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

James Swain (Date) ___________________________________ College Dean Dr. certify that we have advised and/or supervised the candidate on the work described in this dissertation. the undersigned members of the Graduate Faculty of The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 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. Sampson Gholston (Date) ___________________________________ Dr Julie Fortune (Date) ___________________________________ Dr. We.DISSERTATION APPROVAL FORM Submitted by William J. Philip Farrington (Date) ___________________________________ Dr. with a concentration in Engineering Management and accepted on behalf of the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies by the dissertation committee. Anthony Morris (Date) ___________________________________ Department Chair Dr. ___________________________________ Committee Chair Dr. Debra Moriarity (Date) iii . Schell IV in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Philip Farrington (Date) ___________________________________ Graduate Dean Dr. Dawn R Utley (Date) ___________________________________ Dr.

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 (α = 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

v

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 I’ll 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

Transactional Leadership... 5 1................................................. 1 1................................................................................... 29 2.... 20 2........ III...............1 The Full Range Leadership Model .....................1....... 18 2.............................5.........................1.............................................................6 Previous Studies into Leadership Antecedents..................................................... 31 2...............................................2 General Leadership Theories...4........... 23 2............................. x List of Tables ....3... 11 2............................................... 40 3............................3 Transformational Leadership...............................................2 Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership ...........1...4 Why Study Leadership............................. 39 3......1 The Leadership Practices Inventory.................. 37 RESEARCH STATEMENT.5....................................................... 24 2.............. 2 1........4 A Study into Transformational Leaders in Entrepreneurial Organizations......... 7 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......7 Review Summary......TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ............................................................5 Measuring Transformational Leadership........................................................................2 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire... 29 2................................... xi Chapter I..... 12 2...........................1 The Importance of Leadership............. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses........................................................................................................................ 4 1............2 The Need For Transformational Leadership...........................2 Pioneering Leadership Concepts........ 42 II...1 Leadership Defined for this Dissertation ....... 15 2...........................1 Research Questions..................................................................1 What Is Leadership ..3 The Antecedents of Transformational Leadership ................................................3..4.........1...1 Examples and Definitions of Leadership Effectiveness ...............2 Transformational Leadership vs.. 25 2............................ vii ......3 Leadership or Management...................................... 27 2......... 17 2..........4 Leadership Effectiveness ............................................................................... 34 2....................... 9 2............................. 26 2.................2 Importance of Research and Contribution.... 10 2..... INTRODUCTION ..............................................

................. 80 5........1 LLI Pilot Study Data Analysis..........................................................................1.........3 Exploratory Experiences.................. 50 4........6 Structured Equation Modeling Between the LLI and MLQ........................ 52 4...............................................1 Descriptive Statistics for the LLI....2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LLI ................................................. 67 5..7 Data Collection and Analysis Plan .......IV.3..4 Refinement of the LLI .....5 Formal Development Experiences....... 90 5.1 Comparing the Leadership Measures of the Study and MLQ Population ......................................3......... 44 4............................................................................................ 62 5......6............6............................................................... 51 4.............................................. 51 4.........7 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Questions and the MLQ ..................... 82 5...................................... 71 5................ 83 5.................................................................................. 47 4...............2 Instrument Selection ............. 71 5............................3.... 75 5. 91 5.............. 56 4....... 94 V................3 Development of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI)................................. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .8 Analysis Summary...........5 Description of the Survey Population............................................... 58 DATA ANALYSIS ..............................................................4 Analysis of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI) ...... 86 5.....1 Study Overview .............1.................4..................3.......................................................3......... viii ...............2 SEM Analysis Description and Results ... 53 4.................................................................6 Deployment of the Study Instruments ....................4...............................................................3..2 Reduction of LLI Question Set into Final Form........................................ 63 5.... 53 4.. 49 4.. 52 4.2 Reduction of the LLI Data Set .........1 Pilot Study and Refinement of the LLI...5 Exploring the Relationship Between the LLLI and the MLQ Using Correlation ..............................3................. 44 4....................................................................................2 Demographic Analysis of the Study Data Set ......................... 93 5... 54 4.3 Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) ..........1 Further Reduction of the LLI and CFA Revisited ...... 55 4...........3....................................... 68 5...6 Demographic Questions......4 Early / Previous Work Experience...3 Comparing the Factor Loadings of the Study Data with the MLQ Population ..2 Early Development Experiences............ 55 4.............1 Initial LLI Pilot Study...................................................4....................... 89 5........................... 79 5..........................3......1 The Nature of Key Relationships........2 Examination of the MLQ Factor Structure .....4................................... 60 5......

.............................................130 G....................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................2 Theoretical Implications of Study ..............................136 G...................2 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the Two Factor MLQ ............................3 Implications for the Engineering Manager .............................113 Mind Garden Permissions..............................................................123 Factor Analysis Of Alternative LLI Model ...................139 APPENDIX I: Study Approval from IRB.............................................................................1 Hypothesis Testing Results and Contribution to the Body of Knowledge.......154 ix .... 104 6................................................................................................................................... 97 6...........................111 Refined Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions..............131 G..120 LLI Correlation Analysis .............................................115 Gazelle’s Participant Invitations ................. 99 6..................................5 Areas for Future Research .................................................137 APPENDIX H: Structured Equation Model Output....................................................... 105 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: APPENDIX G: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ..................................... 96 6...........................................................1 Exploratory Analysis of the LLI ..........4 Limitations Of The Study ..................................................................................152 REFERENCES .........................3 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the Nine Factor MLQ............VI.. 103 6.......................108 Initial Lifetime Leadership Inventory Sample Questions...............................

........................................5 Page Leadership Literature Review Pyramid..................2 5...........................10 Study Conceptual Model .......................61 Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study.................79 G.........2 Scree Plot of Exploratory Factor Analysis on the LLI....................... 131 G........................................1 5.........................1 5.........50 Overview of Analysis Methodology ...78 Factor Model for Idealized Influence (Attributed) as Measured by the MLQ.....4 5......41 Overview of Theoretical LLI Model ........................3 5..................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2...........64 LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram Using Ward's Method ...........................1 3... 134 x .........1 4.....................................................................................1 Dendrogram from Cluster Analysis of Full LLI Data Using Ward Linkage ..........65 Scree Plot Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the MLQ................................................

...................1 Varimax Factor Loadings from LLI Exploratory Factor Analysis ..................................................................... 81 5.. 135 G................14 Correlation Coefficients and Significance for LLI Pillars & Nine Factor MLQ.......................................12 Descriptive Statistics for LLI Pillars......................7 Descriptive Statistics for MLQ Results .2 Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary...........3 5..........5 Participant Experience Level Demographic Information by Source ............LIST OF TABLES Table 4............... 67 5..............................................13 Loadings of Individual LLI Questions within their Hypothesized Factors ..3 Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Nine Factor MLQ .............................................1 Pilot Study Population Overview ......... 69 5............... 73 5........... 138 xi ......1 Page Leadership Measure Selection Criteria and Winner ..15 Correlation Values Found with SEM........ 74 5................................ 137 G...................................... 76 5.............................................6 Participant Education Level Demographic Information by Source.16 Significant Correlations Between LLI Questions and MLQ Leadership Factors...................11 Factor Loading Comparisons for Individual MLQ Questions within their Expected Factor . 85 5.... 75 5......2 Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Two Factor MLQ ....... 69 Participant Job Level Demographics by Source ..................................................... 62 5...9 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Score for Nine Factor MLQ Components .......................... 69 5......... 47 5.... 94 G.8 P Values for Comparisons of MLQ Scores.......................... 93 5............................................................. 82 5.......... 88 5................10 Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Alternate MLQ Models ..........4 Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender ............... 69 5.....................................................................................

that we’d live in a different time zone. the constant has always been us and my love for you. have one more kid (almost two) and see countless other changes big and small in careers and life before it was done. thank you for all of your support throughout the years. For Melanie. Someday you’ll get to tell your new little brother about all of the fun he missed before his arrival. thank you for being a daily source of inspiration and fascination to your daddy.even if you didn’t understand why I was still in school as a grown up. . We’ll now have more time to spend together and I’m looking forward to it more than you will ever know. Through it all. during this work and on oh so many other things.DEDICATION For Ana and Megan. Who would have guessed when this process started. Thank you for your patience while I was locked in the office at home. out at the library. or in Alabama .

4 million results in English (Google 2010). The scholarly work on leaders is also vast. as a current Google Scholar search on the word generates over 2. This interest in leaders is not just a popular culture phenomenon. or the compensation packages of executives. Whether it is the challenges faced by a major political initiative backed by the President. the fall from grace of leading sports figures. the public appears very interested in getting a regular feed of information on those who hold leadership positions.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.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 .” .CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION “The gift of leadership belonged to him in supreme degree. 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.

Romans and Chinese (Bass 1981). 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. and Franklin Roosevelt. 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. Discussion of the study of leadership can be found in the classical works of the Greeks. Mao Zedong. Churchill. while often most visible in politics. is not limited to this arena.” The second captured by Tolstoy (1869). Hitler. so-called Great Men are but labels serving to give a name to historical events. Stalin. if not successfully challenged by the other two men.1. human interest in leadership is not a recent phenomenon.” The importance of leadership. and like labels they have the least possible connection with the event itself. The first half of the 20th century acts as an extreme example for why Bennis (2004.” Gergen (2005) argues that the first half of the 20th century served to resolve this conflict of opinion. The study of leadership through human history eventually found its way into two camps at the dawn of the 20th century. In sports. The first four acted as tyrants and could have destroyed the world. stating that leaders do matter. “In history. 331) states that the “quality of our lives is dependant on the quality of our leadership. The 20th century dawned with hopes for a new golden age.1 The Importance of Leadership While recent history may show an increasing level of study. the differences in leadership can be seen by the championships amassed by coaches 2 . Leadership has an impact on all areas of society. a lot. The first typified by Carlyle’s (1888) belief that “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.

and establishing it. trait theories. It is this power of leadership that draws researchers to better understand the topic. defining it. 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 organization’s mission. […] [The leader] holds himself ultimately responsible for the mistakes of his associates and subordinates. 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 organization’s performance variation (Thomas 1988). In business. sets the priorities and sets and maintains the standards. The leader sets goals. generally hold that effective leaders possess different traits than their less effective counterparts (Bass 1981). rather than as rank and privilege. relationship oriented.Lombardi. generally holds that the behaviors of leaders impact their effectiveness. This type of leadership is defined as being able to lift a team above the day-to-day preoccupations to 3 . Auerbach and Jackson. he also sees the triumphs of his associates and subordinates as his triumphs […]. Microsoft under Bill Gates and Apple under Steve Jobs. In this statement. Subsequent to the Great Man theory. The second group. a dispute summed up by Drucker (2001a. But these categories have often fallen into dispute. the quest to understand leadership has generally fallen into two categories. Drucker captures the need for transformational leadership. clearly and visibly. leadership drove the success of General Electric under Jack Welch. […] The second requirement is that the leader sees leadership as a responsibility. These behaviors are typically combined into groups similar to those of Katz and Kahn (1952). The first. and participative leadership. behavioral theories. The relationship oriented behaviors led to the development of charismatic leadership theories (Barbuto 2005). who categorized behaviors as task oriented.

Now seems an opportune time to better understand transformational leadership and capture its benefits. and satisfaction of those led” (Avolio and Bass 2002. However. 1). research has supported the idea that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership in generating the extra effort.. Transformational leadership has been shown to have strong positive impacts on the performance of organizations from financial firms (Walumba. Friedman (2005) has made a popularly accepted argument that the current rate of change is the most rapid in human history. economic exchange with subordinates (Bass 1985). Transformational leadership differs from transactional leadership which is more focused on a cost benefit. 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. et al. Ozaralli 2003. it is held that leadership becomes more important (Goldsmith 2007. Blatt 2002). Collins 2009).rally around a common purpose (Burns 1978). to IBM. in times of complex systems and high technology. 2005). While it seems that most generations claim that their generation is in the most turbulent times. to school environments (Higgins 1998. et al. 2009) and most people have a natural discomfort with change. How does transformational leadership fit into these challenging times? 4 .S. commitment. But if transformational leadership is so effective.2 The Need for Transformational Leadership “Since the 1980s. and the Third Army (Bass 1985). change is constantly on the horizon. to the U. et al. Zagorsek. 1. Navy (Murphy 2002). As times become more challenging.g. 1993). to sales forces (Jolson.

how is it developed? 1. creating a common purpose around which to rally (Bass 1985). Studies of the trait theories sought to determine what innate traits made a leader effective. trait and behavioral. is concerned with the motivation of followers through idealized influence. As mentioned previously. Both of these development theories are well understood. the question arises. An area that is not as well understood is the effect that experiences have on an individual’s leadership development (Bennis and Thomas 2002). Research on how experience effects leadership development has been completed through a variety of studies. an important subcomponent of transformational leadership. one of the greatest impacts a leader can have on their organization is to set and reinforce the values. Conversely. studies of the behavioral theories looked to identify the behaviors that made effective leaders. mission and culture of an organization (Phills 2005. not develop them (Bass 1981). it has been shown that charismatic leadership. 2001). the research of these theories sought to understand and identify traits. 1998). studies into the impacts of parental 5 . so the behavior could be taught (McCauley. et al.3 The Antecedents of Transformational Leadership Leadership development is a vast area of literature (Bass 1981). has a predictive relationship with performance (Waldman. Furthermore. most studies in this area focus on one of two paths to leadership development. Bennis 2004). by its very definition. et al.In times of turbulence. Since transformational leadership appears to hold the potential of being a powerful asset within these turbulent times. Peters and Waterman 1982). with vast supporting literature. Bossidy 2002. These include investigations into leadership crucibles (Bennis and Thomas 2002. Transformational leadership.

including their relationships with parents and mentors (e.g. which lack the breadth of exploration and sample size generally developed through instrument based studies. 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. The purpose of such an instrument would be to understand the development experiences of a leader or potential leader who responds to the instrument. Evans and Cope 2003). Avolio 1994). Sosik. Towler 2005) specifically looked at the development of transformational leadership.g. et al. et al. Avolio 1994. existing experience focused research has been largely completed through structured interview techniques (e. et al.. 1999).g. Bennis and Thomas 2002..g. The 6 . 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. none investigated the breadth of development experiences discussed in the literature.. Towler 2005). Atwater.relationships on leadership (e. Louv 2005. These experiences could be broken into five different theoretical groups based on the different types of development experiences examined in the literature. 1999). Examples of these development experiences include relationships with mentors (e. The first group would seek to understand the nature of the key relationships of the participant. et al..g. 2004). Atwater. Clearly there is a gap in understanding. Because of this missing instrument. Atwater.g... and research into the impacts of previous leadership experiences on current leadership behavior (e. Howard and Bray 1988. and exploratory experiences (e.g.. 1999.g.. While some of these studies (e. Avolio 1994. Wong 2004). Towler 2005. activities in high school (e.

This dissertation will then look to correlate those experiences with the participants’ displays of transformational leadership. But the question remains. the research is able to better understand the experiences of the participant. The remaining groups would investigate the exploratory experiences (e. and formal development experiences (e. The literature has shown that a culture welcoming of change is effectively created with transformational leadership.second group would seek to understand the early development experiences of the participant.g. This focus on steady and continual improvement can only be completed in a culture that is open to. By utilizing this rationalized set of experiences investigated in previous literature. Obama 2009.. even welcoming of change.4 A Study Into Transformational Leaders in Entrepreneurial Organizations Prior to the current global economic challenges. 1. 2005). Howard and Bray 1988). McCauley.g. and continual.. a study targeted to this population of leaders. a society in which innovation and entrepreneurship are normal. Drucker (2001b) argued for the importance of an entrepreneurial society. steady.. How can a study be structured to learn more about leaders in these types of organizations? 7 . that aides in the understanding of the development of transformational leadership may be beneficial. early work experiences (e... United States Small Business Administration 2009).g.g. et al. including high school and college activities (e. 1998) of the participant. Louv 2005). what population of leaders should be included in the study? Since the end of the economic crisis of the late 2000’s is expected to be driven by growth in small entrepreneurial companies (e.g. Muldoon. et al.

coming from all industries (Gazelles 2009). The second contribution will be any correlations identified between development experiences and displays of transformational leadership in the study population. The study expects to have two contributions to the The first contribution will be the Engineering Management body of knowledge.The answer came with access to the readers of the Gazelles weekly newsletter. This population was studied to begin to learn more about these leaders. including their leadership styles and development experiences. 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 newsletter serves a group of readers who are leaders of mid-market companies focused on growth. 8 .

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. this review takes a macro to micro approach. if any at all (Antonakis. et al.1. it is often disparate and inaccessible. the proposed research investigation of the antecedent experiences of transformational leaders. vii). much of the published information in the field regarding what makes a leader effective. the literature provides a multi-layered foundation for the pinnacle of this pyramid. In order to clarify the literature and attempt to deal with these shortcomings. methods to measure leadership and the antecedents of leadership in light of both general leadership theories and transformational leadership. then discusses leadership and management and the importance of leadership. In this manner. First not only is the literature vast. and then introduces transformational leadership. 9 . has minimal scientific backing. 2004a). 2004a. before stepping through leadership effectiveness. as illustrated in Figure 2. Second. et al. The review starts with definitions of leadership and an investigation of foundational leadership theories. the body of knowledge presents problems to the researcher.CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The available literature in the area of leadership. However.

but instead stating that it had two key tenets. First.” Follett (1949) held a different opinion of what defined leadership.1 – Leadership Literature Review Pyramid 2. 10 . that leadership is not only an innate quality. noting nothing of the position. This concept of leadership as a born trait has its beginnings in the Great Man Theory (Carlyle 1888). Second.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. but is a skill that can be learned.1 What is Leadership What is leadership? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2007) defined leadership simply as “the office or position of a leader. a leader does not lead by personality. but by superior knowledge of a situation. 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).

For example. (2004b. Almost 50 years ago.1.This conflict and confusion about leadership theory is not new. as Antonakis. . 5) will be utilized. For this dissertation the general definition of leadership created by Antonakis.” 11 . 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 leader’s dispositional characteristics and behaviors. in order to continue this discussion. et al.1 Leadership Defined for this Dissertation Despite the lack of a general agreement in the way that leadership is defined. Bennis (1959. This definition is consistent with those commonly used in investigations of transformational leadership. et al. 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. follower perceptions and attributions of the leader. 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. a specific and widely accepted definition of leadership does not exist and might never be found. 5) more recently noted that “given the complex nature of leadership.” Nor has this conflict been satisfactorily mediated in the intervening years. and the context in which the influencing process occurs. a broad definition is needed.” 2. and still the concept is not sufficiently defined. (2004b. McLaurin and Bushanain Al Amri (2008. . So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it .

This type of action is a precursor to the individualized attention concept included in transformational leadership (Bass 1985). In addition to developing the framework. In this way.2. This area of study began with Maslow (1950) who defined a framework for understanding the needs of human beings in a hierarchical format. but in how to build things with greater efficiency. This need to motivate employees is closely tied to the leader’s ability to influence followers. the research began to focus more completely on ways to understand and motivate employees.2 Pioneering Leadership Concepts While the written material on leadership can often be found in studies of human history. 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. Taylor (1916. Taylor published his definitions of scientific management principles. included in this dissertation’s working definition of leadership. key among them that management could improve the output of an organization by the scientific study of work. 12 . From Taylor.1. Additionally. 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. the professional study and research into leadership can be found in those publications interested not in studying the past. In 1916. This study led to a better understanding of the job and how to better fit workers to the job. A key contribution in this area can be attributed to Taylor and his study of scientific management (Russell 1987). 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.

As a solution for this behavior. managers should focus on job enrichment with the intent to improve aspects that truly motivate employees such as the opportunity for responsibility and achievement. These hygienes possess limited opportunity to truly engage employees and benefit from higher performance.hygienes and motivators. 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. McGregor offered an alternative set of management behaviors which he matched to different assumptions about employee behavior. the key was to recognize that many of the reward approaches utilized by organizations have limited use. In this way. (1959). these assumptions were labeled Theory Y. and use that motivation to determine their own path to successfully complete the goals of their role. management’s core responsibility is to arrange the organization so that employees can once again find their motivation. Instead. who outlined a two factor model for employee motivation . He went on to challenge the view of management – that control of employees was necessary due to employees inherently passive nature. This work was further clarified to make it more actionable almost 10 years later (Herzberg 1968). with such researchers as Daniels (2009) and his best practices for 13 . This research thread continues. Under this set of assumptions.McGregor (1957) took the conventional view of management’s role to harness and control employee actions and behavior to meet the needs of the employer and labeled it Theory X management. In this framework. The motivation thread of leadership research continued with a notable step being taken by Herzberg et al. similar to Taylor’s soldiering (1919) – as the cause of this behavior not the result. since they focus on areas labeled hygienes.

House and Mitchell (1974) combined the two streams of understanding employee motivation and managing performance toward organizational objectives with the Path Goal Theory. 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. These investigations included Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) theory of Situational Leadership and Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973) concept of the leadership continuum. In their research the authors found empirical support for higher performance against goals where the followers were motivated by the achievement of objectives.eliminating practices that demotivate employees. 14 . Furthermore. a number of other investigators began to more fully focus on behaviors as the key to successful leadership. 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. 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. a related research stream investigated how organizational outcomes could best be achieved through effective goal setting at both an individual and organizational level. In addition to the research into how to best motivate employees. that motivation leads to greater performance against future objectives. In this environment. With these studies the line between what constituted effective management and effective leadership begins to become broader and less well defined. As Path Goal theory began to look at management as leader behaviors that influence the resultant outcomes of an organization (House and Mitchell 1974).

Or as Mintzberg (2009. one that safeguards against disruptive change. 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. 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.2. 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. Rost (1998) found the words used interchangeably beginning in the 1930’s and continuing on in some research areas through the 1980’s. In his seminal work. This division between the meaning of management and leadership is a relatively recent split within the literature. Included in this creed were key tenets regarding how management should be incorporated as a stabilizing influence on industry. Sheldon (1923) developed a professional creed for managers to ensure that industry was run with the greatest efficiency possible. The effort to split the meaning of the two words began in the late 1950s and remains unresolved. 12) states simply: “ever since the distinction was made between leadership and management – leadership 15 .1.3 Leadership or Management The review of the leadership related literature clearly points to studies that fall into two categories. In his extensive review of the literature in this area. those interested with effective management and those interested in effective leadership.

makes an organization produce or adapt to change. management. And leadership without management is disconnected. including direction setting. It’s management that connects you to what’s going on. Kotter’s (1990) distinction can be utilized. As will be discussed in later sections. 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. oftentimes the break between transformational leadership and transactional leadership is considered to be akin to the break between leadership and management (Graham 1988). closely related to planning. you don’t know what’s going on. because if you lead without managing. 12) This understanding of the differences. 16 . management and leadership are two sides to a coin and both are needed to successfully move an organization forward. To avoid this overlap. In this way. between management and leadership is important because of its relationship to transformational leadership. created by their being used interchangeably (Hunt 2004).somehow being the important stuff and management being what surgeons call the scut work – attention focused on leadership. and leadership. makes an operation run smoothly. (Mintzberg 2009. In this definition. including its planning function.” This increase in attention has seemingly driven an increase in the confusion between the two terms. both perceived and real.

has gained even more focus with the ongoing struggles of the performance of the world economy in 2009. this highly leveraged 17 . and so we study them with the same self-interested intensity with which we study diabetes and other life-threatening diseases” (Bennis 2004.4 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. Given the disproportionate impact that leaders can have on the population. the interest in understanding leadership springs from self interest. driven in part by ethical lapses in business leadership (George and McLean 2007. it is of little wonder that so much effort is dedicated to the pursuit. Palmer 2009). For while Bennis’ words are dramatic. 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. This vein of research pioneered by Follett. To understand the high interest in industrial and other organizational leaders. 331).1. other sources must be investigated. However. 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.2. Beginning with early studies. this answer does not appear to be sufficient. 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. Just as the actions of a small number of business leaders had a large negative impact on the global economy. where the actions of leaders were thought to impact the output of business.

has its origins in the Great Man theory (Carlye 1888). who found little agreement in a meta study of leadership traits regarding which traits were truly important for leadership effectiveness. The first path. used a meta study that found clusters of items that were more generally important than the findings of Bird or Jenkins. Discussions of the study of leadership can be found in the classical works of the Greeks. it can have material repercussions on society. identified that the importance of the cluster varied based on the situation. the study of leadership generally began to follow one of two paths: trait and behavior theories. trait theories. before falling out of favor (Bass 1981). Generally. With these studies pointing to a general inadequacy in the trait theories. The reason for this change included the studies of Bird (1940). it also sets effective leaders apart from ineffective ones (Higgins 1994).2 General Leadership Theories It seems that leadership has been viewed as an important area of study for much of human history. The research into trait theories was extremely active in the first part of the 20th century. Jenkins (1947) who found little agreement on important traits in a meta study of military leadership studies. leadership research 18 .impact of business leadership can create large positive impacts for humanity’s largest problems (Maak and Pless 2009). so the successful future leader can be identified and hired. As such. Romans and Chinese (Bass 1981). not made. trait are built on the idea that a leader is born. and Stogdill (1948) who. For these reasons. This theory is focused on the traits of leaders and how those traits set the leader apart from his followers (Bass 1981). even though the impact of business leadership may not involve life and death. Over time. the research is focused on identification of leadership traits. 2.

These concepts where furthered by other researchers. et al. autocratic leaders. 2004b). is concerned with the production of the organization. generally referred to as consideration. The seminal works in this space were completed through the University of Michigan (Katz.faced its first crisis (Antonakis et al. 2004b). The first dimension. The second path. 1951) and Ohio State (Stogdill and Coons 1957) studies that identified two dimensions of leadership. the behavioral school of research set the groundwork for the new leadership school promoting visionary or charismatic leadership theories (Antonakis. a focus on production. researchers began to focus their efforts on the identification of what was hoped to be a more universal set of findings regarding effective leaders. et al. As a result of that crisis. behavioral theories. seeks to capture a leader’s employee orientation. While the second. Included in these theories was the beginning of transformational leadership. 19 . 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. which lead to the behavioral theories. initiating structure. 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. By breaking leadership into multiple dimensions based on the actions of the leader.

as in the case of transactional leadership. Their purposes. . and Kouzes and Posner (1995). [. and thus it has a transforming effect on both. . 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.21) explained that transformational leadership: . 2005). This trait is about the leader 20 . including transformational leadership. become fused. At that time. . which has become the dominant definition in the research space. and co-researchers. 20 . 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. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. which might have started out as separate but related.2. 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. predominately Bass (1985. In his definition. . who defined the concept of exemplary leadership (Barbuto 2005). Burn’s (1978. Bass (1985) was the first to publish a multifactor definition of transformational leadership. This foundation was furthered by the work of many.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 1970’s (Barbuto 2005).] But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and led. 1990) who defined the components of the full range leadership model. notably Avolio (1994.

• Inspirational Motivation – The degree to which a leader articulates a vision that appeals and inspires followers.. While each of these individual components.g. • 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). Barbuto 2005). sometimes referred to as transformational leadership (e. 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). These leaders challenge followers with high standards. 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). and provide meaning for the task at hand (Bass 1985). is itself. an important set of leadership behaviors. • 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). An alternate framework for transformational leadership is provided by Kouzes and Posner (1995) who defined the concept of exemplary leadership. communicate optimism about future goals. as characterized by five leadership practices: 21 .providing a role model for the followers (Bass 1985). Bell-Roundtree 2004.

the single largest difference in the two models was in their development approach. 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. 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. Kouzes and Posner 1995).1) Challenge the process – leaders who venture out and accept challenge. while Kouzes and Posner (1995) view charisma as a myth of leadership. vision. stating that leaders do not posses special powers. Bass (1985) developed a theoretical model based on the work of Burns (1978) and then built an instrument to validate that model. but instead hold strong beliefs in a purpose and a willingness to express those convictions. by setting the example they build commitment and create progress and momentum. 5) Encourage the heart – leaders who show others that they can win. Although the exemplary leadership model has been utilized with the label transformational leadership. they understand the needs of their followers and provide appropriate encouragement. 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. commitment and intrinsic rewards (Bass 1985. The approach has been the 22 . The key difference is that Bass (1990) holds that charisma is a key component of the success of the transformational leader. set of values. it is both similar to and different than the complete definition of transformational leadership created by Bass (1985). However.

the exemplary leadership model focuses almost entirely on behavior. but also transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership (or the absence of leadership). However. For this reason and others discussed later in the measurement section. Avolio and Sivasubramaniam 2003). which he named the full range leadership model. In this way. This empirical case data approach provides the Kouzes and Posner model with strength in its basis of evidence (Sashkin 2004). this dissertation will focus its work on the transformational leadership framework developed by Bass. 2. Transactional leaders use conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers – both the leader and the follower influence each other 23 . ignoring situational context and leadership traits and there does not appear to be any clear theory base for the model (Sashkin 2004). In this way. 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. Kouzes and Posner (1995) developed a model with behaviors that are much more specific than the dimensions developed by Bass (1985). resulting in evidence supporting the model (Antonakis.1 The Full Range Leadership Model Transformational leadership is only one component of the framework Bass (1985) developed.foundation of extensive research.3. Bass utilized his definition of transactional leadership to incorporate the behavioral leadership approaches studied earlier (Sashkin 2004). from which factor analysis was used to extract the five key behaviors (Kouzes and Posner 1995). It includes not only transformational.

From that time forward. are clear and easily identifiable (Bass 1985). Transactional Leadership The differences between transformational leadership. Bass’s (1985) definition has two components: • Contingent Reward – In this system a bargain is struck and a contract signed between leader and subordinate. 24 . there is a reaction. When utilized consistently. as long as the contract is honored by the employee. • Management by Exception – This form of management is far more passive. positive reward in the form of praise.to ensure that each receives something of value (Yukl 1981). it is seldom maintained at the level of consistency required for sustained performance. 2. there tends to be little feedback provided to the employee.3. When the terms of the contract are not met. however. and laissez-faire leadership. however. Instead there is a mode of silence when all is well. penalization occurs. the employee’s efforts (transactions) are actively monitored and when the terms of the contract are met. including negative feedback. The behavior follows directly from the role of manager as controller. and when something drops below standard. Since. The relationship becomes one of mutual dependence where the leader must continue to be aware of changes in follower’s expectations in order to meet them and remain successful (Kuhnert and Lewis 1987). salary increases or promotion are provided. it has minimal effect in teaching employees what to do. a passive style. This mode of leadership can be effective in teaching new employees what not to do. contingent reward can be an effective form of leadership.2 Transformational Leadership vs. an active leadership style.

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. it fails to include the perceptions of the subordinates with regard to 25 . 1997). the split between transactional and transformational leadership can be considered to be similar to the differences noted between management and leadership (Graham 1982). Perhaps the simplest definition of leadership effectiveness is what Yukl (1981.g. since both are active styles of leadership. 2. the findings have supported that transactional leadership can be effective when done well (e.” The problem with this simple definition is that it misses two key components: first. In this way. et al. second. it can only utilize strictly quantifiable aspects of performance. Yukl 1999. viewed as two ends of the continuum (Burns 1978). this effectiveness appears to be limited to environments where organizational transformation is not an imperative (Tichy and Devanna 1990). and may miss critical subjective measures.However. is not as well defined and therefore more researched (Den Hartog. 5) notes as the most common measure. Tracey and Hinkin 1998).4 Leadership Effectiveness The apparent holy grail of leadership theory and research is determining what makes a leader effective. Generally.. Kuhnert and Lewis 1987. where “effectiveness is the extent to which the leader’s group or organization performs its task successfully and attains its goals. However. the differentiation between transactional and transformational leadership. While the numerous theories of leadership are disparate in many ways.

. to specific leaders. Available definitions for leadership success are present in the latest leadership research. Slater 1998). 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). or is it • the ability to successfully bring about change (e.g. Leslie and Fleenor 1998). Beer 1988)? Despite the differing methods for defining successful leadership. While these texts provide interesting reading. or the ability to lead an effective organization (e. and Bill Gates of Microsoft (Wallace and Erickson 1992).. If these missing components are included. Likert 1961.... Howard and Bray 1988).g..1 Examples and Definitions of Leadership Effectiveness Popular literature is quick to canonize the leader of highly successful businesses. or the success of the organization in terms of productivity (e. Bill George of Medtronic (George 2003). one thing is clear. 1967). from the leaders of companies that were built to last (Collins and Porras 1994). such as Jack Welch of General Electric (Robinson and Robinson 2001.g. then the definition of successful leadership becomes as complex as the definition of leadership itself.g. or a composite success measure (e. Denison 1990). Is success defined as • the ability of an individual to receive positive ratings from their leaders and peers (e. Day 2001). Senge 1990. or • • • to move up the corporate ladder (e. most leadership studies now attempt to distinguish the level of success associated with the 26 . they do little to create a definition for successful leadership. 2.g. Collins 2002.g.4.their leader (Yukl 1981).

2. transformational leadership is an effective leadership style. Bass (1985) cited numerous examples of transformational leaders who successfully changed organizations. More empirical examples soon followed. including Thomas Watson at IBM and George Patton with the Third Army. et al. 27 . Is this claim of transformational leadership success supported? Yes. commitment.behaviors or other patterns being studied (McCauley 2004). a positive correlation was found between displays of transformational leadership and desired organizational outcomes. 1993). In all of these cases.4.) to the climate of learning created in school environments (Blatt 2002). to the success of large corporations (Antonakis and House 2004). from studies of sales force effectiveness (Jolson. Collins 2009). Avolio 2005) and the challenges associated with leadership in times of great change (Goldsmith 2007. It is this claim. according to a wide variety of research in a number of industries and environmental conditions.2 Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership “Since the 1980s. Due to the nature of the benefits purported from transformational leadership (e. this dissertation defines successful transformational leadership by the performance of the organization and / or its ability to successfully adapt and change. 2005. that drew this dissertation into the path of investigating what makes a transformational leader. and satisfaction of those led” (Avolio and Bass 2002. to the employee satisfaction and commitment at financial firms (Walumba. At the very beginning of the transformation leadership research boom. and those like it. 1). et al.g. Bass 1985.. This study will take the same approach. research has supported the idea that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership in generating the extra effort.

Ozaralli (2003) completed a study of 152 individuals in a variety of private Turkish businesses finding a strong correlation (r = 0. Senge 1990). In this case.g. and employee satisfaction (e.g. These included organizational learning (e.619) between leader’s transformational leadership behaviors and the team’s perceived value of their own effectiveness. school climate was used as a key measurement of the health and effectiveness of the school in educating their students. While neither of the above studies showed a correlation to core organizational effectiveness measures. Murphy (2002) found that transformational leadership behaviors had a significant correlation with respondent perceptions of employee satisfaction. Murphy’s research supports the success measure of promoting change. et al. In this manner. (1993).. Buckingham and Coffman 1999). effort and effectiveness as well as organizational effectiveness.. team empowerment (e. Katzenbach and Smith 1993). but not that of organizational success.001. Zagorsek (2009) found a correlation of 0. is shown in the study of education in Ohio performed by Blatt (2002).569) between displays of transformational leadership by the school’s top leader and a positive school climate. r = 0. they all showed strong influences on other areas of organizational behavior which have been shown to positively impact organizational outcomes. Transformational leadership’s impact on organizational success. A similar level of success regarding organizational change is found in the research of Ozaralli (2003) and Zagorsek et al. (2009). who in their 28 . A further example of transformational leadership’s impact on core organizational outcomes is found in the work of Jolson..g.79 on the organization’s behavioral and cognitive changes as measures of organizational learning.In a military setting. This study found a statistically significant correlation (p < 0.

ranging from 1 (almost never engage in this behavior) to 10 29 . The first part of the instrument is a 30 question survey completed by the leader.g. Murphy 2002. noted a positive impact in sales performance with the implementation of transformational leadership behaviors within sales management. and Bass 1985). Finally.g.5..5 Measuring Transformational Leadership In the vast literature surrounding leadership effectiveness. et al. Kroeck. there are a number of instruments developed to measure leadership practices and effectiveness.case driven studies. Bell-Roundtree 2004. notably Larry Bossidy at Allied Signal and Gertrude Boyle at Columbia Sportswear. In their overview of measuring leadership. 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. 2. Antonakis. et al. Of these instruments.. Each question is rated on a 10 point Likert type scale. 2003. based on their perception of their own behavior. 2. (2004) identify 30 unique survey instruments that have been or are being utilized to measure leadership and leadership effectiveness.1 The Leadership Practices Inventory The LPI is a two part instrument requiring the participation of the leader and subordinates. Day 2003) and Bass’ Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (e. the two that appear to be most commonly utilized for measuring transformational leadership in the literature are Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (e.

The study combined the results of the LPI with a self-reported survey of how the project scientists spent their day. Similar to the work discussed above. with 181 completing all three instruments. 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).75 to 0. The LPI has been widely used to measure leadership behaviors including recent dissertation work. The LPI was thoroughly validated by Kouzes and Posner throughout its development and implementation (1995). In another recent dissertation. 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. model the way. The research found each of the five behaviors (challenge the process. as its reliability had been previous proven by three referenced studies with Cronbach’s alpha from 0. The study included a total of 190 respondents. 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. encourage the heart) to significantly correlate to employee commitment and satisfaction. No validation of the LPI was conducted.(almost always engage in this behavior). Day did not perform a validation on the LPI instrument.93 (Bell-Roundtree 2004). Day (2003) utilized ANOVA to find a significant relationship 30 . The study obtained a selfreport sample of 59 NASA scientists and 120 project member surveys (Day 2003). instead referring to the work completed by Kouzes and Posner (1999). 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. enable others to act. inspire a shared vision.

These findings were then generalized to conclude that the more time a project scientist spent focused on leadership. et al. 237). 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. ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (frequently. 2. the more effective they were. Appendix A contains a sample of MLQ questions. The MLQ was thoroughly validated by Bass (1985) during its initial design and has undergone revisions and additional validations (e. if not always). Bass and Avolio 1995.2 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Like the LPI.g. 1999) over the past 22 years.. A study completed by Carless (2001) found that the LPI had weak discriminant validity on a single company sample of 1400 employees. In the first dissertation.5. Murphy (2002) utilized the MLQ to study the leadership styles within the United States Navy and correlated those styles to the 31 . the LPI has its detractors. The study also suggested “that while it is possible to distinguish conceptually among separate transformational leader behaviors. Avolio. either these distinctions are not captured by the LPI or subordinates do not notice the differences” (Carless 2001. the MLQ is typically utilized as a two part instrument with a self report form for managers and a second form for raters.between the self reported amount of time spent on leadership duties and the exhibition of transformational leadership behaviors. Like most of the instruments examined in this research. The instrument includes 45 items rated on a five point Likert scale measuring how frequently the behavior fits the person being rated.

no significant relationship was found between actual goal attainment and any of the leadership styles measured. In their proposed version of the MLQ. 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. Similar to the LPI. 2001). who utilized a total sample of over 1300 participants. Kettering School Climate Profile. A significant positive relationship was found between directors who utilized transformational leadership and school climate. The study had a sample of 201 teachers from the Ohio vocational school system. using two instruments. 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. gathered through four distinct samples from three different organizations. the MLQ and the Charles F. Using a sample of 289 respondents. et al. the instrument would have only 27 items. et al. (2001). the MLQ’s use and reliability has been questioned by some in the literature. which 32 . However. Specifically. This view is also supported by Tejeda. Interestingly for this dissertation. The second dissertation was completed by Blatt (2002) and investigated the correlation between transformational leadership. the issues found with the MLQ were isolated to the transactional and laissez-fare components of the MLQ (Tejeda. Blatt’s findings (2002) included significant relationships between two leadership styles and school climate. 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. while a significant negative relationship was found between school climate and laissez-fare leadership.effectiveness of Navy reengineering programs.

In order to better understand the potential paths for development of transformational leadership. Armed with an understanding of transformational leadership and its impacts. After identifying an acceptable option for measuring transformational leadership. et al. (2003). Revised (LBQ) was of interest due to its self-reporting nature and basis in the managerial grid theory (Kroeck. In addition to these two primary instruments. this literature review sought to understand how transformational leadership is developed. this literature review investigated how it might be measured. However. (2004) was investigated. a broad understanding of how leadership is developed must first be established. For this reason. further investigation yielded a very small research space using the instrument. et al. 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. However. these questions of the MLQ’s validity appear to be refuted by more recent work by Antonakis. The Leadership Behavior Questionnaire. et al. These results indicated criterion validity against subjective and objective business performance. et al. These issues with non-transformational components of the MLQ are similar to the findings of Den Hartog. which found the full nine factor model valid in large homogenous samples. with the preponderance of those studies dating back over 30 years. (1997). one additional instrument identified by Kroeck. that instrument was removed from consideration.are not the focus of the research presented here. 2004). 33 .

notably when engaged in hardship situations.6 Previous Studies into Leadership Antecedents The Handbook of Leadership Development (McCauley. In the two quadrants of the MQ most related to transformational leadership. and skill-based training) and three informal. When investigating the antecedent experiences of managers in these quadrants. they noted similar behaviors to some of those included in the definition of transformational leadership. Bennis and Thomas (2002) utilized structured interview techniques to understand the leadership of a small group of leaders. high). developmental relationships. These crucible experiences included experiences at war or serving in the military. 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. 1998) defines six leadership development experiences. they found leaders who often 34 . challenges in a wilderness setting. (high. three formal (360-degree format. and hardships). These included effective managers displaying strong other-orientation. imprisonment. Bennis (2004) has continued to investigate these experiences and noted that the area remained rich for potential additional research. This other orientation often manifested itself as a focus on the work unit or company over self. et al. high) and achievement managers (low.2. excellent managers. feedback intensive programs. These leadership crucibles appeared to be a leading indicator of leadership success in the study group. One of the key findings of their study was the identification of what they termed leadership crucible experiences. sometimes occurring naturally and sometimes by design (job assignments. and significant business challenges. separated in age by two or three generations.

so their development experiences are of interest. in addition to administering the Leader Potential Index (LPI) and tracking changes in each dimension over time. (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. self-esteem.01) and prior influence experiences (r = 0. moral reasoning. physical fitness. The effectiveness of the cadets’ leadership was measured using the rank achievement of the cadets at the end of the study. p < 0.22. vividly recalling positive and negative elements.01) to be most strongly correlated to leadership effectiveness. Wong (2004) utilized interview techniques to draw general experience antecedents that appear to be contributing to the development of innovative leaders within the army. The key antecedent 35 . as well as childhood’s rich with experience.24.reported having support networks and groups as role models. Howard and Bray (1988) studied a group of managers over a 30 year period at Bell Labs (now AT&T). In an investigation of army leaders in Iraq. a behavior learned through holding complex roles. Atwater. p < 0. hardiness. et al. and being part of a team unified in a common purpose. These innovative leaders appear to share some similarity with transformational leaders. conscientiousness. The study investigated the cadets on seven factors: cognitive ability. and rapid change. combined with peer rankings utilized by the institution. In perhaps the most wide ranging study. and prior influence experiences. new war techniques. understanding cultural differences. These elements included successfully dealing with complexity. The study further hypothesized that physical fitness may be a surrogate for other personality traits such as perseverance and self-confidence. The study used regression and found physical fitness (r = 0.

p < 0.34 and -0.findings of that research included a negative correlation between family orientation (r between -0. Towler’s (2005) study utilized the Parental Attachment Questionnaire and Parental Psychological Control instruments. a measure of the level of nurturing behavior of the parents toward their child.32. school experience. father’s parental control was negatively correlated to transformational leadership.001) with transformational leadership. The study found life satisfaction. to be positively correlated (r = 0. parental educational background. and positive work experience to have a significant relationship to self reported transformational leadership behaviors. This study found that parental attachment style.40). while parental interest and parental moral standards were significant to follower perceptions of transformational leadership. extra curricular activities and life satisfaction. 36 . Overall. Conversely.18) and career success with positive correlations from projected career ambition (r between 0. the less likely the child was to display transformational leadership. showing that the more controlling the father was. Avolio (1994) investigated 182 community leaders’ development along seven dimensions: parental interest. 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. In the two most closely related studies to the research presented in this dissertation. which Avolio (1994) confessed may be largely due to the marginal reliability of the life experiences instrument. parent characteristics. the relationships were weaker than anticipated.28 and 0.

despite the depth and breadth of the review. 37 . eventually leading to transformational leadership and the full range leadership model. 5) for the discussion moving forward. may be worthy of further investigation. a discussion of the importance of leadership’s role in the world set the stage for a review of the development of leadership theories in the research literature. et al.2. (2004b. From there. For that justification. It provided an understanding of some definitions of leadership. and leadership is what makes an organization produce or adapt to change. Additionally. This review provided the evidence to show that transformational leadership can be reliably studied.7 Review Summary The review has followed the leadership related literature using a macro to micro approach. a discussion of the published investigations into leadership was followed. This led to the review of how transformation leadership is measured. This development path is a gap in the available literature. However. which further strengthened the reason transformation leadership should be of interest. where management is made up of the activities that make an operation run smoothly. as defined by Bass (1985). selecting the influence and perception based definition from Antonakis. specific findings of the benefits of transformational leadership were discussed. it failed to identify how transformational leaders develop. Once that foundation was established. but it was not adequate a foundation to fully justify the need for the study. This discussion and comparison provided the rationale for why transformational leadership. leading into an understanding of the conjectured differences between leadership and management. especially in times of high change and challenge. studies into general leadership effectiveness were investigated.

but has very few empirical studies into how transformational leaders develop. that when discovered and nurtured. Thus there is a need and justification for the proposed research. A study to determine what the antecedents are. 38 . This area of study is compelling.This gap lead to a review of the studies into the antecedents of leadership. 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.

the experiences that might make a leader effective have been examined. Transformational leadership is a set of theorized leadership behaviors that has been shown to correlate well with organizational success in a variety of environments.g. 2004). George 2003. Collins 2001. Bossidy and Charan 2002).. However. In other research (Bennis and Thomas 2002). Examination of these studies raises the question of whether the development experiences of a leader influence their displays of transformational leadership. and sometimes conflicting (Kroeck. These differences are of interest since leadership effectiveness is believed to have a direct relationship to business performance (e. examples include the United States Navy (Murphy 2002).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. NASA (Day 2003) and education (Blatt 2002). 39 . the theories on what constitutes leadership effectiveness are varied. et al. One of the primary areas of leadership research involves examining the leaders of successful companies to determine what makes them unique from their peers.

The research literature contains studies into the impacts of experiences on later displays of leadership (e. the study will seek to define and explore a set of development experiences that the literature suggests will impact leadership development. and explorations of limited developmental experiences as predictors of transformational leadership. Bass 1998). these experiences will be examined in an attempt to group them into logical development subsets. This research will explore this gap in the literature by investigating the experiences of leaders and analyzing the correlations between those experiences and the leader’s display of behaviors across the full range model of leadership measured by the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). investigations into the personality and cognitive predictors of transformational leadership (Bass 1996. such as parental attachment (Towler 2005) or high school activities (Avolio 1994). Howard and Bray 1988.g.. First. Second. 1999). Atwater. However.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 literature lacks an investigation into the breadth of leadership development experiences during a leader’s lifetime that may influence their displays of transformational leadership. initially based 40 .3. et al. 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.

The collection and analysis of data in this study will enable answers to the following hypotheses: 1. Figure 3. 41 .1 . these experience groupings will be examined for a relationship with the leadership elements measured by the MLQ.1 provides a visual representation of the conceptual model of the study. Figure 3. Finally.on the findings in the research literature and subsequently supported with study data. Ha: There are logical groupings of leadership development experiences that can be grouped through Factor Analysis.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. Ho: Leadership development experiences cannot be grouped into logical factors.

Because of this correlation between business results and transformational leadership. Ho: No individual development experiences can be shown to correlate to displays of transformational leadership. et al. business should be interested in hiring leaders who exhibit transformational leadership behaviors. Bass and Avolio 1995. 3.2. notably Towler’s (2005) investigation into the influences of parental attachment and Avolio’s (1994) study into the influences of high school and other early experiences.g.. A secondary benefit could include the development of training 42 . The primary benefit to engineering managers will be to leverage study findings for hiring decisions. 2003). Ho: No grouping of development experiences correlate to later displays of transformational leadership. The problem is a limited understanding of the factors and experiences that enable a leader to develop and apply transformational behaviors. Bass 1985. Ha: There are groups of development experiences that can be shown to correlate to displays of transformational leadership. A study to identify the roots of transformational leadership would be useful on many levels. While there have been some studies into the development of transformational leadership. Ha: There are individual development experiences that can be shown to correlate to displays of transformational leadership.2 Importance of Research and Contribution Numerous studies indicate a positive correlation between the transformational style leadership and business results (e. 3. or at least have the potential for such. Antonakis. the understanding is not robust.

This dissertation will identify characteristics or experiences that have a correlation to transformational leadership behaviors. 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. Finally.programs that lead to improved exhibition of transformational leadership qualities within the leaders of an organization. 43 .

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. this study is expected to indentify antecedents of displays of transformational leadership behaviors.1 Study Overview In order to complete this investigation. This two instrument approach is similar to other studies looking into the development of leadership. 4. Over a 30 year study with Bell Labs (now AT&T) Howard 44 . In order to obtain this objective. The investigation used these instruments to look for correlation between transformational leadership behaviors and specific antecedent experiences. Since the population of leaders studied was expected to contain transformation leaders. Bass and Avolio 1995). a second instrument to investigate those experiences was developed and deployed. a study was prepared using a two part instrument. an investigation into the development experiences of a population of leaders was planned and executed.CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The objective of this dissertation is to better understand transformational leaders. In order to understand the development experiences of transformational leaders.

(2004) used cynicism about organizational change as measured by Reichers. Atwater. Bommer. (1997) as a predictor of transformational leadership behaviors as defined by Podsakoff. (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. (1999) used a variety of instruments to examine potential correlations to leadership effectiveness in a class of military cadets. et al. et al. et al. (1990). Mumford. Avolio and Bass (1994) studied community leaders responses to the Gordon Personality Profile and the MLQ and found several significant correlations. Avolio (1994) linked a Life History Survey to leadership measures from the MLQ. Gershenoff (2003) examined participant’s 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. Rubin (2003). and femininity). (2000) found a relationship between the attachment of the followers to the leader and transformational leadership as measured by the MLQ using Bartholomew’s Relationship Questionnaire (Griffin and Bartholomew 1994). nurturance. also used the transformational leadership 45 . et al. Popper. et al. 122). there are a number of studies of both personality and other factors worth noting.and Bray (1988) utilized a variety of predictive instruments to find correlations between experiences and attitudes and career success. 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. et al.

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. While many of these studies looked for. (1990) and compared them with measures of leader personality traits (Goldberg 1999) and the leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) using combined measures of emotion recognition (Nowicki and Duke 2001) and ability to maintain mood (Watson. et al. the majority focused on either personality or behavioral aspects of the leader in question. and found. Antecedent experiences similar to Kim’s action 46 .measures of Podsakoff. However. Instead. 1988). Brown. (2006) failed to find a correlation between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. In the transformational arena. 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). while Barbuto (2005) found significant correlation between leader’s results on the Motivation Sources Inventory (Barbuto and Scholl 1998) and the MLQ. antecedents to the types of leadership being studied. et al. Towler (2005) found a relationship between parental attachment and student displays of charismatic leadership as measured by the MLQ. this seminal study did not investigate transformational leadership. not the experiences that preceded the displays. Kudo (2005) examined the emergence of transformational leadership in adolescents using the MLQ and a combination of four other instruments investigating parenting styles. et al. 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.

the MLQ has a greater depth of supporting literature and the instrument measures the full range of leadership behaviors. in research on transformational leadership. For these reasons.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 society’s understanding of leadership and in particular transformational leadership. Instrument can be deployed electronically. Specifically. Instrument is well supported in the literature. the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI. While both instruments have been thoroughly validated.Leadership Measure Selection Criteria and Winner Criteria 1. Instrument cost. Table 4. 5. there are two main instruments utilized to understand the behavior of the leader. Table 4.2 Instrument Selection As noted in the literature review. Instrument provides opportunity to compare and contrast other leadership styles. MLQ LPI 47 . 4. the MLQ holds advantages over the LLI for the proposed research. Instrument measures desirable transformational leadership behaviors. 2. Length of instrument is reasonable for completion when combined with the antecedent instrument. 6. Bass and Avolio 1995). 4.1 .1 summarizes the comparisons made between the two instruments. 3. the MLQ was selected as the instrument for this dissertation despite the additional costs for the instrument. Kouzes and Posner 1995) and the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ.

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 author’s 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

.g.3 Exploratory Experiences In many biographically based studies into leadership.g. including the following examples • During childhood. 51 . work with service organizations (e. In college. Goertzel and Goertzel 1962) and extracurricular activities in high school and college (e.3. I was active in club athletics. Burnett and James 1994.. Since these instances often involve an experience outside of the working world.g..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 respondent’s leadership. Stoltz 1992..g.3. This includes being active in sports and other groups as a youth (e.g. et al. A set of 25 questions was developed to understand these experiences. and moments of extreme challenges (e. this area of exploratory experiences is of interest. Bennis and Thomas 2002. 1999).. Strock 2003).g. I was active in student government. 4. Evans and Cope 2003). Avolio 1994. Bennis and Thomas 2002. Additional areas include travel and other forms of cultural immersion (e. A set of 28 questions was developed to understand these experiences. including the following examples • • In high school. The most commonly researched exploratory development experience involves experiences in nature (e.4.g. Carlson.. Muldoon and Miller 2005).. the strong leaders discuss a transformational experience that defined their later leadership style (e. Louv 2005). my family spent vacation time in natural settings. Wong 2004).

g. The question set developed to explore this pillar was the smallest in the instrument. it has been common for me to lead people older than myself.3. 1998.. Howard and Bray 1988) among others. Kirkbride 2006. 1999). This pillar had twelve questions.g. The types of training experiences include formal training courses (e. I lived in a culture other than my current culture.. but are less frequently examined for correlation. van Rensburg and Prideaux 2006) and job rotation (e.g. (1998) described as formal and informal development experiences. These include 52 . et al. In my career. This question set is based on the body of knowledge that generally involved longitudinal studies of leadership development (e. 4.. McCauley. with seven questions..4 Early / Previous Work Experience The questions in the fourth pillar are designed to garner an understanding of the specific experiences in the respondent’s work history that may have influenced leadership development.3. Howard and Bray 1988.g.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. management coaching using 360-degree feedback (e. Keller and Olson 2000). 4. including • • I held my first regular job while still a teenager. et al. Bass and Avolio 1992. These experiences are frequently purported to impact leadership behavior. et al. Atwater.• During childhood or adolescence.

rated on a seven point scale.4 Refinement of the LLI As discussed above. Using the background information identified in the literature review and a series of interviews with current leaders who were familiar with the MLQ survey. Samples can be found in Appendix B. rated on a standard eight point scale.6 Demographic Questions In order to supplement the correlation analysis between the data elements included in the LLI and the MLQ. ethnicity. These demographic questions were used to look for differences in the displays of leadership and types of antecedent experiences within the subgroups. rated on a five point scale. The set was reviewed with members of the author’s doctoral committee. rated on a five point scale.• My career experience included a deliberate rotation through multiple job assignments with a single company. the survey participants were also asked to answer the following five demographic questions: • • • • • years of professional experience. plus no response. the initial LLI was developed to examine each of the five theoretical pillars of antecedent experiences. the initial set of questions was developed. current job level. 4. level of education. A 53 .3. This question set included over 120 questions related to antecedents. gender. • I have received beneficial feedback through 360-degree feedback 4.

4. n = 21). 54 .number of questions were removed to eliminate obvious content redundancies or other errors. This was done by identification and elimination of problematic or potentially redundant questions. The data obtained from this initial pilot study was analyzed in a number of ways. The first two groups were made available through the Belgian Armed Forces.1 Initial LLI Pilot Study An initial pilot study using the draft LLI was completed using data from three sample groups.com and providing a link to the survey via email to the targeted population. This reduction left a total of 98 questions plus demographic questions. A description of this analysis is included in Chapter 5. While these populations were not expected to be a representative sample of the target study population (growth company entrepreneurs and senior leaders). The third group included current graduate students in the Engineering Management program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (n = 29). Sample questions from this draft of the LLI is located in Appendix B. The instrument was deployed electronically to all three groups by building the survey in the online tool Zoomerang. it provided useful insights into the behavior of the draft instrument. n = 9) and students in the Senior Officer’s Course (Group 2. including cluster and correlation analysis. The objective of this analysis was to further reduce the LLI question set in order to develop a more user-friendly and reliable questionnaire. These groups included student participants in the Belgian Armed Forces Officer’s Course (Group 1. 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.

The third and final strategy was the elimination of highly redundant questions within a single hypothesized pillar. seven questions in Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences and five questions in Pillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences. This reduction was completed using three primary tactics. These actions reduced question set of the LLI down too 57 questions. Based on the theories of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) 55 .4.4. the goal of the pilot analysis of the LLI was to understand the behaviors of the draft instrument and reduce the overall question set.01) with one or more questions from a different hypothesized pillar. Second. As such. 16 in Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences. These included 16 questions in Pillar 1 – Nature of Key Relationships. This redundancy was determined by the number of significant (p ≤ 0.01) cross pillar correlations were eliminated.2 Reduction of LLI Question Set into Final Form As noted above.01) correlations with other questions within the same pillar. redundant questions regarding the respondent’s relationship with their mother and father were replaced with single questions referring to parents.5 Description of the Survey Population The focus of the study is to identify the antecedents of transformational leadership. With the LLI refinement completed. These were questions that had significant correlation (p ≤ 0. 4. questions that had significant (p ≤ 0. a group of transformational leaders needed to be identified and asked to participate in the study. First. 13 in Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences. Appendix C contains sample questions from the final LLI instrument. the study was ready to move into data collection from the target population.

known to the researcher to currently hold or have recently held leadership positions.000.6 Deployment of the Study Instruments Once agreement was received from Verne Harnish to survey his readers. Verne Harnish. a second population was also sought. These preparations started with purchasing sufficient licenses for use of the MLQ from Mind Garden (2010). in large companies. Gazelles members are typically the thought leaders within their industry (Gazelles 2009). When 56 . The population targeted from this group included readers of the company’s weekly newsletter. with people management responsibilities. 4. In order to obtain a greater balance of leaders who displayed transactional leadership behaviors as well as transformational behaviors. Proof of these purchases is located in Appendix D. with the assistance of Gazelles Inc. Ninety individuals were invited to participate in the study through this population. This population included members of the researcher’s LinkedIn contact network. final preparations were completed to launch the data collection. personal contacts were utilized to access members of the Gazelles group. coming from all industries. Members of the Gazelles group include mid-market companies focused on growth. In order to gain a broad spectrum sample from a population of entrepreneurs. Once the needed permissions were purchased. an executive training and development firm. CEO. “Verne’s Insights” with a total readership of over 10. it is reasonable to assume that a population of entrepreneurs in the United States would include a number of transformational leaders.and studies of Atwater and Atwater (1994) and Avolio and Bass (2002). the MLQ questions were deployed using an online survey platform.

In addition to the second round of Gazelles data collection. including the invite is included in Appendix E. Once the online instruments were completed and their functionality tested. This request generated 105 visitors of which 63 began the survey and 53 completed all requested information.combined with the finalized questions from the MLQ along with the demographic questions. 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 instrument was launched with the LinkedIn population defined previously. This request generated 413 visitors of which 137 began to complete the survey instrument with 125 completing all questions. A second round of data collection with this audience was launched on 12 November 2009. 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. This time. 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. the 360-degree incentive was not offered. this resulted in a combined instrument with 104 questions. This request generated 35 visitors of which 29 57 . The full text of the newsletter and the request is located in Appendix E. Of these 125 full completions. The instrument was sent to this population on 14 September 2009. 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. The complete text of that newsletter. and the article was placed in the middle of the newsletter.

and LISREL. JMP.7 Data Collection and Analysis Plan The data was initially collected in the online platform. The LLI was then analyzed using exploratory Factor Analysis techniques and the Minitab toolset. the raw data was downloaded for manipulation in Excel. JMP. analysis of the data was completed to test the research hypotheses. JMP. This analysis was completed in two parts. and LISREL. score the MLQ in terms of the full range leadership model (Bass and Avolio 1995) and prepare the data for entry into Minitab. The first part utilized Minitab and LISREL to perform Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA) on the factors of the MLQ using the study data set. Once data collection was complete. Following the entry of data into Minitab. 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. The first part utilized Minitab and LISREL to complete a CFA on the LLI using the hypothesized five pillars discussed earlier. The second phase of the analysis examined the performance of the LLI. 58 . 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. Excel tools were utilized to summarize the demographic data collected on the response population. Minitab. Overall the three data collection efforts yielded a total of 229 responses to the instruments with 205 completing all questions.began the survey and 27 completed all requested information. The analysis was broken into three parts. 4. and LISREL.

regression analysis tools in JMP and Minitab and Structured Equation Modeling tools in LISREL. The final phase of the analysis. This exploration was completed using correlation analysis tools in JMP and Minitab. the relationship between the MLQ and LLI was explored. 59 . The investigations were conducted seeking relationships between the factors of the LLI and the factors of the MLQ. The detailed review of results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 5.This second level of analysis was completed to search for better models contained within the LLI than the originally conceptualized pillar model. and between individual elements of the LLI and the factors of the MLQ.

The results of the CFA analysis were also compared against results of similar analysis for other studies using the MLQ. and the comparison of this instrument with the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). correlation analysis was completed between the pillar scores of the LLI and 60 . First. The data collected was analyzed in a number of ways. in three distinct phases. Next. 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. This objective has been accomplished through the creation of a new instrument to understand the leadership development experiences of participants. In the final step of this phase. This comparison was completed using a sample of leaders of entrepreneurial companies.CHAPTER V DATA ANALYSIS The objective of the study is to better understand the development experiences of transformational leaders. In the second phase. the complete study data was analyzed in a number of steps. an exploration of the demographic data of the participants was performed and compared to other known groups of leaders. the behaviors of both the LLI and MLQ instruments were examined for their psychometric properties using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques. In the first phase. the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI).

1 contains a summary of the analysis methodology. the information found through the CFA of the LLI was utilized to reduce the question set of the LLI even further. 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.1 .Overview of Analysis Methodology The analysis was completed using several different software tools. Figure 5. Figure 5.the leadership scores of the MLQ. This reduction enabled the completion of a Structured Equation Model (SEM) between the LLI and MLQ. In the third phase. initial CFA analysis of both the LLI 61 . This analysis enabled development of the initial set of relationships between the two instruments was developed. This model was then utilized to finalize the relationships discovered between the two instruments.

LISREL 8.and MLQ. (high degree of English fluency) A group of graduate students in Engineering Management at the University of Alabama in Huntsville 62 . these groups were not expected to be representative of the population that would be accessed in the primary study for two key reasons. The Dutch speaking group of the Belgian Armed forces junior officers course. over 50% of the sample currently served in military leadership positions which was not expected in the target population. 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.1 . First.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.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. Finally. Second.8 was utilized to complete the full CFA analysis on both the LLI and the MLQ. While useful for the refinement of the instrument. Table 5. 5. the native languages of over half of the respondents was something other than English. This study involved the collection of data from three distinct groups as outlined in Table 5.

Figure 5. Using an unrestrained analysis setting. The Ward’s method of analysis was selected for its ability to minimize the loss of information through weighting the clusters (Johnson and Wichern 2002). additional cluster analysis techniques were explored to find a more clearly differentiated set of clusters.2. this method of cluster analysis was not useful in identifying major clusters in the data set. this method generated a set of eleven clusters as shown in Figure 5.70. Initially the data was explored using cluster analysis (Johnson and Wichern 2002.1 LLI Pilot Study Data Analysis The data set collected through the pilot study was analyzed using a variety of techniques.3. 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. they also included some unexpected combinations. These 63 . Everitt 1993) in order to identify groupings within the data. For this reason. These additional rounds of cluster analysis were completed using Ward’s 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. While these new clusters generally aligned with segments of the hypothesized pillars.1. 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.5. with a similarity target of 0. As illustrated by Figure 5.2 contains an example dendrogram from this analysis.

Single Linkage Dendrogram for LLI Pilot Study 64 .Figure 5.2 .

3 .LLI Pilot Study Dendrogram using Ward's Method 65 .Figure 5.

and create a simpler instrument. Instead. Within that group. analysis compared all available pairings of all questions included in the LLI. The complete matrix of all correlations is included in Appendix F and summarized below in Table 5. Overall. This analysis proceeded with a complete correlation analysis of all of the questions in the data set using JMP 8.2. the analysis found 152 significant (α = 0. a recommendation was made to further explore the data using a broader correlation analysis than the technique applied to the individual clusters identified using Ward’s method. there were 52 pairings with correlation values of greater magnitude than ±0. This By exploring the data in this manner. the results provided an initial validation of the hypothetical pillars included in the LLI.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). 66 . it would have necessitated the need to revisit the design of the LLI. This analysis was completed to ensure that the data was not grouping in an unexpected way. The cluster analysis and supporting correlation analysis of the initial data set provided an understanding of how the data collected naturally grouped together. If the data had grouped in an unexpected way. The results of this analysis can be found in Appendix F. This analysis was utilized to refine the instrument by eliminating a number of questions from the total data set.01) pairings in the data. Upon reviewing the results of the analysis with the committee.5. 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 intent was to identify questions that could be eliminated from the LLI.

0% 59 1725 3.Table 5.1.1% 30 609 4.3% 64 984 6.4% Pillar 3 31 60 378 15. 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.1% Pillar 2 28 87 300 29. • Elimination of redundant questions – questions that had a large number of significant correlations within the pillar. This refined LLI had a substantial reduction in the number of cross pillar correlations and redundancy within a single hypothesized pillar. • 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.2 .2% Pillar 4 13 20 66 30.2 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.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 20.9% 60 1848 3. Samples from this refined question set are located in Appendix C.Pilot Study Correlation Analysis Summary Total Questions Significant Correlations in Pillar (0.8% 17 1584 1.5% Pillar 5 7 8 21 38.9% 5. 67 . • These reductions resulted in a refined instrument with 57 questions.

These two sources generated a total of 205 complete responses. and nearly 85% held at least a Bachelor’s degree with a full 43% holding advanced degrees. 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.2 Demographic Analysis of the Study Data Set As detailed in Chapter 4. the study moved into the full data collection and analysis using the final 57 question instrument. the LinkedIn group was added. the full data collection process was completed with two different populations – respondents generated from the Gazelles weekly newsletter readership and the author’s online connections through LinkedIn. nearly 90% of respondents had ten or more years of professional experience. 5. The factors identified through exploratory Factor Analysis partially support the hypothesized pillar models of the LLI described earlier. and included a range of experience. 68 .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 study moved forward using the hypothesized pillars of the LLI. nearly 80% of the population identified their business role as executive level. Respondents were predominately male and Caucasian. Notably.6 contain summaries of the key demographic information of the participants. From this point. Tables 5. Based on the decision of the committee. education and position levels.3 through 5.

7% 45.3% Black. Grand European Total 30 36 143 167 2 2 175 205 85.9% 8.4% 31+ yrs Grand Total 18 178 4 27 22 205 10. VP.3 .0% 41. African. 500 (Buchanan 2009) and findings of the Spencer Stuart CEO Study (2006). etc.Participant Job Level Demographics by Source Source Gazelles LinkedIn Grand Total Percent Executive (President.6% 1 6 7 3.0% White.5% In order to understand how the demographics of the leaders who participated in this study differed from other populations of leaders.0% 4 2.6% 81. Caucasian. etc.Table 5.) Manager (Director. This data allowed direct comparisons of 69 .3% 2. etc. Assistant Manager. Analyst.5% 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs 21-30 yrs 19 57 83 3 10 10 22 67 93 10.6 .0% 43.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. etc.Participant Experience Level Demographic Information by Source Source Gazelles LinkedIn Grand Total Percent 3-5 yrs 1 1 0.4% Percent 17.Participant Ethnic Demographic Information by Gender Female Male Prefer Not to Answer Grand Total Percent Asian 1 12 13 6.4% Prefer Not to Answer Grand Total 1 178 27 1 205 0. to answer Latino 2 2 2 2 1. Senior Officer.0% Table 5.5 .9% 3 1 4 2.5% 1 0.0% Grand Total 178 27 205 Table 5. Prefer not Hispanic. African Native American American Other 1 1 1 8 1 0. Department Head.7% Table 5.4% Spanish.5% 1. which utilized publically available information to define the demographics of the 502 CEO’s of the S&P 500 companies.) Individual Contributor (Engineer. a comparison was made with the 2009 listings of the Inc.2% 7 1 8 3.4% 20 7 27 13.) Not Applicable Supervisor (Team Lead.4 .5% 9 4.7% 32.) 147 12 159 77.

17.4. due to the unique nature of the comparison groups. than the Inc.001): • A higher percentage. • The study population included a higher percentage. of S&P leaders hold college degrees than found in the study population. Initially. 500 leaders in the areas of ethnicity and gender. which included only the top executive of large and successful companies.7. 97. p < 0. • The study population included a higher percentage of women. Therefore the initial doubts raised by the comparisons were determined to be unfounded. • A higher percentage. 13. Using Minitab 15 to perform two proportion tests for all available comparisons in the data found only four comparisons with significant differences (α = 0.05.6 vs.0 vs. it was not unexpected to find differences between the two groups. Since the CEO position represents a unique subset of the population. these differences raised a concern that the data collected in this dissertation was not a representative sample of leaders. 86. 70 . of S&P leaders hold advanced degrees than found in the study population. of non-Caucasians that the Inc. 8. 43.the study data with the S&P 500 leaders in the area of education and with the Inc.0. 2. versus the broader sample of leader roles included in the dissertation data this concern was not valid. 62. 500 leadership. However.8 vs.9 vs. 500 leadership.

These tests found a number of significant differences in the data set for this study.3 Analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Once the demographics of the study participants were understood. Next the factor structure of the MLQ was explored using confirmatory factor analysis. the same instrument utilized for this study. summarized as follows: 71 . The output of these calculations is contained in Table 5. All comparisons against the Avolio and Bass (2004) data set were made using their results for self-rating responses.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.3. defined here as the comparison population. based on the various leadership measures contained within the nine factor model of MLQ. 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. These comparisons were made using a single sample Z-test (Johnson 1994).5.7. 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. 5. The results of the measures were then compared for each of the different groups to determine any statistically significant differences. the next step in the analysis was to understand the behaviors of the MLQ within the study data set. The sub groups within the study data set were compared utilizing the two sample T-test (Johnson 1994). The results of this analysis for the data collected in this dissertation were then compared to the known population of MLQ studies.

02) greater tendency toward Management by Exception (Passive) behaviors than the LinkedIn study group. p = 0.05. did not find the same number of significant differences. p = 0. Those found were as follows: • The Gazelles population displayed a significantly (α = 0. 72 . The comparisons between the two groups included in the study data set. • The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05. • The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.002) greater tendency toward Laissez-faire behaviors than did the comparison population. p = 0.001) greater tendency toward Inspirational Motivation behaviors than did the comparison population.02) greater tendency toward Laissez-faire behaviors than did the LinkedIn population.05.019) greater tendency toward Management By Exception (Passive) behaviors than did the comparison population.05. p = 0.008) greater tendency toward Management By Exception (Attributed) behaviors than did the comparison population. • The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.05. p < 0. p = 0.05.003) greater tendency toward Idealized Influence (Behavior) characteristics than did the comparison population.05. Gazelles readers and the LinkedIn group. p = 0.• The study population displayed significantly (α = 0. which did not display a significant difference between the Avolio and Bass population (2004). • The Gazelles population displayed a significantly (α = 0. • The study population displayed significantly (α = 0.

48 1.58 0.92 0.43 1.75 3.80 4.81 4.23 2.72 4.08 0.72 0.17 0.75 4.43 1.375) (Avolio and Bass.95 0.16 0.00 3.00 LinkedIn Group (n = 27) Mean SD Range 2.50 3.00 3.96 0.50 1.99 0.54 2.00 1.00 Key of Frequency: 4.00 0.0 = Fairly often 2.50 3.0 = Once in a while 0.0 = Frequently.59 3.00 2.76 4.99 0.00 1.00 2.75 3.50 MLQ 5x 2004 Self (N=3.00 3.93 0.16 0.0 = Not at all Gazelles Group (n = 178) Mean SD Range 3.52 3.00 1.80 4.00 3.75 3.28 0.53 3.99 0.74 4.52 3.61 0.77 4.21 0.0 = Sometimes 1.50 3.11 0.76 3.50 2.50 1.53 3.76 4.73 0. if not always 3.56 2.50 2.00 0.93 0.62 4.00 0.47 1.Scale IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF Total Sample (n = 205) Mean SD Range 3.00 2.75 0.69 0.50 1.75 2.64 2.04 0.52 3.50 1.15 0.14 0.00 0.75 3.00 0.22 0.00 0.91 0.21 0.72 4.93 0.50 Legend: Table 5.7 .59 3.00 0.76 4.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 .73 0.72 4.00 2. 2004) Mean SD Range 2.72 4.70 4.07 0.00 3.79 4.00 0.72 3.96 0.10 0.75 4.00 3.75 4.00 3.51 0.

Gazelles Group (n = 178) IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP 0. Table 5. while the average difference of all five measures is only slightly more than 2%.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.800 0.791 0.003 <0. The differences in the transactional 74 . notably the increased propensity of the study population to simultaneously display stronger tendencies toward certain transformational and transactional components. the practical difference in the results is limited.8 – P Values for Comparisons of MLQ Scores LLI Study Data Full Set (n = 205) IIA 0. While the comparisons of the study population did find some statistically significant differences.560 0.100 LF 0. In these measures.570 IIB 0.019 LLI Study Data . with a 5% difference.146 0.021 LF 0.181 0.001 0.002 LLI Study LinkedIn (n = 27) Legend: IIA 0.068 0.088 0.223 MLQ 5x 2004 Self (N=3. 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 5.008 0.375) . 2004) IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP 0.(Avolio and Bass. the largest difference can be found in measure of Inspirational Motivation. were unexpected.129 0. The area of greatest interest in the MLQ information for this study is the measures of transformational leadership.8 shows the complete results of these comparisons.Some of the differences in these populations.

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.70 and into the questionable range (George and Mallery 2003).03 below the target threshold.87. 5. up to 18% for laissez-faire. Table 5. transformational components ranged in reliability from a low of 0. Gliem and Gliem 2003.3.68 75 .74 0. The results of this analysis are contained in Table 5.70 0.83 0. Once these behaviors of the study data set were understood. While the transactional components scored consistently lower.82 0.87 0. the study data represents the known MLQ population in practical terms. these differences are of little practical consequence.74.67 0.9 . the data was first examined to understand the internal reliability of the hypothesized factors measured by the MLQ using Cronbach’s alpha (1951). All of these components exceeded the general rule of a desired internal consistency of 0. Using the nine factor model MLQ discussed in the previous section.80 0.74 to a high of 0.9. It is of note that this difference has little practical impact given that the lower of the two measures is only 0. but since these areas of leadership are of secondary interest in this study. For these reasons.67 to 0.2 Examination of the MLQ Factor Structure In order to understand how the measures within the MLQ behaved within the study sample.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 0.70 or above (Cronbach 2004.80 0. George and Mallery 2003).and laissez-faire components are larger. ranging from 0. These results included two factors that scored below the acceptable target of 0.

in excess of 0.95 0. Carless 1998.9.57 Reliability Scores for Study Data with 1 Factor MLQ Model 0. two factor and single factor models (Avolio and Bass 2004). 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).10 .In addition.. The additional exploration included the three factor model . These investigations found some support for earlier researchers (e.10. summarized in Table 5.Cronbach Alpha Reliability Scores for Alternate MLQ Models Reliability Scores for Study Data with 3 Factor MLQ Model Transformational Transactional Laissez-faire 0. the two factor model – transformational and transactional and a single factor model. the MLQ data was evaluated using Item Analysis for the hypothesized three factor.88 Cronbach's Alpha The single factor model presents some concerns with its good alpha score of 0.6.88. while the transactional factor had a poor alpha value. Table 5.95 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. this result brings into question the validity of the multi-factor model if a 76 . et al. Using George and Mallory (2003) thresholds for Cronbach’s alpha.transformational.g. Tejeda. transactional and laissez-faire. below 0. the study found all of these multi-factor variants had results that showed the transformational factor had an excellent alpha value.58 0. Specifically.

This analysis yielded a model with one factor many times stronger than the next closest item. by holding an Eigen value greater than 1. explaining 35.0 (Johnson and Wichern 2002).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. and conclude their availability does not negate the validity of the nine factor model. this dissertation will simply note that alternate models of the MLQ are available. the Eigen values of the first 8 factors were all above 1.5% of the variance. While the performance of the models with fewer factors raise some questions about the performance of the MLQ in the full nine factor model. while the plot shows one factor with an Eigen value of nearly four times the next highest scoring factor.4. Johnson and Wichern 2002) of the data was completed.10. 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. These results are displayed in the scree plot shown in Figure 5.8 or above (George and Mallery 2003).single factor model can score so well. an exploratory factor analysis (Stevens 2002. the nine factor model was utilized throughout the remainder of the study. it also displays eight factors that meet the threshold of significance. For that reason. In addition to the alpha score for the single factor model shown in Table 5. 77 . the results are not raising any question about the instrument beyond what had already been raised in other research (Avolio and Bass 2004). However.

the nine factor model was more thoroughly examined using the confirmatory factor analysis (Albright and Park 2009. Johnson and Wichern 2002) tools available through LISREL 8. and running LISREL 8.8 to determine the factor loadings for each of the questions included in the theoretical factors. Stevens 2002. The steps included in this analysis were defining each of the nine expected factors contained within the MLQ. This analysis is similar to that published in the MLQ users manual (Avolio and Bass 2004).8. showing the path for the Idealized Influence (Attributed) factor within the MLQ.Scree Plot Result of Exploratory Factor Analysis of the MLQ Following the initial exploration of the data.4 .Figure 5. 78 . using path diagrams.5 displays an example of the path diagram created in this analysis. Figure 5.

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.3. 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.5 . These 79 .11 contains the full results of this analysis with a side by side comparison of the results obtained by Avolio and Bass (2004).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. Table 5.Figure 5.Factor Model for Idealized Influence (Attributed) as Measured by the MLQ 5.

the next step in the study was to develop a similar understanding of the behaviors of the LLI. This lack of difference supports the decision to move forward with the nine factor model of the MLQ for the remainder of the dissertation. While these differences may appear large. 80 .4 Analysis of the Lifetime Leadership Inventory (LLI) Once the behavior of the MLQ was understood. et al.30. 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. the questions of the LLI were put through a similar analysis to what was completed with the MLQ.50 threshold for practical significant within both data sets and 97% meet the threshold within at least one data set. Furthermore. ±0. Additionally. every question loads significantly. there is no practical difference between the findings of the participants in the dissertation study and the known population of MLQ participants.differences averaged 21% across the 36 questions. using Hair. 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. 67% of the questions meet the ±0. In order to develop this understanding. 5. (1998) guidance for significance within factor analysis based on sample size. within its respective factor for the given sample size.

11 .57 0.59 0.37 0.71 0.68 0.75 0.77 0.58 0.53 0.375 .70 0.69 Factor MBEP LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.65 0.49 0.33 0.59 0.68 0.71 0.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 0.80 0.48 0.57 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 0.57 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.61 0.77 0.65 0.74 0.54 0.43 0.64 0.60 0.63 0.70 0.42 0.Item IIA 10 IIA 18 IIA 21 IIA 25 Factor IIA LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.36 0.39 0.60 0.67 0.53 0.48 0.56 0.43 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.72 0.71 0.61 0. N = 3.76 0.75 0.54 MLQ5x = Self reported questionnaire data from Avolio and Bass (2004).58 0.42 0.68 Factor IM LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.38 0.76 0.24 0.66 Item IC 15 IC 19 IC 29 IC 31 Factor IC LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.63 0.56 0.67 0.73 0.68 0.52 Table 5.68 LF 5 LF 7 LF 28 LF 33 Factor LF LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.70 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 0.74 Factor CR LLI Study MLQ 5x 2004 0.72 0.

Nature of Key Relationships.92 3.46 2.40 0.54 0.Descriptive Statistics for LLI Pillars Total Sample (n = 205) Mean SD Range 3.00 Gazelles Group (n = 178) Mean SD Range 3.74 3. the instrument was broken into its factors and the descriptive statistics for each factor was calculated.0 = Agree 3. 13 questions Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences.38 1. 16 questions Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences.30 0.88 3.52 2.0 = Disagree 1.Nature of Key Relationships.25 0.0 = Strongly Agree 4.88 5.27 0.56 0.68 2. 16 questions Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences.62 2.86 5. 16 questions Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences. 7 questions Pillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences. 5 questions In the first step of the analysis.71 3.30 0.50 2.00 LinkedIn Group (n = 27) Mean SD Range 3.12 .30 0. Table 5.62 3.62 2.92 3.88 3.47 2. 16 questions Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences.68 0.52 2.41 0. 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 .12 contains this data for the entire data set as well as the separate groups involved in the study.56 0.67 4. Table 5.50 2.5. This test was selected because all pillars.94 3.0 = Neutral 2.69 4.0 = 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.4.20 Scale Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Legend: Pillar 1 . 5 questions Frequency Key: 5.51 1. except Pillar 3. 13 questions Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences.31 0.42 0.00 3.52 2. 7 questions Pillar 5 – Formal Development Experiences.58 0. failed the 82 .81 2.71 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for the LLI As discussed in Chapter 4.34 0.

this comparison was run again using the 2 sample t test.07).36).07.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LLI The initial phase of the confirmatory factor analysis of the LLI focused on evaluating Cronbach’s alpha (1951) for each hypothesized factor (i. The results of these tests failed to reject the null hypothesis.15 to a high of 0.4. The results of this analysis found Pillars 1 – 3 meeting George and Mallory’s (2003) acceptable criteria with alpha scores of 0.05) for any of the comparisons with p-values ranging from a low of 0. both are in a range that is commonly deemed acceptable for behavioral data (Stevens 2002).72 and 0. these groups were combined into a single data set for further analysis. scoring 0. indicating that the variances of the two groups were equal. Since all tests failed to find a difference between the Gazelles and LinkedIn sources. 0. The exception to this high p-value was Pillar 3. The variances of the data were then compared using Levene’s test for Pillars 1. with p-values ranging from 0. The tests failed to reject the null that there was no difference between the means of the two groups (α = 0.67 respectively.61. respectively. which again failed to reject the null (p = 0. with a p-value of 0. however. 5.Anderson Darling test for normality (Rice 1995). Once the decision to combine the two data sources was made the analysis moved to studying the factor structure of the LLI..62 and 0.e.72. Due to this low score.5 and an Ftest for Pillar 3 (Johnson 1994). This phase of the analysis follows the same steps as were completed previously when the factor structure of the MLQ was examined.2. Additional 83 . and Pillar 3 failing to reject the Anderson Darling normality test (p = 0.77. pillar).4. Pillars 4 and 5 fall into the questionable category.73.20 to 0.

This process provided the individual factor loading calculations shown in Table 5.30 minimum significance level recommended by Hair. it seems the model is acceptable and can be utilized for further analysis. This analysis utilized. then a full 70% of the individual questions load significantly within their hypothesized factor. However. by examining the goodness of fit statistics provided by LISREL 8. (1998) only the mentor and leader related questions loaded at significant levels for the given sample size. As was done with the MLQ data. LISREL 8. Johnson and Wichern 2002) with the LLI data. This result was not surprising given the difference in age and refinement of the two instruments. et al.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. (1998). if the factor loadings are reviewed using the ±0. These results indicated the potential for two distinct factors within Pillar 1. et al.30 recommended by Hair.13. with only 52% of the items loading at the level of practical significance for the sample size (Hair.30 minimum level of significance. Overall. 1998).8 was then utilized to complete full confirmatory factor analysis (Albright and Park 2009. Utilizing this lower level as the criterion for acceptance and the Cronbach’s alpha values found through the earlier item analysis.8. In this group. This decision is also supported. Stevens 2002. the root mean 84 . et al. using the significance threshold of 0. All of the parent related questions loaded below the 0. these loadings were not as clean as those found for the MLQ. Perhaps the most notable part of the results were the loadings within Pillar 1.

37 12C-EE_ND 0.34 12B-EE_SO 0.37 0.52 Item 15A-D_Rot 15B-D_Train Loading 0. defined by 85 .33 11B-RA_VacN 0.54 11F-RA_ExpE 0.62 Loading 0.46 Item 6-Ch_CG 7A-HS_Aspt 7B-HS_ASG 7C-HS_AIG 7D-HS_SCpt Loading -0. a standardized measure of error approximation.00 5A-L_RM 0.01 4D-M_FdBk 0.15 15E-D_Func 0.35 -0.19 0.49 13B-B_Lrn 0.74 9A-CE_Emp 0.03 5B-L_DRM 0.31 0.06 3-P_LstNum 0.87 15D-D_Org 0.71 11D-RA_Lfun 0.32 12A-EE_Inc 0.04 5C-L_Und -0.36 Key: Questions indicated with the number (group) the appeared within the instrument and a brief description (e.Nature of Key Relationships Loading Item Loading Item 0.52 8E-C_Pol -0.91 8A-C_SG -0.29 13A-B_Sac 0.38 7G-HS_NCSp -0.95 Pillar 2 – Early Development Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.28 Pillar 3 – Exploratory Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.87 15C-D_360 0.03 4C-M_Adv 0.43 11C-RA_CRA 0.79 11E-RA_Tadv 0.83 8B-C_Grk -0.33 0.45 9B-CE_Mgmt 0.24 14D-Wk_LOld 0.09 Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.13 .05 4E-M_Meet 0.g.77 15F-D_PLrn 0.65 8F-C_NCSp -0.27 Item 14A-Wk_Teen 14B-Wk_Lmil 14C-Wk_LEar Loading 0.85 8D-C_ResL -0.Table 5.50 0.57 Item 10A-Cu_Ocnt 10B-Cu_Ocul 10C-Cu_Live 10D-Cu_TrvE 10E-Cu_TrvC 11A-RA_NatS Loading 0.95 Pillar 4 – Early / Previous Work Experiences Loading Item Loading Item 0.49 -0.00 2B-P_Eth -0.25 0.42 7E-HS_Hlp -0.55 8C-C_VSpt -0.15 4A-M_Form 1.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 .97 0.94 0. P_Env indicates Parent environment and M_FdBk indicates mentor feedback) square error of approximation (Steiger 1990).28 0.62 -0.16 4B-M_LdGd 1.

Additionally.. Avolio 86 . ⎜ n⎟ ⎭ ⎠ ⎩⎝ df where F(Θ) is the maximum likelihood fit function. This score did not meet the threshold of 0. This relationship analysis was completed utilizing correlation analysis techniques.08. the initial analysis seeking a relationship between the LLI and MLQ utilized the LLI in this form. For this reason. However. (0. it meets needed measures of acceptability. indicating a reasonable model fit (Kenny 2009).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. these measures indicate a useful model.075. 5. This type of analysis was widely utilized in the literature.072 .⎧⎛ F (Θ) 1 ⎞ ⎫ RMSEA = max ⎨⎜ − ⎟. While the fit is not great. 0.079). 30). including a number of studies attempting to relate one or more instruments to the MLQ (e. RMSEA was selected since it provides a measure that is “essentially a measure of lack of fit per degree of freedom” (MacCallum 1995. For this data.05 that would indicate a close approximation (Browne and Cudeck 1993) or a good fit (Kenny 2009). had an upper threshold below 0. 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). the 90% confidence interval.0⎬ .g. In summary. since it was below 0.08. the RMSEA was 0.

05) correlation with one or more components of transformational leadership measured within the MLQ. The exception in this category was the comparison with Contingent Reward leadership.25 and with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator between -0.1994. Bell-Roundtree 2004).195 for all 25 comparisons with a maximum value of 0. This comparison found that all Pillars had a significant (α = 0. occurred between • Pillar 3 (Exploratory Experiences) with Idealized Influence (Behavior) and Inspirational Motivation.120.25 and 0. as there were no significant correlations between the Pillars and three of the four transactional factors.009. These scores compare favorably with those of other studies that compared the MLQ with another instrument. where all 87 . In the first comparison.250 • Pillar 4 (Early / Previous Work Experience) with Contingent Reward. The strength of the correlation between the LLI Pillars and the transformational factors of the MLQ showed a strong contrast. correlation at least 0. Bono and Judge 2003) and two dissertations comparing the results of two or more instruments (Utley 1995. including Avolio and Bass (1994) who found correlations between the MLQ and the Gordon Personality Profile between 0. Minitab 15 and JMP 8 were utilized to generate a correlation matrix of the factors of the two instruments.265 The strongest relationships Overall.254 and a minimum value of 0. 0. Avolio and Bass 1994. the correlations averaged 0.21 and 0. These comparisons found minimal correlation between the Pillars and the transactional components of the MLQ.20. These comparisons had an average correlation score of 0. the Pillars of the LLI were correlated with the nine factors of leadership measured by the MLQ.

045 0.002 -0.124 IS 0.021 -0.245 0.001 and 0.120 0.203 0.237 0. This lack of distinction is due to the strength of the relationship the LLI holds with Contingent Reward leadership.075 0.223 IC 0.001 LF 0.164 IM 0.145 0.05 Significant. The correlation analysis found a number of significant relationships between the elements of the LLI and the MLQ.040 0.176 0.012) and the average correlation value was 0.205 0.254 0.008 -0.14 – Correlation Coefficients & Significance for LLI Pillars and Nine Factor MLQ Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4 Pillar 5 IIA 0.048 -0.175 MBEA 0. comparison.236 CR 0.269 0. α = 0.193 0.192 0.070 Bold Bold IIB 0.05.179 0.14 provides the full output of this Table 5. Table 5. For these reasons.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.021 -0.060 0.213 0.205.251 0.265 0. which is included in the transformational component.159 0.219 0.224 0.204 0.187 0. p-value between <0. This analysis failed to provide a clear distinction between the relationship the LLI held with the transformational and transactional components.004 0.correlations were significant (α = 0. α = 0.220 0. 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.102 MBEP -0. While these relationships provided sufficient 88 .023 0. 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.071 0.159 0.216 0.009 Significant.160 0.

the collected data contained additional information that could be understood with additional advanced analysis. the fact that the data did not meet the required regression assumptions of normality could result in a failure. Additionally. Despite this support. Stevens 2002). the initial SEM attempt in LISREL 8. First. 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). the correlation analysis techniques used above are well supported by the literature for applications such as this within the social sciences (e.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. For these reasons. Avolio 1994.8 failed. When considering utilizing a full SEM model to compare the LLI factor structure with the MLQ factor structure. However.8 (Scientific Software 2009). since SEM is in “broad terms [the] amalgamation of multiple regression and confirmatory factor analytic techniques” (Brewerton and Millward 2004. this issue can be overcome by the modeling tools within LISREL 8. Avolio and Bass 1994. 89 .g. 165). a number of problems that raised concern about the technique for this data set were encountered. Second.. 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. it was hoped that a complete SEM would yield additional understanding of the relationship between the two instruments.evidence to complete the hypothesis tests included in this dissertation.

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. The next round of reduction applied the 0.30 (Hair. Using these questions as the objectives of the analysis. These reductions caused the hoped for results with some of the previously low loading questions seeing an increase in their loadings.30 (Hair. From there. 1998) threshold. the reduction of the LLI was completed using a step wise method. However. a number of questions included in the LLI failed to meet the needed thresholds of significance within the CFA of the instrument.13 shows that there are fifteen questions within the 57 that fail to meet the target significant loading of 0. with the hope that elimination of very low value questions would cause the loading in certain borderline questions to increase. 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.1 Further Reduction of the LLI and CFA Revisited Returning to the results of the CFA on the LLI in Table 5. 5. Second. This resulted in the reduction of eleven additional questions. et al. two additional rounds of the CFA were run.1 as a threshold and resulted in the elimination of six items and a 51 question instrument. The first round of reduction was done targeting the questions that appeared to add close to zero value to the model. 1998). as noted earlier. These rounds utilized a threshold of 90 . This was completed using 0. 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.6. For this reason.However. et al. an effort was made to further reduce the elements included in the LLI.

70 desired threshold for internal consistency (Cronbach 2004.61 Pillar 5 – Structured Leadership Development : four questions. These reductions ended with a 28 item instrument with all items meeting or exceeding the 0.6.36 based on the sample size threshold recommended by Stevens (2002).87. Cronbach’s = 0.64 Pillar 4 – Early Leadership Experiences: four questions. These newly constituted pillars are defined below: • Pillar 1 – Relationship with Mentors and Leaders: seven questions. This new threshold was developed to address concerns regarding the 0. Cronbach’s = 0. George and Mallery 2003) below that threshold.30 standard threshold initially raised through the work of Cliff and Hamburger (1967) and extended by Stevens (2002). It appears that this degradation is more than offset by the fact that all of the questions now load significantly within their pillar. 5.2 SEM Analysis Description and Results In order to begin the Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) process for evaluating the relationship between the LLI and MLQ. • • • • Pillar 2 – High School and College Activities: ten questions. Cronbach’s = 0.68 Pillar 3 – Cultural Exploration: four questions.66 While these reductions did lower the reliability scores of two pillars that previously met the 0. all of the pillars remained above the 0. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.0.36 threshold for significance of factor loadings. the overall path diagram indicating the expected relationships between the questions contained in the LLI and MLQ and their 91 . Cronbach’s = 0. considering the 205 items included in this study.60 threshold commonly indicative of a marginal model fit (George and Mallery 2003).

the SEM found significant relationships between the LLI and MLQ that were more differentiable than those found with the earlier correlation analysis. along with the LISREL 8.054 only 0. while each pillar held a significant relationship with at least two subcomponents of transformational leadership.0| threshold of significance for the t value generated by LISREL 8. Pillar 2 (early leadership experiences) indicates an opposite relationship than all other Pillars.004 away from the 0. using the generally accepted |2.factors was built. Specifically. Once the model was built in LISREL 8. Additionally. 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.05 threshold (Browne and Cudeck 1993). The results of the analysis indicated that the model was essentially a close approximation of the data with an RMSEA value of 0. 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. the analysis engine was run. only three found significant relationships with Contingent Reward leadership (earlier analysis showed all five pillars significantly correlated with CR).15 displays the correlation values found with the SEM analysis. Pillars 3 and 5 load on mutually exclusive leadership components.8 outputs are located in Appendix H.8. 92 . This diagram. Table 5.8 (Stevens 2002).

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

in order to gain breadth in the study population. This rejection was accomplished through Item Analysis in Minitab and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using LISREL. and a number of significant correlations were found.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. Ha: There are logical groupings of leadership development experiences that can be grouped through Factor Analysis. Further refinement of the instrument to prepare for Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) resulted in a reduced question set of 28 items. the results of the initial model using LISREL found a number of significant loadings with an overall reasonable (Browne and Cudeck 1993) model fit. 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. As detailed earlier. The analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null. This resulted in a model where every question had a significant loading in its 97 . These findings led to the rejection of the three null hypotheses formulated in the study. The responses of these leaders were examined for correlations between the two instruments. using the RMSEA. 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 analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null. Specifically. 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. Analysis of the LLI questions against the nine factor MLQ model found a number of 98 . Analysis of the LLI factors against the nine factor MLQ model found a number of significant (α = 0. Ha: There are groups of development experiences that can be shown to correlate to displays of transformational leadership. 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. Once again. while exhibiting a significant correlation with only the contingent reward (CR) component of the transactional factors.hypothetical pillar and an improved RMSEA value of 0. the hypothesized pillars in the LLI correlated significantly with all transformational components in the nine factor model of the MLQ.05 and α = 0. the analysis of the data collected to evaluate this hypothesis rejected the null.054.01) relationships between the pillars of the LLI and the leadership factors of the MLQ. an indication of good model fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993). Ha: There are individual development experiences that can be shown to correlate to displays of transformational leadership.

01. This interest in a breadth of experiences led to the development of the LLI. These significant correlations were predominately with transformational factors of the MLQ. Specifically. 6. While the analysis shows proof of statistical significance for the results of the study.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. a new avenue for understanding 99 . including 31 pairings significant at α = 0.05) correlation relationships. an instrument that addressed the relatively narrow scope of other instruments that sought to investigate leader experiences by exploring five distinct areas of experience. a total of nineteen questions had a significant correlation with one or more subcomponents of the nine factor model of the MLQ at α = 0. explore the limitations of the study and suggest avenues for future research. a total of 59 relationships. there were 72 significant (α = 0.significant (α = 0. The contingent reward factor of transactional leadership had twelve of the remaining thirteen significant relationships. By developing this instrument and subjecting it to statistical validation.05 and α = 0. the LLI Pillars.01. 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.01) relationships between the pillars of the LLI and the leadership factors of the MLQ.05. In total. while fourteen of those had a significant correlation at α = 0.

bringing into question the applicability of the findings of Louv (2005) regarding child social development on later leadership development. Bennis and Thomas 2002) has been made available to researchers. the questions regarding exploratory experiences in natural settings were eliminated from the instrument. The results of the study also have theoretical implications. these findings were unexpected and may be influenced by the decision early in the development of the LLI to focus questions on parents. in its final version. When reviewing these results. Finally. Howard and Bray 1988. (1993). et al. in its final version.15. the LLI includes no questions designed to identify the extreme experiences identified by Bennis and Thomas (2004) as Leadership Crucibles. rather than separate mother and father related inquiries. 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. the LLI contains no questions regarding the influence of parents on the leader.g. However. et al.. First. shown in Table 5.the development experiences of leaders. 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. through the efficient means of a survey instrument rather than the lengthy process of interviewing of earlier studies (e. it is quickly noticed that all of the Pillars of the LLI have two or more significant positive correlations with the 100 . By examining the questions reduced from the LLI three separate implications are noted. These results suggest that the influence of parents is not important in the development of transformational leadership. Second. Given the literature. (1998) and the empirical findings of Towler (2005) and Mumford. these findings conflict with the theories of McCauley.

Structured Leadership Development. Since these experiences are likely to be very structured leadership roles. 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. and job rotations. The correlations indicate that the strength of the leader’s transactional leadership may then fade over time.transformational factors of the MLQ. It was the pillar that had the least number of significant correlations. a more complete theoretical answer for the difference is found in the types of experience contained in the pillar. This pillar examined the participant’s experience with 360-degree feedback. Specifically. it is noted that the time lag of those elements contained in Pillar 2 are greater than others in the LLI. but the experience remains a negative influence on their transformational leadership. leadership training. which has a number of significant (α = 0. such as Inspirational Motivation. each of the elements in Pillar 2 investigated either group involvement or leadership roles held at an early age. What makes this pillar differ from the others contained in the LLI? Initially. due to the setting of the organization and age of the participants. Those relationships were held only with the Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration aspects of transformational leadership.01) negative loadings on these same transformational subcomponents. 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. except Pillar 2 (High School and College Activities). but this explanation appeared incomplete. Instead. most other correlations were close to 0. it is theorized that these roles teach the young leader how to be a transactional leader. 101 .

Throughout the study. this significant relationship was found for all transformational leadership factors and Contingent Reward. A potential reason for this relationship is that the predictors of the LLI are an indication of the effectiveness of the leader.02) with the remaining transactional components. a relationship between the leadership predictors and Contingent Reward was consistently found to more closely mimic transformational components. 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). mentoring had close to zero correlation (average = 0. Bass 1985. but also on the more abstract concepts. In addition. The role of a mentor has been shown to have a significant influence. with an average correlation of 0. This can be theorized to be driven by the fact that when the mentor takes an active interest in the development of the leader. In this study. e. such as Inspirational Motivation..The third theoretical implication examines the behavior of the Contingent Reward component of transactional leadership.g. Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration. If not this.. more than any other predictor that was examined.24. The final theoretical implication of the finding of the study regards the strength of the influence of a mentoring relationship on a leader. since Contingent Reward has been theorized to be an effective leadership type when done well (e. Burns 1978). it appears that a mentor can have a positive influence on not only the concrete elements of transformational leadership.g. Additionally. it causes the leader to become a more active leader in their life. 102 .

experience with exploring other cultures (Pillar 3. The second implication for the engineering manager is in the design. It appears that this common development engine can be an effective tool. 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 leader’s ability to display certain behaviors. 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. When the desirable leadership behaviors for a given position are understood. 6. -0. 0.23). the results of the study can be utilized to seek a leader who is more likely to display those leadership behaviors.20). For instance. development and implementation of employee development programs.While these theoretical implications are interesting and lay the groundwork for other potential areas of exploration.19) and was not highly involved with high school and college leadership activities (Pillar 2. especially if meetings are held regularly and the mentor strives to 103 . the selection team should look for a candidate who has held leadership roles early in their career (Pillar 4. had meaningful influences on their leadership from a mentor (Pillar 1.3 Implications for the Engineering Manager The first implication for the engineering manager comes in the area of position hiring. if a highly inspirational leader is desirable for a given opening. 0.25). correlation 0.

First. Third. especially since the types of organizations included in the first group of participants were unique (Gazelles 2009). such as Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration. can be an effective tool to develop certain transformational leadership characteristics. the study was completed using a target population of leaders in small and growing companies. organizational culture). or that the strength or direction of the correlations would change. making it impossible to investigate potential confounding variables (e. Since this was a focused population. the study utilized only the manager’s self reported information on their leadership style.4 Limitations of the Study The study has limitations that restrict the overall applicability of its findings. formal development programs. on the types of leadership behaviors displayed. peers and leaders. It is possible that the leader’s self image is vastly different than the perception of their employees. 104 . it may be found that there are different items which correlate with the leadership behaviors reported by others. such as 360-degree surveys. and little is known about the organizations of the second group of participants. such as peer groups or peer behaviors cannot be investigated. Other potential influences. the findings cannot be generalized to apply to leaders within other types of organizations (including large corporations. individual respondents’ organizations are unknown.provide constructive feedback.. Second. military or academics). If this difference did exist.g. Additionally. 6.

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. it is still an instrument in development. while the analysis of the LLI instrument did reject null Hypothesis I. Finally.Fourth. initially developed and deployed nearly twenty five years ago. has been utilized in dozens and dozens of studies and 105 . The recommended areas for future study are as follows: • Refinement of the LLI: The MLQ.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. and is in line with other similar studies (e. the data set utilized for the study is relatively small. This would improve the usefulness of the LLI by increasing its ability to measure a broad spectrum of leadership development experiences. Roper 2009. it lacks an exhaustive investigation of multiple populations. While it is was sufficient to generate meaningfully significant statistical tests. The final version of the LLI has strong psychometric properties and produced strong results using the SEM between the LLI and MLQ.. however. it has raised additional questions. 6. its refinement caused a number of elements to be dropped from the original hypothesized pillars. Bell-Roundtree 2004.g. like that included in the comparison MLQ population (Avolio and Bass 2004). While doing this. These limitations generally hamper the ability of the findings to be interpreted broadly. Blatt 2002).

Avolio and Bass 2004) as part of the transactional leadership behaviors. It is also reasonable to believe that the value of the study could be increased with a larger sample..revised no fewer than five times (Avolio and Bass 2004). they were not included in the correlation study but should be explored in the future. The LLI appears to have merit that could give it a robust pedigree over time. • 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. Since these questions are not well documented in the literature. 106 . but additional refinement is needed through exposure to greater populations and experimentation with additional questions. • Further Exploration of the Components of Transformational Leadership within the Study Population: Specifically. • Utilization of 360-degree Results for a Relationship between the LLI and MLQ: As mentioned in the limitations. • 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). 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. there is potential that the perception of others than the leader’s regarding the leader’s leadership behaviors may yield different results.g.

APPENDICES 107 .

APPENDIX A MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONAIRE 108 .

on August 19.mindgarden. 2009 www. www.mindgarden. Inc.. Published by Mind Garden. All Rights Reserved. Robert Most Mind Garden.For use by William Schell only. Sincerely. www. Received from Mind Garden. Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass for his/her thesis research. or dissertation. thesis. © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass.com 109 . The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material.com To whom it may concern.com MLQ. Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal. Inc. This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material. Inc.mindgarden.

......... and deviations from standards . Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages........ 9..... All Rights Reserved.. © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass............. Inc. 3............0 I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate ..... 8.. 2009 110 . The word “others” may mean your peers......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........... 4. If an item is irrelevant.. Continued => MLQ.............. exceptions..mindgarden.. 11.....0 I avoid getting involved when important issues arise .... leave the answer blank.. 10............ Published by Mind Garden... and/or all of these individuals... Use the following rating scale: Not at all 0 1.....0 I fail to interfere until problems become serious . Inc.......com Once in a while 1 Sometimes 2 Fairly often 3 Frequently.... clients... on August 19........... if not always 4 I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts..... 7...... Please answer all items on this answer sheet... 12... 2... or if you are unsure or do not know the answer.............................................................. www....... supervisors......... Judge how frequently each statement fits you................. 13. Received from Mind Garden......... 6....... direct reports.....0 I focus attention on irregularities....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..... mistakes....... 5........

APPENDIX B INITIAL LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS 111 .

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

APPENDIX C REFINED LIFETIME LEADERSHIP INVENTORY SAMPLE QUESTIONS 113 .

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

com 116 .mindgarden. Inc. Received from Mind Garden. Sincerely.com MLQ. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material.mindgarden. Inc. 2009 www. © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. www. Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal. Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass for his/her thesis research. This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material.mindgarden.For use by William Schell only. Robert Most Mind Garden. or dissertation.com To whom it may concern. www. All Rights Reserved. Inc. on September 28. thesis. Published by Mind Garden..

2009 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form. 2009 Permission for William Schell to reproduce 200 copies within one year of September 28. Each person who administers the test must purchase permission separately. 117 . This permission is granted to one person only.com www. Rater Form and Scoring Key (Form 5X-Short) by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass Distributed by Mind Garden.mindgarden. on September 28.For use by William Schell only. Inc. Inc. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden. 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. Any organization purchasing permissions must purchase separate permissions for each individual who will be using or administering the test. All Rights Reserved.com Copyright © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. info@mindgarden. Received from Mind Garden. Inc. 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.

This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following copyright material.com MLQ. Inc. 2009 www.For use by William Schell only. thesis. © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. on August 19. Received from Mind Garden.. Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal. or dissertation. Published by Mind Garden. www. Sincerely.com To whom it may concern.mindgarden. All Rights Reserved. Inc. Inc.com 118 . www. Robert Most Mind Garden.mindgarden. Instrument: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Authors: Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass Copyright: 1995 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass for his/her thesis research. The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other published material.mindgarden.

2009 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form.mindgarden. This permission is granted to one person only. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden. Inc. 2009 Permission for William Schell to reproduce 100 copies within one year of August 19. Rater Form and Scoring Key (Form 5X-Short) by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass Distributed by Mind Garden.com Copyright © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. Inc.For use by William Schell only. info@mindgarden. Received from Mind Garden. 119 . 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. All Rights Reserved. It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction in any medium. 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. on August 19.com www. 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. Inc.

APPENDIX E GAZELLE’S PARTICIPANT INVITATIONS 120 .

He'll be emphasizing these three and how you apply them next Tuesday during his 90 minutes LIVE video webcast.com Subject: CEO of the Decade. but are there definitive research studies and guidelines that will help a leader get it right? In fact.com on behalf of Verne's Insights [vernes_insights@gazelles. but the precise timing of his messaging.Bill Schell From: Sent: To: bounce@infusionmail. And you can see the list of the other 12 runners-up for CEO of the Decade along with several other fun "galleries. CEO of Arizona-based Hubbard Family Swim Schools for bringing this to my attention. Five Fold Growth in Five Years -.and there's no better way to express those ideas than writing all over the walls.Steve Jobs is also famous for his ideas -. there are. Thanks to Bob Hubbard. whose firm 121 .here's a link." Those that take the survey will get to share in the results -. we're assisting Bill Schell. Again. check out this product called Idea Paint -... it's open to ALL insight readers if you have people reporting to you. Idea Paint -." Every leader talks about getting the timing right. To make this easier. with his PhD thesis on leadership. and replaced the top management team which has served as the nucleus of what Fortune calls "Jobs brain trust for the next ten years. which he'll cover next Tuesday. I had my call with Dr. Cialdini also shared with me that three of the six principles of influence. takes about 10 minutes.two key points that dovetail on Jim Collins' presentation at the Growth Summit.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) -. COO of QuEST Global. Take five minutes and read this awe-inspiring article and click through previously unseen photos of Steve. take five minutes and read the Steve Jobs story once again and take lessons from this business grandmaster.1:30pm ET). He left academe in the spring and is devoting full time to writing a brand new book -.on the eve of hitting $100 million in revenue and celebrating their 2000th associate. VP of Strategy for Printing4Less.keeping you great" (Print-friendly Version >) HEADLINES: Steve Jobs Named CEO of the Decade -. dramatically pruned Apple back to a handful of products so his team could focus.Dr.one thing admired about Steve is not just the precision of his messaging. And Dr. Idea Paint." Steve Jobs Turnaround -. movies. named CEO of the Decade by Fortune magazine last week. Three Advantages ".and to gauge the leadership effectiveness of Gazelles insight readers (anyone with people reporting to you).net] Thursday. music. I received this note this week from Ajay Prabhu. Robert Cialdini yesterday to discuss his presentation next Tuesday (noon -.let me take a pause from the Growth Summit highlights and pay kudos to Steve Jobs. and mobile phones this decade.as he mentioned to me "everyone talks about how timing is everything. are especially effective in a crisis when customers are putting off the buying decision. When Steve took over Apple he did three things: shore up cash by swallowing his pride and getting help from Microsoft. but no one has ever helped people figure this out. November 12. something I saw at 3M's Innovation Center in Austin. Why? He's transformed four industries . Message Timing -.you apply it to any wall and you have an instant white board -especially fun for painting curved surfaces. slightly bigger than Google. Message Timing. 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. Just trying to keep you on the bleeding edge! Three Advantages Over Competition -. And Apple's market cap started the decade at $5 billion. Are You the Next Leader of the Decade -. Cialdini will spend 15 minutes giving us a glimpse into the new research. That's why I'm especially excited about next week's video webcast." Again.computers in the 80s. Companies that leverage these three principles to their fullest will continue to have a huge leg up on those that don't. today it's $170 billion. 2009 1:58 PM bschell@printingforless.

CEO of Hubbard Family Swim School. Living Longer: The Blue Zones -.two seniors. Bill Schell.Bill Schell From: Sent: To: bounce@infusionmail. you can also opt in to receive a no cost. All you do is click through NiceBuy. are not gathered. 122 .. 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.there's a two part anonymous survey that took me ten minutes to complete. and Sardinia is one of the four. For participating he'll share the full results with all of us.Bob Hubbard. Participate in Leadership Research for PhD Thesis -.net] Friday.and wants to study entrepreneurial firms. The students (whom I know) are not taking a commission or salary..com on behalf of Verne's Insights [vernes_insights@gazelles. before shopping at affiliate sites like Amazon or Best Buy. Sept 21 Hotel Deadline ".the conference rate for the Growth Summit expires on Monday. just getting some business experience and raising money for charity. Then the link percentage they get is passed on to a deserving charity -. Leading Better.and for participating in Schell's survey. I liked the no cost! You'll get back a personal leadership report. so your personal info cannot be sold nor will you receive emails from NiceBuy. VP Strategy & Development for PrintingForLess. It highlights four areas in the world where a disproportionate percentage of the population lives to be 100. 2009 10:35 AM bschell@printingforless. confidential.com Subject: Living Longer. 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 -. etc.right now it's providing renewable electricity for impoverished communities in Nicaragua. is working on his doctoral dissertation in the area of transformational leadership -. And your name. Kevin Eberling and Joe Casola.org. email. a nonprofit organization they founded. 360 degree survey where they survey your colleagues about your leadership attributes. No Cost 360 Degree Survey -.keeping you great" HEADLINES: (Print-friendly Version >) Deadline to Book Hotel Rooms Sept 21 -. September 18. Two Virginia Tech Student Entrepreneurs' -.so many people win!). Giving Easier. have created a no cost way to earn money for charities (sounds like Alchemy!). I've not had one completed on me in years and thought the feedback might be insightful (or scary) -anyway.

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 0.5 124 . 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 Data appears to show us that several questions could be eliminated with little loss of data.01) Contains 9 pairings where person correlation is > 0. strong role models) and an unexpected relationship with making sacrifices to achieve goals. This is unexpected based on other research Cluster 2 – Strong Leaders This cluster brings together 3 questions relating to strong life influences (controlling mother.

5 Cluster 4 – Activities • • 28 significant pairings 9 pairings correlation > 0.3 – Mentors • • 20 significant pairings 6 pairings > 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 > 0.5 126 .5 Cluster 6 – High School Activities • 21 significant pairings • 12 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 7 – College Service Roles and Recreation • • 31 significant pairings 8 pairings correlation > 0.

5 128 . Cultural Exploration and Learning “Bent” • Most diverse grouping of all the clusters • 7 significant pairings • 5 pairings correlation > 0.Cluster 9 – College Employment.5 Cluster 10 – Military Experience • 10 significant pairings • 8 pairings correlation > 0.

5 129 .11 – Career Development • • 6 significant pairings 1 pairing correlation > 0.

APPENDIX G FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE LLI MODEL 130 .

02 Similarity 2.G.33 Figure G.1 .00 Variables .70. -46. Minitab was utilized to specify the final partition based on a similarity level of 0. similar to the analysis completed during the pilot study phase on the instrument. In this instance. Instead.65 51.1 Exploratory Analysis of the LLI The search for an improved explanatory model for the LLI structures began with a cluster analysis using Ward’s linkage method (Johnson and Wichern 2002). The dendrogram generated from this analysis is shown in Figure G.1. This threshold was selected for its similarity with the threshold value that indicate good reliability when utilizing Cronbach’s alpha in an exploratory factor analysis (George and Mallery 2003). the number of clusters were not specified. Comparing the generated clusters against the hypothesized pillars analyzed above found a number of differences.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. Using this threshold found a complete model with 6 clusters.

0. was related to mentors and consisted of questions. All remaining clusters have substantially lower similarities and are generated from questions from multiple pillars.22 Work experience and travel.Based on the prior analysis.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 of 23. however.a mix of questions from Pillars 1. similarity 35. 80% of questions from Pillar 2. 2. 132 . it was expected that the sixth cluster would represent a split between the parent and mentor / leader related questions included in Pillar 1. similarity 8. While the results did indicate different groups than those hypothesized.0. the remaining clusters can be defined as • • • Work as development.3 . similarity 27. solely from Pillar 1. since only a single cluster in the analysis was created with a similarity greater than 70. 4 and 5 A not understood collection of questions from Pillars 1. This expectation was only partially met as the tightest cluster. the results of the cluster analysis did not indicate a stronger model than the hypothesized model explored previously.35. By descending similarity. and 3. Further exploratory analysis was then completed using factor analysis in Minitab.8. 298). 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” (Jöreskog 1993. The first contains only parent related questions from Pillar 1 and has a similarity of 57. Parent related questions were split between two other clusters. similarity of 75.

5% of the variance is explained.Using the factor analysis tools in Minitab 15. where an acceptable factor having an Eigen value greater than 1. Since the most obvious inflection point occurs at factor 2. et al. un-rotated analysis (Johnson and Wichern 2002) and allowing Minitab 15 to extract a large number of factors. The selection of 18 factors would keep the Q/P ratio close to being under the 0. the data in the LLI was examined using a variety of techniques.3 target at 0. the scree plot in Figure G. Beginning with a baseline. factor 6 was selected as the cut-off. By including six factors in the model. The scree plot is used in an attempt to identify an inflection point that could limit the factors (Johnson and Wichern 2002).31 (Hakstian. 38. the analysis indicated that the first 18 factors could be recommended for use. 133 . a graphical method of analysis using the scree plot is recommended (Stevens 2002).2 was generated. since the number of variables in the study is greater than 30. However. Using the Kaiser criterion. 1982). the next inflection point. where less than 20% of the variance is explained.0 (Stevens 2002).

1998).2 . 26% of the total question set.Figure G. Both models also had fifteen questions that failed to load significantly on any of the six factors.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 complete table of factor loadings from the varimax rotation is displayed in Table G.4 (Hair. 134 . with only a single question that loaded significantly on more than one factor. et al.1. The results of these six factor models included 43 significant loadings. greater than 0.

04 -0.24 Ch_CG 0.21 0.12 -0.02 -0.34 -0.01 -0.11 HS_SCpt 0.43 -0.18 CE_Mgmt -0.07 -0.15 -0.01 Number of Significant Loadings in Factor 9 9 10 6 5 4 135 .04 -0.07 -0.05 0.09 M_Form 0.06 -0.63 -0.48 -0.20 -0.09 0.21 0.02 0.14 0.05 -0.16 -0.12 -0.08 0.09 -0.16 -0.50 -0.17 P_Advice 0.01 RA_CRA 0.09 D_Org 0.11 -0.07 0.05 0.10 -0.01 0.29 C_SG 0.28 0.10 -0.00 -0.27 -0.09 -0.16 -0.13 -0.06 -0.02 0.13 Wk_Lmil 0.08 -0.06 0.09 0.09 -0.05 -0.05 -0.01 P_ActCom -0.13 -0.17 -0.24 -0.15 -0.18 -0.19 0.09 -0.09 -0.36 -0.03 -0.17 0.08 -0.04 M_Adv 0.02 -0.58 -0.09 -0.14 0.03 0.09 -0.23 0.15 -0.05 -0.60 -0.10 -0.32 -0.11 0.60 0.00 RA_NatS 0.34 0.61 C_ResL 0.12 -0.08 -0.06 -0.00 -0.13 0.19 -0.03 -0.41 0.11 0.05 P_MoD -0.12 -0.09 -0.04 0.09 -0.24 Cu_TrvE -0.27 RA_Tadv 0.72 0.03 P_LstNum -0.71 -0.15 Wk_LOld 0.08 -0.41 -0.07 0.06 0.51 -0.06 -0.03 -0.03 Wk_LEar -0.16 D_360 0.72 HS_Hlp 0.09 -0.12 -0.36 0.09 -0.18 -0.56 -0.82 -0.07 0.03 -0.12 -0.22 -0.08 -0.05 0.06 M_Meet 0.45 -0.03 -0.06 0.13 -0.09 0.04 0.14 -0.25 D_Func -0.67 0.08 0.08 0.09 -0.00 -0.06 -0.06 C_Grk -0.1 .04 -0.05 EE_ND 0.14 -0.34 -0.29 -0.13 -0.32 -0.13 -0.30 -0.09 0.09 -0.09 -0.04 0.08 -0.10 C_NCSp 0.01 0.43 -0.12 -0.47 0.22 -0.08 0.10 L_RM 0.67 0.10 -0.12 -0.09 -0.19 -0.07 -0.30 -0.23 0.04 C_Pol 0.01 0.17 0.67 -0.06 -0.01 Wk_Teen 0.07 -0.45 -0.12 -0.03 -0.04 0.47 -0.18 -0.13 -0.11 -0.16 -0.12 -0.01 B_Lrn 0.05 -0.19 0.16 -0.13 -0.23 -0.26 -0.03 Cu_TrvC -0.05 0.03 0.06 -0.09 -0.09 0.23 0.04 -0.10 -0.31 0.08 -0.54 -0.06 Cu_Ocul 0.71 HS_ASG 0.80 -0.03 0.01 HS_Aspt 0.09 0.70 0.10 -0.24 -0.21 D_Rot -0.01 -0.84 -0.19 -0.02 -0.01 -0.29 L_Und 0.18 -0.13 0.03 EE_Inc -0.11 -0.12 -0.37 D_PLrn 0.13 0.39 RA_Lfun 0.58 -0.13 0.55 -0.14 -0.14 -0.04 0.55 -0.01 0.07 0.01 0.84 -0.43 -0.09 0.27 -0.39 -0.08 B_Sac 0.25 HS_NCSp 0.04 -0.51 0.69 0.00 M_LdGd 0.04 -0.00 Cu_Live 0.16 0.08 -0.57 -0.03 0.05 0.08 -0.26 0.04 -0.13 P_Cont 0.26 -0.36 0.25 0.13 -0.44 -0.01 -0.00 -0.04 -0.21 EE_SO 0.04 -0.10 -0.11 L_DRM 0.03 0.25 -0.05 -0.46 0.11 0.14 -0.03 0.03 -0.09 -0.07 -0.14 0.64 -0.12 -0.18 -0.13 0.07 RA_VacN 0.28 D_Train 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.11 -0.02 -0.07 -0.01 -0.38 0.07 0.27 -0.34 0.10 RA_ExpE 0.09 0.Table G.11 -0.02 -0.07 P_Eth -0.46 CE_Emp 0.13 -0.15 -0.10 0.12 Cu_Ocnt 0.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 -0.09 P_Share 0.14 0.13 -0.54 -0.10 0.13 -0.03 -0.08 C_VSpt 0.29 -0.03 0.05 -0.22 0.05 M_FdBk 0.31 0.83 -0.30 HS_AIG -0.00 -0.01 -0.07 -0.10 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.

2 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the 2 Factor MLQ In the second comparison. This comparison found five of the 136 .79 • Factor 3 – Participation in service organizations throughout life and exposure to other cultures. four questions.69 The The average internal consistency within the pillars. G. 10 questions. the LLI factors identified through exploratory factor analysis were compared with the factors of the MLQ. six questions. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.72 • Factor 5 – Respect for parents and early service experience.76 for the six factors versus 0.92 Factor 2 – Influence of early leaders. nine questions. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0. comparisons between the LLI and MLQ will be completed using both LLI factor sets.69 • Factor 4 – subset of Pillar 3 focused on exposure to and hunger for new experiences. nine questions. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0. early leadership experience and experience with formal development experiences.76 • Factor 6 – involvement in sports. is 0. six factors identified by this analysis can be defined as • • Factor 1 – Relationship with Mentors.69 for the hypothetical factors. five questions. Because of this increase in internal consistency and the 26% reduction in LLI questions it enables. Cronbach’s Alpha = 0. as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha = 0. as was completed in the confirmatory factor analysis steps above. a ten percent improvement.The significant questions in each factor were then examined using Minitab’s Item Analysis.

the LLI factors discovered through exploratory analysis are compared with the nine factor MLQ model.132 Bold Bold Factor 2 0. Table G. they are not as strong as the Pillar factors. a subset of Pillar 3. only 66% of the correlations with contingent 137 . with ten of the thirty comparisons not having a significant relationship and an average correlation of 0.080 Factor 6 0.six factors to be significantly (ά = 0. α = 0. and transformational leadership. 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.198 Factor 4 0.170.2 – Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Two Factor MLQ Transform Transact Factor 1 0.040 Factor 5 0.115 -0. There is also a difference in the correlation these factors have with the transactional components.178 Factor 3 0.005 Significant.157 0. Due to the few correlations that were not significantly related. Table 5.16 contains the full output of this analysis.3 Correlation Analysis Between LLI Factors and the Nine Factor MLQ In the next analysis.05) correlated with the transformational factor and two of the five significantly correlated with the transactional factor.247 0.05 Significant.167 0.01 G. The strongest relationship was found between Factor 4. except contingent reward are not significant. however. α = 0.227 0. While the relationships between these factors and the transformational components of the MLQ are again strong. Once again all eighteen of the comparisons with all transactional components.254 0. with these factors.

182 0.019 -0.005 Factor 4 0. Table G. and Factor 6.125 0.132 0.114 0.120 0.235 0.262 0.3 – Correlation Coefficients for LLI Exploratory Factors & Nine Factor MLQ IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF Factor 1 0.225 0.232 0.250 0. α = 0.092 0.157 0.038 0.206 0.166 0.304 0. α = 0. Table 5.108 -0.072 0.163 0.124 Significant. involvement in sports. Factor 5.079 0.090 -0. respect for parents.070 0.263 0.18 contains the full results of these comparisons.249 0.005 Bold Bold Factor 2 0.167 0. are not significantly correlated.098 0.104 0.046 Factor 5 0.01 138 .023 -0.051 0.215 0.227 0.141 0.046 Factor 3 0.166 0.007 -0.189 0.053 0.015 -0.010 Factor 6 0.157 0.05 Significant.reward are significant.092 -0.075 0.002 -0.099 0.130 0.208 0.108 0.214 0.216 0.

APPENDIX H STRUCTURED EQUATION MODEL OUTPUT 139 .

140 .

Phone: (800)247-6113.DATE: 2/15/2010 TIME: 12:45 L I S R E L 8. Inc.S. 7383 N.SPJ : Raw Data from file 'C:\Lisrel_Dis\Try3\CFA_Attempt2.com The following lines were read from file C:\Lisrel_Dis\Try3\sem_mlq_lli_explicit.. (847)675-0720.A.80 BY Karl G. J”reskog & Dag S”rbom This program is published exclusively by Scientific Software International.ssicentral. Website: www. Suite 100 Lincolnwood.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 .psf' -------------------------------EM Algorithm for missing Data: -------------------------------Number of different missing-value patterns= 23 Convergence of EM-algorithm in 10 iterations -2 Ln(L) = 31287. Fax: (847)675-2140 Copyright by Scientific Software International. 1981-2006 Use of this program is subject to the terms specified in the Universal Copyright Convention. U. Inc. IL 60712.78582 Percentage missing values= 0. Lincoln Avenue.

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 .

54*is.78 .= 0.079) 9. Rý = 0.= 0.34 143 .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 = 0.25 (0. Errorvar.58 .90 M_LDGD = 0. Errorvar. Rý = 0.49*cr.

61 (0.079) 9. Rý = 0.86 9. Errorvar.31 8. Errorvar.47 7.72 . Errorvar.52 (0.41 (0.76*iib.62 .096) 6.29 (0. Errorvar. Rý = 0.37 (0. Rý = 0.044) (0.54 C_SG = 0.11) (0.75 .68 (0.= 0. Rý = 0.41 HS_SCPT = 0.061) 9.67*is. Errorvar.16 L_RM = 0.45 . Errorvar. Errorvar.71*lf.49 L_UND = 0.55*mbea.36 M_ADV = 0.= 0.55 (0.39 .054) 7.084) (0.73 4.35 .= 0.= 0.049) 9.046) 8.75 .35 HS_AIG = 0.095) (0. Errorvar.= 0.= 0.50 . Rý = 0.89 CH_CG = 0. Errorvar.67*im.= 0. Errorvar.63 144 .65*mbep.97 HS_NCSP = 0.= 0.40 M_FDBK = 0. Rý = 0.47 HS_HLP = 0.= 0. Rý = 0.67 M_MEET = 0.(0.39 HS_ASG = 0.55 .076) 8.080) (0.20 8. Errorvar.059) 9.40 (0.62.= 0.053) 6.= 0.47 (0. Rý = 0.70*im.21 .72*iib.65*cr.083) 8.61*lf.40 (0. Errorvar.65*mbep.= 0.27 . Rý = 0.60*iia.025) 15. Rý = 0. Rý = 0. Rý = 0.

068) 6.23 WK_LOLD = 0.12) (0.56*mbep.27 C_POL = 0.35 (0. Errorvar.030) 9.29 .= 0.64 145 .51 (0.68 (0.11 CU_LIVE = 0.097) 4.= 0.15 (0.59 .24 9.097) (0.01 8.54 . Errorvar.39 (0.= 0.62 9.45 D_ROT = 0.= 0.= 0.67 8.12 6.071) 6.55 9.63 7.57 (0. Errorvar.= 1.43*mbep.54 9. Errorvar.062) 7. Rý = 0.50 (0.073) (0. Errorvar.46 (0. Rý = 0.57 .058) 9. Rý = 0.= 0.= 0.06 .75 CU_OCUL = 0.48 CE_MGMT = 0.07 CU_TRVE = 0.48 C_RESL = 0.62*iia. Errorvar. Rý = 0.16 (0.041) 8.035) 10. Errorvar.54 (0.098) (0.39 9.66 .73*ic.= 0.080) 9.11) 4.068) (0.23 .63*iib.32 . Errorvar.53*iia.49 (0. Errorvar.034) 9. Rý = 0. Rý = 0.06 9. Rý = 0.= 0.75 CU_TRVC = 0.66 WK_LEAR = 0.045) 8.33 (0.060) (0.074) (0.70*iia.65 . Rý = 0.084) (0.073) (0.42 .61*ic. Rý = 0.68 C_NCSP = 0.76*mbea.= 0.094) (0. Errorvar.64*cr. Errorvar. Rý = 0. Rý = 0.43*mbea.92 .097) 6.(0.

068) (0.37 8.= 0. Rý = 0.41 .62 (0.63 (0.036) 8. Errorvar.074) (0. Errorvar.69*im.26 .76 .= 0.30 . Errorvar. Rý = 0.026) 11.050) 9.27 9.31 .086) (0.66*cr.67*lf.082) 4.038) 9.47 .075) (0.65 (0.76*im. Rý = 0.063) 6.21 . Errorvar.65*is.05 146 .74 7.18 .33 .= 0.43*lf.55 D_FUNC = 0.71*iib.28 .13 MLQ_3 = 0.068) (0.= 0.17 8. Rý = 0.27 8. Errorvar.57 MLQ_7 = 0.022) 16.= 0.34 MLQ_5 = 0. Rý = 0.65 MLQ_4 = 0.03 3.57 MLQ_2 = 0.93 D_ORG = 0.084) 6.73 (0.097) (0.60 (0. Errorvar.65 (0.32 8. Rý = 0.75 D_360 = 0.D_TRAIN = 0.33 .= 0.42 MLQ_1 = 0. Errorvar.52 (0.= 0.033) 8.033) 7. Errorvar. Errorvar.88 6.13) (0.= 0.19 (0.043) (0. Rý = 0. Errorvar.059) (0.= 0. Rý = 0.63*ic.22 8.63 MLQ_6 = 0.94 9.= 0.56*is. Rý = 0.66*ic.035) 8.68 (0.52 (0.090) (0.= 0. Rý = 0. Errorvar. Rý = 0.46 (0.79*mbea.

Errorvar.MLQ_8 = 1.30 MLQ_12 = 0.15 (0.051) 18.95 MLQ_14 = 0.04*Pillar1. Rý = 0.081) (0. Errorvar.081) (0.42 .049) 8.= 2.83*Pillar2.30 MLQ_17 = .25 8.57 147 .49*Pillar1.040) 7.64 (0. Errorvar.071 (0.078 (0.97*Pillar1.= 0.= 1.75 MLQ_13 = 0.91 MLQ_11 = 0.= 0. Rý = 0.43 (0.29 .97 MLQ_15 = 0.= 2.41*Pillar2.05 MLQ_9 = 1. Rý = 0.60 .= 0. Rý = 0.= 0.= 1. Errorvar.69 (0.47 (0.0.14 (0.95 MLQ_19 = .12) 5.20) 9. Errorvar.88*Pillar2.42*Pillar2. Rý = 0.080) (0. Errorvar.55 9.57 9.79 (0.0.21 .04 .03*Pillar1.48 MLQ_18 = .92 .= 0. Rý = 0. Errorvar.94*Pillar1. Rý = 0.86 .93 8.40 .15 . Errorvar.11) -10.= 0.45*Pillar1. Rý = 0.057) 8. Rý = 0. Rý = 0.50 .86*Pillar2. Errorvar.084) (0.96 MLQ_16 = .22) -3.61 (0.067) 8.82.10) -10. Errorvar.73 (0.13) 5. Rý = 0.25 MLQ_10 = 0.0. Errorvar.80 9.96*Pillar1.0.052) (0.31 . Errorvar.= 0.= 0.27 8.11) (0. Rý = 0.

Rý = 0. Rý = 0.75 MLQ_21 = .48*Pillar4.37 .0.83 MLQ_27 = 0.33*Pillar3.11) 9.0.10) (0.54*Pillar3.= 0.082) (0. Rý = 0.= 1.15) 5.11) (0.14 (0.14 (0.68 9.= 1.= 0. Errorvar.69 148 .070) (0.40 9.082 (0. Rý = 0.74 MLQ_30 = 1.76 . Errorvar. Errorvar.52 (0.11) 12.072) 10.13) 9.46*Pillar2.17 (0.= 1. Errorvar.15) 9.55 .69 MLQ_29 = 0. Rý = 0. Errorvar.18) 3. Errorvar.17 9.0.51*Pillar2.46 .11 (0.= 1.23 3.= 0.77 MLQ_25 = 0.MLQ_20 = .092) 4.60 . Rý = 0.16) 4. Rý = 0.= 1. Errorvar.0. Errorvar.90 .25 . Errorvar. Errorvar. Rý = 0.0.79 MLQ_26 = 0.13) 9.14 (0.72*Pillar4.27 .30 (0. Rý = 0.= 0.05 .17 (0.67*Pillar2.24 9.= 1.12 (0.32 6.46 .099) (0.00*Pillar4. Errorvar.16) -5.49 9. Rý = 0.= 1.40*Pillar3.46*Pillar3.38 MLQ_22 = .10) (0.077) (0.48 .38 MLQ_24 = .51*Pillar2.73 (0.75.82 MLQ_23 = .66*Pillar2. Rý = 0. Rý = 0.49 MLQ_31 = 0.48 MLQ_28 = 0. Errorvar.= 1.

89 -2.47*Pillar1 + 6.31) (1. Rý = 0.98 7. Rý = 0.57 -2.04) (1.73*Pillar5.52*Pillar2 + 6.89*Pillar5.= 0.79*Pillar3 .14 -2.063) -4.065 .30 (0.050 .08) (0.98*Pillar3 .35) (1.56*Pillar4 + 4.39 .46 (0.10) (0. Rý = 0.37*Pillar1 + 5.17) 8. Rý = 0.51 MLQ_33 = 0.11*Pillar5.42*Pillar4.040) -4. Errorvar. Rý = 0.76 5.1.45*Pillar4 + 4.2.065 . Errorvar.28) (0.= 1.95 149 .39 1.21) (1.47 5.00) (0.13) 9.11 -2.38*Pillar1 + 5.21 7.1. Errorvar.1.79*Pillar2 + 6.59*Pillar3 .50 5.74 3.21 ic = .2.88*Pillar2 + 6. Rý = 0.52*Pillar5.= 1.28 . Errorvar.097) (0.95*Pillar5.36*Pillar3 .16 (0.70) (0.11) (0.93) (0. Errorvar.66 6.87) (0. Rý = 0. Errorvar.94 (0.65 iib = .1.95) (0.24 5.74*Pillar5.1.= 0.089.2.18*Pillar1 + 5.94 .75*Pillar2 + 6. Rý = 0. Errorvar.02) (0.88*Pillar3 .80 im = .80) -4.36*Pillar1 + 5.036) -3.03 MLQ_34 = 0.59 9.= 0.31 .16 7.11) (0.092) (0. Errorvar.80 (0.88 is = .47*Pillar4 + 4.40 1.12 (0.13) 4.20 .71*Pillar4 + 5.91 (0.20 7.41 (0.15) 5.57 MLQ_35 = 0.46*Pillar4 + 4.65 8.68 7. Rý = 0.27 .48 5.76 Structural Equations iia = .= 0.99*Pillar5.2. Rý = 0.48 5.2. Errorvar.95) (1.70) (0.72*Pillar5.= 1.80) (0.18 8.30) (1.= 0.10) (0.= 1.99) (0.MLQ_32 = 0.39 MLQ_36 = 0.14 9.93 (0.28*Pillar2 + 7.= 0. Errorvar.71*Pillar5.15) 7.

37) (1.17) (0.42 (0.= 0.15*Pillar5.08 -4.91 4.56) (0.49 -5.87) 5.03 (0.56) (0.87*Pillar3 + 1.10) 5.26 3.28*Pillar2 .(0.= 0. Rý = 0.44 0.00 Pillar4 0.58 .21*Pillar5.76) (0.-------.-------.0.07) 3.44) (0.53 0.00 150 .49 (0.-------Pillar1 1.38*Pillar2 + 7. Errorvar.48 cr = .56 lf = 1.1.90 -6. Rý = 0.81 NOTE: Rý for Structural Equations are Hayduk's (2006) Blocked-Error Rý Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables Pillar1 Pillar2 Pillar3 Pillar4 Pillar5 -------.13*Pillar1 .040) -3.78 (0.05 4.02) -2.78 6.95) (0.34*Pillar3 + 0.036 .27 -0.66 1.33) (1.2.00 Pillar2 -0.11*Pillar1 .06) (0.27) (0.91 W_A_R_N_I_N_G : Error variance is negative.2.15 -0.57 4.28) (0.4.15 -2.07) (0.08) (0.93 -0.034) 1.87 -6. Errorvar.51 (0.36 (0.63 -0.16 (0.64*Pillar1 .03 1.34 -11.3.18) -4.38 4.76 (0.-------.00 Pillar3 0.58 -0.33*Pillar2 .0.72*Pillar2 .15) 4.83 .58 2.12*Pillar5.53 3. Errorvar.70 (1.89) (0.44 2.73*Pillar4 .29 -4.95 .039*Pillar4 .019 (0. Rý = 0.76) (0.08) (0.23 (0.0.46) (0.27) 0.63) (0.11) 2.32) -4.44*Pillar5.07*Pillar3 + 1.2. mbea = 0.22) (1.14*Pillar4 .12) (1.52*Pillar3 . Rý = 1. Errorvar.41 1.47) (0.22 -0.44*Pillar1 + 6.= -0.4.= 0.3.08) -3.91) 7.67*Pillar4 + 5.29 (1.55 mbep = 0.

865 Degrees of Freedom = 1960 Full Information ML Chi-Square = 3290.08) (0.44 -0.058 90 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = (0.62 5.08 (P = 0.00 Global Goodness of Fit Statistics.08) (0. 0.46 (0.786 -2ln(L) for the fitted model = 34577.13) (0.33 -0.Pillar5 0.0) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08) 4.00020 151 . Missing Data Case -2ln(L) for the saturated model = 31287.75 1.054 .27 -5.08 0.061) P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.55 -0.05) = 0.

APPENDIX I STUDY APPROVAL FROM IRB 152 .

153 .

Cianciolo. A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. Human Relations. Bruce J. Cianciolo. and Robert J. and Negara Sivasubramaniam. Camobreco. and Robert J. 26 pages. Shelley D. ARI Research Note. 1999. 14: 261–295. 1994. LISREL. construct. John Camobreco.. present and future. in The Nature of Leadership. Amazon. Anna T. CA: Sage: 3 – 15. Atwater. in Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership.edu/~statmath/stat/all/cfa/ index. 52. Antonakis. and Robert J. CA: Sage: 146 – 173. John. and Hun Myoung Park. Dionne. edited by Antonakis. Leanne E.” http://www. 154 . Alan Lau. and SAS/STAT CALIS.REFERENCES Albright. Leanne E. Avolio.com/Advanced-SearchBooks/b/ref=sv_b_0?ie=UTF8&node=241582011. and David C. (Jun). UNL Gallup Leadership Institute Summit. Antonakis. 2004b. House. 2004. Sternberg.. 2003. 2009. Bruce Avolio. Organizational transformation: Strategies for change and improvement. Mplus. Leanne.. edited by Antonakis. Atwater. Thousand Oaks. Anna T. Leadership: Past. The Leadership Quarterly. Bruce J. and criterion-related validity of leader behavior measures. 9 (September): 1559-1581. The natural: Some antecedents to transformational leadership. 17. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing. 1994. Sternberg. Preface: Why the nature of leadership? in The Nature of Leadership. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. and Sternberg. Antonakis.viii. Virginia Military Research Laboratory. and Sternberg. Bruce Avolio. Accessed on 3 Jan 2010. Thousand Oaks. Antonakis. 12 (Dec): 1543 – 1562.indiana. Lau. Atwater. Cianciolo. Cianciolo. John.html. 2010. John. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos. edited by Bass and Avolio. Bernard Bass. Working Paper. 1994. and Neil Whitmore. 2004a. John A. International Journal of Public Administration. Atwater. John F. Indiana University. http://www. and Alan W. Jeremy J. CA: Sage: vii .. Accessed on 16 Jan.amazon. Thousand Oaks. Avolio. The content. On instrumental leadership: Beyond transactions and transformations. Advanced search performed for books with the word leadership in their title published during 2008 or 2009.

1981. Mento Park. Motivation sources inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. charismatic and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Psychological Reports. Bruce J. 18: 19 – 31. Bass. Barbuto. Evaluating the Impact of Transformational Leadership Training at Individual. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Marwah.. Bass.. 1996. Bernard M. 155 . 2005. New York: The Free Press. Bruce J. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Transformational Leadership: Industrial. 4: 26 – 40. VA: U. K. John E. Avolio. Froemel. Experience and Background Inventory (Form S). Bass.Avolio. Alexandria. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. and Ernest C. 1985. Group. and Bernard M. Mahwah.. 1990. Baehr. Bass. Bruce J. 1994. 84: 1087 – 1098. and Bernard M. John E. Scholl. Motivation and transactional. Organizational. Mahwah. Avolio. and Dennis Young. Bass. 1999. Developing Potential Across a Full Range of Leadership: Cases On Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Bass. New York: Free Press. Binghamton. Avolio. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. 1999. 11. 72: 441 – 462. Bernard M. 1998.. Bass. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NY: State University of New York. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Center for Leadership Studies. Organizational Dynamics. 2005.S. and Educational Impact. and Community Levels. Avolio. Bass. Bruce J. 2002. Stodgdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research.. 1996. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bernard M. Bruce J. and Bernard M. Melany. Bernard M. Barbuto. Final report to W. Third Edition Manual and Sampler Set. Bernard M. and Richard W. Bernard M. Bass. Leadership Development in Balance: Made / Born. CA: Mind Garden. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kellogg Foundation. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. London: Reid London House. Military. 2004.

Bell-Roundtree. Journal of European Industrial Training. Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority. Blatt. Beer. Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Mouton. Values and Defining Moments Shape Leaders. CA: Mind Garden. Joyce E. Cianciolo. Leadership Quarterly. Sociological Methods and Research. Dissertation in Education Leadership. Carolyn V. 2002. 2002. William H. 15. 5: 21 – 27. and Sternberg. in Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing Organizations for a Competitive World. Robert S. Warren G. Michael.. 1987. Boston: Boston University.. Thousand Oaks. Geeks and Geezers: How Era. A Study to Determine the Relationship Between the Leadership Styles of Career Technical Directors and School Climate as Perceived by Teachers. Social Psychology. 1964. 1995. Avolio. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Warren G. 2 (Apr): 195 – 210. Bernard. Houston: Gulf Publishing Group. 2004. 1988. Judge. Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Bono. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. 15. edited by Kilmann and Colvin. Bennis.. The crucibles of authentic leadership. and Robert J. 2004. The Managerial Grid. in The Nature of Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 16. 1959. Does Manager Behavior Influence Knowledge Worker Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Attitudes? A Validation of Kouzes and Posner’s Transformational Leadership Theory. Practical issues in structural modeling. Academy of Management Journal. CA: Sage: 331 – 343. Rubin. 2003. Mento Park. Blake. 2004. and Bruce J. West Virginia University. Peter M. New York: Appleton – Century. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Permissions Set. edited by Antonakis. Bass. 1: 78-117.. and Timothy T. Dennis A. Robert R. Baldwin.. Bird. The critical path for change: Keys to success and failure in six companies. 1940.Bass. University of Alabama in Huntsville. and Bruce Avolio. Bennis. 1992. and Chih-Ping Chou. Bennis. Warren G. Bentler. Thomas. 46: 554-571. Bommer.. 156 . Charles. and Timothy A. Bernard M. and Jane S.

Carless. 7 (Sep): 17 – 55. and Lynne Millward.jsp?item=07002822 Accessed 29 Nov. Inc.. Browne. 5: 330 – 351. William. 27. Larry. Buchanan. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Sally A. Alan E. 2009. Thousand Oaks. 157 . Brown. Paul. Cameron. Donna. 2001. New York: Simon and Schuster. 500. Does emotional intelligence – as measured by the EQI – influence transformational leadership and/or desirable outcomes? Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. 9 (Jan 1): 14.edu/buros/jsp/reviews. 1994. Buckingham. 2004. 1999. 1989. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1992. and Michael D. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Sally A. CA: Sage. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Lincoln. Leadership.Bossidy. The Journal of Management Development. NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. 2002. Leigh. Thousand Oaks. Bryman. James M. Allan. Test Reviews. Scott E. 71: 353 – 358. Oxford. UK: The Test Carless. Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. and Curt Coffman. F. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2006. CA: Sage. Reilly. The 2009 Inc. Burnett. 1998. Agency. New York: Harper and Row. Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behavior as measured by the MLQ. 1999. 2001. 2009. Bryant. Assessing the discriminant validity of the leadership practices inventory (LPI). University of Nebraska-Lincoln.. and the Literature on Specific Tests.unl. 24. Tests in Print V: An Index to Tests. Work Profile Questionnaire. First. Reprint. 13. Burns. and Kim James. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. and Robert Cudeck. New York: Crown Business. Marcus. Test Description and Review of the Work Profile Questionnaire. 74: 233 – 239. 1978. unknown. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. buros. and Ram Charan. Organizational Research Methods. Michael W. 4 (Oct): 445 – 455. Using the outdoors to facilitate personal change in managers. Brewerton.

Assessment of leadership outcomes. 2004. 1888. The study of sampling errors in factor analysis by means of artificial experiments. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Stacey. Hoboken. Collins. Fielding Graduate Institute. 52. Daniels. 2001. Carlyle. Cliff. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 384 – 409. New Rochelle. 3. Hamburger. edited by Zaccaro and Klimoski. New York: Harper Business. 1967. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. Hannah Rothstein. Koopman. NY: Bruce. Deanne N. Kevin D. Frank L. Collins. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Schmidt. and Paul L. Hero Worship and the Heroic in History. Lee J. New York: Fredrick A. 2001. Cassel. and Others Don’t. Scullen. Thomas. in The Nature of Organizational Leadership. Porras. Russell N. Psychological Bulletin. 70 (Mar): 19 – 34. 1990. 64. Denison. 1959. 3 (Jun): 391 – 418. (Oct 1): 731 – 755. 158 . Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time and Money (And What To Do Instead). Jim. David V. Den Hartog. 1999. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. Norman. On Heroes.Carlson. Cronbach. Collins. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Stokes and Brother. 2009. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Personnel Psychology. Aubrey. 16. Psychometrika. 3 (Sep): 297 – 334. GA: Performance Management Publications. Jaap J. Daniel R. Dissertation in Human and Organizational Systems. 2003. 2009. Lee J. and Frank Erwin. Day. 1994. NJ: Wiley. 1951. Test of Social Insight. Atlanta. New York: Collins Business. Day. Digitized in Google Books. Leadership Practices of Scientists at The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Van Muijen. How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In. 68: 430 – 445. and Jerry I. New York: Harper Business. Steven E. Cronbach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1997... Generalizable biographical data validity can be achieved without multi-organizational development and keying. Jim. and Charles D. Jim.

Accessed 1 Dec. Amy B. New York: Harper Business: 322 – 328. 31 (Apr): 81 – 90.Drucker. 11. George. 2007. Impara. in The Essential Peter Drucker. Individual Difference and Leader Emergence In a Transformational Context: An Examination of Person and Process. Follett. 2003.gazelles. Mary Parker. Peter F. The essentials of leadership in Freedom and Coordination. 3rd ed. Bill.com/customers. Gershenoff. 2003. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 4th ed. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Review of the experience and background inventory (form s). NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.. 1993. Dissertation in Psychology. www. News and World Report. F. Quality of Life Questionnaire. The coming of an entrepreneurial society. Cluster Analysis. Drucker. 2001b. Who are Gazelles Customers. Thomas L. 2005. David. in The Essential Peter Drucker. Why leaders lose their way. Peter F. Evans. 16 (Oct): 91. George. and Paul Mallery. Business objectives and survival needs: Notes on a discipline of business enterprise. 2001a.html. Does leadership matter? U. 139. 159 . D. Strategy and Leadership. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Gazelles. in The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook. Peter F. Ferrara. New York : Farrar. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Leadership as work.0 Update. Friedman. Cope.S. New York: Halsted Press. and Wendy E. 2003.R. 2003. Lincoln. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. edited by Plake. 2005. Bill. 4: 4 – 11. Straus and Giroux. Everitt. Felicia. 1958. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Gergen. 2009. London: Pittman. and Andrew McLean. Journal of Business. 35. Brian. George. New York: Harper Business: 268 – 271. Inc. Drucker. 1949. Darren. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. 2003. and Spies.

Englewood Cliffs. 2003. 1982. London: Constable and Company. Rolph E. and Raymond B. Gwen A. Goertzel. Continuing. Herzberg. NJ: Wiley. A broad-bandwidth. Anderson.Gliem. Joseph A. Hair. and Rosemary R. Goertzel. NJ: Prentice Hall. Blanchard. Leadership: A critical analysis. Columbus. Hersey. Gliem. 1969. Multivariate Data Analysis. 160 . Michel. Graham. 17: 353 – 365. Goldberg. Paul. 1983.. Hawley. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review. Todd Rogers.. Lewis R. Joseph F. Tilberg. Upper Saddle River. 1982. 2004. and Community Education. New York. 1988.google. W. What Got You Here Won’t Get You There. The behavior of numbers factors rules with simulated data. 2010. 8-10 Oct. Ronald L. 1968.62. Hakstian. De Fruyt and Ostendorf. Goldsmith. The Adjective Checklist Manual. and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Gough. public-domain. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Ralph. 5th ed. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Marshall. in Conference Proceedings of The 42nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Measures of Psychosocial Development: Professional Manual. Google. Calculating. 2007. and Mildred G. 1998.com/scholar?hl=en&q=leader&btnG=Search&as_allsubj=all&lr=l ang_en&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. Jill W. OH. scholar.. Victor. interpreting. NJ: Prentice Hall. Palo Alto. Heilbrun. MPD. New York: Hyperion. Accessed 16 Jan. Search for the term leader using Google Scholar. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment. (Jan / Feb): 53 . Harrison G. Hoboken. in the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult. Tatham. Deary. Cradles of Eminence. personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models in Personality Psychology Europe 7. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. 1999. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Aug. Black. Hersen. Netherlands: Tilberg University Press: 7 – 28. Odessa. 1962. Cattell. Frederick. and Ken H. Volume 4: Industrial and Organizational Assessment. edited by Mervielde. and Alfred B. and William C. A.

1993. Charles C. Miller and Freund’s Probability and Statistics for Engineers. Jester. Hogan.. Johnson. Psychological Bulletin. Jolson. Jenkins. What we know about leadership. 5th ed. Transactional and Transformational Leadership: An Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership Orientation and Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness.. Johnson. Jacobs. Thousand Oaks. and Terence R. New York: Macmillan. The George Washington University. Richard A. 1994. 1998. Dubinsky.Herzberg. Robert J. The Higgins. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. and Douglas W. 2005. edited by Antonakis. 1988. Lynne. Marvin A. James G. Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom. Alan J. Yammarino.. New York: Guilford. 44: 54 – 79. Francis J. New York: John Wiley. Newbury Park. The Management Challenge. Jöreskog. Cianciolo. Comer.. CA: Sage: 294 – 313. Wichern. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1993. Transforming the sales force with leadership. Robert. 1994. and Lucette B. William O. 1959. 2003. Motivation to Work. Mitchell. Hoboken. and Robert B. Snyderman. Review of General Psychology. Richard A. 2002. Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Charles S. 2 (Jun): 169 – 180. 5th ed. Testing structured equation models. Managerial Lives in Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Times. Dissertation in Education. Bernard Mausner. Kaise. 3 (Spring): 95 – 106. edited by Bollen and Long. and Dean W. Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn): 81 – 97. NJ: Wiley. 2004. Frederick. Ann. Bray. 2009. 9. in Testing Structural Equation Models. Path-goal theory of leadership. 34. New York: Portfolio. CA: Sage: 19 – 47. Howard. Higgins. James M. Sloan Management Review. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Karl G. What is leadership? in The Nature of Leadership. 1947. and Barbara B.. Hunt. 1974. 2nd ed. 161 . House. and Sternberg.

in Readings in Social Psychology. Reinhart. Productivity. James M. Cianciolo and Sternberg.. 1993. John. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center. The George Washington University. 21. London: Penguin. Paul 2006. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kirkbride. Keegan. Case Western Reserve University. Kouzes. Dissertation in Management. 162 .. 1952. Kroeck. 1: 23 – 34. The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. in Measuring Model Fit. The advisability of outdoor leadership training: Caveat emptor. Newcombe. Psychometric Properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory (Updated). and Robert L. Kudo. Daniel. and Barry Z. Review of Business. Industrial and Commercial Training. An Examination of Action Learning as a Method for Developing Transformational Leadership Behaviors and Characteristics.. Tiffany. Accessed 6 Jan 2010. Dissertation in Education. 2009.htm. Kouzes. and Barry Z. Transformational Leadership Development in Adolescent Youth: Authoritative Parenting. Brown. Lowe. The assessment of leadership. New York: Free Press. Michael Maccoby. Supervision and Morale Among Railroad Workers. in The Nature of Leadership. Gerald Gurin. Kim. Daniel. University of Michigan. Kotter. New York: Holt. Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership model in action. CA: Pfeiffer. and L. Thousand Oaks. K. http://davidakenny. Sung Hae.G. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management. 1995. and Kevin W. 2002. edited by Swanson. Institute for Social Research. 2nd ed. Smith. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 1990. 1999. James P. David A. and the Mediating Effect of Psychological Autonomy and Mastery Orientation. Galen. 2003. Franklin T. and William Olson. and Hartley. Posner. CA: Sage: 71 – 97. Kenny. Katzenbach. 2000. Floor. 38. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. and Douglas K. edited by Antonakis. Kahn. and Winston. Keller. 2005. Kevin B. Root mean square error of approximation. San Diego.Katz.net/cm/fit. 2004. James M. 1/2 (Apr): 4-6. 1951. Katz. Posner. Some recent findings in human relations research. Churchill. Jon R.

in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts.300. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. Centre for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from NatureDeficit Disorder. Feedback to Managers: A Review and Comparison of Multi-Rater Instruments for Management Development. Pless. Maak. Jean B. Psychological Review. Chapel Hill. Karl. Sociometry. and Nicola M. Model specification: Procedures. Lawrence L. 1998. M. New Patterns of Management. Fleenor. 12: 648–657. 1998. 2009. New York: McGraw-Hill.Kuhnert. Advancing humanism on a global scale. and Philip Lewis... Richard. in The Nature of Leadership. Thomas. Russ S. An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. McCauley. A theory of human motivation. Leslie. and Sternberg. Probability and Statistics for Modern Engineering. Louv. Cynthia D. Rensis. CA: Sage: 16 – 36. (Nov). McGregor. Rensis. Moxley. 1987. New York: McGraw-Hill. Academy of Management Review. 1950. edited by Antonakis. 2nd ed. 2005. Cynthia D. 2004. Likert. 1: 292 . Cianciolo. 1957. Successful and unsuccessful leadership. Lapin. Business leaders as citizens of the world. Maslow. Douglas. 50: 370 – 396.). The human side of enterprise. 1938. 1995. Journal of Business Ethics. Boston: PWS – Kent. Likert. 163 . Thousand Oaks. 1967. Greensboro. Thousand Oaks. 88: 537 – 550. MacCallum. Issues and Applications. strategies and related issues. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Kurt. and John W. Abraham H. edited by Hoyle. and Ronald Lippitt. NC: Center for Creative Leadership. NC: Algonquin Books. and Ellen Van Velsor (eds. Lewin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCauley. CA: Sage: 199 – 221. Management Review. Robert C. 1998. 1961. 3rd ed.

2008. 2: 151 – 195. and Peter Elkind. in the Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture. and Mohammed Bushanain Al Amri. MLQ for Researchers. Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The diagnostic analysis of nonverbal accuracy scale. NV: 15 – 18 Oct. Mintzberg. 2002. Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Management Science. 1/2: 132 – 144. Henry. 18. Shane Douglas. 88: 525 – 536. Stephen. 24. 2010. Bethany. and Marshall P. Duke. Interview by Martha Mangelsdorf.mindgarden.merriam-webster. Dissertation in Education. White House Press Release. Obama. MIT Sloan Management Review. and Stephanie Miller. Andre D. Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership. 1971. Murphy. Barack. Timothy Clifton. Jennifer O’Connor. University of San Diego. Muldoon.. Leadership: Interpreting life patterns and their managerial significance.com/products/mlqr. 2007. 1 (Fall): 12. New York: Portfolio. 18(2): 97-110. 6. Palmer. www. Henry. Background data constructs as predictors of leadership behavior. McLean. President Obama and Secretary Geithner announce plans to unlock credit for small businesses. The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Debunking management myths: A brief interview with Henry Mintzberg. 2009. 51. 16 Mar. 2003. 1993. The Journal of Management Development. 2009. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. Mumford. Connelly. Accessed 2007 and 2009. Mary S. Human Performance. 1994.htm Accessed 27 Feb. Daniel E. Communications and Conflict. Mintzberg. Nowicki. www. Business leadership: Three levels of ethical analysis. 24. 2009. James R. Ozaralli. and Stephen Zaccaro. 1 (Mar): 9 – 35. Perception and Reality: An Empirical Assessment of Navy Leadership Styles and Business Process Reengineering Outcomes. 164 . Merriam Webster Online. 2005. Nurdan. Michael D. Leadership and Organization Development Journal.. Mind Garden.McLaurin. 2003.com/dictionary/leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. 5/6: 335 – 344. Reno.

and Omri Castelnovo. satisfaction. (Apr 1): 46-52. Rubin. Pinchot. and James R. Robinson. 18: 121 – 133. 2: 267 – 289 Reichers. Thousand Oaks. The Relationship Between Organizational Culture. Breaking New Ground. Everett. Roseville. and Robert H. New York: Harper and Row. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. Rice. 36. CA: Sage: 97 – 114. Dissertation in Organizational Psychology. The Leadership Quarterly. divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Phills. 1947. Moorman. 1: 107–142. 2005. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Jens. Paddling Upstream in Leadership Research: Exploring Antecedents of Transformational Leadership Behavior. Academy of Management Executive. James W. 2007. Waterman. and Kathrin Heinitz. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader. 2009. Management Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment and their Impact on Organizational Outcomes in a High-Technology Organization. New York: Harcourt. 2nd ed. Robert S. Brace. The Leadership Quarterly. Rowold. Jack Welch and Leadership: Executive Lessons from the Master CEO. Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. Robinson. 11: 48–59. University of Alabama in Huntsville. edited by Gill.. 1998. Robinson. Podsakoff. John A. 2000. Rost.. CA: Prima. 11. 1997. Saint Louis University. Thomas J. Transformational leadership and attachment. Joseph C. MacKenzie. Austin.Or does it. Philip M. and James T. 2001. Ofra Mayseless.Peters. 1990. and organizational citizenship behaviors. in Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era. Jr. and Hickman. Wanous. Robert H.. Belmont. Scott B. The Leadership Quarterly. Gifford.. and Richard Fetter. Roper. Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing the convergent. 1995. 1982. John P. 165 . Popper Michael. 2003. CA: Duxbury Press. Leadership and management. Leadership matters -. Leader to Leader. James A. Arnon E.

2009. 166 . Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Transformational leadership.180. 1957..pdf Steiger. John J. Ohio State University. Journal of Psychology. British Columbia. 2008. OH: Bureau of Business Research. Senge. 25. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. CA: Sage: vii . Columbus.. and Phillip A. New York: Doubleday. Sashkin. Scientific Software. learning goal orientation. edited by Fowler and Mason. 2 (Apr): 173 . Veronica M. edited by Antonakis.ssicentral. 1987. Leadership Quarterly. James H. and expectations for career success in mentor–protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. 1990. Alisha D. 2004. New York: Pitman Publishing Ltd. Mahwah. Canada. Thousand Oaks. New York: McGraw Hill. 1990. 25: 35 – 71. Sosik. Cianciolo. William J. in The Great Writings of Management and Organizational Behavior. Oliver. Farrington. Vancouver. Robert. Jack Welch and the GE Way: Management Insights and Leadership Secrets of the Legendary CEO. 2006. 1948. Structure Equation Modeling. and Alvin E. The Philosophy of Management. Stogdill. Multivariate Behavioral Research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Stogdill. An investigation into the antecedent experiences of transformational leaders: research approach and initial findings.viii. Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Stevens. Robert A. and Sternberg. in the Proceedings of the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. Youngblood. 17 – 21 May: 1160 – 1165.com/lisrel/complexdocs/chapter5_web. Godshalk. Sheldon. Schell.spencerstuart. http://content. Accessed 15 Dec. 2004.pdf. 4th ed. Ralph M.). in The Nature of Leadership. Leader Behavior: Its descriptions and Measurement. 1923. and Francis J. James P. Leading CEOs: A Statistical Snapshot of S&P 500 Leaders.. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ralph M.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_Study_JS. 1998. 2002. Slater. Retrospective comment on the principles of scientific management. Available at www. Marshall.Russell. Yammarino. 15: 241 – 261. Spencer Stuart. Coons (eds.

1869. 33. Dawn R. University of Alabama in Huntsville. 3 (May – Jun): 162 – 180. Moscow: Russkii Vestnik (series). Dissertation in Industrial and Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. The Leadership Quarterly. Scandura. Bold Leadership for Organizational Acceleration. 11. Thomas. Digitized by Google Books. Utley. Empirical Validation of Classical Behavioral Concepts with Respect to Quality Enhancement Implementation in Engineering Organizations. Bruce. 2009. Small businesses most likely to lead economic recovery. and Warren H. How to choose a leadership pattern. 2007. Terri A. J. and Timothy R. 1988. The Transformational Leader. Paul G. War and Peace. 4: 15 – 25.. 4 (Winter): 357 – 372. 2001. Harvard Business Review. 3. Towler. Jim. Raleigh. 1992. New York: Wiley. Tracey. Tejeda. United States Small Business Administration. New York: Three Rivers Press. 167 . Strock. James M. ed. 1886. 2003. Page numbers from English translation. Leo. Tompkins. rev. 1990. Tannenbaum. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 23. Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group and Organization Management. 3 (Sep): 220 – 236. Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance. Robert. An examination of leadership development in the great outdoors. Taylor. Devanna. The Small Business Advocate. Bulletin of the Taylor Society. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1886. Hinkin. NC: Tompkins Press. Schmidt. and Rajnandini Pillai. 12: 31 – 52. 1995. 1973. London: Vizetelly and Co. Alan B. Manuel J. Charismatic leadership development: Role of parental attachment style and parental control. Noel. 3 (Sep): 388-400 Tichy. 1998. 51. 28. (December): 13 – 23. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.Stoltz. Tolstoy. Theodore Roosevelt on Leadership: Executive Lessons from the Bully Pulpit. Frederick W. 6 (Jul). The principles of scientific management. Annette. and Mary A. 1916. 2005.

Bani Orwa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Accessed 2007. Wong. Fed O. and Auke Tellegen. 2: 285 . 2005. House. New York: Prentice-Hall. 6.mil/ssi.S. 1988. Army War College (July). www. Zagorsek. financial firms. New York: Wiley. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Developing Adaptive Leaders: The Crucible Experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Journal of Management Development. 2009.306. Leonard. Vlado Dimovski. Tony and Geoffrey Prideaux. 1: 134 – 143. and Phanish Puranam. 2006. Transformational leadership. Waldman. 1999.van Rensburg. Hugo. 14. Lawler. Walumba. Journal for East European Management Studies. Gabriel G. 54. 6: 561 – 571.army. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. 1992. 2001. Lee A. 10. Gary A. 6: 1063 – 1070. and Miha Skerlavaj. Clark. James. Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire. Leadership in Organizations. organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U. and John J. David. Wallace. 44. Transactional and transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Leadership Quarterly.S. 2: 144-165. 2004. 168 . Robert J. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Gary A. Report published by the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.. Peng Wang. David A. Yukl.carlisle. Human Resources Development Quarterly. Yukl. Turning professionals into managers using multisource feedback. 2 (Summer): 235 – 252. Ramirez. 25. and Jim Erickson. Academy of Management Journal. 1981. Watson.