You are on page 1of 17

The transformational leadership questionnaire

(TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant


validation study

Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe
Trinity and All Saints' University College, Leeds, UK
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
Nuffield Institute Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Leeds, UK

Keywords Government Version) (TLQ-LGV) (Alimo-


Leadership, Questionnaires, Introduction Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999), which
Local government, Validity
The emergence of the ``New Leadership was developed from perceptions of leadership
Abstract Approach'' (Bryman, 1992) in the 1980s of middle, senior and top managers in local
This paper sets out to provide represented a paradigm shift from government. In addition, we were also aware
evidence of the convergent and of other issues that might affect the validity
``transactional'' methods such as the
discriminant validity of a recently
situational and contingency models of of the US leadership research for a non-US
developed leadership
questionnaire, the Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), and context.
Transformational Leadership Yukl (1989), to the ``visionary'' (Sashkin,
Questionnaire (Local Government
1988), ``charismatic'' (Conger and Kanungo,
Version) (TLQ-LGV). Evidence is
presented, from a random, 1988; House 1977), and the ``transformational'' Leadership and social distance
stratified sample of 1,464 male (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998a, 1998b, Bass and Avolio, Bryman (1996) draws attention to the fact that
and female managers, working in 1994b). All these models, like the majority of most of the ``new leadership'' models have
local government, that each of the
leadership publications, have emanated from emerged from studies of managers in top
scales was significantly correlated
with each of five criterion the wealth of studies by US scholars of positions. He contrasts this with the ``classic''
variables, even when the sample managers in US organisations, and have had Ohio State studies of the 1950s and 1960s,
was divided by level, sex, and level a major impact on the content of
which focused on the styles of first-line
x sex. Multiple regression
management education and development supervisors and lower-level managers.
analyses suggested differential
patterns of relationships between texts, and on related organisational practices Our concern in relation to the
the scales and the criterion (see Chelmers and Ayman, 1993; Hunt, 1996; organisational level of managers studied in
variables among different groups Rosenbach and Taylor, 1993; Wright, 1996, for US research becomes particularly relevant in
and sub-groups of managers,
reviews). It is not an exaggeration to state the light of studies on leadership and social
divided by level, sex, and level x
sex. These latter data were that they have contributed significantly to distance. Some writers have asserted that for
interpreted as evidence of the ``the received wisdom'' of leadership. attributions of ``charisma'' ± a central
discriminant validity of the More recently, however, writers in the construct of the new leadership models to be
instrument.
field of leadership, such as Adler (1983a, ascribed to ``a leader'' ± social distance is an
1983b, 1991), Ayman (1993), Smith and Bond essential condition (e.g. Etzioni, 1961;
(1993), and Triandis (1990, 1993) have Hollander, 1978). Thus, for example, Katz and
Received/Accepted:
May 2000 questioned the generalisability of US Kahn (1978) maintain that, since leaders are
findings to non-US cultures. Indeed, two being constantly evaluated by their staff,
recent issues of The Leadership Quarterly social proximity will reveal that they are
The authors wish to thank journal have included articles devoted to this ``very human and very fallible and [thus]
the Local Government their subordinates cannot build an aura of
Management Board (now matter (Hunt and Peterson, 1997; Peterson
the Improvement and and Hunt, 1997), with Hunt (1999, p. 138) magic about them. Day to day intimacy
Development Agency), in stating recently that: ``many scholars outside destroys illusions'' (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p.
particular Carole Barrie, the USA saw [leadership research] as a 546).
Ian Briggs and Stephanie This view is in stark contrast to the
Goad, and the University of virtual US hegemony''.
Leeds for co-funding this As researchers and consultants in the field position taken by other writers, including
research. of leadership working with organisations in Bass, (1985, 1988a, 1988b), Conger and
the UK, the issue of generalisabilty was also Kanungo (1987), House (1977), and Yagil
our main concern and led us to develop a UK (1998), who view leadership as a function of
leadership questionnaire, the Transform- the relationship between a manager/leader
Leadership & Organization ational Leadership Questionnaire (Local and her/his followers. Bass, for example, has
Development Journal stated that since charisma is a product of
21/6 [2000] 280±296 interpersonal relationships, and can be
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
# MCB University Press attributed by an individual to their
[ISSN 0143-7739] http://www.emerald-library.com
immediate supervisor/manager, it is not the
[ 280 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and monopoly of top leaders in an organisation recently that, ``leadership can be
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe (Bass 1998a, 1998b). It may be that the conceptualised as a social influence process.
The transformational different views of these writers reflect their
leadership questionnaire Hence, leadership research needs to
particular social/historical era, with more investigate the nature of this social influence
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal recent writers emphasising close process. An appropriate methodology must
21/6 [2000] 280±296 relationships between leader and follower. reflect this need'' (p. 85). Conger (1998)
The distinction as to which ``leaders'' in an observed that qualitative methodologies ``are
organisation are the subject of leadership responsible for paradigm shifts, insights into
research is a crucial one in the light of the role of context . . . that other methods
Shamir's (1995) findings of the different often fail to capture'' (p. 107). Parry (1998) also
characteristics attributed to ``distant'' versus argued for complementarity, rather than
``nearby'' leaders. Distant leaders were competition between qualitative and
characterised as displaying an ideological quantitative methods, in the interest of
mission, communicated through their ``triangulation''.
rhetorical skills, and as being courageous in
their persistence and determination. Close or Gender and leadership
nearby leaders were more frequently Our second concern related to our views of
admired for their consideration, openness, the importance of any research we conducted
sociability, humour and dynamic presence being gender-inclusive. Astonishingly, the
(Shamir, 1995). research we undertook to develop the TLQ-
This study by Shamir, and a later one by LGV appears to be the first gender-inclusive
Yagil (1998), made a great deal of sense to us national research study of its kind. This is
in our project to develop a questionnaire not only surprising for the obvious reason
based on constructs of leadership of
that both women and men work in
immediate line managers. They were of
organisations, but also because of the recent
particular value as we were intending to
research findings on gender differences in
investigate what appeared to distinguish
relation to transformational leadership.
those individuals who had an extraordinary
These can be summarised as follows:
positive effect on the motivation, morale and . Women, in general, have been found to
performance of the staff with whom they
construe leadership more in
worked closely (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
transformational terms; men, in general,
Metcalfe, 1999). We noted, however, that
more in transactional terms (e.g. Alimo-
Shamir's subjects were students and
Metcalfe, 1995; Sparrow and Rigg, 1993).
therefore not typical of the organisational . Women, in general, are more likely to
members usually studied in leadership
describe the style of leadership they adopt
research.
as transformational; men, in general,
Qualitative methodology in leadership more likely to describe their leadership in
research transactional terms (Rosener, 1990).
In developing the TLQ-LGV, two further
. Women, in general, are significantly more
matters occupied our minds. One was the likely to be described by their direct
belief that we should adopt a qualitative, reports as adopting a transformational
grounded theory approach rather than style (irrespective of the sex of their
beginning the investigation with particular report); men, in general, are more likely to
preconceived ideas of leadership (as far as be described as adopting a transactional,
this is possible). The second was the omission laissez-faire, or management-by-exception
from most leadership studies, such as those style (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998b; Bass and
cited above, of not considering gender as an Avolio, 1994b; Bass, Avolio and Atwater,
important variable, when developing models 1996; Druskat, 1994; Komives, 1991).
of what is leadership.
In relation to the former issue, it appeared The development of ``The Transformational
to us essential to investigate leadership, Leadership Questionnaire''
which is in its very nature about the effect We, thus, set about designing a
one individual has on another/others, from questionnaire, which was to be based on
the initial stance of grounded theory (e.g. female and male constructs of leadership and
Martin and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1983). Parry to be piloted on a national sample of male and
(1998) who is by no means alone in a belief of female UK public sector managers. The
the importance of adopting such an approach methodology and initial findings of the
(e.g. Avolio, 1995; Bass, 1990; Bryman, 1992, instrument's convergent validity are detailed
1996; Conger, 1998; Hunt, 1999; Strong, 1984; elsewhere (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
Yukl, 1994), succinctly summarised the Metcalfe, 1999), but a brief summary of the
common sense of this approach in asserting process and findings follows.
[ 281 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and The initial stage included the elicitation of the items is consistent with concepts of
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe constructs of leadership held by managers transformational leadership that emerge in
The transformational (female and male) at top, senior, and middle
leadership questionnaire the literature.
level, in two major public sector The scales are described in Appendix
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal organisations, namely the National Health Table AI, and details of the number of items,
21/6 [2000] 280±296 Service (NHS) and local government. means and standard deviations, and internal
Adopting the repertory grid techniques of reliability and inter-item coefficients, are
interviewing (Kelly, 1955), we conducted 92 presented in Appendix Table AII.
interviews with managers at all levels from As noted, the number of items ranged from
executive to middle managers, and gathered 5 to 17, and the Cronbach alpha coefficients
additional data from six focus groups of were acceptably high (range = 0.97 to =
doctors who were attending a leadership 0.85). Furthermore, within each of the
development programme. Around 2,000 factors, the inter-item coefficients all
constructs were identified. From these data a exceeded the r = 0.30 recommended by Kline
questionnaire was developed which (1986) as suggesting unidimensionality
contained 176 items (independent variables) (Cortina, 1993).
and five criterion variables, four of which The convergent validity of the TLQ-LGV,
were taken from the Bass and Avolio both for managers at different levels in their
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) organisation, and for male and female
(Bass and Avolio, 1990a, 1990b), plus one managers, was reported by Alimo-Metcalfe
relating to job-related stress. We noted the and Alban-Metcalfe (1999), among local
criticism made of an early version of the government employees, using the same
MLQ, namely that it included both criterion variables used by Bass and Avolio
statements of leader behaviour, and (1994a, 1994b), plus an additional one
statements relating to the effects of leader measuring level of stress (see Method
behaviour (Hunt, 1996). Accordingly, 13 items section). For managers as a whole,
were removed since it could be argued that
statistically significant product-moment
they reflected the latter.
correlations were detected, which ranged
The latter enabled us to provide evidence of
from r = 0.42 (Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
the convergent validity of the instrument: for
and skills and reduced Stress) to r = 0.85
the sample as a whole, (p < 0.001), for the
(Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and
sample divided by level (p < 0.01); and for
Motivation) (p < 0.001, in each case). When
males and females separately (p < 0.01). Use
subjects were divided by level, the ranges of
of the MLQ criterion items would also enable
the corresponding coefficients were as
us, in future research, to investigate cross-
follows: Level 1: Board/chief executive and
cultural similarities/differences.
Level 2: Directorate/director, r = 0.52 (Scale 2
This paper focuses solely on the
± Political sensitivity and skills and Reduced
instrument developed from analyses of local
government data. The TLQ-LGV instrument stress) to 0.86 (Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for
emerged from the identification of nine others and Job satisfaction); Level 3: Senior/
factors obtained from principal components assistant director, r = 0.40 (Political
analysis and rotation of nine factors to an sensitivity and skills and Achievement) to
oblimin solution (n = 1,464, of whom 394 were 0.84 (Genuine concern for others and
female, 1,061 male, 9 not known). The inter- Motivation); Level 4: Middle/section-unit
correlations between the factor scores ranged head), r = 0.43 (Political sensitivity and skills
from r = -0.52 to r = 0.54. These factors formed and Reduced stress) to 0.87 (Genuine concern
the basis of nine leadership scales which for others and Motivation) (p < 0.01, in each
reflected transformational aspects of case).
leadership. Statistically significant coefficients, range
The assertion that each of the scales r = 0.30 (Political sensitivity and skills, and
measures an aspect of transformational Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for
leadership is consistent with the Third others and Job satisfaction, and Motivation),
Corollary proposed by Bass and Avolio (1993), were also detected among female managers;
which states that, ``whatever the country, with the corresponding coefficients for males
when people think about leadership, their ranging from r = 0.47 (Political sensitivity
prototypes and ideals are transformational'' and skills, and Reduced stress) to 0.85
(Bass, 1997, p. 135). In the light of this (Genuine concern for others and Motivation)
corollary, and given the care taken to ensure (p < 0.01 in each case).
that the items reflected accurately the Some of the scales resemble those
constructs elicited, the TLQ-LGV can be transformational scales identified by Bass
regarded as measuring transformational and Avolio (1990a, 1990b) in their widely used
leadership. Furthermore, the phraseology of instrument, MLQ. Following more recent
[ 282 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and analyses, the MLQ has been found to treating different members of staff. Further,
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe comprise three transformational factors: the TLQ-LGV includes a greater sense of
The transformational 1 Charismatic and inspirational leadership: inclusiveness in decision making (Scale 8 ±
leadership questionnaire
leadership which creates a vision of a Clarifies boundaries, involves others in
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal valued future and how it may be attained, decision making), reflected also in Scale 6 ±
21/6 [2000] 280±296 and which embodies a role model which Inspirational networker and promoter, and
followers seek to emulate. Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability.
2 Intellectual stimulation: the leader Together these four scales provide a clue as
encourages followers to challenge to the essential difference between the TLQ-
assumptions, look at problems from new LGV and the MLQ.
perspectives, and to think more creatively It may be the fact that the TLQ-LGV was:
and be more innovative. . based on adopting a grounded theory
3 Individualized consideration: the leader approach to eliciting constructs of
treats each follower as an individual with leadership;
particular hopes, needs and potential, and . comprised constructs of leadership that
develops individuals' potential (Bass, were elicited from both females and
1998a). males;
. based on a pilot instrument developed
Other researchers, however, also have from the constructs, that was piloted on a
recently examined the factor structure of the substantial proportion of both females and
MLQ (Carless, 1998; Den Hartog et al., 1997), males; and
and concluded that a single higher order . based on responses from managers in one
factor best fits the data. large public sector organisation, that
Initial exploratory and confirmatory influenced the final structure.
principal components analysis of the TLQ-
LGV (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, Such a conclusion would not be surprising,
1999), identified factors additional to those given the research findings cited earlier in
identified in the MLQ. It also includes a relation to gender and leadership.
``Political sensitivity and skills'' scale, Alternatively, of course, the differences could
designed to reflect the particular context of be a result of national cultural factors, and/
managers working in UK local government or the fact that the instrument was based on
organisations. constructs derived from a sample of
In our discussion of the TLQ-LGV, we managers in one public sector, and piloted in
noted certain additional features of the the same large public sector. Only additional
instrument. Perhaps the most important of research can provide answers to these
these is that the first factor, ``Genuine questions.
concern for others'', which explained more
variance than twice the amount of variance
explained by the remaining factors, is similar Present investigation
to the third factor in the MLQ ± In devising the TLQ-LGV, care was taken to
Individualized consideration. ensure that the instrument was based on
In contrast, the first factor in the MLQ ± constructs elicited from a sample which
charismatic and inspirational leadership ± comprised an approximately equal number of
defines very different behaviours. It relates male and female managers and managers at
to the leader envisioning a valued future, different levels of seniority (executive, top,
articulating how to reach it, and providing senior, middle). Factor analysis of the items
followers with a role model which they seek revealed the existence of nine separate
to emulate (Bass, 1998a p. 3). There is no such factors, each of which reflected a different
notion of transformational leadership in the aspect of transformational leadership. Each
UK data. The emphasis here is in what the factor demonstrated a statistically significant
leader does for the individual, such as level of internal reliability (range = 0.85 to
valuing, supporting and developing potential. 0.97) and convergent validity for the sample
The US model has a strong sense of as a whole, or divided by level or sex (range r
``followership'', almost entirely absent from = 0.30 to 0.86) (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
the TLQ-LGV. In addition, there is an Metcalfe, 1999).
element of ``humility'' and ``vulnerability'' in The present investigation was designed to
the UK data, as reflected in components of the determine whether the scales derived from
Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and these factors: show convergent validity, even
open (again, not represented conspicuously when the subjects are sub-divided by level of
in the MLQ). Scale 4 items make reference to seniority and sex; and have differential
openness and honesty in dealings with patterns of relationships with criterion
others, and to consistency and equability in variables among the sample as a whole, and
[ 283 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and among the sample subdivided by level of anonymity of the responses given. Even
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe seniority, by sex, and by level x sex. The where codes or numbers are allocated, the
The transformational latter would provide further evidence that suspicion remains that, at some later date, a
leadership questionnaire
each of the nine scales measures a different check could be made.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal aspect of transformational leadership. For each of the factors, a scale was
21/6 [2000] 280±296 Accordingly, the following two hypotheses produced, based on the sum of ratings on the
were proposed: items. The number of items per scale ranged
H1: that each of the nine scales that from 5 to 17. The scales were labelled: Scale 1
comprise the TLQ-LGV is ± Genuine concerned for others (17 items, =
significantly positively correlated 0.97); Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills
with each of five criterion variables (6 items, = 0.92); Scale 3 ± Decisiveness,
(enabling more achievement than determination, self-confidence (8 items, =
expected, job satisfaction, motivation 0.90); Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness,
to achieve more than expected, honesty and openness (9 items, = 0.93);
satisfaction with leadership style, job- Scale 5 ± Empowering, develops potential (9
related stress), when the subjects are items, = 0.91); Scale 6 ± Inspirational
subdivided by level and sex; networker and promoter (10 items, = 0.93);
Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability (6
H2: that differential patterns of
items, = 0.85); Scale 8 ± Clarifies
relationships exist between the nine
boundaries, involves others in decisions (5
scales and the five criterion
items, = 0.85); Scale 9 ± Encourages critical
variables.
and strategic thinking (7 items, = 0.89)
(Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999).
Because the total number of managers at
Method Level 1 and Level 2 (chief executive and
In order to examine further the convergent board level, respectively) was small, the
validity and to determine the discriminant results for these two groups were combined.
validity of the TLQ-LGV, five items (criterion Thus, the responses were first analysed for
variables) were used. These were designed to the sample as a whole, and then the managers
measure the perceived effect of the manager were sorted by:
on the individual's Achievement (``Enables . level of rater (chief executive and top
me to achieve more than I expected''), Job managers (combined); senior managers;
satisfaction (``Behaves in ways which middle managers);
increase my job satisfaction''), Motivation . sex; and
(``Increases my motivation to achieve''), and . level  sex (Table I).
Satisfaction with leadership style (``Leads in
a way that I find satisfying''). A single item
criterion variable was added which relates to
Stress (``Leads in a way which reduces my Results
job-related stress''). Four of these criteria Usable responses were received from 1,464
were chosen since they had been used to managers. These were obtained from
establish the convergent validity of other, distributing the instrument to a random,
comparable instruments (e.g. Bass and stratified sample of local government
Avolio, 1990a, 1990b). The items were organisations in England and Wales. The
included within a pilot instrument, the data were analysed in two ways: product-
Leadership Questionnaire ± Local
moment correlation coefficients; and step-
Government Version (LQ-Pilot LGV), which
wise multiple regression equations, were
was distributed among a random, stratified
calculated between the scales and each of the
sample of local authority organisation
criterion variables. The step-wise method
in the UK.
It is recognised that the use of single- was selected since the scales were not
source, self-report evidence can be criticised themselves uncorrelated. In each case, an
for leading to possible ``halo effects''.
However, given that the instrument has only Table I
just been developed, evidence from objective Composition of sample, by level and sex
criteria is not yet available; as noted, the Level/sex Male Female
criterion variables chosen were those
employed in the early stages of the validation Level 1: Board/chief executive 33 1
of a comparable instrument. More Level 2: Directorate/director 127 22
substantially, to have sought relevant other- Level 3: Senior/assistant director 346 115
source data would have compromised the Level 4: Middle/section-unit head 555 256
construct validity of the instrument, the Notes: Nine subjects did not give their sex
integrity of which is predicated on the
[ 284 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and SPSS programme was used to perform the skills, and reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Genuine
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe calculations. concern for others and Motivation), and for
The transformational
leadership questionnaire females from r = 0.22 (Political sensitivity
1. Product-moment correlations and skills, and Achievement) to 0.87 (Genuine
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal Statistically significant inter-correlations concern for others and Motivation). In the
21/6 [2000] 280±296 were detected between Scales 1-9 and each of cases of the male managers, p < 0.01, in each
the five criterion variables respectively (p < case; and of the females, p < 0.05, in each case.
0.05, in each case), divided by level  sex In the cases of the correlations involving
(Table II). Political sensitivity and skills, and each of
In analysing the data presented in Table II, the criterion variables among the managers
there is the need for caution in relation to the subdivided by level x sex, the coefficients for
cells for Level 1 and 2 females, where n = 13, the females were found, in each case, to be
and for Level 3 females, where n = 88.0 significantly lower than for the males (c
Among the Level 1 and 2 managers, the ranged from 3.30 to 4.20, p < 0.001, in each
coefficients for males ranged from r = 0.42 case) (Liem, 1962).
(Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and
reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Scale 1 ± Genuine 2. Multiple regressions
concern for others and Job satisfaction), and The results of the step-wise multiple
for females from r = 0.74 (Political sensitivity regression calculations between Scales 1-9
and skills, and Satisfying leadership style) to
and each of the five criterion variables, for
0.89 (Genuine concern for others and
the sample as a whole, and for the sample
Motivation, and Satisfying leadership style).
divided by level, by sex, and by level  sex,
Among the Level 3 male managers, the
are summarised in Tables III (a), (b), (c) and
coefficients ranged from r = 0.43 (Political
(d), respectively, where beta scores and
sensitivity and skills, and Achievement, and
multiple Rs are presented. In each case, F
reduced Stress) to 0.84 (Genuine concern for
was significant beyond the 5 per cent level.
others and Motivation), and for females from
r = 0.37 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Whole sample
Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for As indicated in Table III (a), taking the
others and Job satisfaction). Among the sample as a whole, there was evidence from
Level 4 male managers, the coefficients the multiple regression analyses that four of
ranged from r = 0.52 (Political sensitivity and the transformational factors (Scale 1 ±

Table II
Product-moment correlation coefficients between scales 1-9 and criterion variables, for managers
Achievement job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others M 0.78 0.73 0.81 0.87 0.82 0.85 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.81 0.80 0.84 0.72 0.74 0.75
F 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.81 0.84 0.76 0.76 0.79
Political sensitivity and skills M 0.53 0.43 0.55 0.51 0.44 0.57 0.54 0.45 0.58 0.51 0.48 0.60 0.42 0.43 0.52
F 0.68 0.37 0.22 0.70 0.39 0.26 0.66 0.42 0.32 0.74 0.42 0.35 0.62 0.41 0.26
Decisiveness, determination, M 0.56 0.60 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.71 0.54 0.56 0.58
self-confidence F 0.59a 0.60 0.62 0.50a 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.69 0.70 0.60a 0.60 0.61
Integrity, trustworthiness, M 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.70 0.69
honesty and openness F 0.81 0.67 0.72 0.67 0.82 0.79 0.65a 0.77 0.81 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.5a 0.81 0.74
Empowering, develops potential M 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.69 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.71 0.61 0.62 0.64
F 0.69 0.74 0.72 0.63 0.75 0.74 0.60a 0.75 0.74 0.64 0.72 0.74 0.54a 0.69 0.65
Networker, promoter, M 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.71 0.66 0.69 0.64 0.67 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.75 0.57 0.62 0.61
communicator F 0.61 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.75 0.68 0.59 0.71 0.56
Accessibility, approachability M 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.60 0.62 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.61 0.65
F 0.66 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.69 0.73 0.79 0.69 0.74 0.78 0.70 0.75 0.64 0.65 0.67
Clarifies boundaries M 0.52 0.66 0.67 0.63 0.73 0.71 0.57 0.69 0.71 0.65 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.69 0.62
F 0.64 0.57 0.71 0.59 0.72 0.76 0.62 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.70 0.78 0.62 0.73 0.69
Encourages critical and M 0.67 0.66 0.72 0.78 0.69 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.70 0.76 0.59 0.59 0.60
strategic thinking F 0.68 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.72 0.73 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.72 0.74 0.68 0.67 0.65
Notes: Level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n  126), females (F) (n  13); Level 3, males (M) (n  294), females (F) (n  88); Level 4, males
(M) (n  393), females (F) (n  162); a Denotes p < 0.05; p < 0.01 (in all other cases)

[ 285 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ± The multiple Rs ranged from 0.74 to 0.84,
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence, suggesting that a large amount of variance
The transformational
leadership questionnaire and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, involves was being accounted for.
Leadership & Organization others in decisions), were all significant Subjects divided by level
Development Journal predictors of each of the five criterion Analysis of the pattern of relationships
21/6 [2000] 280±296
variables. In each case, the largest beta among managers at different levels (Table III
coefficient was for Genuine concern for (b)) reveals that, while there was consistency
others. with the results for the sample as a whole, in
Two other scales (Scale 7 ± Accessibility, that Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
approachability, and Scale 9 ± Encourages continued to show the greatest predictive
critical and strategic thinking) were power, there were some level-related
significant predictors of four of the criterion differences. Thus, there was similarity
variables, though with slightly different between the whole sample (Table III (a)) and
patterns of relationship. Three of the managers at the different levels in the
remaining scales (Scale 4 ± Integrity, predictive power of Scale 1 ± Genuine
trustworthy, honest and open, Scale 5 ± concern for others and Scale 4 ± Integrity. For
Empowers, develops potential, and Scale 6 ± managers at all levels, these two factors
Inspirational networker and promoter) were continued to be significant predictors of the
significantly related to at least one criterion relevant variables, with the largest beta
variable, while Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity values associated with Genuine concern for
and skills was not a significant predictor of others. Scale 3 ± Decisiveness continued to be
any of them. significantly related to Achievement; Scale 7

Table III (a)


Multiple correlations between factor 1-9 and criterion variables

Satisfying
Factor/criterion variable Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation leadership style Stress (negative)
Genuine concern for others 0.367 0.345 0.413 0.251 0.297
Political sensitive and skills ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence 0.157 0.109 0.177 0.144 0.118
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness ± 0.138 ± 0.150 0.157
Empowering, develops potential 0.100 ± 0.0.51 ± ±
Networker, promoter, communicators ± ± ± 0.068 ±
Accessibility, approachability ± 0.086 0.065 0.090 0.119
Clarifies dounaries, involves others 0.081 0.155 0.105 0.178 0.178
Encourages critical and strategi thinking 0.189 0.137 0.152 0.122 ±
Multiple R 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.74
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for whole sample (n  1172)

Table III (b)


Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variable
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others 0.617 0.274 0.387 0.440 0.241 0.353 0.470 0.404 0.328 0.293 0.231 0.248 0.335 0.145 0.351
Political sensitivity and skills ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.124 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-
confidence 0.238 0.183 0.123 ± ± 0.110 0.198 0.208 0.135 ± 0.127 0.166 ± ± 0.124
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty
and openness ± ± ± 0.178 0.222 0.085 ± ± ± 0.230 0.211 0.122 0.296 0.199 0.109
Empowering, develops potential ± 0.214 0.070 ± 0.107 ± ± 0.150 ± ± ± ± ± 0.096 ±
Networker, promoter, communicator ± ± ± 0.156 0.111 ± ± 0.118 ± 0.251 0.124 ± ± 0.120 ±
Accessibility, approachability ± ± ± ± 0.078 0.076 ± ± 0.076 ± 0.078 0.096 0.173 0.094 0.112
Clarifies boundaries ± ± 0.136 ± 0.145 0.183 ± 0.103 0.142 ± 0.146 0.228 ± 0.252 0.156
Encourages critical and strategic
thinking ± 0.233 0.180 0.174 0.098 0.145 0.167 ± 0.180 0.176 0.095 0.133 ± ± ±
Multiple R 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.77 0.74
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) (n  388), and Level 4 (n  597)

[ 286 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and ± Accessibility to reduced Stress, and Scale 9 and skills emerge as a significant predictor,
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe ± Encouraging critical and strategic thinking in this case, of Motivation. The multiple Rs
The transformational
leadership questionnaire to Job satisfaction and to Satisfaction with ranged from 0.71 to 0.84, again suggesting
leadership style. that the different factors together account for
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal At the same time, a number of differences a large amount of criterion variable
21/6 [2000] 280±296 between managers at the different levels variance.
were evident. Thus, three level-related
patterns of relationships were evident in the Subjects divided by sex
case of Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, one involving There were no differences between the
Scale 5 ± Empowers, two involving Scale 6 ± patterns of relationships for the sample as a
Inspirational networker, two involving whole, and when males and females were
Accessibility, and five involving Scale 8 ± analysed separately, in the cases of Scale 1 ±
Clarifies boundaries. Genuine concern for others (which continued
Only among Level 1 and 2 (combined) to have the highest beta coefficients), Scale 3
managers did Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity ± Decisiveness, Scale 4 ± Integrity and Scale 9

Table III (c)


Multiple correlations between factors 1-9 and criterion variables
Satisfying
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable M F M F M F M F M F
Genuine concern for others 0.359 0.368 0.355 0.329 0.457 0.385 0.249 0.266 0.267 0.358
Political sensitivity and skills 0.060 ±0.094 ± ±0.068 0.056 ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence 0.135 0.202 0.090 0.174 0.129 0.233 0.108 0.226 0.098 0.163
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness ± ± 0.145 0.115 ± ± 0.173 0.102 0.138 0.185
Empowering, develops potential 0.074 0.171 ± ± ± 0.093 ± ± 0.066 ±
Networker, promoter, communicator ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.084 ± ± ±
Accessibility, approachability ± ± 0.086 0.095 0.058 0.085 0.082 0.122 0.125 ±
Clarifies boundaries 0.106 ± 0.150 0.172 0.117 ± 0.176 0.173 0.166 0.189
Encourages critical and strategic thinking 0.168 0.237 0.138 0.136 0.140 0.198 0.123 0.125 ± ±
Multiple R 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.73 0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for males (M) (n  855), females (F) (n  289), at all levels

Table III (d)


Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variables
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others M 0.628 0.177 0.377 0.535 0.217 0.409 0.629 0.405 0.444 0.391 0.194 0.264 0.409 0.212 0.330
F 0.659 0.360 0.380 0.714 0.454 0.333 ± 0.414 0.414 0.277 0.359 0.241 ± ± 0.394
Political sensitivity and M ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
skills F ± ± ±0.138 ± ± ±0.106 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.377 ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, M 0.236 0.127 0.116 ± ± 0.121 0.295 0.128 0.102 ± ± 0.152 ± ± 0.104
self-confidence F ± 0.209 0.193 ± 0.190 0.165 ± 0.378 0.191 ± 0.275 0.186 ± ± 0.156
Integrity, trustworthiness M ± ± ± 0.228 0.236 0.091 ± ± ± 0.315 0.291 0.124 0.369 0.161 0.107
F ± ± ± ± 0.201 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.142 ± 0.410 0.139
Empowering, develops M ± 0.184 ± ± 0.126 ± ± 0.103 ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
potential F ± 0.243 ± ± ± ± ± 0.202 ± ± 0.164 ± ± ± ±
Networker, promoter, M ± 0.112 ± 0.189 ± ± ± 0.114 ± 0.230 0.167 ± ± 0.107 ±
communicator F ± ± ± ± 0.171 ± ± ± ± 0.414 0.226 ± ± ± ±
Accessibility, M ± ± 0.085 ± 0.118 ± ± ± 0.095 ± ± 0.105 ± 0.115 0.143
approachability F ± ± ± ± ± 0.104 0.532 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.205 ±
Clarifies boundaries M ± 0.157 0.133 ± 0.188 0.165 ± 0.120 0.149 ± 0.196 0.197 ± 0.291 0.144
F ± ±0.194 0.192 ± ± 0.249 ± ± 0.133 ± ± 0.291 ± 0.267 0.200
Encourages critical and M ± 0.156 0.178 ± 0.105 0.145 ± 0.100 0.153 ± 0.142 0.138 ± ± ±
strategic thinking F ± 0.321 0.217 ± ± 0.158 0.402 ± 0.249 0.407 ± 0.146 0.493 ± ±
Multiple R M 0.78 0.76 0.78 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.72 0.76 0.72
F 0.66 0.82 0.81 0.71 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.84 0.86 0.73 0.78 0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients, for managers at level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n  126), females (F) (n  13); level 3, males (M) (n  294),
females (F) (n  88); and level 4, males (M) (n  393), females (F) (n  162)

[ 287 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking Noteworthy among the differences were the
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe (Tables III (a) and (c)). There was also much relationships involving: Scale 8 ± Clarifies
The transformational similarity in the patterns for Accessibility,
leadership questionnaire boundaries, where oppositely-valent beta
which did not, however, emerge as a values were detected in relation to
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal significant predictor of Reduced stress Achievement, and there were other sex-
21/6 [2000] 280±296 among females; among the men it had the related differences in relation to Job
lowest beta coefficient (0.07). satisfaction, Motivation, and Satisfying
Sex-related differences in the relationship leadership style; Scale 4 ± Integrity, which
between Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and continued to be a consistent predictor of Job
skills, and Achievement, evident in the satisfaction, and of Satisfying leadership
correlational data, were also found here; for style, only among the male managers; Scale 3
males the relationship was positive, for ± Decisiveness, which appeared to be more
females negative. Sex-related differences related to Job satisfaction, and to Satisfying
were also found in that Political sensitivity leadership style, among female than male
and skills was negatively related to Job managers; and Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
satisfaction among females, but positively and skills, which, among Level 4 females, was
related to Motivation among males. a negative predictor of Achievement, and of
In relation to each of the criterion Job satisfaction.
variables, there was at least one sex-related
difference; two of the differences involved
Political sensitivity and skills (q.v.) and
Discussion
Empowers, respectively; Empowers and
Accessibility were only predictors of 1. Product-moment correlations
Reduced stress among males. Also, uniquely Both the correlational and the multiple
among males, Clarifies boundaries was regression data provide evidence of
related to Achievement and to Motivation, statistically significant relationships
and Inspirational networker to Satisfying between each of the criterion variables and
leadership style; while among females, a transformational leadership Scales 1-9. These
unique link was found between Empowers data, then, provide evidence of the
and Motivation. Once again, the multiple Rs convergent validity of each of the factors,
(range 0.73 to 0.85) were high. even though, as noted above, Scale 2 ±
Political sensitivity and skills is different in
Subjects divided by level and sex
In analysing the data presented in Table III its provenance from the other scales.
(d), there is, again, the need for caution in The correlational data for the managers
relation to the cells for Level 1 and 2 divided by level  sex suggest that, in the
(combined) females, and for Level 3 females. case of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others,
Thus, differences between these data, between 56 and 72 per cent of criterion
particularly in relation to Level 1 and 2 variable variance can be accounted for by
(combined) females, and the data for Level 1 this aspect of transformational leadership.
and 2 (combined) managers as a whole Even in the case of the lowest coefficients,
(Tables III (a) and (b)), e.g. in the cases of the other than those involving Scale 2 ± Political
relationships between Motivation and the sensitivity and skills, the amount of Stress
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and variance accounted by Scale 3 ± Decisiveness
Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, and between Stress is 34 per cent.
and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, The psychological significance of the
Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and correlational data is, then, that they indicate
Encourages critical and strategic thinking, that each of the nine transformational scales
may be owing to the small sample size. is significantly correlated to the different
There was similarity between the measures of satisfaction, stress and outcome,
relationships between dependent and assessed by the five criterion variables.
independent variables for managers as a Thus, they provide evidence of the
whole and when divided by sex, in the convergent validity of each of the
following cases: Achievement and Scale 1 ± transformational leadership scales, even
Genuine concern for others, and Scale 9 ± when the managers are subdivided by level of
Encourages critical and strategic thinking; seniority and sex.
Job satisfaction and Scale 1 ± Genuine
concern for others; Motivation and Scale 5 ± 2. Multiple regressions
Empowers; Satisfying leadership style and The psychological significance of the
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, and multiple regression analyses is: that they
Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker; and focus attention on the way in which the
Reduced stress and Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, different scales are particularly relevant to
and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries. different aspects of satisfaction, stress and
[ 288 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and outcome; and, thus, that they provide managers. This is evidence of the influence of
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe evidence that, in spite of themselves being ``substitutes for leadership'' ± that is,
The transformational significantly intercorrelated, each of the personal factors (e.g. high need for
leadership questionnaire
scales measures a distinct aspect of independence, indifference to organisational
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal transformational leadership, and the rewards, or a professional orientation) and
21/6 [2000] 280±296 discriminant validity of the instrument. In contextual factors (e.g. work group
other words, within the context of their autonomy, or routine or programmed work),
validity, each of the scales may have which can have a modulating effect on leader
particular relevance to certain aspects of how behaviour (e.g. Bass, 1990; Gronn, 1999;
a manager feels or acts. This particular Howell, 1997; Howell, Dorfmann and Kerr,
relevance may be described as the scale's 1986; Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Jermier and
``focus of convenience''. In Personal Contract Kerr, 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997).
Theory (Kelly, 1955), this term is defined as, Recent research by Stordeur, Vandenberghe
``a set of events which its user finds can be and D'Hoore (1999) among nurses in a
most conveniently ordered within its Belgian hospital indicated a significant
context'' (Bannister and Mair, 1968, p. 19), in moderating effect of such factors on the
contrast to the ``range of convenience'' which relationship between MLQ scores and the
is ``a broader set of events which the four criterion variables, including job
construct can deal with, if sometimes less satisfaction and satisfaction with
effectively''. In the present context, the focus leadership style.
of convenience of a particular scale refers to Both the correlational and multiple
those aspects of job-related behaviour or regression data provide evidence of the
feelings to which that scale is most relevant. significance of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for
In some cases, the focus of convenience of a others. Not only does this scale have the
scale relates to an aspect of behaviour or highest correlations with each of the
feelings among a group or sub-group of criterion variables, but it also contributes the
managers. To suggest that a scale does not greatest amount of predictive variance in
have a particular focus of convenience does each of the multiple regression equations,
not have implications for its range of where it also has the largest beta values.
convenience. The range of convenience of a From the pattern of relationships between
scale is the wider range of feelings and the criterion items and the transformational
behaviours, among a wider range of groups leadership factors (Table III (a)), it is clear
and sub-groups of managers, for which the that each of the scales, except Scale 2 ±
scale still has relevance (as evidenced by the Political sensitivity and skills, is a
correlational data). significant predictor of one or more of the
Thus, the correlational data suggest that criteria used. Three of the scales ± Scale 1 ±
each of the five aspects of job-related Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ±
behaviour or feelings is within the range of Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence,
convenience of each of the nine scales. It is and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries ± are
important to be clear that the process of significant of all five criteria, though to
stepwise multiple regression analysis entails differing degrees. Two scales ± Scale 7 -
a successive removal of the variance Accessibility, approachability, and Scale 9 ±
accounted for by each scale as it is partialed Encourages critical and strategic thinking ±
out of the equation. The effect of this process are significant predictors of four criteria.
is, therefore, to remove both the variance Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and
uniquely accounted for by the scale and also open is a significant predictor of Job
any variance that it may share with other satisfaction, Satisfying leadership style, and
scales. For this reason, the full amount of Stress (reduced level); while Scale 8 ±
Empowers, develops potential is a significant
variance accounted for by scales that are
predictor of Achievement, and Scale 6 ±
extracted at subsequent steps in the process
Inspirational networker and promoter is a
will not always be evident. For this reason,
significant predictor of Satisfying
the focus of convenience of scales that
leadership style.
explain less of the common variance will not
always be evident. Either it will be reduced, Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
or when the amount of unique variance that This scale emerged as being a consistently
a scale can account for is very small, it may significant predictor of each of the five
not be at a level that will reach statistical criterion variables, and also the greatest
significance, and thus not be evident at all. single predictor, both for the sample as a
There is an underlying reason for not whole and when the sample was divided
expecting either the product-moment or the either by level or by sex. However, when the
multiple regression data to be identical for sample was subdivided by level  sex, this
the different groups and sub-groups of was not true for Motivation and for Stress.
[ 289 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and Here, though, the absence of significant no sex-related differences in relation to
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe relationships involving Levels 1 and 2 and measures of satisfaction and Reduced stress,
The transformational Level 3 female managers may be attributable there was evidence of such differences in
leadership questionnaire
to the small size of the sample for these relation to Achievement and Motivation.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal analyses. Thus, it would seem that only among male
21/6 [2000] 280±296 Overall, the results are consonant with the managers, in general, do clarification of
nature of the scale, which relates both to boundaries and involvement in decisions
sensitivity to the feelings of others, and to emerge as significant predictors of
offering personal support and encouraging and enabling achievement.
communicating positive expectations. Quite why no such effect was detected among
Furthermore, they suggest that the scale females is not immediately apparent, though
shows a measure of robustness, as evident in clarification of boundaries was equally
an absence of sex-related differences, or of relevant to both measures of satisfaction, and
differences between managers at different to a reduced level of stress for both males and
levels in their organisation. females. The evidence of level-related
differences may be interpreted as suggesting
Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination, that only managers at lower levels need to
self-confidence have their boundaries clarified for them;
Two other scales, Scale 3 and Scale 8 ± managers at more senior levels are likely to
Clarifies boundaries, also emerged as enjoy greater autonomy in determining the
significant predictors of each of the criterion parameters of their work on a day-to-day
variables for the sample as a whole. For Scale basis. Indeed, for Levels 1 and 2 managers,
3, these relationships held true when the only two of the nine scales are significant
results for female and male managers were predictors of enabling them to achieve more
analysed separately, and also for managers at than they expected (Achievement).
Level 4. However, the evidence suggests that, The results for when the managers were
for managers at all levels, high scores on this subdivided by level  sex are consonant with
scale were only predictors of a feeling of the interpretation that clarification of
enabling greater achievement than expected boundaries and involving others in decision
(Achievement) and of increasing motivation making are important to the job performance
to achieve (Motivation). The results for when of lower-level managers, both male and
the managers were subdivided both by level female. The negative beta value for
 sex are broadly consistent with the results Achievement among Level 3 female
of the other analyses. In view of the small managers is not readily interpretable and, for
sample size of Levels 1 and 2 female reasons of sample size, most likely artificial.
managers, the absence of statistically Thus, while for managers, Clarifies
significant links with Achievement and boundaries emerges as a significant
Motivation is probably an artefact. predictor of job-related satisfaction and of
As the label indicates, Scale 4 relates to reduced job-related stress for both male and
personal attributes of a manager as perceived female managers in general, and of
by a direct report. Thus, just as much for encouraging and enabling achievement
female as male managers, and certainly for among male managers in general, its
managers at the lowest level, that they relevance or ``focus of convenience'' is
perceive their boss to have these attributes is principally, if not exclusively, among senior
a cause of satisfaction with their job and with and particularly middle managers of both
the leadership style of their manager, leads to sexes, i.e., those at lower levels in their
a reduced level of job-related stress, and organisation.
encourages and enables achievement.
Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic
Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, keeps thinking
others informed, involves others in For the sample as a whole, Scale 9 is a
decision making significant predictor of four of the criterion
As noted above, Scale 8 is also a significant variables for the sample as a whole, and
predictor of all five criterion variables for the when the sample was divided by sex.
sample as a whole. However, when the However, when the data were analysed by
sample was analysed by level, in no case did level, this consistency persisted only for the
the relationship hold true among the chief two measures of satisfaction. Only among
executive and top-level managers, though Level 3 (senior) and Level 4 (middle)
among the Level 3 and Level 4 managers the managers was the encouragement of critical
whole sample results were more or less and strategic thinking a significant predictor
replicated, the exception being Level 3 of Achievement, though for Motivation the
managers in the case of the Achievement results were ambiguous. The analyses by
criterion. Furthermore, whereas there were level and sex support the suggestion that the
[ 290 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and focus of convenience of this scale is lower- ``High quality senior managers'' was found to
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe level managers, with the results being emerge as the second and third of 17 factors,
The transformational consistent for both females and males at for males and females respectively. Among
leadership questionnaire
Level 4. the comments regularly made in the final,
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal For a manager to be scored highly on open-ended section of the survey instrument
21/6 [2000] 280±296 encouraging critical and strategic thinking used, were those relating to senior managers'
implies that s/he is not only confident in her/ availability and accessibility, and their
himself and but is also open to the ideas of familiarity with the difficulties faced by
others ± two of the prerequisites of creativity those whom they managed (Alban-Metcalfe,
identified by Carl Rogers (1961). It has also 1985).
been identified as a factor (intellectual Thus, the focus of convenience of
stimulation) in the Bass and Avolio MLQ Accessibility, approachability emerges as
(Bass, 1990a, 1990b). being predominantly among lower-level
Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability managers, though among both female and
Scale 7 was also found to be a significant male managers in general.
predictor of four of the criterion variables for Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness,
the sample as a whole. When the sample was honesty and openness
divided by level, the same pattern persisted Among the sample as a whole, Integrity,
in the case of managers at Level 4, and also trustworthiness, honesty and openness
for male managers, when the sample was emerged as a significant predictor of three
divided by sex. However, analyses of the criterion variables ± both measures of
sample subdivided by level and sex were not satisfaction and reduced stress ± a pattern
readily interpretable. which was replicated when the data were
Thus, in no case did Accessibility emerge analysed by level and by sex. When the
as a significant predictor of enabling greater sample was subdivided by level  sex, the
achievement but, among both males and pattern was again replicated among the male
females, it was a significant predictor of both managers, but not the female.
measures of satisfaction and of increased Given that the scale is predicated on
motivation to achieve. It was also perceptions of the line manager as someone
significantly linked to reduced stress among whose actions are based on moral and ethical
males, but not females. Why a sex-related principles, relationships between it and the
difference should exist is not self-evident, three criterion variables are readily
though it may be hypothesised that among interpretable, and indeed to be expected.
female managers the perception of one's line What is difficult to understand is the
manager as relatively inaccessible and apparent inconsistency among the female
unapproachable may be only one of many managers, when analysed by level. While
job-related causes of stress. evidence of sex-related differences among the
For males and females combined, Level 1 and 2 group can, perhaps, be
Accessibility was significantly linked to attributed to sample size, the absence of
reduced level of stress among managers at all significant relationships involving Job
levels, which is consonant with the results satisfaction (Level 4 females) and Satisfaction
for the sample as a whole. That Accessibility with leadership style (Level 3 females) are
is a significant predictor of satisfaction with less readily explicable, and would warrant
the job and with leadership style among further investigation. Could it be that, for
lower-level (Level 3 and Level 4) managers is females, satisfaction at work is not as
readily interpretable; that the relationship is strongly predicated on the integrity or
limited to them, may be a reflection of trustworthiness of their line manager, or
generally more collegial relationships among
perhaps more radically, that females have
executive and top-level managers, with
learnt not to expect satisfaction from
access readily available and taken for
working with their boss? Further analyses by
granted. Similarly, that the Motivation to
sex of rater and sex of target manager might
achieve is linked to Accessibility only among
inform discussion.
middle-level (Level 4) managers may be an
organisational culture-related phenomenon. Scale 5 ± Empowers, delegates, develops
It might also relate to findings from an potential
earlier study of the career development of Two criterion variables ± both achievement-
British managers (Alban-Metcalfe and related ± were predicted by this scale among
Nicholson, 1984) which included an the sample as a whole, but only the
investigation of relative motivators in a job. relationship with Achievement was
Based on an analysis of the rank ordering replicated among sub-groups, and only when
of items identified in the literature at the the sample was divided by sex. Why different
time of what motivates managers in a job, patterns of significant relationships should
[ 291 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and emerge when the sample was subdivided may be consonant with the finding that among
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe be attributable to the nature of the scale. managers at each of the levels, scores on
The transformational Thus, while the scale does relate to a
leadership questionnaire Scale 2 were significantly lower for females
psychologically coherent entity and, in than males. If replicated by others, the
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal statistical terms, the internal reliability was implications of these findings may be
21/6 [2000] 280±296 high ( = 0.91) and the individual items were important for the dynamics of an
significantly intercorrelated (r = 0.37 ± 0.73), organisation at different levels, and would
the component items assess different aspects certainly warrant further investigation.
of what is, in reality, a continuous process. It The only other relationship to merit
may be that different groups of managers comment is the readily interpretable link
attribute different levels of personal between Political sensitivity and skills, and
significance to different aspects of the scale. Motivation (increases my motivation to
However, in the absence of concrete evidence achieve) among Level 1 and 2 managers in
of this, it would be inappropriate to speculate general. These two groups, particularly those
further. It might prove valuable to at Level 1 (executive), are those who come
investigate further the nature and the into most contact with elected members (i.e.
correlates of this scale. locally elected councillors), and are therefore
most likely to respect this attribute in others
Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and and themselves to need to possess the
promoter attributes measured by Scale 2. At the same
Among the sample as a whole, this scale time, it is important to be conscious of the
emerged as a predictor only of Satisfaction provenance of the items that comprise the
with leadership style, though when the scale; five of the six items were proposed by
sample was analysed by sex, the relationship management trainers working in local
only persisted among the male managers. government, and not, as with all the other
However, analyses by level indicated that the items, based on constructs elicited by staff
scale predicted both sources of satisfaction working in local government at each of the
among managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) four levels. The focus of convenience of this
and Level 3, a finding that was replicated for scale is executive and top-level managers, for
Satisfaction with leadership style, though not whom it was devised.
Job satisfaction for both male and female
managers, analysed separately.
In spite of having high internal reliability Conclusions
( = 0.93) and significant inter-items
correlations (r = 0.42 ± 0.74), the Inspirational Overall, the results support the hypotheses
networker and promoter scale relates to that each scale is a valid predictor of each of
different aspects of manager behaviour ± the five criterion variables used, and that the
drawing people together, communicating, nine scales that comprise the TLQ-LGV
promoting the department ± that are linked measure different aspects of transform-
by a common theme. Thus, while the scale ational leadership.
tends to lead to satisfaction among higher Thus, the product-moment correlations
(Level 1 and 2 and Level 3), rather than indicated that the nine scales are all valid,
middle-level (Level 4) managers, it may be even when the managers were subdivided by
the case that different groups and sub-groups level and sex. What emerged from the
of managers relate to different aspects of it; regression analyses was firstly that, for the
or, alternatively, that these behaviours are sample as a whole, the nine TLQ-LGV scales
more likely to be observed by higher-level differ from each other in the extent to which
managers, or both reasons combined. they are significant predictors of the five
criterion variables, in other words in their
Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills focus of convenience.
The absence of significant relationships Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
involving this scale among the sample as a emerged consistently as the greatest single
whole must be interpreted in the light of the predictor, but the use of the stepwise method
results when the sample was analysed by sex, meant that, with each successive step, the
where oppositely-valent beta values were variance attributable to previously extracted
detected for Achievement. These, and the sex- scales was partialed out. In this way, the
related differences in the relationship unique predictive value of each scale could
between Scale 2 and both Job satisfaction and be determined.
Motivation, suggest that perceiving their line Thus, there is evidence that the eight
manager to be politically sensitive and remaining scales demonstrated a statistically
politically skilled may have an opposite effect significant level of predictive validity in
on the actions and feeling of female and male their own right. This constitutes further
managers. This interpretation may prove to evidence of the validity of distinguishing
[ 292 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and between different aspects of transformational used, the sample was derived from only one
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe leadership as measured by the TLQ-LGV, part of the UK public sector. The research is
The transformational even though the scales themselves share limited in that each of the five criterion
leadership questionnaire
variance in common. variables was assessed on the basis of self-
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal That, by and large, the pattern of perceptions, that each variable was
21/6 [2000] 280±296 relationships between scales and criterion measured using a single item, and that there
variables persisted when the sample was is the possibility of ``halo effects'', at least in
divided by sex is not surprising given the the correlational data.
lengths that were undertaken to ensure that The next stages of the research will
the TLQ-LGV was free from gender-bias. It is, include:
nevertheless, reassuring that such overall . testing the ``ecological'' validity of the
consistency should be evident. Where sex- TLQ-LGV in a different public sector, and
related differences were detected, these were against independent criteria;
associated with differences in level, and were . examining the factorial structure of the
mostly interpretable with reference to sex- TLQ-LGV, using confirmatory factor
plus-level-related influences, and the possible analysis;
effects of ``substitutes for leadership'' factors. . identifying dispositional and other
While there was much consistency personal correlates of the different aspects
between the sample analysed as a whole and of transformational leadership;
when divided by level, a number of . analysing data for various raters
interpretable level-related differences were participating in a 360-degree feedback
detected. Since a close/nearby concept of process, based on the TLQ-LGV;
leadership was adopted, and this was . analysing the data by sex of rater and sex
reflected both in eliciting initial constructs of target manager rated;
and in the nature of the ratings provided by . developing a UK Model of
the respondents (i.e. of their current or Transformational Leadership;
previous boss), and in the stratified sample . cross-cultural studies of transformational
used to construct the TLQ-LGV, these leadership.
differences cannot readily be dismissed as
artefacts. Rather, the nine scales should be While this study has examined the validity of
regarded as having particular relevance to a new transformational leadership
the job-related perceptions of managers at instrument, and provided supportive
different levels in their organisation ± their evidence, the authors would urge that more
own, unique focus of convenience. Here, qualitative research be conducted on
there often appeared to be a dichotomy constructs associated with leadership in:
between top managers versus those at senior . different organisations;
and middle level. Furthermore, where sex- . different sectors (public and private);
related differences were reported, they were . different countries; and
also level-related. . at different organisational levels.
These findings would also appear to justify The intention here was not to replace a grand
the researchers' aim to investigate the effects US model of transformational leadership
of culture, gender, and social distance, in with a ``grand UK model''; rather, to start
relation to models of transformational from a grounded theory approach, to identify
leadership in a country other than the US, further the nature of the ``leadership
from which most respected leadership phenomenon'' in different cultural and
models emanate. Given the differences in the
organisational settings, and to contribute to
dimensions identified in the TLQ-LGV,
an ongoing debate.
coupled with those in the MLQ , it would
seem important to consider the implications
References
of these differences for multinational Adler, N.J. (1983a), ``A typology of management
organisations, and for UK-US organisations studies involving culture'', Journal of
seeking to select and develop individuals International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1,
with leadership qualities. pp. 29-47.
Adler, N.J. (1983b), ``Cross-cultural management
research: the ostrich and the trend'', Academy
Criticisms and further of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 226-32.
investigations Adler, N. (1991), International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., PWS-
The conclusions to be drawn from these KENT, Boston, MA.
analyses must be interpreted in light of the Alban-Metcalfe, B. (1985), ``What motivates
small number of female managers at Levels 1 managers in the public and private sectors'',
and 2, and the fact that, even though a Public Administration, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 95-
representative range of organisation was 108.

[ 293 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, B. and Nicholson, N. (1984), The Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996),
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Career Development of British Managers, ``The transformational and transactional
The transformational British Institute of Management, London. leadership of men and women'', International
leadership questionnaire
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), ``An investigation of Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1,
Leadership & Organization female and male constructs of leadership and pp. 5-34.
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296 empowerment'', Women in Management Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in
Review, Vol. 10, pp. 3-8. Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B.M. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. Bryman, A. (1996), ``Leadership in organizations'',
(2000), ``The Transformational Leadership in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Questionnaire (Local Government Version) Handbook of Organizational Studies, Sage
(TLQ-LGV); a factor analytic study''. Journal Publications, London, pp. 276-92.
of Occupational and Organizational Carless, S.A. (1998), ``Assessing the discriminant
Psychology (accepted for publication). validity of transformational leader behaviour
Avolio, B.J. (1995), ``Transformational as measured by the MLQ'', Journal of
leadership'', Leadership Review Quarterly, Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 4. Vol. 71, pp. 353-8.
Ayman, R. (1993), ``Leadership perception: the Chelmers, M. and Ayman, R. (Eds) (1993),
role of gender and culture'', in Chemers, M.M. Leadership Theory and Research, Academic
and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Press, San Diego, CA.
Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, Conger, J.A. (1998), ``Qualitative research as the
pp. 137-66. cornerstone methodology for understanding
Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M.M. (1968), The leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9
Evaluation of Personal Constructs, Academic No. 1, pp. 107-21.
Press, London. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), ``Towards
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New in organizational settings'', Academy of
York, NY. Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988),
Leadership: Theory, Research and ``Behavioural dimensions of charismatic
Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New leadership'', in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo,
York, NY. R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership: The
Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactional- Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness,
transformational leadership paradigm Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78-97.
transcend organizational and national Cortina, J.M. (1993), ``What is coefficient alpha?
boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52 an examination of theory and applications'',
No. 2, pp. 130-9. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1,
Bass, B.M. (1998a), Current Developments in pp. 98-104.
Transformational Leadership: Research and Den Hartog, D.N., van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman,
Applications, invited address to the American P.L. (1997), ``Transactional versus
Psychological Association, San Francisco, transformational leadership: an
CA, August. observational field study'', Journal of
Bass, B.M. (1998b), Transformational Leadership: Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Druskat, V.U. (1994), ``Gender and leadership
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990a), Multifactor style: transformational and transactional
Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting leadership in the Roman Catholic Church'',
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990b), Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of
Transformational Leadership Development: Complex Organizations, The Free Press, New
Manual for the Multifactor Leadership York, NY.
Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership
Press, Palo Alto, CA. Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Gronn, R. (1999), ``Substituting for leadership: The
``Transformational leadership: a response to neglected role of the leadership couple'',
critiques'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
(Eds), Leadership Theory and Research, Hollander, E.P. (1978), Leadership Dynamics: A
Academic Press, London, pp. 49-80. Practical Guide to Effective Relationships,
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994a), Improving Free Press, New York, NY.
Organizational Effectiveness Through House, R.J. (1977), ``A 1976 theory of charismatic
Transformational Leadership, Sage leadership'', in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L.
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. (Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994b), ``Shatter the Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL,
glass ceiling: women may make better pp. 189-207.
managers'', Human Resource Management, Howell, J.P. (1997). ``Substitutes for leadership:
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 549-60. Their meaning and measurement ± an

[ 294 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and historical assessment'', Leadership Quarterly, Rosener, J. (1990). ``Ways women lead'', Harvard
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 113-16 Business Review, Vol. 68, November-
The transformational Howell, J.P., Dorfman, J.W. and Kerr, S. (1986), December, pp. 119-225.
leadership questionnaire
``Moderator variables in leadership Sashkin, M. (1988), ``The visionary leader'', in
Leadership & Organization research'', Academy of Management Review, Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds),
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296 Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 88-102. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in
Hunt, J.G. (1996), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. San Francisco, CA, pp. 122-60.
Hunt, J.G. (1999), ``Transformational/charismatic Shamir, B. (1995), ``Social distance and charisma:
leadership's transformation of the field: an Theoretical notes and an exploratory study'',
historical essay'', Leadership Quarterly, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-44. Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social
Hunt, J.G. and Peterson, M.F. (1997), ``Two Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and
scholars' views of some nooks and crannies in
Perspectives, Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA.
cross-cultural leadership'', Leadership
Sparrow, J. and Rigg, C. (1993), ``Job analysis:
Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 343-54.
Selecting for the masculine approach to
Jermier, J.M. and Kerr, S. (1997), ``Substitutes for
management'', Selection and Development
leadership: their meaning and measurement ±
Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-8.
contextual recollections and current
Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C. and D'Hoore, W.
observations'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8
(1999), ``An examination of substitutes for
No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social leadership within a Belgium nursing
Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., J. Wiley context'', paper presented to the Sixth
& Sons, New York, NY. European Conference on Organizational
Kelly, G.A. (1955), Psychology of Personal Psychology and Health Care, University of
Constructs, Vols 1 and 2, Norton, New York, Ghent and Jan Palfijn Hospital, Ghent.
NY. Strong, P.M. (1984), ``On qualitative methods and
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. (1978), ``Substitutes for leadership research'', in Hunt, J.G., Hosking,
leadership: their meaning and D.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and Stewart, R.
measurement'', Organizational Behavior and (Eds), Leaders and Managers: An
Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 374-403. International Perspective on Managerial
Kline, P. (1986), Handbook of Test Construction: Behavior and Leadership, Pergamon, New
Introduction to Psychometric Design, York, NY, pp. 204-8.
Methuen, London. Triandis, H.C. (1990), ``Cross-cultural industrial
Komives, S.R. (1991), ``The relationship of hall and organizational psychology'', in Triandis,
directors' transformational and transactional H.C., Dunnette, M.C. and Hough, L.M. (Eds),
leadership to select resident assistant Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
outcomes'', Journal of College Student Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. Consulting
Development, Vol. 32, pp. 509-15. Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 103-72.
Liem, K. (1962), Statistical Tables: Documenta Triandis, C.H. (1993), ``The contingency model in
Geigy, Geigy, Macclesfield. cross-cultural perspective'', in Chemers, M.M.
Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), ``Grounded and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
theory and organizational research'', Journal
Research Perspectives and Directions,
of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 22 No. 2,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 167-88.
pp. 141-57.
Turner, B.A. (1983), ``The use of grounded theory
Parry, K.W. (1998), ``Grounded theory and social
for the qualitative analysis of organizational
processes: a new direction for leadership
behavior'', Journal of Management Science,
research'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333-48.
pp. 85-105.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.N. (1973), Leadership
Peterson, M.F. and Hunt, J.G. (1997),
``International perspectives on international and Decision Making, University of
leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
No. 3, pp. 203-31. Wright, P.L. (1996), Managerial Leadership,
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), ``Kerr Routledge, London.
and Jermier's substitutes for leadership Yagil, D. (1998), ``Charismatic leadership and
model: background, empirical assessment, organizational hierarchy: attribution of
and suggestions for further research'', charisma to close and distant leaders'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-25. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 161-76.
Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person, Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations,
Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rosenbach, W.E. and Taylor, R.L. (Eds) (1993), Yukl, G.A. (1989), ``Managerial leadership: A
Contemporary Issues in Leadership, Westview review of theory and research'', Journal of
Press, Oxford. Management, Vol. 15, pp. 251-89.

(The appendix follows overleaf.)

[ 295 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Appendix
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization Table AI
Development Journal The nine scales
21/6 [2000] 280±296
1 Genuine concern for others Genuine interest in me as an individual; develops my strengths
2 Political sensitivity and skills Sensitive to the political pressures that elected members face;
understands the political dynamics of the leading group; can work
with elected member to achieve results
3 Decisiveness, determination, self- Decisive when required; prepared to take difficult decisions; self-
confidence confident; resilient to setback
4 Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open Makes it easy for me to admit mistakes; is trustworthy, takes
decisions based on moral and ethical principles
5 Empowers, develops potential Trusts me to take decision/initiatives on important issues;
delegates effectively; enables me to use my potential
6 Inspirational networker and promoter Has a wide network of links to external environment; effectively
promotes the work/achievements of the department/organization to
the outside world; is able to communicate effectively the vision of
the authority/department to the pubic community
7 Accessible, approachable Accessible to staff at all levels; keeps in touch using face-to-face
communication
8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in Defines boundaries of responsibility; involves staff when making
decisions decisions; keeps people informed of what is going on
9 Encourages critical and strategic thinking Encourages the questioning of traditional approaches to the job;
encourages people to think of wholly new approaches/solutions to
problems; encourages strategic, rather than short-term thinking

Table AII
Factor names; number of items; means, standard deviations and coefficients of variation; alpha
coefficients and range of inter-item correlation coefficients
Range of
Number of Standard Coefficient Alpha inter-item
Factor name items Mean deviation of variation coefficient coefficients
1 Genuine consideration for others 17 70.48 18.63 26.43 0.97 0.52 ± 0.81
2 Political sensitivity and skills 6 30.04 4.92 16.38 0.92 0.47 ± 0.79
3 Decisiveness, determination, self-
confidence 8 38.52 7.05 18.30 0.90 0.37 ± 0.67
4 Integrity, trusted, open and honest 9 39.94 9.72 24.34 0.93 0.48 ± 0.69
5 Empowers, develops potential 8 38.30 7.05 18.41 0.91 0.37 ± 0.73
6 Inspirational networker and promoter 10 43.89 9.78 22.28 0.93 0.42 ± 0.74
7 Accessibility, approachability 6 26.16 5.89 22.52 0.85 0.43 ± 0.65
8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in
decisions 5 20.77 4.98 23.98 0.85 0.43 ± 0.61
9 Encourages critical and strategic
thinking 7 29.83 6.98 23.40 0.89 0.44 ± 0.66

[ 296 ]