(M) (n 393), females (F) (n 162); a Denotes p < 0.05; p < 0.01 (in all other cases)
[ 285 ]
Achievement
Job satisfaction
Motivation
Satisfying
leadership style
Stress (negative)
0.367
0.157
0.100
0.081
0.189
0.78
0.345
0.109
0.138
0.086
0.155
0.137
0.83
0.413
0.177
0.0.51
0.065
0.105
0.152
0.83
0.251
0.144
0.150
0.068
0.090
0.178
0.122
0.84
0.297
0.118
0.157
0.119
0.178
0.74
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for whole sample (n 1172)
Table III (b)
Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variable
Factor/criterion variable
Achievement
B
C
Job satisfaction
A
B
C
Motivation
B
C
0.124
Decisiveness, determination, selfconfidence
0.238 0.183 0.123
0.110 0.198 0.208
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty
and openness
0.156 0.111
0.118
Accessibility, approachability
0.078 0.076
Clarifies boundaries
Satisfying leadership
A
B
C
0.135
0.127 0.166
0.124
0.096
0.251 0.124
0.120
0.076 0.078 0.096 0.173 0.094 0.112
0.142 0.146 0.228 0.252 0.156
0.180 0.176 0.095 0.133
0.84 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.71
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) (n 388), and Level 4 (n 597)
[ 286 ]
Stress (negative)
A
B
C
0.77
0.74
Factor/criterion variable
Genuine concern for others
Political sensitivity and skills
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness
Empowering, develops potential
Networker, promoter, communicator
Accessibility, approachability
Clarifies boundaries
Encourages critical and strategic thinking
Multiple R
0.359
0.060
0.135
0.074
0.106
0.168
0.77
0.368
0.094
0.202
0.171
0.237
0.81
Job satisfaction
M
F
0.355
0.090
0.145
0.086
0.150
0.138
0.83
0.329
0.068
0.174
0.115
0.095
0.172
0.136
0.84
Satisfying
leadership
M
F
Motivation
M
F
0.457
0.056
0.129
0.058
0.117
0.140
0.82
0.385
0.233
0.093
0.085
0.198
0.85
0.249
0.108
0.173
0.084
0.082
0.176
0.123
0.84
0.266
0.226
0.102
0.122
0.173
0.125
0.85
Stress (negative)
M
F
0.267
0.098
0.138
0.066
0.125
0.166
0.73
0.358
0.163
0.185
0.189
0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for males (M) (n 855), females (F) (n 289), at all levels
Table III (d)
Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variables
Factor/criterion
Genuine concern for others
M
F
Political sensitivity and
M
skills
F
Decisiveness, determination, M
self-confidence
F
Integrity, trustworthiness
M
F
Empowering, develops
M
potential
F
Networker, promoter,
M
communicator
F
Accessibility,
M
approachability
F
Clarifies boundaries
M
F
Encourages critical and
M
strategic thinking
F
Multiple R
M
F
Achievement
B
C
0.138
0.236 0.127 0.116
0.209 0.193
0.184
0.243
0.112
0.085
0.157 0.133
0.194 0.192
0.156 0.178
0.321 0.217
0.78 0.76 0.78
0.66 0.82 0.81
Job satisfaction
A
B
C
0.535
0.714
0.228
0.189
0.85
0.71
0.217
0.454
0.190
0.236
0.201
0.126
0.171
0.118
0.188
0.105
0.84
0.86
0.409
0.333
0.106
0.121
0.165
0.091
0.104
0.165
0.249
0.145
0.158
0.82
0.83
Motivation
B
C
0.629
0.295
0.532
0.402
0.82
0.82
0.405
0.414
0.128
0.378
0.103
0.202
0.114
0.120
0.100
0.83
0.83
0.444
0.414
0.102
0.191
0.095
0.149
0.133
0.153
0.249
0.83
0.86
Satisfying leadership
A
B
C
0.391
0.277
0.315
0.230
0.414
0.407
0.83
0.90
0.194
0.359
0.275
0.291
0.164
0.167
0.226
0.196
0.142
0.85
0.84
0.264
0.241
0.152
0.186
0.124
0.142
0.105
0.197
0.291
0.138
0.146
0.84
0.86
Stress (negative)
A
B
C
0.409
0.377
0.369
0.493
0.72
0.73
0.212
0.161
0.410
0.107
0.115
0.205
0.291
0.267
0.76
0.78
0.330
0.394
0.104
0.156
0.107
0.139
0.143
0.144
0.200
0.72
0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients, for managers at level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n 126), females (F) (n 13); level 3, males (M) (n 294),
females (F) (n 88); and level 4, males (M) (n 393), females (F) (n 162)
[ 287 ]
[ 288 ]
Discussion
1. Product-moment correlations
2. Multiple regressions
[ 289 ]
[ 290 ]
focus of convenience of this scale is lowerlevel managers, with the results being
consistent for both females and males at
Level 4.
For a manager to be scored highly on
encouraging critical and strategic thinking
implies that s/he is not only confident in her/
himself and but is also open to the ideas of
others two of the prerequisites of creativity
identified by Carl Rogers (1961). It has also
been identified as a factor (intellectual
stimulation) in the Bass and Avolio MLQ
(Bass, 1990a, 1990b).
Two criterion variables both achievementrelated were predicted by this scale among
the sample as a whole, but only the
relationship with Achievement was
replicated among sub-groups, and only when
the sample was divided by sex. Why different
patterns of significant relationships should
[ 291 ]
[ 292 ]
Conclusions
Overall, the results support the hypotheses
that each scale is a valid predictor of each of
the five criterion variables used, and that the
nine scales that comprise the TLQ-LGV
measure different aspects of transformational leadership.
Thus, the product-moment correlations
indicated that the nine scales are all valid,
even when the managers were subdivided by
level and sex. What emerged from the
regression analyses was firstly that, for the
sample as a whole, the nine TLQ-LGV scales
differ from each other in the extent to which
they are significant predictors of the five
criterion variables, in other words in their
focus of convenience.
Scale 1 Genuine concern for others
emerged consistently as the greatest single
predictor, but the use of the stepwise method
meant that, with each successive step, the
variance attributable to previously extracted
scales was partialed out. In this way, the
unique predictive value of each scale could
be determined.
Thus, there is evidence that the eight
remaining scales demonstrated a statistically
significant level of predictive validity in
their own right. This constitutes further
evidence of the validity of distinguishing
References
[ 293 ]
[ 294 ]
[ 295 ]
Appendix
Table AI
The nine scales
1 Genuine concern for others
Decisive when required; prepared to take difficult decisions; selfconfident; resilient to setback
7 Accessible, approachable
9 Encourages critical and strategic thinking Encourages the questioning of traditional approaches to the job;
encourages people to think of wholly new approaches/solutions to
problems; encourages strategic, rather than short-term thinking
Table AII
Factor names; number of items; means, standard deviations and coefficients of variation; alpha
coefficients and range of inter-item correlation coefficients
Factor name
1 Genuine consideration for others
Mean
Range of
inter-item
Standard Coefficient
Alpha
deviation of variation coefficient coefficients
17
70.48
18.63
26.43
0.97
0.52 0.81
30.04
4.92
16.38
0.92
0.47 0.79
38.52
7.05
18.30
0.90
0.37 0.67
39.94
9.72
24.34
0.93
0.48 0.69
38.30
7.05
18.41
0.91
0.37 0.73
[ 296 ]
Number of
items
10
43.89
9.78
22.28
0.93
0.42 0.74
7 Accessibility, approachability
26.16
5.89
22.52
0.85
0.43 0.65
20.77
4.98
23.98
0.85
0.43 0.61
29.83
6.98
23.40
0.89
0.44 0.66