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

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) _______

ii

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)

iii

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

iv

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 ( = 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

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 Ill 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.

vi

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 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................................................ 12 2.1.3 Leadership or Management........................................................ 15 2.1.4 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 RESEARCH STATEMENT............................................................................. 39 3.1 Research Questions, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses..................... 40 3.2 Importance of Research and Contribution............................................ 42

II.

III.

vii

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................................................ 51 4.3.3 Exploratory Experiences............................................................ 51 4.3.4 Early / Previous Work Experience............................................. 52 4.3.5 Formal Development Experiences............................................. 52 4.3.6 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 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 .................................................................................. 71 5.3.2 Examination of the MLQ Factor Structure ................................ 75 5.3.3 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

V.

viii

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: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: APPENDIX G:

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ................................................108 Initial Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions...................111 Refined Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions................113 Mind Garden Permissions...................................................................115 Gazelles Participant Invitations .........................................................120 LLI Correlation Analysis ....................................................................123 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....................................................................137 APPENDIX H: Structured Equation Model Output.....................................................139 APPENDIX I: Study Approval from IRB...................................................................152 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................154

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Page

Leadership Literature Review Pyramid...................................................................10 Study Conceptual Model .........................................................................................41 Overview of Theoretical LLI Model .......................................................................50 Overview of Analysis Methodology .......................................................................61 Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study....................................................64 LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram Using Ward's Method ..............................................65 Scree Plot Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the MLQ...............................78 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

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Page

Leadership Measure Selection Criteria and Winner ................................................ 47

5.1 Pilot Study Population Overview ............................................................................ 62 5.2 Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary............................................................. 67 5.3 5.4 Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender ........................................ 69 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

xi

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 didnt understand why I was still in school as a grown up. Someday youll get to tell your new little brother about all of the fun he missed before his arrival. Well now have more time to spend together and Im 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 wed 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.

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)? Roosevelt had and what is known about it? What is this gift of leadership that

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 Carlyles (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

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 organizations 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 organizations 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

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?

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 individuals 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

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

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 2000s 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?

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 The first contribution will be the

Engineering Management body of knowledge.

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.

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.

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).

10

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 leaders 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.

11

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 leaders ability to influence followers, included in this dissertations 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.

12

McGregor (1957) took the conventional view of managements 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 Taylors 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, managements 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

13

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 Blanchards (1969) theory of

Situational Leadership and Tannenbaum and Schmidts (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.

14

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 1930s and continuing on in some research areas through the 1980s. 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

15

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, Kotters (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 dont know whats going on. Its management that connects you to whats 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).

16

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

17

impact of business leadership can create large positive impacts for humanitys 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

18

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 leaders 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.

19

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 1970s (Barbuto 2005). At that time, Burns (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 multifactor 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

20

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:

21

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

22

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

23

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 followers expectations in order to meet them and remain successful (Kuhnert and Lewis 1987). Basss (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 employees 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).

24

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 leaders 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

25

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

26

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.

27

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, Murphys 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 leaders transformational leadership behaviors and the teams perceived value of their own effectiveness. Zagorsek (2009) found a

correlation of 0.79 on the organizations 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 leaderships 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 schools 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 leaderships impact on core organizational outcomes is found in the work of Jolson, et al. (1993), who in their

28

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 Posners 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

29

(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 Cronbachs 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 selfreport 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

30

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

31

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. Blatts 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 MLQs 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

32

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 MLQs 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.

33

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

34

reported having support networks and groups as role models, as well as childhoods 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

35

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. Towlers (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, fathers 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.

36

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 leaderships 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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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 leaders 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 leaders 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

40

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.

41

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 Towlers (2005) investigation into the influences of parental attachment and Avolios (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

42

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.

43

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

44

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 Bartholomews Relationship Questionnaire (Griffin and Bartholomew 1994). Gershenoff (2003) examined participants 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

45

measures of Podsakoff, et al. (1990) and compared them with measures of leader personality traits (Goldberg 1999) and the leaders 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 leaders 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 Kims action

46

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 societys 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 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. MLQ LPI

47

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,

48

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 authors 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.

49

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.

50

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 respondents 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.

51

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 respondents 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

52

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 authors doctoral committee. A

53

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 Officers Course (Group 1, n = 9) and students in the Senior Officers 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.

54

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

respondents 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)

55

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 companys weekly newsletter, Vernes 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 researchers 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

56

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

57

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.

58

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.

59

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

60

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

61

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 BAF 1 BAF 2 UAH 1 Participants 9 21 29 59 Description The French speaking group of the Belgian Armed forces junior officers course. The Dutch speaking group of the Belgian Armed forces junior officers course. (high degree of English fluency) A group of graduate students in Engineering Management at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

62

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 Wards

method. The Wards 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

63

Figure 5.2 - Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study

64

Figure 5.3 - LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram using Ward's Method 65

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 Wards method. analysis compared all available pairings of all questions included in the LLI. This 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 ( = 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.

66

Table 5.2 - Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary

Total Questions Significant Correlations in Pillar (0.01) Total Correlations in Pillar Percent of Correlations Significant Significant Cross Pillar Correlations Total Cross Correlations Percent of Correlations Significant Pillar 1 27 48 231 20.8% 17 1584 1.1% Pillar 2 28 87 300 29.0% 59 1725 3.4% Pillar 3 31 60 378 15.9% 60 1848 3.2% Pillar 4 13 20 66 30.3% 64 984 6.5% Pillar 5 7 8 21 38.1% 30 609 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.

67

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 authors 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 Bachelors degree with a full 43% holding advanced degrees. Tables 5.3 through 5.6 contain summaries of the key demographic information of the participants.

68

Table 5.3 - Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender

Female Male Prefer Not to Answer Grand Total Percent Asian 1 12 13 6.3% Black, African, African Native American American Other 1 1 1 8 1 0.5% 1 0.5% 9 4.4% Spanish, Prefer not Hispanic, to answer Latino 2 2 2 2 1.0% 4 2.0% White, Caucasian, Grand European Total 30 36 143 167 2 2 175 205 85.4% Percent 17.6% 81.5% 1.0%

Table 5.4 - Participant Job Level Demographics by Source

Source Gazelles LinkedIn Grand Total Percent
Executive (President, VP, Senior Officer, etc.) Individual Contributor (Engineer, Analyst, etc.) Manager (Director, Department Head, etc.) Not Applicable Supervisor (Team Lead, Assistant Manager, etc.)

147 12 159 77.6%

1 6 7 3.4%

20 7 27 13.2%

7 1 8 3.9%

3 1 4 2.0%

Grand Total 178 27 205

Table 5.5 - Participant Experience Level Demographic Information by Source

Source Gazelles LinkedIn Grand Total Percent 3-5 yrs 1 1 0.5% 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 21-30 yrs 19 57 83 3 10 10 22 67 93 10.7% 32.7% 45.4% 31+ yrs Grand Total 18 178 4 27 22 205 10.7%

Table 5.6 - Participant Education Level Demographic Information by Source

Source Gazelles LinkedIn Grand Total Percent High school graduate Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or (or equivalent) Some college (2 year degree) (4 year degree) professional degree 10 16 4 76 71 1 8 18 10 17 4 84 89 4.9% 8.3% 2.0% 41.0% 43.4% Prefer Not to Answer Grand Total 1 178 27 1 205 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 CEOs of the S&P 500 companies. This data allowed direct comparisons of

69

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 ( = 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.

70

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:

71

The study population displayed significantly ( = 0.05, p = 0.003) greater tendency toward Idealized Influence (Behavior) characteristics than did the comparison population.

The study population displayed significantly ( = 0.05, p < 0.001) greater tendency toward Inspirational Motivation behaviors than did the comparison population.

The study population displayed significantly ( = 0.05, p = 0.008) greater tendency toward Management By Exception (Attributed) behaviors than did the comparison population.

The study population displayed significantly ( = 0.05, p = 0.019) greater tendency toward Management By Exception (Passive) behaviors than did the comparison population.

The study population displayed significantly ( = 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 ( = 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 ( = 0.05, p = 0.02) greater tendency toward Laissez-faire behaviors than did the LinkedIn population.

72

Scale IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF

Total Sample (n = 205) Mean SD Range 3.00 0.72 4.00 3.11 0.80 4.00 3.21 0.76 4.00 3.00 0.72 4.00 3.10 0.74 4.00 2.93 0.76 4.00 1.73 0.75 3.50 1.17 0.70 4.00 0.72 0.72 4.00 Key of Frequency: 4.0 = Frequently, if not always 3.0 = Fairly often 2.0 = Sometimes 1.0 = Once in a while 0.0 = Not at all

Gazelles Group (n = 178) Mean SD Range 3.00 0.75 4.00 3.14 0.81 4.00 3.22 0.80 4.00 2.99 0.75 4.00 3.08 0.77 4.00 2.92 0.76 4.00 1.73 0.75 3.50 1.21 0.72 4.00 0.75 0.75 4.00

LinkedIn Group (n = 27) Mean SD Range 2.93 0.56 2.23 2.91 0.64 2.50 3.16 0.43 1.50 3.15 0.48 1.75 3.28 0.47 1.75 2.96 0.76 3.50 1.69 0.72 3.00 0.93 0.54 2.00 0.51 0.43 1.50

MLQ 5x 2004 Self (N=3,375) (Avolio and Bass, 2004) Mean SD Range 2.95 0.53 3.50 2.99 0.59 3.75 3.04 0.59 3.50 2.96 0.52 3.50 3.16 0.52 3.00 2.99 0.53 3.50 1.58 0.79 4.00 1.07 0.62 4.00 0.61 0.52 3.50

Legend:

Table 5.7 - Descriptive Statistics for MLQ Results

73

IIA = Idealized Influence (attributed) IIB = Idealized Influence (behavior) IM = Inspirational Motivation IS = Intellectual Stimulation IC = Individualized Consideration CR = Contingent Reward MBEA = Management by exception (active) MBEP = Management by exception (passive) LF = Laissez-faire

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 pvalues obtained comparing the two groups contained within the dissertation study. Table 5.8 P Values for Comparisons of MLQ Scores
LLI Study Data Full Set (n = 205) IIA 0.223 MLQ 5x 2004 Self (N=3,375) - (Avolio and Bass, 2004) IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP 0.003 <0.001 0.181 0.129 0.088 0.008 0.019 LLI Study Data - Gazelles Group (n = 178) IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP 0.560 0.146 0.068 0.800 0.791 0.021 LF 0.002

LLI Study LinkedIn (n = 27) Legend:

IIA 0.570

IIB 0.100

LF 0.020

IIA = Idealized Influence (attributed) IIB = Idealized Influence (behavior) IM = Inspirational Motivation CR = Contingent Reward MBEA = Mgmt by exception (active)

IS = Intellectual Stimulation IC = Individualized Consideration

MBEP = Mgmt by exception (passive) LF = Laissez-faire

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

74

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 Cronbachs 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

75

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 Cronbachs 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. summarized in Table 5.10. Table 5.10 - Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Alternate MLQ Models
Reliability Scores for Study Data with 3 Factor MLQ Model Transformational Transactional Laissez-faire 0.95 0.58 0.68

The results of all the models are

Cronbach's Alpha

Reliability Scores for Study Data with 2 Factor MLQ Model Transformational Transactional Cronbach's Alpha 0.95 0.57
Reliability Scores for Study Data with 1 Factor MLQ Model 0.88

Cronbach's Alpha

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

76

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.

77

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.

78

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

79

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.

80

Item IIA 10 IIA 18 IIA 21 IIA 25

Factor IIA LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.61 0.58 0.59 0.39 0.75 0.57 0.54 0.53 Item IIB 6 IIB 14 IIB 23 IIB 34 Item IM 9 IM 13 IM 26 IM 36

Factor IIB LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.76 0.48 0.77 0.71 0.57 0.36 0.74 0.68

Factor IM LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.68 0.63 0.67 0.72 0.75 0.70 0.71 0.63

Item IS 2 IS 8 IS 30 IS 32 CR 1 CR 11 CR 16 CR 35

Factor IS LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.67 0.42 0.80 0.48 0.71 0.68 0.71 0.66 Item IC 15 IC 19 IC 29 IC 31 Factor IC LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.76 0.56 0.61 0.37 0.65 0.49 0.65 0.74

Factor CR LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.53 0.24 0.72 0.56 0.73 0.60 0.60 0.52

Table 5.11 - Factor Loading Comparisons for Individual MLQ Questions within their Expected Factor

81
MBEP3 MBEP12 MBEP17 MBEP20

MBEA 4 MBEA 22 MBEA 24 MBEA 27

Factor MBEA LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.54 0.60 0.75 0.70 0.42 0.63 0.77 0.69

Factor MBEP LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.67 0.58 0.64 0.71 0.43 0.33 0.55 0.68

LF 5 LF 7 LF 28 LF 33

Factor LF LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.59 0.53 0.68 0.38 0.70 0.57 0.43 0.54

MLQ5x = Self reported questionnaire data from Avolio and Bass (2004), N = 3,375

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

Total Sample (n = 205) Mean SD Range 3.30 0.52 2.50 2.58 0.62 2.92 3.27 0.46 2.88 3.42 0.67 4.71 3.34 0.86 5.00 Gazelles Group (n = 178) Mean SD Range 3.30 0.52 2.50 2.56 0.62 2.92 3.25 0.47 2.88 3.40 0.69 4.71 3.31 0.88 5.00 LinkedIn Group (n = 27) Mean SD Range 3.30 0.51 1.81 2.68 0.68 2.62 3.41 0.38 1.94 3.54 0.52 2.00 3.56 0.74 3.20

Scale Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5

Legend: 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

Frequency Key: 5.0 = Strongly Agree 4.0 = Agree 3.0 = Neutral 2.0 = Disagree 1.0 = Stongly Disagree

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

82

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 ( = 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 Levenes test for Pillars 1,2,4,5 and an Ftest 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 Cronbachs alpha (1951) for each hypothesized factor (i.e., pillar). The results of this analysis found Pillars 1 3 meeting George and Mallorys (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

83

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 Cronbachs 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

84

Table 5.13 - Loadings of Individual LLI Questions within their Hypothesized Factors
Item 1A-P_Env 1B-P_Cont 1C-P_Advice 1D-P_Share 1E-P_MoD 2A-P_ActCom Pillar 1 - Nature of Key Relationships Loading Item Loading Item 0.00 2B-P_Eth -0.05 4E-M_Meet 0.06 3-P_LstNum 0.00 5A-L_RM 0.15 4A-M_Form 1.03 5B-L_DRM 0.16 4B-M_LdGd 1.04 5C-L_Und -0.03 4C-M_Adv 0.97 0.01 4D-M_FdBk 0.95 Pillar 2 Early Development Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.42 7E-HS_Hlp -0.85 8D-C_ResL -0.38 7G-HS_NCSp -0.52 8E-C_Pol -0.91 8A-C_SG -0.65 8F-C_NCSp -0.83 8B-C_Grk -0.35 -0.55 8C-C_VSpt -0.28 Pillar 3 Exploratory Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.33 11B-RA_VacN 0.34 12B-EE_SO 0.43 11C-RA_CRA 0.37 12C-EE_ND 0.71 11D-RA_Lfun 0.29 13A-B_Sac 0.79 11E-RA_Tadv 0.49 13B-B_Lrn 0.54 11F-RA_ExpE 0.37 0.32 12A-EE_Inc 0.09 Pillar 4 Early / Previous Work Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.24 14D-Wk_LOld 0.74 9A-CE_Emp 0.15 15E-D_Func 0.45 9B-CE_Mgmt 0.95 Pillar 4 Early / Previous Work Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.87 15C-D_360 0.77 15F-D_PLrn 0.87 15D-D_Org 0.62 Loading 0.94 0.50 0.33 0.46

Item 6-Ch_CG 7A-HS_Aspt 7B-HS_ASG 7C-HS_AIG 7D-HS_SCpt

Loading -0.49 -0.62 -0.57

Item 10A-Cu_Ocnt 10B-Cu_Ocul 10C-Cu_Live 10D-Cu_TrvE 10E-Cu_TrvC 11A-RA_NatS

Loading 0.28 0.19 0.25 0.27

Item 14A-Wk_Teen 14B-Wk_Lmil 14C-Wk_LEar

Loading 0.31 0.52

Item 15A-D_Rot 15B-D_Train

Loading 0.36

Key: Questions indicated with the number (group) the appeared within the instrument and a brief description (e.g. P_Env indicates Parent environment and M_FdBk indicates mentor feedback)

square error of approximation (Steiger 1990), a standardized measure of error approximation, defined by

85

 F () 1 RMSEA = max ,0 , n df

where F() 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

86

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 ( = 0.05) correlation with one or more components of transformational leadership measured within the MLQ. 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 The strongest relationships

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

87

correlations were significant ( = 0.05, p-value between <0.001 and 0.012) and the average correlation value was 0.205. comparison. Table 5.14 provides the full output of this

Table 5.14 Correlation Coefficients & Significance for LLI Pillars and Nine Factor MLQ
Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 IIA 0.160 0.176 0.120 0.145 0.070 Bold Bold IIB 0.269 0.159 0.251 0.204 0.164 IM 0.159 0.224 0.254 0.205 0.124 IS 0.192 0.220 0.216 0.193 0.223 IC 0.237 0.203 0.245 0.213 0.236 CR 0.219 0.179 0.187 0.265 0.175 MBEA 0.023 0.071 0.048 -0.004 0.102 MBEP -0.045 0.002 -0.060 0.021 -0.001 LF 0.008 -0.075 0.040 0.021 -0.009

Significant, = 0.05 Significant, = 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

88

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.

89

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

90

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, Cronbachs alpha = 0.87. Pillar 2 High School and College Activities: ten questions, Cronbachs = 0.68 Pillar 3 Cultural Exploration: four questions, Cronbachs = 0.64 Pillar 4 Early Leadership Experiences: four questions, Cronbachs = 0.61 Pillar 5 Structured Leadership Development : four questions, Cronbachs = 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

91

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.

92

Table 5.15 - Correlation Values Found with SEM

IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF Pillar 1 0.18 0.36 0.20 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.07 -0.04 0.03 Pillar 2 -0.17 -0.23 -0.25 -0.28 -0.30 -0.24 -0.05 -0.02 0.04 Pillar 3 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.15 -0.07 -0.09 0.02 Pillar 4 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 -0.01 -0.10 Pillar 5 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.00 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 = 0.05, while fourteen of those had a significant correlation at = 0.01. In total, there were 72 significant ( = 0.05) correlation relationships, including 31 pairings significant at = 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.

93

Table 5.16 - Significant Correlations Between LLI Questions and MLQ Leadership Factors
LLI Question M_Form M_LDGD M_ADV M_FDBK M_MEET HS_HLP HS_NCSP C_SG C_POL C_NCSP CU_OCUL CU_LIVE CU_TRVE WK_LEAR WK_LOLD D_FUNC D_ROT D_360 D_ORG IIA IIB 0.189 0.266 0.298 0.331 0.235 0.158 0.163 0.142 0.141 0.141 0.153 0.15 0.139 0.14 0.143 0.225 IM 0.149 0.187 0.214 0.173 0.182 0.224 0.161 0.173 0.202 0.145 0.161 0.15 IS MLQ Factor IC 0.208 0.258 0.308 0.175 0.22 0.149 0.215 0.166 0.146 0.162 0.206 0.138 0.219 0.138 0.176 0.158 0.216 0.2 0.16 0.163 CR 0.213 0.251 0.276 0.209 MBEA MBEP LF

0.169 0.176 0.149 0.149

0.181 0.197 0.206 0.193 0.146 0.18 0.138

0.144

0.217 0.225 0.142 0.145

0.146

0.181

0.255 0.143

= Significant at = 0.01

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

94

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.

95

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

96

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

97

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 ( = 0.05 and = 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

98

significant ( = 0.05 and = 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 = 0.05, while fourteen of those had a significant correlation at = 0.01. In total, there were 72 significant ( = 0.05) correlation relationships, including 31 pairings significant at = 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

99

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

100

transformational factors of the MLQ, except Pillar 2 (High School and College Activities), which has a number of significant ( = 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 leaders

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 participants 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.

101

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.

102

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 leaders 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

103

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 managers self reported information on their leadership style. It is possible that the leaders 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.

104

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

105

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 leaders regarding the leaders 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.

106

APPENDICES

107

APPENDIX A MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONAIRE

108

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009

www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern, This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material; 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, or dissertation. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material. Sincerely,

Robert Most Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

MLQ, 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

109

MLQ

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader 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 answer sheet. 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 0 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Continued =>
MLQ, 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

Once in a while 1

Sometimes 2

Fairly often 3

Frequently, if not always 4

I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts..............................................................0 I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate .......................................0 I fail to interfere until problems become serious .................................................................................0 I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards ....................0 I avoid getting involved when important issues arise ..........................................................................0

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009

110

APPENDIX B INITIAL LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS

111

Full Question Question 1: My father provided an environment that supported growth and learning. Question 1: My mother provided an environment that supported growth and learning. Question 1: My father tried to control many aspects of my life. Question 2: My father served as a role model for highly ethical behavior. Question 2: My mother served as a role model for highly ethical behavior. Question 3: I lost a parent during childhood (prior to high school / grade 9) Question 4: During my career I have developed formal relationships with a mentor(s) to support my development. Question 4: I often seek constructive feedback from a mentor. Question 4: At times, I have met regularly with a formal or informal mentor. Question 5: Early in my career, I had a strong role model of the leader I wanted to be. Question 6: As a child, I was an officer in student government. Question 7: In high school, I was active in sports Question 7: In high school, I was involved in non competitive sports. Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or sorority). Question 8: In college, I was active in varsity athletics. Question 8: In college, I served in a leadership position for my dormitory / residence life organization. Question 9: In college, I typically was employed during the school year. Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I lived in a country other than my current country. Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I learned to speak more than one language. Question 10: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or sorority). Question 11: During childhood, I could walk to natural settings (woods, ponds, etc.). Question 11: During childhood, I often spent play time in natural areas (woods, ponds, etc.). Question 11: In college, I took trips to natural settings (National Forests, Parks, etc.) Question 11: I spend my leisure time engaged in activities I really look forward to. Question 11: My recreational activities are very active. Question 11: When I travel, I tend to do more than simply see the sights. Question 12: I have been incarcerated. Question 12: I served full time in a service organization (e.g. Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.). Question 12: I've lived through a natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane, etc.) that devastated the home of me or my family Question 14: I held my first regular job while still a teenager. Question 14: I served in leadership positions in the military. Question 14: In my career, I have led a turn-around effort. Question 15: I have received substantial training through my employers on becoming an effective leader. Question 15: During my career I have participated in 360-degree surveys. Question 15: The majority of my career positions involved a great deal of learning.

Pillar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5

112

APPENDIX C REFINED LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS

113

Question
P_Env P_Cont P_Advice M_Form C_SG C_Grk C_VSpt C_ResL C_Pol Cu_Ocul RA_VacN RA_CRA Wk_LOld D_Rot D_360 D_Org D_Func

Full Question
Question 1: My parents provided an environment that supported growth and learning. Question 1: My parents tried to control many aspects of my life. Question 1: I often seek the advice of my parents. Question 4: During my career I have developed formal relationships with a mentor(s) to support my development. Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in student government. Question 8: In college I held leadership roles in a Greek organization (fraternity or sorority). Question 8: In college, I was active in varsity athletics. Question 8: In college, I served in a leadership position for my dormitory / residence life organization. Question 8: In college, I was active in political groups. Question 10: During childhood or adolescence, I lived in a culture other than my current culture. Question 11: During childhood, my family spent vacation time in natural settings. Question 11: In college, I spent free time participating in outdoor recreation. Question 14: In my career, it has been common for me to lead people older than myself. Question 15: My career experience included a deliberate rotation through multiple job assignments with a single company / organization. Question 15: I have received beneficial feedback through 360-degree feedback. Question 15: I am or have been active in professional organizations focused on leadership development. Question 15: I have held positions in a variety of functional areas in my career (e.g. finance, operations, etc.)

Pillar
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 4

114

APPENDIX D MIND GARDEN PERMISSIONS

115

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on September 28, 2009

www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern, This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material; 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, or dissertation. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material. Sincerely,

Robert Most Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

MLQ, 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

116

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on September 28, 2009

Permission for William Schell to reproduce 200 copies within one year of September 28, 2009

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Leader Form, Rater Form and Scoring Key (Form 5X-Short)

by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass

Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc.

info@mindgarden.com www.mindgarden.com

Copyright 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. The copyright holder has agreed to grant one person permission to reproduce the specified number of copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for noncommercial and personal use only. Non-commercial use means that you will not receive payment for distributing this document and personal use means that you will only reproduce this work for your own research or for clients. This permission is granted to one person only. Each person who administers the test must purchase permission separately. Any organization purchasing permissions must purchase separate permissions for each individual who will be using or administering the test. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.

117

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009

www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern, This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material; 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, or dissertation. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material. Sincerely,

Robert Most Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

MLQ, 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

118

For use by William Schell only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on August 19, 2009

Permission for William Schell to reproduce 100 copies within one year of August 19, 2009

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Leader Form, Rater Form and Scoring Key (Form 5X-Short)

by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass

Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc.

info@mindgarden.com www.mindgarden.com

Copyright 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved. It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. The copyright holder has agreed to grant one person permission to reproduce the specified number of copies of this work for one year from the date of purchase for noncommercial and personal use only. Non-commercial use means that you will not receive payment for distributing this document and personal use means that you will only reproduce this work for your own research or for clients. This permission is granted to one person only. Each person who administers the test must purchase permission separately. Any organization purchasing permissions must purchase separate permissions for each individual who will be using or administering the test. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.

119

APPENDIX E GAZELLES PARTICIPANT INVITATIONS

120

Bill Schell
From: Sent: To: bounce@infusionmail.com on behalf of Verne's Insights [vernes_insights@gazelles.net] Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:58 PM bschell@printingforless.com

Subject: 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

121

Bill Schell
From: Sent: To: bounce@infusionmail.com on behalf of Verne's Insights [vernes_insights@gazelles.net] Friday, September 18, 2009 10:35 AM bschell@printingforless.com

Subject: 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!).

122

APPENDIX F LLI CORRELATION ANALYSIS

123

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

124

3 Mentors 20 significant pairings 6 pairings > 0.5

Cluster 4 Activities 28 significant pairings 9 pairings correlation > 0.5

125

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

126

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

127

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

128

11 Career Development 6 significant pairings 1 pairing correlation > 0.5

129

APPENDIX G FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE LLI MODEL

130

G.1 Exploratory Analysis of the LLI The search for an improved explanatory model for the LLI structures began with a cluster analysis using Wards 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 Cronbachs 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.

-46.02

Similarity

2.65

51.33

Figure G.1 - Dendrogram from Cluster Analysis of Full LLI Data Using Ward Linkage 131

P_Env P_Advice P_Share P_ActCom P_Eth HS_Aspt HS_SCpt C_VSpt HS_NCSp C_NCSp RA_CRA RA_NatS RA_VacN HS_ASG HS_AIG HS_Hlp C_SG C_Pol C_Grk C_ResL P_Cont P_MoD P_LstNum Ch_CG EE_Inc Cu_Ocnt Cu_Ocul EE_SO Wk_Lmil EE_ND CE_Emp CE_Mgmt Wk_Teen Wk_LEar Wk_LOld RA_Lfun RA_Tadv RA_ExpE B_Sac B_Lrn D_Org D_PLrn Cu_Live Cu_TrvE Cu_TrvC L_RM L_DRM L_Und D_Rot D_Train D_Func D_360 M_Form M_LdGd M_Adv M_FdBk M_Meet

100.00

Variables

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 (Jreskog 1993, 298).

132

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.

133

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.

134

Table G.1 - Varimax Factor Loadings from LLI Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor Loading Scores Question Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 P_Env -0.03 -0.02 0.07 -0.14 -0.69 0.13 P_Cont 0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.05 -0.06 -0.17 P_Advice 0.13 0.01 -0.04 0.07 -0.70 0.09 P_Share 0.14 0.07 -0.01 -0.09 -0.67 0.05 P_MoD -0.04 -0.11 0.08 0.07 0.12 -0.01 P_ActCom -0.09 0.05 -0.10 -0.18 -0.55 -0.07 P_Eth -0.11 -0.03 -0.07 -0.10 -0.67 -0.03 P_LstNum -0.16 -0.16 -0.07 -0.19 0.23 0.09 M_Form 0.82 -0.13 -0.08 -0.09 0.02 0.00 M_LdGd 0.84 -0.13 -0.13 -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 M_Adv 0.80 -0.12 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 0.05 M_FdBk 0.84 -0.13 -0.12 -0.15 -0.03 0.06 M_Meet 0.83 -0.08 -0.06 -0.08 0.05 0.10 L_RM 0.36 -0.55 -0.03 -0.09 -0.08 -0.11 L_DRM 0.16 -0.60 0.03 0.00 -0.10 -0.29 L_Und 0.29 -0.63 -0.05 0.00 -0.09 -0.24 Ch_CG 0.01 0.14 0.21 0.13 0.34 0.01 HS_Aspt 0.09 -0.12 -0.05 0.09 -0.07 0.71 HS_ASG 0.03 -0.14 -0.50 -0.03 -0.25 0.30 HS_AIG -0.09 -0.18 -0.54 -0.09 -0.31 0.11 HS_SCpt 0.06 -0.11 -0.14 0.19 -0.10 0.72 HS_Hlp 0.04 -0.16 -0.43 -0.11 -0.47 0.25 HS_NCSp 0.04 -0.12 -0.32 -0.12 -0.09 0.29 C_SG 0.07 -0.13 -0.72 0.03 0.03 -0.06 C_Grk -0.03 -0.04 -0.36 0.13 -0.17 0.08 C_VSpt 0.01 0.00 -0.05 0.01 0.08 0.61 C_ResL 0.05 -0.18 -0.41 -0.06 -0.06 0.04 C_Pol 0.08 -0.12 -0.71 -0.09 -0.04 -0.10 C_NCSp 0.01 -0.08 -0.27 -0.22 -0.10 0.46 CE_Emp 0.00 -0.31 0.06 -0.36 0.08 -0.18 CE_Mgmt -0.07 -0.39 -0.18 -0.23 0.09 -0.12 Cu_Ocnt 0.14 0.15 -0.34 -0.19 0.13 -0.06 Cu_Ocul 0.03 0.16 -0.48 -0.23 0.28 0.00 Cu_Live 0.02 -0.02 -0.29 -0.56 -0.12 -0.24 Cu_TrvE -0.09 -0.03 -0.24 -0.58 -0.01 0.03 Cu_TrvC -0.04 0.10 -0.19 -0.57 -0.09 0.00 RA_NatS 0.10 -0.13 -0.04 -0.27 -0.08 0.07 RA_VacN 0.13 0.03 0.12 -0.44 -0.13 0.01 RA_CRA 0.13 -0.07 0.08 -0.43 -0.22 0.39 RA_Lfun 0.26 0.01 0.26 -0.51 -0.09 0.27 RA_Tadv 0.17 -0.09 -0.08 -0.67 0.05 0.10 RA_ExpE 0.05 -0.18 -0.10 -0.58 -0.04 -0.03 EE_Inc -0.03 0.09 -0.06 -0.11 0.34 0.21 EE_SO 0.10 0.02 -0.47 -0.13 0.02 0.05 EE_ND 0.11 -0.02 -0.45 -0.04 0.16 0.08 B_Sac 0.20 -0.24 -0.13 -0.21 0.27 -0.01 B_Lrn 0.15 -0.25 -0.19 -0.41 0.12 -0.01 Wk_Teen 0.22 -0.26 0.14 -0.15 -0.01 -0.13 Wk_Lmil 0.02 -0.12 -0.30 -0.11 0.38 0.03 Wk_LEar -0.08 -0.54 -0.30 -0.14 -0.04 0.15 Wk_LOld 0.09 -0.43 -0.13 -0.17 0.06 0.21 D_Rot -0.04 -0.60 -0.09 -0.04 0.07 0.28 D_Train 0.05 -0.64 -0.09 0.04 -0.03 0.16 D_360 0.23 -0.45 -0.09 -0.09 -0.06 0.09 D_Org 0.26 -0.32 -0.10 -0.14 0.03 0.25 D_Func -0.01 -0.51 0.00 -0.07 0.09 0.37 D_PLrn 0.14 -0.34 -0.05 -0.46 0.01 0.01 Number of Significant Loadings in Factor 9 9 10 6

135

The significant questions in each factor were then examined using Minitabs Item Analysis, as was completed in the confirmatory factor analysis steps above. six factors identified by this analysis can be defined as Factor 1 Relationship with Mentors, five questions, Cronbachs alpha = 0.92 Factor 2 Influence of early leaders, early leadership experience and experience with formal development experiences, nine questions, Cronbachs Alpha = 0.79 Factor 3 Participation in service organizations throughout life and exposure to other cultures, nine questions, Cronbachs Alpha = 0.69 Factor 4 subset of Pillar 3 focused on exposure to and hunger for new experiences, 10 questions, Cronbachs Alpha = 0.72 Factor 5 Respect for parents and early service experience, six questions, Cronbachs Alpha = 0.76 Factor 6 involvement in sports, four questions, Cronbachs Alpha = 0.69 The

The average internal consistency within the pillars, as measured by Cronbachs 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

136

six factors to be significantly ( = 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
Transform Transact Factor 1 0.247 0.132 Bold Bold Factor 2 0.167 0.178 Factor 3 0.227 0.198 Factor 4 0.254 0.040 Factor 5 0.115 -0.080 Factor 6 0.157 0.005

Significant, = 0.05 Significant, = 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

137

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
IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF Factor 1 0.167 0.304 0.189 0.166 0.249 0.250 0.007 -0.038 0.005 Bold Bold Factor 2 0.072 0.120 0.114 0.216 0.215 0.214 0.108 -0.023 -0.046 Factor 3 0.163 0.182 0.235 0.208 0.206 0.232 0.051 0.053 0.005 Factor 4 0.132 0.263 0.225 0.227 0.262 0.157 0.002 -0.099 0.046 Factor 5 0.092 0.108 0.075 0.130 0.098 0.019 -0.090 -0.070 0.010 Factor 6 0.141 0.104 0.157 0.166 0.125 0.079 0.015 -0.092 -0.124

Significant, = 0.05 Significant, = 0.01

138

APPENDIX H STRUCTURED EQUATION MODEL OUTPUT

139

140

DATE: 2/15/2010 TIME: 12:45 L I S R E L 8.80 BY Karl G. Jreskog & Dag Srbom

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

141

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 142

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 , R = 0.25 (0.079) 9.90 M_LDGD = 0.54*is, Errorvar.= 0.58 , R = 0.34

143

(0.061) 9.36 M_ADV = 0.65*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.62, R = 0.40 M_FDBK = 0.55*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.72 , R = 0.29 (0.083) 8.67 M_MEET = 0.61*lf, Errorvar.= 0.62 , R = 0.37 (0.076) 8.16 L_RM = 0.72*iib, Errorvar.= 0.75 , R = 0.41 (0.079) 9.49 L_UND = 0.71*lf, Errorvar.= 0.75 , R = 0.40 (0.11) (0.096) 6.47 7.89 CH_CG = 0.67*is, Errorvar.= 0.39 , R = 0.55 (0.080) (0.046) 8.31 8.39 HS_ASG = 0.70*im, Errorvar.= 0.45 , R = 0.52 (0.049) 9.35 HS_AIG = 0.60*iia, Errorvar.= 0.55 , R = 0.40 (0.059) 9.41 HS_SCPT = 0.65*cr, Errorvar.= 0.50 , R = 0.47 (0.095) (0.053) 6.86 9.47 HS_HLP = 0.65*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.27 , R = 0.61 (0.084) (0.054) 7.73 4.97 HS_NCSP = 0.67*im, Errorvar.= 0.21 , R = 0.68 (0.044) (0.025) 15.20 8.54 C_SG = 0.76*iib, Errorvar.= 0.35 , R = 0.63

144

(0.080) 9.51

(0.041) 8.48

C_RESL = 0.73*ic, Errorvar.= 0.54 , R = 0.50 (0.058) 9.27 C_POL = 0.64*cr, Errorvar.= 0.66 , R = 0.39 (0.098) (0.068) 6.54 9.68 C_NCSP = 0.43*mbep, Errorvar.= 1.06 , R = 0.15 (0.094) (0.11) 4.55 9.48 CE_MGMT = 0.62*iia, Errorvar.= 0.29 , R = 0.57 (0.068) (0.034) 9.01 8.75 CU_OCUL = 0.61*ic, Errorvar.= 0.32 , R = 0.54 (0.060) (0.035) 10.06 9.11 CU_LIVE = 0.56*mbep, Errorvar.= 0.57 , R = 0.35 (0.084) (0.071) 6.67 8.07 CU_TRVE = 0.70*iia, Errorvar.= 0.23 , R = 0.68 (0.073) (0.030) 9.63 7.75 CU_TRVC = 0.76*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.65 , R = 0.46 (0.12) (0.097) 6.12 6.66 WK_LEAR = 0.63*iib, Errorvar.= 0.42 , R = 0.49 (0.073) (0.045) 8.62 9.23 WK_LOLD = 0.43*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.92 , R = 0.16 (0.097) (0.097) 4.39 9.45 D_ROT = 0.53*iia, Errorvar.= 0.59 , R = 0.33 (0.074) (0.062) 7.24 9.64

145

D_TRAIN = 0.76*im, Errorvar.= 0.31 , R = 0.65 (0.036) 8.75 D_360 = 0.79*mbea, Errorvar.= 0.33 , R = 0.65 (0.13) (0.084) 6.03 3.93 D_ORG = 0.67*lf, Errorvar.= 0.41 , R = 0.52 (0.097) (0.063) 6.88 6.55 D_FUNC = 0.63*ic, Errorvar.= 0.47 , R = 0.46 (0.068) (0.050) 9.27 9.42 MLQ_1 = 0.56*is, Errorvar.= 0.30 , R = 0.52 (0.068) (0.035) 8.17 8.57 MLQ_2 = 0.66*ic, Errorvar.= 0.21 , R = 0.68 (0.059) (0.026) 11.22 8.13 MLQ_3 = 0.65*is, Errorvar.= 0.26 , R = 0.63 (0.074) (0.033) 8.74 7.65 MLQ_4 = 0.43*lf, Errorvar.= 0.76 , R = 0.19 (0.086) (0.082) 4.94 9.34 MLQ_5 = 0.71*iib, Errorvar.= 0.33 , R = 0.60 (0.075) (0.038) 9.37 8.63 MLQ_6 = 0.66*cr, Errorvar.= 0.28 , R = 0.62 (0.090) (0.033) 7.32 8.57 MLQ_7 = 0.69*im, Errorvar.= 0.18 , R = 0.73 (0.043) (0.022) 16.27 8.05

146

MLQ_8 = 1.03*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.40 , R = 0.73 (0.049) 8.05 MLQ_9 = 1.04*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.29 , R = 0.79 (0.040) 7.25 MLQ_10 = 0.97*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.60 , R = 0.61 (0.067) 8.91 MLQ_11 = 0.96*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.42 , R = 0.69 (0.052) (0.051) 18.27 8.30 MLQ_12 = 0.94*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 0.50 , R = 0.64 (0.057) 8.75 MLQ_13 = 0.49*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 1.31 , R = 0.15 (0.084) (0.13) 5.80 9.95 MLQ_14 = 0.45*Pillar1, Errorvar.= 1.21 , R = 0.14 (0.081) (0.12) 5.55 9.97 MLQ_15 = 0.42*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 2.04 , R = 0.078 (0.20) 9.96 MLQ_16 = - 0.88*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.86 , R = 0.47 (0.080) (0.10) -10.93 8.30 MLQ_17 = - 0.86*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.82, R = 0.48 MLQ_18 = - 0.41*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 2.15 , R = 0.071 (0.11) (0.22) -3.57 9.95 MLQ_19 = - 0.83*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.92 , R = 0.43 (0.081) (0.11) -10.25 8.57

147

MLQ_20 = - 0.51*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.25 , R = 0.17 (0.13) 9.75 MLQ_21 = - 0.66*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.05 , R = 0.30 (0.11) 9.38 MLQ_22 = - 0.46*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.27 , R = 0.14 (0.13) 9.82 MLQ_23 = - 0.67*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 0.75, R = 0.38 MLQ_24 = - 0.51*Pillar2, Errorvar.= 1.60 , R = 0.14 (0.099) (0.16) -5.17 9.77 MLQ_25 = 0.48*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 1.46 , R = 0.14 (0.15) 9.79 MLQ_26 = 0.40*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.76 , R = 0.082 (0.11) (0.18) 3.68 9.83 MLQ_27 = 0.54*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.46 , R = 0.17 (0.10) (0.15) 5.40 9.48 MLQ_28 = 0.46*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 1.55 , R = 0.12 (0.10) (0.16) 4.49 9.69 MLQ_29 = 0.33*Pillar3, Errorvar.= 0.90 , R = 0.11 (0.077) (0.092) 4.24 9.74 MLQ_30 = 1.00*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 0.37 , R = 0.73 (0.082) (0.11) 12.23 3.49 MLQ_31 = 0.72*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 0.48 , R = 0.52 (0.070) (0.072) 10.32 6.69

148

MLQ_32 = 0.95*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.28 , R = 0.41 (0.11) (0.17) 8.68 7.51 MLQ_33 = 0.89*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 0.94 , R = 0.46 (0.097) (0.13) 9.16 7.03 MLQ_34 = 0.73*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.27 , R = 0.30 (0.10) (0.15) 7.18 8.57 MLQ_35 = 0.52*Pillar5, Errorvar.= 1.39 , R = 0.16 (0.10) (0.15) 5.14 9.39 MLQ_36 = 0.42*Pillar4, Errorvar.= 1.31 , R = 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 , R = 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 , R = 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, R = 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 , R = 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 , R = 0.95 149

(0.32) -4.29

(1.10) 5.36

(0.91) 7.70

(1.02) -2.51

(0.87) 5.76

(0.034) 1.48

cr = - 1.44*Pillar1 + 6.38*Pillar2 + 7.52*Pillar3 - 2.67*Pillar4 + 5.21*Pillar5, Errorvar.= -0.036 , R = 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 , R = 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 , R = 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 , R = 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: R for Structural Equations are Hayduk's (2006) Blocked-Error R Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------Pillar1 1.00 Pillar2 -0.23 (0.08) -3.03 1.00

Pillar3

0.27 -0.78 (0.08) (0.07) 3.34 -11.66

1.00

Pillar4

0.22 -0.44 0.49 (0.08) (0.07) (0.11) 2.87 -6.05 4.41

1.00

150

Pillar5

0.33 -0.44 -0.08 0.46 (0.08) (0.08) (0.13) (0.08) 4.27 -5.55 -0.62 5.75

1.00

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

151

APPENDIX I STUDY APPROVAL FROM IRB

152

153

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-SearchBooks/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: 261295. 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.

154

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.

155

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 Posners 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.

156

Bossidy, Larry, and Ram Charan. 2002. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Crown Business. Brewerton, Paul, and Lynne Millward. 2004. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Reprint. Organizational Research Methods.

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 Worlds 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. Agency. unknown. Work Profile Questionnaire. Oxford, UK: The Test

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.

157

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 Dont. 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. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness.

158

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.

159

Gliem, Joseph A., and Rosemary R. Gliem. 2003. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbachs 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 Wont 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=l ang_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.

160

Herzberg, Frederick., Bernard Mausner, and Barbara B. Snyderman. Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley.

1959.

The

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 Freunds 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. Jreskog, 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.

161

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.

162

Kuhnert, Karl, and Philip Lewis. 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648657. 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 NatureDeficit 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).

163

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 OConnor, 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.

164

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: 107142. 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: 4859. 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.

165

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 mentorprotg 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.

166

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.

167

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.

168