Davis;2011;91;Leadership Style

THE PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP STYLE OF SENIOR ENLISTED PERSONNEL

IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

Valerie E. Davis

Prescott Valley, Arizona March 2011

UMI Number: 3455108

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.

UMT Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3455108 Copyright 2011 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, Ml 48106-1346

Copyright ©2011

Valerie E. Davis

ii

APPROVAL PAGE

The Perceived Leadership Style of Senior Enlisted Personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces

by

Valerie E. Davis

Approved by:

Daljit Singh, Ph.D. Date

Conrad Francis, Ph.D.

Shirley Johnson, Ph.D.

Certified by:

School Dean: Arthur Lee Smith, Ph.D. Date

in

Acknowledgements

The inspiration for this topic came while I served in the U.S. Armed Forces for more than

20 years, leading the world's best military personnel and using various organizational

leadership strategies to motivate and inspire them to achieve organizational and personal

goals. I strived to be a servant leader who inspired others through facilitation and

motivation. I express honor and thanks to my great Lord, Jesus Christ; without him this

journey would have never been possible. Many thanks and appreciation to each person

who has encouraged me throughout this long journey and kept pushing and supporting

me to remain steadfast, stay in the race, and never give up. Thanks to my Chair, Dr. Daljit

Singh and committee members Dr. Shirley Johnson and Dr. Conrad Francis for your

support and encouragement. A special thanks to Dr. Hugh Glenn, an angel who mentored

and supported me throughout this difficult process, challenging me to remain focused and

stay in the race because the end was in sight. Thank you so much, Dr. Glenn. You were

always a calming presence and terrific resource. Your outstanding mentorship,

persistence, insightful feedback, support, and innate ability to empower me are greatly

appreciated. My dearest friend, Dr. Michael J. Springs and I have been "Chiefs in arms"

for many years and close friends. Thanks to you for your unwavering belief and support.

I could not have completed this project without your unwavering faith in my abilities. My

thanks to Rita Ferenack and Kevin Smith, outstanding academic advisors at Northcentral

University. Completion of this project would not have been possible without the love and

prayers of my family: my parents, George and Pearl Green, who reared me to believe in

myself and taught me the value of hard work, my wonderful husband Kevin and amazing

sons Jason and Michael, the joys of my life who offered endless encouragement and

iv

support. I treasure the love and support they gave me while I was earning my degree.

They supported me, sacrificing our time together so that I could fulfill my goal. They told

me many times that I could not quit, never complaining or doubting I would finish. I owe

my husband and sons an unimaginable debt of gratitude. Finally, I graciously thank God

for putting these wonderful people into my life and for giving me the fortitude and

character required to staying the course.

v

Abstract

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership style of

senior enlisted leaders (SELs) as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-

perceived by SELs. Transactional leadership has been traditionally used by SELs in the

U.S. military; however, transformational leadership is the most effective leadership style.

The greater use of transformational leadership would potentially increase re-enlistments

and extend the long-term service of SELs. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) and a demographic survey were used to collect data from SELs and junior

enlisted personnel. A sample of SELs and junior subordinates received an e-mail with

directions for completing an online survey and questionnaire. Data were used for

comparing perceptions of leadership style based upon participants' age, gender,

education, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, military organizational

unit, and years of military service. Exploratory data analysis, a ^test of independent

samples, a one-way, a two-way ANOVA, and Tukey's Honest Significant Difference

Test were used for data analysis. In rating the leadership style of SELs, significant

differences were found between scores recorded by SELs and junior subordinates based

upon age gender, rank, race-ethnicity, leadership effectiveness, and organizational unit.

No significant difference in leadership style was found between SELs and junior

subordinates based on education, leadership satisfaction, or years of military service.

Future research could include observing the leadership styles used by SELs, compare

ratings of observed leadership styles with ones of perceived styles. An improved

understanding of more effective leadership practices and their use would likely improve

troop morale and aid in retaining experienced SELs and junior subordinates.

vi

Table of Contents

List of Tables vii

List of Figures xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Background 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Theoretical Framework 4 Research Questions 6 Nature of the Study 10 Significance of the Study 11 Importance of the Study 11 Definitions 12 Summary 14

Chapter 2: Literature Review 16 Leadership 16 Current Leadership Research 20 Great Man Theory 23 Trait Theories 23 Contingency Theories 25 Situational Theories 25 Participative Theories 26 Behavioral Theory 26 Social Cognitive Theory 28 Civilian and Military Leadership 29 Organizational Leadership 31 Management vs. Leadership 32 Styles of Leadership 33 Transformational Leadership 34 Transactional Leadership 38 Passive/Avoidance Leadership 39 Leadership Decision-Making 40 Leader and Leadership Development 41 Self-Efficacy and Leadership 42 Summary 43

Chapter 3: Research Method 46 Research Questions 46 Participants 50 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis 57 Data Analysis 58 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 59 Delimitations 59

vn

Summary 61

Chapter 4: Findings 62 Research Question 1 66 Research Question 2 67 Research Question 3 68 Research Question 4 76 Research Question 5 84 Research Question 6 90 Research Question 7 98 Research Question 8 104 Summary I l l

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 113 Implications 114 Recommendations 118 Conclusions 120

References 122

APPENDICES 134 APPENDIX A-MLQ Sample Items 135 APPENDIX B - Informed Consent Forms 139 APPENDIX C - Demographic Survey Appendix 141

Vlll

List of Tables

Table 1: Gender and Age of Respondents 51 Table 2: Gender and Race-Ethnicity of Respondents 51 Table 3: Years in Current Grade of Respondents 52 Table 4: Rank and Age of Respondents 52 Table 5: Status in Rank Relative to SELs 53 Table 6: MLQ Scoring 55 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Effectiveness 67 Table 8: t test of Independent Samples for Leadership Effectiveness 67 Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Satisfaction 68 Table 10: t Test of Independent Samples for Leadership Satisfaction 68 Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transformational Leadership 69 Table 12: Between-Subject Effects for Gender and Transformational Leadership 70 Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transactional Leadership 72 Table 14: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Gender 73 Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Passive-Avoidance Leadership 74 Table 16: Between Subjects Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership 74 Table 17: Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Leadership Outcomes 75 Table 18: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Gender 76 Table 19: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Race 77 Table 20: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and

Race-Ethnicity 78 Table 21: Significant Differences for Transformational Leadership and

Race-Ethnicity 78 Table 22: Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership and Race 79 Table 23: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Race-Ethnicity 80 Table 24: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance and Race-Ethnicity 81 Table 25: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance and Race-Ethnicity 82 Table 26: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Race-Ethnicity 83 Table 27: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Race-Ethnicity 84 Table 28: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Age 85 Table 29: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Age 85 Table 30: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Age 86 Table 31: Descriptive Statistics for Passive-Avoidance and Age 87 Table 32: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership and Age 87 Table 33: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Age 89 Table 34: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Age 89 Table 35: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Transformational Leadership 91 Table 36: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Education 92 Table 37: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Transactional Leadership 93 Table 38: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Education 94 Table 39: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Passive-Avoidance Leadership 95 Table 40: Between-Subject Effects for Passive Avoidance Leadership and Education....96 Table 41: Descriptive Statistics for Education and Leadership Outcomes 97

IX

Table 42: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Education 98 Table 43: Descriptive Statistics: Transformational and Years of Military Service 99 Table 44: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Years of

Military Service 99 Table 45: Descriptive Statistics of Transactional Leadership and Years of Military

Service 100 Table 46: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Years of

Military Service 101 Table 47: Descriptive Statistics for Passive Avoidance and Years of Military Service ..102 Table 48: Between-Subject Effects for Passive Avoidance and Years of Military

Service 102 Table 49: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Years of Military

Service 103 Table 50: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Years of Military

Service 104 Table 51: Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Unit 105 Table 52: Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Unit 105 Table 53: Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership and Unit 106 Table 54: Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Unit 107 Table 55: Descriptive Statistics for Passive Avoidance and Unit 108 Table 56: Between-Subject Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership and Unit 109 Table 57: Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Outcomes and Unit 110 Table 58: Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Unit 110 Table 59: Significant Differences in Leadership Scores Between SELs and Junior

Subordinates 112

x

List of Figures

Figure 1: Estimated marginal means of transformational leadership 71 Figure 2: Estimated marginal means of passive avoidance 88 Figure 3: Estimated marginal means of leadership outcomes 90 Figure 4: Estimated marginal means of transactional leadership 107 Figure 5: Estimated marginal means of leadership outcomes I l l

XI

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Leadership challenges facing the U.S. military have changed markedly in recent

decades (Fraher, 2010; Hinton, 2001). The world is changing faster than previously

imagined. The pace and scope of change and technical development is such that to

continue to meet future personnel needs, the U.S. military needs to adopt practices and

strategies that improve troop morale and the retention of experienced leaders. Senior

enlisted leaders (SELs), having acquired knowledge, skills, and experience, are highly

proficient in completing core competencies and adapting to conditions across the

spectrum of conflict (Bradley & Charbonneau, 2010). Whether junior subordinates find

satisfaction in the military and re-enlist depends in part on the leadership effectiveness of

SELs. The low retention of military personnel increases the costs of training and

negatively affects the military's effectiveness (Cheese, Thomas, & Craig, 2007; Hinton,

2001).

Background

Military leaders believe that dispatching the right leaders to the right place at the

right time combined with providing advanced experience produces a great force

multiplier, a ripple effect extending throughout a military organization. Since

transitioning to all-volunteer armed forces, the military environment has changed

markedly, each branch becoming self-sustaining and self-renewing. In the U.S. Armed

Forces, a maximum of 3% of enlisted personnel may advance to E8 or E9, and only 1%

may advance to E9, a senior enlisted leader. According to current regulations, only 1% of

active duty enlisted personnel will ever serve as chiefs (S. Res. Title 10 USC 517, 2006).

Hinton (2001) noted problems that began during the 1990s resulting from downsizing the

2

U.S. military and the loss of personnel because of retirement have affected "leadership

continuity and succession planning" (p. 2). Limiting advancement opportunities for

enlisted personnel increases the difficulty to retain them for long-term service. Re-

enlistment among junior subordinates depends in part on satisfaction with the military

life, which depends to some extent on the leadership skills of SELs.

Senior enlisted leaders are the military's first-line leaders. Currently, the

professional literature lacks a comprehensive understanding regarding how transactional

and transformational leadership influence the leadership practices of SELs or how

various leadership styles affect decision making. A few studies have focused on

outcomes of leadership styles by investigating selected traits and behaviors of effective

leaders (McCormick, 2001). These studies, however, have not examined leadership as a

process. This study compared the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as perceived by junior enlisted

personnel and as self-perceived by SELs. The following predictor variables of leadership

style were explored: age, education, gender, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership

satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of military service. Identifying the perceived

use of transformational leadership and comparing perceptions of its use by SELs provides

a basis for increasing its use, whose more frequent application would likely positively

affect troop satisfaction and increase re-enlistment rates.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed in the study is the traditional use of autocratic and

bureaucratic leadership in the U.S. military, an aspect of transactional leadership that

potentially results in a wide range of personnel problems and negative effects related to

3

troop morale. Two principal effects are difficulties in retaining experienced SELs and

problems in recruiting new junior subordinates.

Autocratic leaders typically act unilaterally, making decisions and dictating the

work methods that subordinates must follow to complete their assigned tasks.

Bureaucratic leadership, a form of autocratic leadership, has been the most prevalently

leadership style used in the U.S. military. Weber (1947) coined the term bureaucratic

leadership to describe a leadership style used by leaders whose position empowered them

with the authority to impose disciplinary standards. Subordinates advance or receive a

promotion to the extent they conform to the orders and rules of the leader. Leadership

that is more effective results from the combine use of transformational and transactional

leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Identifying prevalent leadership

styles in the U.S. military would provide an empirical basis for initiating educational and

training programs to implement the wider use of transformational leadership. Moreover,

perceptions of leadership style may vary based on factors such as age, education, gender,

race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of

military service. The use of more transformational and less transactional leadership

potentially facilitates extending the active service of experienced SELs and improving

troop morale among junior subordinates, which potentially facilitates their re-enlistment.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership

style of SELs as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-perceived by SELs.

The Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2006) provided a

useful tool for studying leadership styles (see Appendix A). In this study, the short form

4

of the MLQ was used to compare leadership styles between SELs and junior enlisted

personnel to determine whether perceptions of leadership among SELs differed from

perceptions of their leadership among junior subordinates. Based upon an ordinal scale,

the MLQ measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each leadership style,

although leadership styles may coexist and are not always mutually exclusive (Hinkin &

Schriesheim, 2008). Perceptions of leadership style could vary between the groups based

upon a wide range of factors. In this study, a demographic survey was used to investigate

several variables for their perceived effect on leadership style; for example, education,

gender, race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, and years of military

service. For instance, if it were found that males and not females perceived that SELs

used more transactional leadership than transformational leadership, this perception could

negatively affect long-term service and troop morale. Such a finding would identify the

need for SELs to change the perceptions of junior subordinates, which could require a

change in their leadership style.

Theoretical Framework

Organizational leadership served as the broad theoretical framework for this

study. The specific theoretical model, the Full Range Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio,

2006; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccilo, 2004), combined five

dimensions of transformational leadership and four dimensions of transactional

leadership. The model consisted of three types of leadership behaviors—

transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership—and represented nine

distinct factors (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Dimensions of

transformational leadership are idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence

5

(behavior), inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Dimensions of

transactional leadership are contingent reward, management by exception (active), and

two passive/avoidance behaviors—management by exception (passive) and laissez-faire.

The MLQ (Bass & Avolio) identifies and measures these factors.

Burns (1985) coined the term transformational leadership in 1978 to describe the

ideal situation between leaders and followers. During the 1980s, the concept of

transformational and transactional leadership that Burns (1978) originally proposed was

refined and operationalized by Bass (1985), whose multifactor leadership theory

encompassed a range of leader behaviors including charismatic and mundane. The Full

Range Leadership Model further refined and extended the multifactor leadership theory.

Conceptual frameworks of leadership range from nonleadership (laissez-faire), to

transactional leadership based on rewards and punishments, to transformational

leadership based on leaders' behavioral charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Leadership

theories include trait theory, situational leadership, behavioral, the

contingency/situational model, social cognitive theory, and path-goal theory (McFadden,

Eakin, Beck-Frazier, & McGlone, 2005). Avolio and Gardner (2005) pointed out that the

vast majority of leadership theories did not focus on the core process of leadership. As a

result, rigorous testing of theories did not occur, so theories were inadequately developed,

and conceptualizations of leadership emerged posthoc (Avolio & Gardner).

Individual perspectives influenced the ways that researchers have defined

leadership, usually "in terms of traits, behaviors, influence, interaction patterns, role

relationships, and occupation of an administrative position" (Yukl, 2006, p. 20). The

majority of definitions assume that leadership includes one person intentionally

6

influencing other persons; otherwise, definitions of leadership have little else in common,

differing in purpose, manner, and outcome of influence (Yukl). A fundamental

disagreement among researchers regarding the identification of leaders and leadership

processes has led some theorists to question whether leadership is a useful scientific

construct (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). Researchers with different concepts of

leadership have used different phenomena to investigate leadership and have interpreted

results differently. When the concept of leadership is limited, however, the researcher is

"less likely to discover things unrelated to or inconsistent with their initial assumptions

about effective leadership" (Yukl, 2006, p. 21).

The population in this study consisted of 400 military service personnel from

three branches of the U.S. military services stationed in the United States. Based upon a

power analysis using tools provided online by Creative Research Systems (2010), the

sample consisted of approximately 260 SELs and junior subordinates selected from the

population. The sample included male and female SELs and junior subordinates.

Approximately 130 SELs and 130 junior enlisted personnel were selected to complete the

MLQ and a demographic survey.

Research Questions

The research questions and related hypotheses for this study were as follows:

Q l : Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership

effectiveness of SELs?

Q2: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceived satisfaction of the

leadership style of SELs?

7

Q3: Does the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) differ between

the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs

based upon gender?




based upon race?




based upon age?




based upon education?




based upon years of military service?

Q8: Do perceptions of the leadership style of SELs differ between the self-

perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates based upon

their assigned military organizational unit?

Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between

the self-perceptions of SELs and perceptions of junior subordinates.

Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions

of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.

Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between

the self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates.

Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions


Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon

gender do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and

the self-perceptions of SELs.



gender differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-

perceptions of SELs.



race do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the

self-perceptions of SELs.



9

race differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-


H5o: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) based upon age

do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-


H5a: Perceptions of the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,


differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-




education do not differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and




education differ between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the




years of military service do not differ between the perceptions of junior

subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs.

10



years of military service differ between the perceptions of junior




military organizational unit do not differ between the perceptions of junior




military organizational unit differ between the perceptions of junior


Nature of the Study

This study sought to determine the extent to which SELs in the U.S. Armed Forces

practiced principles of transformational leadership by comparing the self-perceptions of

SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates. Four ieadership styles were examined:

transactional, transformational, passive/avoidant and leadership outcomes. In addition,

ratings of leadership effectiveness and leadership satisfaction of SELs were compared

between SELs and junior subordinates. Each member of the sample of SELs and

subordinates completed the MLQ and a brief demographic survey.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 19) and Minitab (Version

16) were used for data analysis. Exploratory data analysis was used to create frequency

distributions, histograms, and probability plots. Descriptive statistics were calculated for

11

each data set. A t test of independent samples was used for testing null hypotheses 1, 2,

and 3; a one-way and two-way ANOVA was used for testing hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Tukey's Honest Significant Difference Test, a posthoc comparison test, was used for

analyzing significant F ratios.

Significance of the Study

Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are both aspects and

complementary styles of organizational leadership. There is no formula or checklist to

use that identifies whether the use of one style is more relevant than the other in any

given situation (Homrig, 2001); however, lacking an understanding of the potential

usefulness of each style may result in ineffective leadership. SELs often lack leadership

education and remain largely unaware of leadership styles and leadership research

regarding effective practices and the roles that leaders play (Whitehead, 2009).

This study sought to contribute to the professional literature in several ways; for

example, by providing useful information regarding perceptions of the leadership style of

SELs as perceived by junior subordinates and self-perceived by SELs. Little is known

about perceptions of leadership style held by SELs and junior subordinates. Therefore,

military leaders could potentially profit by understanding how subordinates perceive the

leadership of SELs and how SELs self-perceive the effectiveness and satisfaction of their

leadership. In short, findings would be useful for SELs to know how their leadership is

perceived by junior subordinates.

Importance of the Study

The United States military changed markedly after terrorists attacked New York

City on September 11, 2001. America found itself at war against global terrorists—at

12

home and abroad (Government Accountability Office, 2006), which extended the role of

the military beyond fighting wars to facilitating peace and stability to obviate combat

(Kem, 2006). Technical advancements have transformed modern warfare. Service

personnel are now requiring different, more integrated leadership skills than existed in

previous environments (Fraher, 2010). Furthermore, training procedures and leadership

development of SELs have changed to address new challenges (Connon, Naro, &

McCabe, 2006) and their role in improving decision-making (Rausch, 2006).

It is important to understand perceptions of leadership among junior subordinates

and self-perceptions of SELs regarding the effectiveness and satisfaction of their

leadership. To help fill the void in the literature, further research into leadership styles of

SELs is warranted along with investigating the leadership style of SELs by comparing the

self-perceptions of SELs and the perceptions of junior subordinates. The need for the

Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit and retain military personnel in the all-volunteer

armed forces has increased since Operation Iraqi Freedom (Scully, 2007). The number of

retirees has increased, creating the need for more recruits. Moreover, the number of

experienced service personnel retained and the number of eligible recruits have

decreased. Troop deployments have surged, and military personnel commonly serve

multiple deployments (Government Accountability Office, 2006). Long-term separation

from spouses and children lessens the likelihood that experienced members of the

military want to continue to serve on active duty.

Definitions

This study included the use of the following key terms:

13

Core values. Operating philosophies or principles that guide an organization's

internal conduct as well as its relationship with the external world. They are usually

found summarized in the mission or a statement of core values (Bruman, 2009).

Junior subordinates. A diverse corps of functionality and operationally

specialized airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines (DoD, 2009).

Esprit de corps. Devotion and enthusiasm among members of a group for one

another (DoD Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff, 2009).

Ethics. Set of values that guide behavior and performance of military personnel

(DoD, 2008).

Laissez-faire leadership. The absence of leadership. The leader delays decisions

making, does not provide timely feedback, and makes little effort to help followers

satisfy their needs to grow; in a sense, this term refers to the absence of leadership

(Northouse, 2009).

Military citizen. A person who owes allegiance to a government and who is

entitled to protection by that government (DoD Joint Doctrine Division, J-7, Joint Staff,

2009).

Passive-avoidant leadership. A leadership style involving an abstention from

responsibility, decision making, providing feedback, and passive indifference toward

worker growth (Yukl, 2006).

Positional leadership. Positional leadership in a unidirectional or managerial

way; that is, as a quality associated with position and rank rather than influence with

followers (Hesselbein & Shinsek, 2004).

14

Professional military education. Military education in schools that provide the

continuum of education necessary to inspire and develop enlisted leaders with the moral

framework of integrity, service, and excellence (Ord, 2006). Professional military

education is academic education that enhances performance in each phase of professional

development and build on the foundation of leadership abilities during the earlier stages

of an individual's career (Huguley, 2009).

Self-efficacy. The belief that individuals are capable of performing in a certain

manner to attain desired goals and their capability to achieve designated performance

proficiency that influence events and affect the lives of others (Margolis & McCabe,

2006).

Senior enlisted leaders. Senior enlisted leaders are experienced individuals who

use leadership to leverage resources and personnel to complete missions (Huguley,

2009).

Transactional leadership. Leadership that motivates subordinates by appealing

to their self-interests and exchanging benefits that may include pay and benefits in return

for work effort (Yukl, 2006).

Transformational leadership. Leadership that appeals to the moral values of

followers to raise their self-consciousness (Yukl, 2006).

Summary

During the 1980s, Bass (1999) refined and operationalized the concept of

transformational and transactional leadership, a concept originally proposed by Burns

(1985). According to this model, leadership ranges from nonleadership (laissez-faire), to

transactional leadership based on rewards and punishments, to transformational

15

leadership based on the leader's behavioral charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1993).

Transactional leaders believe that clarifying goals and providing rewards result in

individuals and groups fulfilling their goals. Transformational leaders move followers

beyond immediate self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration,

intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration (Bass). Transformational

leadership is regarded as the best single type of leadership, but the most effective

leadership results from the combined use of transformational and transactional leadership

(Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

16

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter reviews selected leadership literature, definitions, qualities and skills

of leaders, and findings of current leadership research. Stogdill (1974) noted, "There are

almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to

define the concept; however, there are central defining elements of organizational

leadership that have some consensus in the literature" (p. 259). A discussion is included

of principal leadership theories; e.g., the great man theory, trait theory, contingency

theory, situational theory, participative theory, behavioral theory, and social cognitive

theory. Addressed are civilian and military leadership including leadership development,

education, organizational leadership, leadership experiences, leadership styles, and types

of leadership: transformational, transactional, passive/avoidance, and charismatic

leadership. An overview of leadership decision making is followed by a summary of

historical trends in leadership development. The chapter concludes with an overview of

self-efficacy and leadership.

Leadership

Leadership is a universal factor present in human societies, affecting their

destinies in important ways (Bennis, 2007). Researchers have proposed multiple

definitions of leadership that focus on various aspects of leaders' behaviors, situations,

and styles (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (2006)

described leadership as the engagement of leaders and followers, valuing the

contributions of participants and distributed power among leaders and followers.

Akinboye (2005) defined leadership as leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals

that represent values and motivations, wants and needs, and the aspirations and

17

expectations of leaders and followers. Leadership and followership serve several group

functions. Resource sharing requires a mechanism such as leadership for maintaining

group unity and managing intragroup conflicts (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008).

An evolutionary approach to the study of leadership potentially generates novel

hypotheses about leadership psychology that can be empirically verified in experimental

research (Van Vugt, et al. 2008). Leadership studies have traditionally focused on leader-

centrism and situational leadership (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Definitions of

leadership recognized that the practice of leadership, although dependent upon the leader,

is influenced by context. Hershey, Blanchard, and Dewey (2007) defined leadership as "a

dynamic process, varying from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers,

and situations" (p. 92). In theory, individuals can be trained to adapt leadership styles to

specific situations (Hershey, et al., 2007).

Leadership is an elusive concept. Burns (1978) opined, "Many of us do not have

the faintest concept of what leadership is all about" (p. 451). Other scholars agree that

there has been a lack of congruence in the field of leadership with little agreement on

how leadership is studied and practiced (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Even identifying

a common definition of leadership is challenging. Rost (1993) identified 221 various

definitions of leadership. Lacking a common definition, it is no wonder that

misconceptions about leadership abound. There are two basic reasons for misconceptions

about leadership. First, conceptions of leadership are influenced by a socially constructed

leader-centric view of leadership; second, the way in which leadership is understood has

changed through the years, leaving an ambiguous understanding of this construct

(Burchard, 2008).

18

The word leadership is commonly used to refer to social experiences and to

provide meaning to common events (Fairhurst, 2005). Cummins (2006) described three

popular notions that influence understanding of leadership: leadership as excellence,

leadership as administration, and leadership as management. Because these popular

conceptions of leadership pervade society, they have influenced individual understanding

of leadership and the role of a leader. This social construction of leadership has confused

the nature of leadership and has led to changing views of how leadership is understood

(Hackman & Wageman, 2007).

Thus, multiple definitions of leadership have been constructed focusing on

various aspects of leaders' behaviors and leadership situations. Leadership scholars have

traditionally debated leader-centrism and situational leadership (Hackman & Wageman,

2007). Leadership has often been defined in terms of a position of authority or power

(Scharmer, 2009) or as a relationship in which one person wields power to comply others

to complete a task (Parks, 2005). These notions of leadership focus exclusively on leaders

and their innate abilities as leaders. It is the leader who is in a position of power, and it is

the leader who influences.

Hersey and Blanchard (1977) described leadership as "a dynamic process, varying

from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers, and situations" (p. 89).

While recognizing the roles of leaders, followers and situations, however, this approach

emphasizes the leader's use of behaviors in different situations. In theory, individuals

could be trained to adapt their leadership styles to specific situations (Hersey &

Blanchard).

19

By the late 1970s, the field of leadership had increasingly emphasized situational

leadership. Leadership was still something that a leader did to other persons, but

followers and situations were regarded as influencing leaders' behaviors (Chatswood,

2009). Some scholars agreed that ethical leaders were the only ones who could be real

transformational leaders, an idea that at worst implied a tautology, and at best a recursive

definition (Ciulla, Price, & Murphy, 2005).

Leadership scholars, as previously noted, have lacked a universal meaning of

leadership. Yukl (2006) noted that the definition of leadership has been arbitrary and

subjective. At the core of most definitions of leadership are two functions: "providing

direction" and "exercising influence" (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004,

p. 17). The purpose and the context or situation that calls for leadership consists of

essential elements of definitions of leadership. An early definition described the leader as

one person controlling others or pressuring them to obey (Mumford, as cited in Bass,

1990, p. 11). Conversely, Rost (1993) described leadership as an influential relationship

among leaders and their collaborators who intended real change that reflected mutual

purposes.

Contemporary definitions identify leadership as a relational process based on

mutual goals to achieve an action or change (Komives, et al., 2006). Senge (2006)

observed that leadership is something that is widely distributed throughout organizations,

and that the central purpose of such leadership is empowerment of others. This

observation provided credibility to Lambert's (2005) recognition of the importance of

leadership capacity in schools. Matusak, a leadership scholar, noted that the leadership

20

process entails initiating, guiding, and working with a group to accomplish change

(Marcketti & Kozar, 2007).

Qualities and Skills of Leaders

Commonly attributed qualities of leaders have included social, interpersonal,

technical, administrative, and intellectual skills; leadership effectiveness and

achievement; friendliness; support of the group task; and task motivation and application

(Bass & Bass, 2008). An analysis of studies and surveys regarding how leaders relate to

groups suggested that charismatic inspiration, dedication, purpose, results orientation,

cooperativeness, integrity, and empathy are qualities recognized in leaders (Bass & Bass).

Bass and Avolio (2006) identified four dimensions of transformational leaders that also

included emotional intelligence: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individual consideration.

Researchers point to purposes, persons, structures, and social systems as "three

broad categories or skill clusters of leadership practice" (Leithwood, Jantzi, &

Steinbach, 2000, p. 123). Conger and Kanungo (1998) referred to visioning strategies,

efficacy-building strategies, and context-changing strategies, and Leithwood et al. (2004)

named setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the organization. The

ability to engage in practices that help develop other persons has been shown to be

related to leaders' emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Bennis

(2009) devised a model of leadership that included essential sets of competencies among

leaders that included emotional intelligence.

Current Leadership Research

Leadership researchers are currently examining nonhierarchical, process-oriented,

21

and democratic forms of leadership and exploring new leadership characteristics such as

vision, the facilitation of shared vision, and transformational leadership (Tichy, 2007).

These studies identified vision and collaboration as important characteristics of effective

leaders (Tichy). Schein (1992) explored the role of leadership in shaping organizational

culture. Bass and Avolio (2006) identified four dimensions of transformational leaders

that also included emotional intelligence. Bolman and Deal (2008) discussed the need to

prepare future leaders to focus as much on spiritual factors as on intellectual development

and the need for versatile and flexible leaders—leaders who could reframe experience to

discover new issues and possibilities.

Hesselbein and Goldsmith (2009) discussed how Lipman-Blumen described toxic

leaders and their intoxicated followers and the need for leaders to cultivate connective

capabilities or collaboration. Senge (2006) noted the importance to regard all staff

members as leaders and to develop the talent of all change agents. Heifetz (1998)

described the challenge of leading without authority. Komives et al. (2006) described a

relational model of leadership appropriate for building communities and achieving

organizational potential in a multicultural context.

Current views of leadership focus on the importance of cooperative teams,

environments that encourage teamwork and collaboration, and interdependence and

social change (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreas-McGavin, 2006). Enhancing

communication, fostering intergroup relations, creating an inclusive environment, and

creating a shared vision are highlighted in the collaboration literature and have become

important topics in leadership development programs (Allen, Morton, & Li, 2003).

O'Shea, Foti, Hauenstein, and Bycio (2009) explored transactional and transformational

22

leader behavior using pattern oriented analysis to identify which behavioral pattern was

associated with the highest subordinate satisfaction and commitment. Effective leaders

used a combination of transformational and contingent reward behaviors coupled with a

low level of passive management by exception behavior.

Leadership Theories

Because the study of leadership has produced multiple theories, researchers and

professors have been challenged to synthesize theories of leadership to present to aspiring

leaders in meaningful ways (McFadden, et al., 2005). Northouse (2009) attempted to

guide readers in applying numerous leadership theories to modern global organizations.

He introduced the study of leadership with an analysis of trait theory and concluded with

a discussion of transformational process theory (Northouse). The study of leadership is

not only a search for understanding the thoughts and actions of leaders but an

investigation into how to improve the performance and motivation of individuals and

groups (Akinboye, 2005). Clawson (2006) advanced the level three leadership theory as a

standard toward which leaders in the new millennium should strive. This model evolves

from level one and level two in that leaders do not focus solely on visible behaviors and

conscious thoughts of followers but attempt to lead by appealing to "values, assumptions,

beliefs, and expectations" (p. 24).

The evaluation of leadership development initiatives is challenging, especially

when using different tools to assist in development (Ardichvili & Manderschecd, 2008).

However, when evaluating development programs and entire programs, the real goals are

finding causal links between initiative objectives and behavior changes or development

(Allen, 2009). Avolio and Gardner (2005) regarded leadership as a complex process,

23

expressing doubt of the extent to which a set of standards, qualities, or competencies

could ever fully capture the essence of successful and unsuccessful leaders or

organizations. Many assertions about leadership are often expressed without

understanding leadership, which requires more than reading a few articles or books or

fantasizing about how great leaders should act (Avolio & Gardner).

Great Man Theory

The early study of leadership centered on the great man or great person theory,

which assumed that leadership was based on hereditary properties and natural abilities of

power and influence; in short, that leaders were born, not made (Bass & Bass, 2008).

During 1920s-1940s, leadership scholars focused on identifying traits associated with

great leaders. The great man theory is the most elusive quality of leadership (Avolio, et

al., 2009). The contention that leaders are born, not made, has been widely accepted not

only by scholars but by persons attempting to influence the actions of others (2009).

Major capacities and competencies of leadership can be learned (Williams, 2007).

Leaders are a society of learners with a basic desire to learn (Day & Harrison, 2007). The

great man concept assumed that leaders possess special traits or characteristics allowing

them to ascend above others and enhance leadership skills (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009),

a notion that led to hundreds of studies that explored personality traits, physical

characteristics, intelligences, and values to differentiate leaders from followers (Chemers,

2002).

Trait Theories

The idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the trait

theory of leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). It is assumed that individual characteristics of

24

leaders differ from characteristics of nonleaders (McFadden, et al., 2005). The trait theory

attempted to identify specific personal characteristics that explained why certain

individuals had the ability to lead and others did not (Zaccaro, 2007). Researchers using

this theory have examined leaders with various attributes and personality traits including

physical characteristics, personality, social background, and ability (Yukl, 2006). Great

philosophers explored which characteristics distinguished individuals as leaders, and the

importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the

characteristics that certain individuals possess (Zaccaro).

It was assumed that numerous traits potentially combine to form components of

leadership. Trait models of leadership regard leaders as individuals having specific

superior or endowed qualities that constitute their abilities to lead, and certain individuals

possess a natural ability to lead (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Studies of individual traits or

characteristics such as intelligence, birth order, self-confidence, and socioeconomic status

and their relationship to successful leadership led to the conclusion that no single

characteristic distinguishes leaders from followers or nonleaders (Mendez-Morse, 2008).

Using early research techniques, researchers conducted more than 100 studies and

proposed a number of characteristics that distinguish leaders from nonleaders: for

example, intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic

status, and self-confidence (Bass & Bass, 2008). Considering the criticisms of the trait

theory, researchers adopted a different perspective of leader individual differences—the

leader attributes pattern approach (Zaccaro, Gulick, & Khare, 2008). This approach was

based on theoretical arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on

outcomes was best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather

25

than a summation of individual variables; that is, that integrated constellations or

combinations of individual differences could explain substantial variance in both leader

emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes or by

additive combinations of multiple attributes (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007).

Contingency Theories

Contingency leadership theories examined the tasks and followers' characteristics

to specify behaviors needed by effective leaders (Ogbonnia, 2007). Researchers identified

contingency models with different aspects of leader-follower relationships (Bass, 1999).

Influential model emphasized increasing followers' involvement (Vroom & Yetton,

2005). Although contingency theories have helped to develop an understanding of

leadership complexities, some predictions based upon this model have failed (Yukl,

2006). Factors unique to each situation determine the effectiveness of specific leader

characteristics and behaviors (Baum, 2005).

Situational Theories

Situational leadership theories also appeared as a reaction to trait theory.

Situational theory assumed that different situations required different characteristics; that

is, the actions of individual leaders are largely dependent upon characteristics of a given

situation (White, 2007). Theorists defined three situational leadership styles and

identified the best style for each situation. The authoritarian leadership style works best

during periods of crisis but does not win the support of followers in the day-to-day

management. Democratic leadership is better suited in situations that require consensus

building, and laissez faire leadership is appreciated by extent of freedom it provides,

although the leader does not take charge (Hersey, et al., 2008). Northouse (2009)

26

regarded leadership as a process of social influence, one person enlisting the aid and

support of others to accomplish a common task. In this sense, leadership is regarded as

creating a way for persons to contribute to making something extraordinary happen

(Kouzes, 2007).

Participative Theories

Participative theories of leadership support group decision making. The decision

making of participative leadership is not unilateral as with autocratic leaders because

leaders arise from consultation with group members and their participation (Bratton,

Grint, & Nelson, 2005). Participative leadership was associated with organizational

empowerment and commitment, but not with all four dimensions of empowerment;

namely, meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Bennis & Namus, 2007).

Participative theory promotes a leader who favors a shared pattern of decision making, a

new solution, and allows stakeholders to serve as leaders (McCrimmon, 2006).

Behavioral Theory

Researchers during the 1950s identified behavior centered on task

accomplishments and behavior directed toward interpersonal relations (relationship) as

the two crucial types of leadership and noted that those who consistently exhibited high

levels of both types were regarded as leaders by their peers (Sashkin & Rosenbach,

1996). The Ohio State studies and the University of Michigan studies were regarded as

seminal research on behavioral leadership theories (Yukl, 2006). Behaviors of effective

leaders differ from the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leader

behavior are task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior (Hersey,

Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008). Behavioral theories have limitations. Leadership

27

researchers have shifted their focus away from what leaders are toward developing a

better understanding of what leaders do and how such behaviors relate to leaders'

effectiveness (Miner, 2005).

Behaviorist leadership theories and newer variations emphasize the learning of

facts and skills that authorities have identified as important (Hersey, et al., 2007).

According to behaviorists, learning is "the relatively permanent change in behavior

brought about as a result of experience or practice" (Miner, 2005, p. 116). Behaviorists

recognize that learning is internal event, but it is not recognized as learning until overt

behavior is displayed (Baum, 2005). Behavioral approaches to leadership are focused on

how the environment affects overt behavior (Hersey, et al., 2007). Behaviorism also

refers to any physical action. It is also known as a philosophy based on the proposition

that the actions of all organisms—including acting, thinking and feeling—should be

regarded as behavior (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). Behaviorism assumes that all theories

should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences

between publicly observable processes and privately observable ones (Harris & Kuhnert,

2008).

To determine the "hows" and "whys" of changes in principal leadership behavior

and self-efficacy beliefs, Eyler (2009) examined changes in transformational leadership

and beliefs in self-efficacy in urban and suburban schools participating in an executive

leadership development program. Both self-efficacy beliefs and practices of principals

were affected by the feedback they received from current and past leadership

experiences. The findings reaffirmed the importance of considering social and cognitive

factors in the study of educational leadership.

28

Wangler (2009) recognized the influence of managerial leadership that supports

the premise that behaviorally complex managers are perceived as more effective than less

complex colleagues. The researcher investigated the effects of other constructs on

managerial effectiveness. Participants (N= 148) completed the Lipman-Blumen

Achieving Styles Inventory and Quinn's Competing Values Managerial Leadership.

Multiple linear path analysis was used to examine relationships among variables. Results

confirmed that a network of relationship among constructs interacted to influence

perceptions of managerial effectiveness, supporting Lipman-Blumen's assertion that

connective leadership behavioral complexity predicted managerial effectiveness.

Social Cognitive Theory

Although the theory of student involvement recognizes various degrees and types

of involvement, it is understood in behavioral terms. In other words, this focus is

primarily concerned with what students do in the environment or how they perceive their

actions. An additional component not addressed by the theory of involvement is the

recognition of why or how students became involved (Weiten, Lloye, Dunn, & Hammer,

2008). Just as Astin (1984) recognized that outcomes were not merely the result of

college policies or programs and that the student was a missing piece with regards to

development, so too is involvement influenced by more than a manipulation of the

environment. Involvement is also influenced by self-appraisal among individuals of their

ability to perform the behavioral or cognitive task or their self-efficacy. Self-efficacy,

grounded in social cognitive theory, provides a model for understanding human behavior

that focuses on the control that individuals exercise in given situations (Weiten, et al.).

29

Social cognitive theory differs from most contemporary theories of behavior,

which view the interaction between personal and environmental variables as determining

behavior. In these models, either the person and situation function independently of one

another or connect in some way to produce behavior, or the person and situation affect

one another, producing the resulting behavior (Bandura, 1997). Instead, social cognitive

theory posits that personal influence, environmental influences, and behavior function

interdependently with one another as determinants of behavior, a process that Bandura

described as triadic reciprocity.

Martin and Epitropaki (2001) used a cross sectional survey to explore effects of

transactional and transformational leadership. High organizational identification was

associated with transactional and transformational behaviors, but additional variance in

psychological outcomes was predicted more by transformational than by transactional

leadership.

Civilian and Military Leadership

Military standards of conduct, discipline, customs, and courtesies reflect a broad

heritage and traditions. Military leaders not only must know these standards, they must

enforce them (Seymour, 2006). The common core that all military leadership programs

share is education, training, and professional experience (Center for Army Leadership

[CAL], 2007; Chief Naval Education and Training [CNET], 2007; Air University Air

War College Leadership, Ethics and Command Central [AWC] 2007). Each branch of the

military maintains different programs and offers a leadership laboratory, commonly

referred to as professional development. Each leadership laboratory is designed around

values, customs, and attributes that characterize the services. The army's Leadership

30

Development Program, provides practice and feedback on the Army's leadership skills

(CNET, 2007). In addition to the formal leadership laboratory, military programs seek to

develop leadership through values-based programs (AWC). Although current DoD

policies provide specific guidance for fulfilling standards, leaders must be familiar with

the mission, the military way of life, the chain of command, appropriate conduct, and

professional relationships. Military members are subject to serve on active duty 24 hours

a day, 365 days a year. If so directed by a senior authority, they must report for duty at

any hour to any location and remain until relieved from duty. The military mission

necessitates restrictive rules and standards that are not usually found in civilian life.

Individuals unable to maintain high standards are involuntarily discharged (Kezar, et al.,

2006).

Differences exist between military and civilian leaders. Military officers are

trained to lead and how to be led until leadership principles become ingrained, a process

of training not education (Kezar, et al., 2006). Military personnel train for leadership as

distance runners prepare for a marathon. Military members must learn to depend on

colleagues for mutual survival. Decision making has more life and death consequences

than in vast majority of other professions. Military members are sometimes put into

positions that require initiative instead of a position that requires consulting skills used in

civilian life. However, military and civilian leadership share common characteristics that

include a general core of decision making and communicating. Good decision making

demands assimilating information and applying analytic skills that often are combined

with decisiveness. Effective communicators must demonstrate clearly and convincingly

31

the logic of decisions. Leaders also need a strong character, initiative, and the ability to

delegate responsibility (Huguley, 2009).

Organizational Leadership

According to Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001), organizational leadership involves

processes and outcomes that contribute to the development and achievement of

organizational goals. Organizational leadership is identified by the application of

nonroutine influence on organizational life. Leaders influence using cognitive, social, and

political processes. Organizational leadership is inherently bounded by system

characteristics and dynamics; that is, leadership is contextually defined. Positions of

leadership are established in work settings to help organizational units achieve their

goals. Organizational purpose is operationalized as a focus for collective action.

Leadership processes define, establish, identify, or translate this focus for followers,

enabling the organizational processes that result in achieving goals. Organizational

purpose and direction are identified by their mission, strategies, goals, plans, and tasks.

The operation of leadership is inseparable from the ongoing development and fulfillment

of organizational goal (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001).

Leadership is functional, meaning that leadership is at the service of collective

effectiveness (Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, & Hein, 1991; Hackman

& Walton, 1986; Lord 1977). Effective leaders ensure that all functions critical to both

achieving goals and maintaining group cohesiveness exist. This notion of organizational

leadership defines effective leadership as organizational leadership (Zaccaro & Klimoski,

2001).

32

Senior organizational leaders often shape the organization's purpose and set its

direction (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). Organizational goals and strategies need to

respond to the needs of multiple stakeholders and constituencies when organizational

goals are set, they reflect in part the senior leader's personal goals (2001).

Management vs. Leadership

Bennis and Nanus (2007) described the difference between leaders and managers:

"Leaders do the right thing; managers do things right" (p. 20). Any discussion of

leadership in today's military must include comparing leadership and management. Some

observers insist that military success depends on effective management; others insist that

charismatic leadership holds the key to success (Elmuti, Minnis, & Abebe, 2005). In fact,

a combination of leadership and management skills are needed. The roles of leadership

and management are better explained by examining three factors: actions, personal

characteristics, and organizing skills.

Managers build organizations whose members collaborate effectively and

smoothly are analogous to the parts of a timepiece. Leaders, on the other hand,

concentrate on moving the hands of the timepiece and displaying the time of day

(Musselwhite, 2009). Successful leaders understand management and leadership skills;

moreover, effective leaders are effective managers. The best managers tend to become

good leaders because they develop leadership abilities and skills through practicing good

management techniques. Using charisma, successful leaders humanize management skills

with inspiration, empowerment, and vision (White, 2007).

Leaders establish and guide the organization toward the pursuit of goals and

strategies; managers ensure that the resources needed to fulfill them are available and

33

used efficiently. To implement a plan, managers organize and staff positions with

qualified individuals, communicate the plan, delegate the responsibility for carrying out

the plan, and devise systems to monitor implementation. Leaders do not merely organize

persons—leaders align them. Leaders understand the vision and are committed to achieve

it (Huguley, 2009).

The terms management and leadership have been used synonymously and as

words with differentiated meanings. Their use generally reflects an awareness of the

distinction made by Burns (1978) between the terms transactional leadership and

transformational leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). The difference is that leaders direct

and mangers execute. Managers, like an investment, seek the best return from workers

energy, talent, and times. Managers are concerned with efficiency and profitability using

minimal inputs for maximum returns. The same person can fulfill the role of leader and

manager—but the roles differ and serve different organizational purposes or functions.

Leaders champion change and may or may not manage subordinates. Managers fulfill a

role and complete a set of responsibilities. They may also lead, but nonmanagers can

practice leadership. By clearly separating leadership from management, it is easier to

explain that leaders have followers and managers have subordinates. The application of

management without leadership usually results in only mandatory worker output (Elmuti,

et al., 2005).

Styles of Leadership

Integral to leadership is the leader-follower relationship. Hollander (2008)

identified differences for followers in a postindustrial leadership model. He posited that

followers are active, not passive, and engaged in leadership instead of followership. This

34

understanding of the leader-follower relationship recognized that even few positional

leaders have unchecked authority (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). In other words, leaders

fulfill the role of leader and follower. Indeed, any person could serve as a leader or

follower, and leaders and followers often change places in the leadership relationship

(Hackman & Wageman).

Lashway (1999) argued that leadership, although observable, is one of the least

understood phenomena. The concept of leadership, systematically studied since 1800,

continues to evolve. It has been defined in terms of individual traits, behaviors, influence

over others, interaction patterns, role relationships, hierarchical position, and the

perception of others regarding influence. It has been examined using models of

leadership guided by the principles of social control and hierarchy (Kezar, et al., 2006). A

perception of leadership as control and command has been followed by the idea of

motivation and the proposal that leaders mobilize others to realize a vision. Change is an

underlying factor that has stimulated different forms and ideas about leadership.

Transformational Leadership

The model of transformational leadership by Bass and Avolio (2006) included

five factors: (a) idealized influence (attributed); (b) idealized influence (behavior);

(c) inspirational; (d) motivation, intellectual stimulation; and (e) individualized

consideration. During the 1980s, transformational researchers such as Clegg, Hardy,

Nord, and Pfeffer (as cited in Bass & Avolio, 2006) began exploring symbolic and

emotional aspects of leadership. New theories focused on transformational leadership, a

style that inspires followers to self-sacrifice, placing the needs and mission of the

organizational above self-interests (Yukl, 2006). Transformational leaders, seeking to

35

change and transform individuals, focused on long-term goals, emotional needs, values,

and ethical beliefs of their employees (Jandaghi, Malin, & Farjami, 2009; Zaccaro, 2007).

Transformational leaders evaluate subordinates' motives, satisfy their needs, and seek to

fulfill personal and organizational goals. They challenge followers to question the current

status, use creative behavior, serve as a model of innovation, and provide an attractive

vision of the future.

To obtain greater outcomes, transformational leaders may employ one or more of

the core competencies of transactional leadership (Kolditz, 2007). Components of

transformational and transactional leadership principles are incorporated into training

strategies used by government and the DoD (Klitgaard, 2005). Therefore, leaders in

extreme environments focus on continual learning and shared risk to build competency,

loyalty, and trust (Kolditz).

Leadership theories had traditionally focused on the leader, including

characteristics and the actions taken to accomplish goals within a specific situation;

Burns included the follower as a key component in the leadership process. His theory of

transforming leadership emphasized the engagement of leaders and followers, valued the

contributions of participants, and distributed decision making among leaders and

participants (Komives, et al., 2006). Burns' (1978) notion of leadership established a new

paradigm. Prior theories are considered industrial models that focused on the traits,

behaviors, and situations that influence leaders. These models worked in an era when

leadership was based upon production and efficiency (Komives, et al.). Transformational

leadership, a postindustrial model, focused on the leader-follower relationship and the

outcomes or change that is produced because of that relationship. Modern scholars and

36

practitioners have called for a new school of leadership that reflects a change in

understanding in leadership as more than good management by a positional leader (Rost,

1993).

Burns then developed the concept of the transformational leader as a person who

changes the outlook and behavior of followers. According to Burns (1978),

transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers engage one another in a

way that raises motivation and morality in leaders and followers, transforming leaders,

followers, and organization. Bass and Steidlmeier (1998), however, warned,

"Transformational leadership is seen as immoral in the manner that it moves members to

sacrifice their own life plans for the sake of the organization's needs" (p. 12).

Bernard Bass (2008), a major leadership researcher and scholar, attempted to

apply Burns' idea of transformational leadership to leadership in organizations. His

evidence indicated that transactional and transformational leadership were independent of

one another and could be observed separately or together in any combination. Bass

(1990) developed the MLQ to measure both transactional and transformational

leadership.

Bass and Avolio (2006) noted that transformational leaders build a sense of

community, identifying four tools that transformational leaders use to effect results: (a)

individualized attention that recognized the differences among followers and allows for

their developmental needs; (b) intellectual stimulation that turns the attention of followers

to goals, aspirations, and new ways of doing things; (c) inspirational motivation as the

way to help followers find meaning in their work; and (d) idealized influence that occurs

when the leader serves as a living example and role model for followers (Winston, 2008).

37

Bennis and Nanus (2007) applied transformational leadership to organizational

leadership. They noted leaders strive to go beyond the usual bounds to effect change in

followers' thinking to redirects their actions (Clark, Clark, & Campbell, 1992). The

theoretical research of Kouzes and Posner (2007) was based upon a behavioral focus.

They used factor analysis to identify five factors of transformational leadership,

describing them as concrete behaviors. They developed the Leadership Practices

Inventory, a questionnaire to measure transformational leadership. This instrument has

five scales, one for each leadership behavior: challenging the process, inspiring a shared

vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart.

Based on the work of Bennis (1989), Sashkin and Rosenbach (1996) developed

the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire. Their categories of transformational leadership

behavior were clarity, communication, consistency, caring, and creating opportunities.

They identified three specific personal characteristics that differentiated exceptional

transformational leaders from average leaders, transactional leaders (managers), and

nonleaders, characteristics they identified as learnable and changeable (Sashkin &

Rosenbach). They identified self-confidence or self-efficacy as a prerequisite for

leadership, asserting that self-efficacy is learned. The other two characteristics of

transformational leaders identified by Sashkin were power and vision. Sashkin

incorporated these three personal characteristic into a comprehensive approach to

leadership, integrating behavioral findings with outcomes of leadership research by

developing the visionary leadership theory, a comprehensive approach to leadership

within the organizational context within which leadership occurs (1996).

38

Barnes and Kriger (1986) contended that previous theories of leadership were

insufficient because they consisted of a single-leader and a multifollower concept. They

noted that leadership was not found in a single individual's traits or skills but was

characteristic of an entire organization with leadership roles overlapping. Furthermore,

they posited that the idea of shared leadership or distributed leadership and the possibility

that a team of individuals could lead.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leaders neither seek to develop their followers nor focus on the

individual needs of subordinates. In fact, transactional leadership is more a type of

management and not a true leadership style because the focus is on completing short-term

tasks. Transactional leadership includes three broad categories: contingent reward, active

management by exception, and passive management by exception (Vecchio, Justin, &

Pearce, 2008). Transactional behavior focuses on the accomplishment of tasks and

worker relationships in exchange for desirable rewards. Transactional leadership may

encourage leaders to adapt their style and behavior to meet the perceived expectations of

followers. Transactional leaders seek to motivate followers by appealing to followers'

self interests. Its principles are to motivate by the exchange process. For example,

business owners could exchange status and wages for the work effort of employees. In a

political environment, politicians could exchange favors or government jobs for votes.

Some researchers added to Bums' original theory so thought that transactional leadership

encompasses four types of behavior (Taylor, 2005):

39

1. Contingent reward. To influence behavior, the leader clarifies the work

needed to be accomplished. The leader uses rewards or incentives to achieve

results when expectations are met.

2. Passive management by exception. To influence behavior, the leader uses

correction or punishment as a response to unacceptable performance or

deviation from the accepted standards.

3. Active management by exception. To influence behavior, the leader actively

monitors the work performed and uses corrective methods to ensure the work

is completed to meet accepted standards.

4. Laissez-faire Leadership. The leader is indifferent and has a "hands-off'

approach toward workers and their performance. The laissez-faire leader

ignores the needs of others and does not respond to subordinates' problems or

monitor performance (Yukl, 2006).

Passive/Avoidance Leadership

Passive/avoidance leadership or the absence of leadership, a destructive

leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 2006), is characterized by a lack of action or

involvement, decision avoidance, abdication of responsibility, providing limited or no

feedback, and insufficient help to followers that would satisfy their needs or grow

(Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). The leadership models described two passive/avoidance

behaviors: management by exception (passive) and laissez-faire. Management by

exception (passive) refers to leaders who do not become involve from the beginning.

These leaders are regarded as passive or reactive to situations.

40

Charismatic Leadership

A charismatic leadership style seems similar to transformational leadership. It is

associated with social change because these charismatic leaders evoke enthusiasm in their

teams and energetically drive other persons forward. Charismatic leaders, however,

sometimes believe more in themselves than in their teams, creating a risk that a project,

or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave. In the eyes of

followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As

such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and followers need a long-term

commitment from leaders (Levay, 2010; Taylor, 2005).

With charisma and shared vision, the transformational leader endeavors to align

the personal needs of subordinates with achieving long-term organizational goals

(Eisenbeiss, Van Knippenberg, & Boemer, 2008). Charisma constitutes the core of the

transformational leader (Yukl, 2006). Followers of this type of charismatic leader, who

frequently develop strong feelings toward the leader (2006), believe that the leader has

exceptional qualities, expresses confidence about and trust in the vision of the leader.

Leadership Decision-Making

Fitch (2009) recognized the relationship between personal demographics and

leadership styles on decision-making. A quantitative study used descriptive statistics and

inferential statistics to determine relationships among persona characteristics, leadership

styles, and ethical decision making. Using the MLQ and a sample of 187, Fitch sought to

examine ethical decision making, leadership styles, and personal demographics among

Pennsylvania public school superintendents. Fitch found that superintendents who

experienced situations made better ethical decisions than superintendents who did not

41

experience the same situations. More female than male superintendents were

transformational leaders. The researcher recommended conducting quantitative and

qualitative research to identify valid predictors of ethical decision making.

Using an online survey to collect data, Follwell (2009) attempted to identify

potential areas for improvement in soldier training to enhance small unit effectiveness.

Leaders believed that leadership training for enlisted personnel needed re-examination.

The researcher concluded that the content for basic soldier courses should include

decision making and theoretical and practical training in contemporary operating

environments.

In their roles as leaders, managers are presented with internal organizational

decisions that affect policies and procedures. The extent to which employees and society

perceive effects of these decisions as fair and ethical is critical. If managers and other

organizational leaders are required to make internal organizational decisions that support

the fair, ethical treatment of employees they lead, managers must understand the

dynamics of decision making and acknowledge a personal responsibility for outcomes of

these decisions, even when outcomes are incongruent with good intentions (Eberlin &

Tatum, 2005).

Leader and Leadership Development

Leadership development has focused more on using human capital than social

capital to develop leaders (Day, 2007). In other words, developing human capital invests

in increasing the intrapersonal talents of individuals. Developing human capital invests in

interpersonal or relational development including the development of community and

reciprocal relationships. Day and O'Connor (2003) contended, "Developing a leader

42

without regard for the social and systems influences brought to bear by followers and

organizational forces (e.g., culture) will have at best only limited success in developing

leadership" (p. 19). Therefore, the focus on leader development does not necessarily

translate into effective leadership because leadership is influenced by the situation,

leadership environment, or other persons participating in the leadership process. Rost and

Baker (2000) predicted that future leadership education would focus more on social

relationships, the process of change, and the dynamics of change. Day (2000) stated:

Developing individual leaders without concern for reciprocal relations among

people or their interactions within a broader social context ignores the research

demonstrating that leadership is a complex interaction between individuals and

their social and organizational environments. . . . The preferred approach is to link

leader development with leadership development such that development of

leadership transcends but does not replace the development of individual leaders,

(p. 605)

Self-Efficacy and Leadership

Chemers (2000) described self-efficacy as a promising source for understanding

leadership performance. He concluded that leaders' self-efficacy resulted in different

performance outcomes depending upon the activity or situation. Bandura (1997)

recommended assessing self-efficacy through domain specificity. Writers who have

connected leadership and self-efficacy have incorporated two ideas: connecting

contingency/situational and transformational models of leadership. Chemers, Watson,

and May (2000) found that self-rated leadership efficacy was related to leaders'

evaluation by peers, instructors, and observers. These researchers concluded that

43

leadership efficacy contributed to leadership performance and to the perception of

competency. McCormick (2001) proposed a leadership model that characterized the

influence of leadership self-efficacy on behavior. In this model, components of self-

regulated behavior, including self-efficacy, influenced individual behaviors and the

leadership environment.

Summary

Leadership is a universal factor present in human societies (Bennis, 2007) whose

meaning is elusive. According to Bums (1978), "Many of us do not have the faintest

concept of what leadership is all about" (p. 451). Thus, multiple definitions of leadership

have emerged, focusing on various aspects of leaders' behaviors and leadership

situations. The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 examined organizational leadership, the

development and achievement of organizational goals, leadership styles, and common

characteristics shared by civilian and military leaders (AWC, 2007; CAL, 2007; CNET,

2007).

Leadership studies have traditionally focused on leader-centrism and situational

leadership (Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Various leadership theories have been used as

the basis for improving the performance of individuals and groups (Akinboye, 2005).

Beginning with the study of the great man theory, trait theories of leadership assume that

individual characteristics of leaders differ from the characteristics of nonleaders

(McFadden, et al., 2005). Contingency theories have been applied to tasks and followers'

characteristics (Ogbonnia, 2007). Situational theories assume that the actions of leaders

are largely dependent upon a particular situation or condition (White, 2007). Participative

leaders practice shared decision-making (McCrimmon, 2006). Behavioral leadership

44

theories describe what leaders do and how their actions relate to leaders' effectiveness

(Miner, 2005).

The two dominant theories of leadership are transactional and transformational.

Bums (1978) developed the concept of transformational leadership as a theory for

elevating the capabilities of workers and leaders to work as teams. Based upon influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Avolio &

Bass, 2006), transformational leaders place the needs and mission of the organization

above self-interests (Yukl, 2006). Historically, transactional leaders have applied

authority, rewards, and punishment to subordinates to fulfill goals (Vecchio, Justin, &

Pearce, 2008). Military leadership and personnel management, however, have changed

because of generational differences among military personnel, operational differences in

military tactics, and the movement of the military model to function more and more as a

professional corporation (Whelan, 2009).

Whelan (2009) described the military as having been transformed "from a

parochial, inbred instrument of land battle to a highly sophisticated, multifunctional

organization closely linked to society" (p. 266), the modem military professional holding

different aspirations, attributes, and values toward work compared with the same factors

held by military personnel from earlier generations. Whelan attributed this change as

resulting from exposure as children to technologies, innovation, and computer

technology—and learning that change was natural. As members of Generation Y, persons

bom after 1980, they were products of modem parenting and schooled with a knowledge

and acceptance of different cultures and languages.

Today's military personnel differ from the troops of yesterday, requiring and

45

expecting the use of more transformational leadership and less transactional leadership.

Many SELs were bom during 1960-1980. The military training for members of

Generation X was learned from superiors whose leadership style was based principally on

transactional leadership. Thus, their self-perceptions of leadership may well vary from

perceptions of their leadership by junior subordinates. Marked differences in perceived

leadership between SELs and junior subordinates could negatively affect troop morale

and attitudes among members of the latter group toward pursuing a military career.

46

Chapter 3: Research Method

Chapter 3 describes the research procedures used in this study to determine the

extent to which SELs in the U.S. Armed Forces practice principles of transformational

leadership. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985) is a 70-item

instrument that assesses four dimensions of transformational leadership (charisma,

individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration), two dimensions of

transactional leadership (contingent reward and management by exception), and one

dimension of laissez-faire leadership. Using this questionnaire as a self-reporting measure

or rating a superior's performance, respondents graded each leadership dimension using a

Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently). This study used the MLQ, which

measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each of four leadership styles

(Bass & Avolio, 2006).

Research Questions

The research questions and related hypotheses for this study are as follows:

Ql: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership







based upon gender?

47




based upon race?




based upon age?












Hypotheses

Hlo: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between


H l a : Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions

48


H2o: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between


H2a: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions




















49























50









Participants

The population in this study consisted of 400 military service personnel from the

U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Based on a power analysis and online

services provided by Creative Research Systems (2010), a random sample was selected

consisting of approximately 300 SELs and junior subordinates. Four leadership styles

(transactional, transformational, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes) were

assessed by the MLQ. Junior subordinates rated the leadership of SELs, and SELs

provided self-perceptions of their leadership. Leadership styles are not mutually

exclusive, and a leader could be described by any, all, or none of these styles (Bass &

Avolio, 2006). The sample provided a confidence interval of 5 points and a confidence

level of 95% (Creative Research Systems).

Two-hundred ninety-six (74%) of the 400 military personnel invited to participate

completed the survey (males = 180, 61%); females =116, 39%). The age of respondents

ranged from 19 to 55 years (M= 33.78, SD = 9.86).

51

Table 1 presents descriptive data regarding the gender and age of respondents.

Sixty-two (57%) respondents were aged 19-23 years or aged 40 and older. Sixty-one

(21%) respondents were aged 24-29 years. Sixty-six (22%) respondents were aged 30-39

years. Fifty-one (17%) respondents were aged 40-44 years, and 56 (18%) respondents

were aged 45+ years.

Table 1

Gender and Age of Respondents

Age Range

Gender 19-23 24-29 30-39 40-44 45+ Total

Female 26 27 33 18 12 116

Male 36 34 33 33 44 180

Total 62 61 66 51 56 296

Table 2 presents data regarding the gender and race-ethnicity of respondents.

Among the 114 (39%) females who completed the survey, 49 (42%) were Black, 20

(17%) were White, 14 (12%) were White, 14 (12%) were non-Hispanic, 14 (12%) were

Hispanic, 9 (7%) were Asian Pacific Islander, and 6 (5%) were Native American or

Alaska Native. Among the 178 male participants, 104 (35%) were Black, 63 (21%) were

White, 42 (14%) were White, non-Hispanic, 35 (11%) were Hispanic, 29 (9%) were

Asian Pacific Islander, and 10 (3%) were Native American or Alaska Native.

Table 2

Gender and Race-Ethnicity of Respondents

Gender Black White White, Hispanic API AIAN Other Total non-Hispanic

Female 49 20 14 14 9 6 2 114

Male 55 43 28 21 20 4 7 178

Total 104 63 42 35 29 10 9 292

52

Table 3 presents data regarding the number of years in current grade among

respondents. Two-hundred three (68.6%) respondents had been in their current grade for

1-3 years. Eighty-six (29.1%) respondents had been in their current grade 4-7 years.

Seven (2.4%) respondents had been in their current grade eight years or more. Almost

98% of respondents had been in their current grade 1-7 years.

Table 3

Years in Current Grade of Respondents

Cumulative

Years F % Valid Percent Percent

1-3 203 68.6 68.6 68.6

4-7 86 29.1 29.1 97.6

8+ 7 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 296 100.0 100.0

Table 4 presents data regarding the rank and age of respondents. Rank ranged from E l -

E9, and age ranged from 19-55 years. One-hundred seven (36.4%) respondents were the

rank of E8 or E9. Ninety-eight (33.3%) respondents were the rank E-1, E-2, E-3, or E-4,

and 89 (30.3%) respondents were the rank of E-5, E-6, or E-7). The number of

respondents in each age category was similar across categories.

Table 4

Rank and Age of Respondents

Age Range

Rank

E1-E4

E5-E7

E8-E9

19-23

56

6

0

24-29

42

19

0

30-39

0

46

20

40-44

0

14

37

45+

0

4

50

Total

98

89

107

Total 62 61 66 51 54 294

53

Table 5 presents data regarding the status in rank of respondents relative to SELs.

One-hundred twenty-nine (43.6%) respondents were of lower rank than the 147 SELs

(49.7%) in the sample. Seven sample members were equal in rank, and four members

were a higher rank than the SELs they rated.

Table 5

Status in Rank Relative to SELs

Cumulative

Level F % Valid Percent Percent

SEL 147 49.7 49.7 49.7

<SEL 129 43.6 43.6 93.2

Same 7 2.4 2.4 95.6

>SEL 4 1.4 1.4 97.0

No response S3 3J) 3J) 100.0

Total 296 100.0 100.0

Participants were selected with the cooperation of the local Chiefs' Group and the

use of the group e-mail listing of military members at each participating military base

(see Appendix B). Each sample member had completed a minimum of 1 year in-grade

and a minimum of 17 years in the military. After receiving permission to conduct the

study from each individual participant, the Chiefs' Group provided a list of personal

e-mail addresses of SELs and junior enlisted personnel eligible to participate. The

researcher forwarded an invitation via e-mail to eligible participants to request their

participation.

The sample included members from several military organizational units such as

intelligence, logistics, medical, and administrative. Sample members were readily

accessible, active and reserve personnel, with no known language difficulties. The

personnel chosen agreed to complete the online survey democratic questionnaire.

54

Materials/Instruments

Leadership style was assessed using the MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Appendix

A). The score of each of four leadership categories on the MLQ represents the mean of

the total of the specific items in a particular category (see Table 6). The five response

options for each item in the four categories—transformational, transactional, passive

avoidance, and leadership outcomes—ranged from not at all to frequently if not always.

The higher the score, the greater is the perceived occurrence of a particular leadership

style.

55

Table 6

MLQ Scohng

Leadership Style Category Items Items

Transformational leadership 20

Idealized influence 10, 18, 21, 25 (attributed)

Idealized influence 6, 14, 23, 34

(behavior)

Inspirational Motivation 9, 13, 26, 36

Intellectual Stimulation 2, 8, 30, 32 Individualized 15, 19, 29, 31 Consideration

Transactional leadership 8

Contingent Reward 1, 11, 16, 35

management by 4, 22, 24, 27

exception (active)

Passive/avoidance 8

management by 3, 12, 17, 20

exception (passive)

Laissez-faire 5, 7, 28, 33

Leadership outcomes 9

Extra effort 39, 42, 44

Effectiveness 37, 40, 43, 45

Satisfaction 38,41

Originally developed by Avolio and Bass in 1995, the MLQ is based on the Full

Range Leadership Model. The most recent version of the MLQ was used in this study and

has been used in field and laboratory research to study leadership styles—

transformational, transactional, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes.

56

The validity of the MLQ is well-established (Bass & Avolio, 2006; Avolio, Bass,

& Jung, 1999). According to Whitelaw (2001), "The comparative studies and replication

studies confirm that the MLQ can be considered a reliable and valid instrument" (p. 2).

Bass and Avolio reported that the construct validity and reliability of the MLQ was based

upon its administration to 3,786 respondents. The reliability of its scales ranged from

0.74 to 0.94, which fulfills the minimum standard for internal consistency (De Vaus,

2002). The demographic questionnaire contained eight factors: age, education, gender,

race, leadership effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, organizational unit, and years of

military service. Appendix A lists sample items from the MLQ; Appendix C lists the

items on the demographic survey.

Operational Definition of Variables

The construct variables for this study are idealized influence (attributed),

idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration, contingent reward, management by exception (active),

management by exception (passive), laissez-faire, extra effort, effectiveness, and

satisfaction.

Construct/Variable 1. The dependent (criterion) variable is leadership as

assessed by the four measures of leadership style on the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2006).

Construct/Variable 2. The independent (predictor) variables were age (measured

in years and reported by each participant), gender (reported by each participant), race

(reported by each participant), leadership effectiveness (measured by the MLQ),

leadership satisfaction (measured by the MLQ), military organizational unit (reported by

each participant), education (reported by each participant), and years of military service

57

(measured in years and reported by each participant). SELs and junior subordinates used

the MLQ to rate leadership styles on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 (not

at all) to 5 (frequently).

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

Data were collected from respondents completing the MLQ and a demographic

questionnaire. The advantages of using the World Wide Web as the means for data

collection included anonymity, privacy, less cost to prepare and gather data, access to a

wide base of respondents, time for respondents to formulate answers, and a timely

turnaround. Disadvantages for collecting data online included the potential for a low

response rate, a lack of opportunity to explain the study to individual respondents, and the

lack of personal contact between the researcher and respondents (Trochim & Donnelly,

2008).

SurveyMonkey (2009), an online service for collecting survey data anonymously,

was used for administering the MLQ and the demographic questionnaire. After the

sample was selected, each participant received an e-mail with a hyperlink and password

to access the website to complete the MLQ and questionnaire. SurveyMonkey assigned a

unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or link for participants to access the research

tools. A list of e-mail addresses of potential participants was obtained from the SEL and

NCO local groups. SELs received a hyperlink to the leader form (E7-E9) and junior

subordinates received a link to the rater form (E1-E6).

Two weeks were selected within which participants were asked to complete the

survey. Participants who did not respond received a reminder one week before the

established closing date requesting that they complete the MLQ and questionnaire. These

58

tools were unavailable after the end date. The cover page of the survey explained the

purpose of the study, potential risks, and benefits of participating. Participation in this

study was voluntary, and individual respondent scores remained anonymous.

The first screen of the survey presented an explanation of the purpose, potential

risks, and benefits of participation. Participants were informed that participation was

voluntary, their responses were anonymous, and they could withdraw at any time. The

final statement confirmed their agreement to participate: "I have read the above

description of the study, 'Comparing Leadership Perceptions of Senior Enlisted Leaders

in the U.S. Armed Forces,' and understand the conditions of my participation. By

clicking the 'Take Survey' radio button below, I agree to participate in the study."

Participation of SELs and junior enlisted personnel constituted informed consent.

Participants completed the survey by selecting the "Take Survey" radio button, or

not to complete the survey by selecting the "No Thank You" radio button. Participants

agreeing to complete the MLQ and questionnaire advanced to the next screen to begin.

Participants who selected the "No Thank You" radio button viewed a screen thanking

them for their time. To ensure the anonymity of the respondents, SurveyMonkey (2009)

collected responses anonymously.

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 19; 2010) and Minitab

(Version 16; 2010) were used for exploratory data analysis and data analysis. Exploratory

data analysis was used to create frequency distributions, histograms, and probability

plots. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each data set. A t test of independent

samples was used to test null hypotheses 1, 2, and 3; a one-way and two-way ANOVA

59

was used to test hypotheses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Tukey's Honest Significant Difference Test,

a posthoc comparison test, was used to analyze significant F ratios.

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Limitations of the Study

The data collected in this proposed study were self-reported. Responses were

limited by the perceptions and recall of each participant. The MLQ assesses an

individual's perception of leadership, styles of leadership, and a limited number of

leadership styles. Another possible limitation, response bias, occurs when respondents

answer items or questions with a biased perception, consciously or unconsciously

misrepresenting reality (Zikmund, 2008).

Senior enlisted leaders may have answered survey items in ways that the military

expected or hoped its personnel would respond. Misrepresentation may have also

occurred, SELs fearing that their responses would not remain confidential, particularly

unflattering responses that potentially jeopardized advancement in rank or negatively

described a superior. To allay concerns, respondents were assured that their responses

were recorded anonymously and could not be linked to a particular individual or to a

specific military organizational unit. Additionally, response bias may have occurred

because participants provided responses based on personal experiences, which represent

idiosyncratic perspectives (Zikmund, 2008). A final limitation was whether SELs

responded accurately to the survey items and read the items carefully.

Delimitations

Conducting research presents factors over which researchers lack or have limited

control to establish boundaries, exceptions, reservations, or qualifications (Creswell,

60

2009). This study used data collected from a sample of U.S. military personnel on active

duty stationed at three military bases in the United States. It explored only one model and

theory of leadership. SELs and junior enlisted personnel may respond differently to items

on other assessments of leadership. Junior enlisted personnel from various branches of

the U.S. military may respond differently to survey items.

Ethical Assurances

This study complied with federal regulations regarding the use of human subjects

and professional ethical standards. The researcher submitted the proposed study to the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northcentral University for approval. No data were

collected before receiving written approval from the IRB. Every effort was taken to

conform to ethical standards for conducting research with human participants.

To ensure compliance with the four categories of ethical issues—protection from

harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with professional colleagues—

before beginning the online survey, participants received an explanation of the study, its

purpose, participation requirements, research personnel, potential benefits,

confidentiality, withdrawal rights, and benefits of participation.

SELs and junior subordinates understood that participation was voluntary,

responses were anonymous, withdrawal was possible at any time, and implied consent

was a prerequisite for participation. No known or expected physical or psychological

health, safety, or stress factor was associated with participation. Sample members did not

receive any remuneration for completing the research tools. Participants were assured that

the use of the online survey ensured anonymity, and only aggregate data would be

reported. Participants could withdraw from the survey at any point by pressing the "Quit"

61

button at the bottom of each screen. Participants who did not approve the conditions

stated on the informed consent statement were denied access to the survey and directed to

a thank-you page. Information regarding Northcentral University and how to contact the

researcher was displayed on the survey.

Summary

This descriptive study used data collected from a sample of personnel on active

duty from the U.S. Armed Forces who completed the MLQ and a demographic

questionnaire. Quantitative methods of data analysis were used to determine whether

perceptions of leadership styles differed significantly between junior subordinates and the

self-perceptions of the same leadership styles among SELs. Four leadership styles were

compared: transactional, transformational, passive-avoidance, and leadership outcomes.

A / test of independent samples, a one-way ANOVA, or a two-way ANOVA was used to

test the null hypotheses. Tukey's HSD test was used to test significant F ratios.

62

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to compare the leadership

style of SELs as perceived by junior enlisted personnel and as self-perceived by SELs.

The MLQ measures the extent to which an individual demonstrates each leadership style,

although leadership styles may coexist and are not always mutually exclusive (Hinkin &

Schriesheim, 2008). In this study, the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2006) was used to compare

responses between SELs and junior enlisted personnel to determine whether self-

perceptions of leadership style among SELs differed from perceptions of their leadership

among junior subordinates.

This chapter presents the results from the data analysis used to address the

research questions and test the null hypotheses. A discussion of the findings follows

including (a) an interpretation of the findings based on the theoretical framework of the

study, (b) how the findings relate to leadership perceptions, and (c) the relationship

between the results to leadership and the retention and recruitment of military personnel.

The chapter concludes with a summary. Descriptive statistics are presented of selected

demographic characteristics of respondents, SELs and junior subordinates. A

/ test of independent samples, a one-way ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA were used to

test the null hypotheses. Tukey's HSD posthoc test was used to analyze the significant F

ratios. The research questions and corresponding null hypotheses follow:

Ql: Do SELs and junior subordinates differ in their perceptions of the leadership




63




based upon gender?




based upon race?




based upon age?












eses

Hlo: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness do not differ significantly between


Hla: Perceptions of leadership effectiveness differ between the self-perceptions


H2o: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction do not differ significantly between


H2a: Perceptions of leadership satisfaction differ between the self-perceptions
















65























66













Results

Research Question 1

Question 1 asked whether perceptions of leadership effectiveness as assessed by

the MLQ differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates (E1-E6, n = 143) and

the self-perceptions of SELs (E7-E9, n = 145). The null hypothesis stated that

perceptions did not differ significantly. The mean score for leadership effectiveness of

SELs was 13.02 (SD = 2.9); the corresponding mean for subordinates was 12.03 (SD =

2.3). See Table 7. A t test of independent samples found a statistically significant

difference between the two groups, ^(286) = 12.91,/? < .001 (see Table 8). The null

hypothesis was rejected: SELs rated their leadership effectiveness significantly higher

than subordinates rated the effectiveness of SELs.

67

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Effectiveness 95% Confidence

_, . Interval for Mean KanK

Lower Upper N M SD SE Bound Bound

Jr. Subordinates 143 12.03 2.28 .19 11.66 12.41 SELs 145 13.02 2.88 .24 12.55 13.49 Total 288 12.53 2.64 .16 12.22 12.84

Table 8

t test of Independent Samples for Leadership Effectiveness

Levene's Test t test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Sig. Interval of the (2- Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Lower Upper

Effectiveness Equal variances 12.91 .001 -3.21 286 .001 -1.59 -.38 assumed

Equal variances -3.22 273.89 .001 -1.59 -.38 not assumed

Research Question 2

Question 2 asked whether perceptions of leadership satisfaction as assessed by the

MLQ differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates (E1-E6, n = 148) and the

self-perceptions of SELs (E7-E9, n = 145). The null hypothesis stated that perceptions

did not differ significantly. Table 9 shows that the mean score for leadership satisfaction

for SELs was 4.92 (SD = 1.83); the corresponding mean for subordinates was 4.96 (SD =

1.48). A t test of independent samples did not find a statistically significant difference for

68

leadership satisfaction between the two groups, ^(291) = 9.86, p = .86 (see Table 10). The

null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Leadership Satisfaction 95% Confidence

R . Interval for Mean Lower Upper

N M SD SE Bound Bound Jr. Subordinates 148 4.96 1.48 .122 4.72 5.20 SELs 145 4.92 1.83 .152 4.62 5.23 Total 293 4.94 1.66 .097 4.75 5.13

Table 10

t Test of Independent Samples for Leadership Satisfaction

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Sig. Interval of the (2- Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Lower Upper

Satisfaction Equal variances 9.86 .00 .18 291 .86 -.347 .418 assumed 2 2

Equal variances .18 276.20 .86 -.348 .419 not assumed 1

Research Question 3

Question 3 asked whether the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as assessed by the MLQ

differed between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs

based upon gender. The null hypothesis stated that perceptions do not differ significantly.

69

Table 11 shows that the mean score for transformational leadership among female SELs

was 72.62 (SD = 8.47); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 62.22

(SD = 11.18). The mean for female SELs was approximately 10 points higher than the

corresponding score of female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between

means for male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 8 points. Female

respondents recorded higher scores than male respondents for all leadership categories.

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores of

transformational leadership between SELs and junior subordinates based upon gender.

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transformational Leadership

Gender Rank M SD N

Female Jr. Subordinates 62.22 11.18 54

SELs 72.62 8.47 55

Total 67.47 11.16 109

Male

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

61.41

68.20

65.02

61.74

69.88

65.98

10.275

8.92

10.12

10.60

8.99

10.59

79

90

169

133

145

278

70

Table 12

Between-Subject Effects for Gender and Transformational Leadership Type III Sum of

Source Squares df MS F Sig. Corrected Model

Intercept

Rank

Gender

Rank * Gender

Error

Total

Corrected Total

5283.16

1156470.65

4887.19

453.27

214.44

25771.75

1241363.00

31054.91

3

1

1

1

1

274

278

277

1761.05

1156470.65

4887.19

453.27

214.44

94.06

18.72

12295.36

51.96

4.82

2.28

.001***

.001***

.001***

.029*

.132

p<*.05 **.01 ***.001

A homogeneity of variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's

test for equality of error variances, p = .348. Although the overall model was significant,

F(3, 274) = 18.72,/? < .001, a significant interaction was not found for gender, F(\, 274)

= 2.28,/? = .132 (see Table 12). A significant main effect, however, was found for gender

and rank. Females rated the use of transformational leadership by SELs significantly

higher than it was rated by males, F(l , 274) = 4.82,/? = .029. Thus, the null hypothesis

was rejected. A significant difference was also found for rank, F( l , 274) = 51.96,/? <

.001. Junior subordinates rated the use of transformational leadership by SELs

significantly higher than it was rated by SELs, F(\, 21 A) 51.96,/? < .001 (see Table 12).

Gender and rank were significant main effects on transformational leadership, with the

greatest range found between female SELs and male junior subordinates (see Figure 1).

71

Estimated Marginal Means of Transformational

72.5-

</i C <« 70.0-61

s "m .5 ?» 67.5-t»

« S

m 65.0-£ & t/i UA

62.5-

60.0-

" ~ V ^

""-, _̂ ̂

* - ~ _

I

"•"V

' V tj"

*-——*-._ fJ

1

Rank -—Jr. Subordinates — SCLs

Female Male

Gender

Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of transformational leadership.

The mean score for transactional leadership among female SELs was 25.13 (SD =

4.46); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 22.54 (SD = 4.64). The

mean for female SELs was approximately 3 points higher than the corresponding score of

female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between means for male SELs

and junior subordinates was approximately 2 points (see Table 13).

72

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Transactional Leadership

Gender Rank M SD N


SELs 25.13 4.46 55

Total 23.79 4.72 114 Male

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

21.98

23.16

22.59

22.21

23.90

23.07

3.63

4.40

4.08

4.07

4.51

4.38

83

90

173

142

145

287

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores of transactional

leadership recorded by SELs and junior subordinates based on gender (see Table 14). A

homogeneity of variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's test for

equality of error variances,/? = .117. A significant interaction was not found in

transactional leadership for gender and rank, F(l,283) = 1.87,/? = .173). The null

hypothesis was rejected: A significant difference was found in transactional leadership

for gender, F(\, 283) = 6.10,/? = .014, and a significant difference was found in

transactional leadership for rank, F(l, 283) = 13.41,/? < .001 (see Table 14). Junior

subordinates rated the use of transactional leadership by SELs significantly higher than it

was rated by SELs. Overall, gender and rank were significant main effects for

transactional leadership, with the greatest range found between female SELs and male

junior subordinates.

73

Table 14

Between-Subject Effects for Transactional Leadership and Gender

Source

Corrected

Model

Intercept

Gender

Rank

Gender * Rank

Error

Total

Corrected Total p<*.05 **.01 ***.

Type III Sum

of Squares

349.22

147744.125

110.52

243.13

33.88

5130.53

158178.00

5479.74 001

df

3

1

1

1

1

283

287

286

MS

116.41

147744.1

2

110.52

243.13

33.88

18.13

F

6.42

8149.57

6.10

13.41

1.87

Sig.

.001***

.001***

.014**

.001***

.173

The mean score in passive avoidance leadership among female SELs was 9.60

(SD = 9.11); the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 12.17 (SD =

7.76). The mean for female SELs was approximately 3 points less than the corresponding

score of female junior subordinates; the corresponding difference between means for

male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 4 points (see Table 15).

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for passive

avoidance leadership between SELs and junior subordinates based on gender (see Table

16). Homogeneity of variance was found between groups assessed by Levene's test for

equality of error variances, p < .001. A significant interaction was not found in passive

avoidance leadership for gender, F(l, 280) = .454,/? = .501 (see Table 17). A significant

difference, however, was found for gender, F(\, 280) = 4.36,p = .038, and a significant

difference was found for rank, F(l, 280) = 14.26,/? < .001). The null hypothesis was

rejected. Gender and rank were significant main effects for passive avoidance leadership,

with the greatest range found between female junior subordinates and male S

and female SELs rating their use of passive avoidance leadership lower than

female junior subordinates regarded its use by SELs.

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Passive-Avoidance Leadership

Gender Rank M SD N


SELs 9.60 9.11 55

Total 10.92 8.51 113

Male Jr. Subordinates 11.00 6.24 81

SELs 7.31 4.79 90

Total 9.06 5.81 171

Total Jr. Subordinates 11.49 6.91 139

SELs 8.18 6.82 145

Total 9.80 7.05 284

Table 16

Between Subjects Effects for Passive-Avoidance Leadership

Type III Sum of Source Squares

Corrected Model 1002.80

Intercept 27287.52

Gender 203.48

Rank 665.83

Gender* Rank 21.17

Error 13070.77

Total 41345.00

Corrected Total 14073.56

df MS F Sig.

334.27

27287.52

203.480

665.83

21.17

46.68

7.16

584.55

4.36

14.26

.45

.001*

.001*

.038*

.001"

.501

p<*.05 **.01 ***.001

75

The mean score for leadership outcomes for female SELs was 33.38 (SD = 3.79);

the corresponding mean for female junior subordinates was 28.39 (SD = 5.26). See Table

17. The mean for female SELs was approximately 5 points higher than the

corresponding score for female junior subordinates; the between means difference for

male SELs and junior subordinates was approximately 3 points.

Table 17

Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Leadership Outcomes

Gender Rank M SD N


SELs 33.38 3.79 55

Total 30.86 5.21 111 Male

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

28.27

31.53

29.99

28.32

32.24

30.33

4.67

4.18

4.70

4.90

4.12

4.91

81

90

171

137

145

282

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for leadership

outcomes between SELs and junior subordinates based on gender. A homogeneity of

variance was found between groups as assessed by Levene's test for equality of error

variances,/? = .098. A significant interaction was not found in leadership outcomes for

gender and rank, F(l, 278) = 2.50,/? = .115. No significant difference was found in

leadership outcomes for gender, F(\, 278) = 3.24,/? = .073. A significant difference was

found in leadership outcomes for rank, F(\, 278) = 56.90,/? < .001 (see Table 18). The

null hypothesis was not rejected; however, SELs regarded leadership outcomes

significantly higher than junior subordinates regarded their use.

76

Table 18

Between-Subject Effects for Leadership Outcomes and Gender

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df_ MS F Sig.

Corrected Model

Intercept

Gender

Rank

Gender * Rank

Error

Total

Corrected Total

1195.90

248448.04

65.21

1144.18

50.14

5590.76

266258.00

6786.67

3

1

1

1

1

278

282

281

398.63

248448.04

65.21

1144.18

50.14

20.11

19.82

12354.05

3.24

56.89

2.49

.001 **'

.001**'

.073

.001**'

.115

p < *.05 **.01 ***.001

Research Question 4

Question 4 asked whether the use of four leadership styles by SELs (transactional,

transformational, passive-avoidance, leadership outcomes) as assessed by the MLQ differed

between the perceptions of junior subordinates and the self-perceptions of SELs based upon

race-ethnicity. Descriptive statistics for leadership and race-ethnicity are presented in Table 19.

A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference for transformational leadership scores

between SELs and junior subordinates based upon race-ethnicity, F(6,260) = 3.13,/? < .01, and

based upon rank, i^ 1,260) = 28.07,/? < .001 (see Table 20). Transformational leadership scores

were affected by race-ethnicity and rank. The null hypothesis was rejected. Blacks recorded

significantly higher scores than White, non-Hispanics; and Whites recorded significantly higher

scores than White, non-Hispanics (see Table 21). APIs and AIANs recorded significantly higher

scores than White, non-Hispanics. The interaction of rank and race-ethnicity, however, was not

significant, F(6, 260) = 1.14,/? = .34. White, non-Hispanics junior subordinates recorded the

lowest scores; SELs who were AIANs recorded the highest scores. Scores recorded by SELs

were significantly higher than scores by junior subordinates.

77

Table 19

Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership and Race

Rank Race-Ethnicity M SD N_

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Black

White

White, non-

Hispanic

API

AIAN

Other

Total

Black

White

White, non

Hispanic

API

AIAN

Other

Total

Black

White

White, non

Hispanic

API

AIAN

Other

Total

-Hispanic

-Hispanic

-Hispanic

64.27

63.45

54.80

58.63

62.05

58.75

64.50

61.74

72.02

67.47

66.09

69.64

68.89

77.00

70.71

69.72

68.49

65.49

61.63

63.30

64.25

67.88

69.33

65.85

7.99

11.61

14.57

12.70

6.74

13.07

.717

10.60

9.09

8.62

9.25

9.96

6.66

4.69

7.74

9.05

9.40

10.31

12.75

12.36

7.35

13.34

7.25

10.60

45

29

15

19

19

4

2

133

54

30

23

14

9

4

7

141

99

59

38

33

28

8

9

274

78

Table 20

Between-Subject Effects for Transformational Leadership and Race-ethnicity

Type III

Sum of

Source Squares df MS F Sig.

Corrected Model

Intercept

Rank

Race-Ethnicity

Rank * Race-Ethnicity

Error

Total

Corrected Total

6662.77

511237.08

2590.77

1732.96

629.82

23994.80

1218664.00

30657.56

13

1

1

6

6

260

274

273

512.52

511237.08

2590.77

288.83

104.97

92.29

5.56

5539.60

28.07

3.13

1.14

.001***

.001***

.001***

.01**

.34

p<*.05 **.01 .001

Table 21

Significant Differences for Transformational Leadership and Race-Ethnicity

(I) Race-Ethnicity (J) Race-Ethnicity

Mean

Difference

(l-J) SE Sig.

Black

White, non-

Hispanic

White, non-

Hispanic

White

API

AIAN

-Hispanic 7.70

4.01*

-5.01

-5.03*

-7.43*

1.87

1.95

2.03

2.51

3.75

.001***

.04*

.01**

.05*

.05* p<*.05 ".01 .001

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine differences in scores for transactional

leadership scores between SELs and junior subordinates based upon race-ethnicity (see

Table 22). No significant main effect was found for race-ethnicity F(6,269) = 1.37,/? =

.23 (see Table 23). A significant main effect, however, was found for rank, 7^(1,269) =

12.16,/? < .001. Race-ethnicity but not rank affected transactional leadership. The

interaction of race-ethnicity was not significant, F(6, 269) = 1.44,/? = .20. The null

hypothesis was not rejected.

79

Table 22

Descriptive Statistics for Transactional

Race-Ethnicity

Black

White

White, non-

Hispanic

Hispanic

API

AIAN

Other

Total

Rank

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Jr. Subordinates

SELs

Total

Leadership

M

23.07

24.54

23.87

23.25

23.03

23.15

20.88

22.43

21.78

21.15

25.07

22.76

21.20

25.33

22.48

21.67

26.25

23.50

20.00

23.14

22.44

22.21

23.96

23.08

and Race

SD

3.65

5.20

4.60

4.15

3.93

4.01

4.92

3.31

4.09

5.32

4.51

5.31

2.07

3.91

3.32

3.44

5.91

4.88

1.41

4.60

4.25

4.07

4.55

4.40

N

45

54

99

32

30

62

17

23

40

20

14

34

20

9

29

6

4

10

2

7

9

142

141

283

Documents

Davis;2011;91;Leadership Style