Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reflectionsona Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leaders Report
Reflectionsona Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leaders Report
net/publication/342515605
CITATIONS READS
0 1,555
1 author:
Olivier Serrat
Georgetown University
622 PUBLICATIONS 2,305 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Serrat on 28 June 2020.
Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced the Full Range Leadership Model to shine light on the
ability and behavior of leaders in different work situations. The model owes much to Burns's
(1978) trait-based approach to leadership, from whose work Bass (1985) drew heavily.
The Full Range Leadership Model condenses all leadership approaches into motivation,
stimulation, and influencing (transformational leadership); management-by-exception and
contingent reward (transactional leadership); and de facto denial of responsibility for
leadership (passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors) (Avolio & Bass, 1991).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire borne out of Avolio and Bass (1991) is used to
assess leadership ability and behavior across many cultures and types of organizations—with
a view to training and coaching but also selection, transfer, and promotion activities—and is
much referenced in organizational studies (Mind Garden, n.d.).
The Full Range Leadership Model: Categories & Associated
Behaviors
• Builds Trust
• Acts with Integrity
Transformational • Encourages Others
Leadership
• Encourages Innovative Thinking
• Coaches & Develops People
All the aggregates scores for transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's
Report were above the ideal frequency by 0.2–0.4 points.
The aggregate score for constructive transactional leadership is above the ideal
frequency range by 0.3 points.
The aggregate core for corrective transactional leadership is outside the ideal
frequency range by only 0.1 points.
All aggregate scores for passive–avoidant behaviors are within the ideal
frequency range.
The aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal frequency
range by 0.3 points in two out of three scales. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report does
not flag this as an area for development but the matter assuredly demands
attention in the future.
My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Summation (2)
Feedback from raters at same (aka Same) and lower (aka Lower) organizational
levels, or 10 of 14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered feedback,
is here and there higher, sometimes by as much as 0.6 points, than that of raters at
higher (aka Above) and other (aka Other) organizational levels.
The aggregate scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report show that my
behaviors as perceived by the raters are in every instance higher than the
universal norm (N=3,755). Even so, my MLQ 360 Leader's Report flags two areas
for development.
My MLQ 360 Leader's Report does not suggest areas that the raters but not I see
leadership strengths in. That said, I deemed myself—across all scales—as being
stronger than my raters see me. "Ambition is not what man does … but what man
would do," Robert Browning was reinterpreted as saying. Then again, one should
not hang on miracles.
My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Aggregate Scores
3.6 Acts with Integrity I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
3.6 Builds Trust I act in ways that build others' respect for me.
3.5 Encourages Innovative Thinking I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate.
3.4 Encourages Others I express confidence that goals will be achieved.
3.4 Encourages Innovative Thinking I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
3.4 Coaches & Develops People I treat others as individuals rather than just as members of the
group.
3.4 Builds Trust I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
* These style strengths cut across all five scales of transformational leadership. Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in
a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.
My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Areas for Development
I probably need to manage "upwards" better: rater feedback to open-ended questions drew
attention to:
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire does not take in other dimensions of leadership (e.g.,
authentic, autocratic, democratic, paternalistic). And, it ignores leadership modes (i.e.,
administrative, enabling, and adaptive) (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007)
Marion and Gonzales (2014) noted the difficulty of spotting pseudo-transformational leaders
who are later found to have worked for their self-interest.
The centered leadership approach advocates that leaders should first lead themselves (Barsh,
Mogelof, & Webb, 2010).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ignores the interplay between the external
environment and organizational configuration and the impact that has on organizational
culture and related organizational ideology, thence on leadership and associated behaviors.
The Full Range Leadership Model: Caveats (2)
The Multifactor Questionnaires are affordable, easy, and practical ways to gather
Leadership quantitative data from a large (and often anonymous) audience, data that
Questionnaire one can then—comfortably and without time constraint—analyze,
suffers from the compare, and contrast with other results to, say, examine trends or devise
inherent strategies.
limitations of
questionnaire But, respondent bias can be an issue; respondents may not understand
surveys. questions fully, may interpret them differently, or may leave them
unanswered; respondents may not be entirely truthful; questionnaires
cannot capture emotions or feelings; open-ended questions cannot be
quantified and must be reviewed by a person, not an algorithm; survey
fatigue or lack of accessibility can lead to low completion rates; and lack
of personalization can put off potential respondents.
Other personality inventory tools can amplify, counterpoint, and supplement the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire.
Annex: References (1)
Avolio, B, & Bass, B. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced
manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.
Barsh, J., Mogelof, J., & Webb, C. (2010). How centered leaders achieve extraordinary results.
McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 78–88. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/how-centered-leaders-achieve-extraordinary-results
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2015). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader's Workbook. Mind
Garden, Inc.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Churchill, W. (1939, January 7). The British people would rather go down fighting. New
Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/archive/2013/12/british-
people-would-rather-go-down-fighting
Annex: References (2)
Marion, R., & Gonzales, L. (2014). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the
practitioner (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Mind Garden. (n.d.). Mind Garden: Tools for positive transformation. Retrieved from
https://www.mindgarden.com/
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 298–318.
Quick Response Codes
@Academia.edu @Scholar
@LinkedIn @SlideShare
@ResearchGate @Twitter