Multi Factor Leadership Questionaire

Much of scientific research on leadership has more or less centred on questionnaire measures of the relationship between leader(s) and a group of followers (McCall, 1980). Over the years, many significant findings have been made by this approach; however, there is a massive debate on these findings as they largely fail to address leadership in organisations (McCall, 1980). To better explain why there is this discrepancy between research and practicality, this article has written. The purpose of this article is threefold. Firstly, to identify and briefly explain the type of leadership test analysed and to explain its main purpose. Secondly, to discuss the ways the test resonates or conflicts with classical and contemporary leadership theories; and lastly to critique the tests strengths and weakness in terms of its potential practical application, design and validity. For the fulfilment of these tasks, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) has been selected. Brief Explanation of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire This report will examine a particular type of leadership test named the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ is based on the Full Range Leadership Model. The FRLM (Full Range Leadership Model) elaborates on a full range of leadership styles and behaviours. Based on the work of Burns (1978), Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (1997) proposed three major leadership styles within the FRLM, which were namely transactional leadership, transformational leadership and non-leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (i.e. MLQ) was designed by Bass and Avolio to measure these different ranges of leadership styles, and also the outcomes of leadership i.e. effective or non-effective (Anatonakis et al., 2003). The different ranges of leadership styles are measures by different subscales, such as for Transformational Leadership the subscales are idealised attributes, idealised behaviour, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration; for Transactional Leadership the subscales are contingent rewards, active management and passive management; and for Non-Transactional Leadership the subscales are laissez faire (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Furthermore, the different subscales for the outcomes of leadership are extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Moreover, the questionnaire aims to clearly identify the characteristics that constituent a transformational, transactional or non-leader (Ray Elliot). It also explains, demonstrates and quantitatively measures the key factors that set exceptional leaders from marginal leaders; and clearly differentiates effective and ineffective leadership (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramanium, 2003). The questionnaire constituents of a comprehensive yet short survey of 45 questions that takes approximately 15 minutes to complete (Anatonakis et al, 2003). It provides a complete measurement of an individuals leadership style and effectiveness (Anatonakis et al, 2003). The responses for the survey are recommended to be gathered by the target leaders themselves and also by their colleagues who are subordinate to them, and also colleagues who are at the higher and lower level to them (Anatonakis et al, 2003). On average, six to twelve colleagues are

recommended to be filling out the survey for the target leader (Anatonakis et al, 2003). After the responses are collected, they are collaborated into an easy to read, extensive report that reflects of the leadership style and outcome of individuals, in terms a scale, item level information, narrative of the leadership style, agreement amongst other ratings, leadership outcomes, tip to increase leadership competencies and a complete interpretation of the report (Elliot, 2000). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has been used to access the effectiveness of an entire organisations leadership, and has been found to be more or less valid across different cultures and organisation types (Lowe et al, 1996) As a result, MLQ is widely used in commercial and academic research settings, and much research suggests it is one of the best tests to establish organisational outcome to survey data (Anatonakis et al, 2003). Discussion of the MLQ in context of Classical and Contemporary Leadership Theories Classical Leadership Theories Trait Theory The Trait theory states that there are isolating innate characteristics that differentiate leaders from non-leaders. On the contrary, MLQ is based on a training and development program that aims to increase the effectiveness of leadership skills in individuals (Elliot, 2000). Hence, it could be said that MLQ conflicts with the trait theory. However, a study conducted by Bass (1997) found that monozygotic twins were more similar than dizygotic twins in their selfperceived transformational leadership responses. Hence, there could be some innate characteristics related to transformational leadership, or that leadership skills can be increased in individuals only if they have these innate characteristics. Further research needs to be conducted in this regard to an answer. Behavioural Theory The Behavioural theory claims that leadership style differentiates effective leaders from ineffective leaders, and hence, individuals can be trained to be better leaders. Similarly, MLQ is based on a training and development program that aims to increase the effectiveness of leadership skills in individuals (Elliot, 2000). Hence, it could be said that MLQ resonates with the trait theory. Situational Theory The Situational theory claims that a leaders style needs to fit into fit into a given work situation to be effective. This theory describes the transactional leadership behaviour, as it constituents of a subscale of contingent reward, which means that this leadership style are driven by external contingencies, and work within the rules of the organisational culture. As MLQ describes transactional leadership style as a ineffective leadership style, it could be said that the situational theory conflicts with the MLQ.

Contemporary Leadership Theories Emotional Intelligence Theory The Emotional Intelligence theory of leadership states that emotional intelligence is consistency related to good leadership and is based on self awareness, self management, social awareness and social skills (Golman, 2000; Golman, Boyakzis, and Mckee, 2001). A research conducted by Palmer, Walls, Burgess, and Stough (2000) measured the emotional intelligence of 43 participants in managerial roles by the Trait Meta Mood Scale, and effective leadership was measured by the multifactor leadership questionnaire , as those who displayed transformational leadership behaviour. It was found that emotional intelligence correlated with many subscales of transformational leadership. This particular research suggests that emotional intelligence may be an important component of effective leadership. The study suggests that the MLQ resonates with the Emotional Intelligence theory. However, it does not measure emotional intelligence directly, as the MLQ test does not test the individuals self awareness and management, and social awareness and skills. Level 5 Leadership Theory The Level 5 leadership theory suggests that leaders need to posses all five skills, in hierarchy, to be effective leaders namely; effective leadership, competent manager, contributing team member, highly capable individual and personal humility & professional will. A study conducted by Barling, Weber and Kelloway (1996) found that by using different levels of the level 5 leadership theory in assessing the effectiveness of the training program of transformational leadership, the financial performance of the organisation increases. This study suggests that the Level 5 leadership theory might resonate with the MLQ, but further research is required, to understand this relation completely. Inspirational Leadership Theory The Inspirational Leadership Theory suggests that inspirational behaviour (i.e. selectively showing your own weaknesses, daring to be different, practicing tough empathy and relying heavily on intuition and an ability to read interpersonal cues and make highly effective use of this soft data), is consistently associated with effective leadership (Goffee and Jones, 1995). Similarly, the MLQ is based on the claim of Bass and Avolio (1997) that transformational leaders (effective) usually display their behaviour associating with four characteristics, one of which is inspirational motivation. Hence, the MLQ resonates well with the inspirational leadership theory. Critical Evaluation on the MLQ Practical Application

It would be very difficult in criticising the MLQ in terms of its application, as the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) is widely used in academic research and also a broad range of different organisations across many cultures (Anatonakis et al, 2003; Krickbride, 2006). The evidence of this is the fact that the MLQ has been translated into ten different languages, and has extensively been used in organisations globally in the following sectors in many sectors such as training, consulting, financial and insurance institutes, law firms, hospitals, mining and manufacturing businesses, media, government, marketing, gaming industry, defence, retail, property businesses, education etc. However, research (House, 1997) reveals that different cultures vary immensely in the value they give to certain leadership styles and behaviours. This may lead to a problem in the potential application of the MLQ as leadership behaviour that is valued by the MLQ (e.g. individualised consideration towards subordinates) might violate certain cultural norms of collectivist societies e.g. India and Japan. Furthermore, a research conducted by Connelly, Zaccharo, Threlfall, Marks and Mumford (2002) reveals that questionnaires like MLQ in which subordinates and peers provide evaluation, fail to measure certain types of leadership skills, as they might be less observable e.g. knowledge, problemsolving and judgement capabilities. Validity and Design Not only is the multifactor leadership questionnaire widely used in a broad range of organisations across different cultures, many research studies reveals that it is very valid and reliable in measuring managerial behaviours related to leadership performance, when it comes to transformational and transactional leadership (Anatonikis et al, 2003; Krickbride, 2006). However, the MLQ has been criticised in some areas of its conceptual framework, such as its structural validity (Tepper and Percy, 1994). Many studies (Kelloway, Barling and Helleur, 2000; Yammarino and Dubinsky, 1994; Tracey and Hinkin, 1998) have found strong correlations amongst the subscales of transformational leadership. Moreover, there has been research (Den Hartog, Van muijen and Koopman, 1997) that discovered mixed results when there has been a differentiation between the three leadership styles, but at the subscale level passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire belonged together (i.e. there is unclear differentiation between these two subscales) Moreover, a research study conducted by Tepper and Percy (1994) that examined the latent structure of MLQ by using confirmatory analyse at the item and scale with two independent samples, found that none of the models were fit to the data i.e. the idealised influence and inspirational motivation scales converged to form a mono-latent construct. In other words, the research results argued that both the scales indicated the same underlying dimension. In addition, research reveals that the questionnaire (Form -5X) does not actually measure separate transformational leader behaviours, as it assess a single, hierarchical construct of transformational leadership (Carless, 1998).

Conclusion In conclusion, this report described the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, and evaluated it in accordance to three classical and three contemporary theories. It was argued that the MLQ

resonates with the behavioural, emotional intelligence, level 5 and inspirational leadership theory and conflicts with the trait and situational leadership theory. Furthermore, the report criticised MLQ based on not being culturally universal, the fact that it gives importance to peer evaluation, ignoring the fact that certain skills cannot be observed by colleges and lastly its lack of structural validity.