The transformational leadership questionnaire

The transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe Trinity and All Saints' University College, Leeds, UK Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Nuffield Institute Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Leeds, UK

Keywords

Leadership, Questionnaires, Local government, Validity

Introduction

The emergence of the ``New Leadership Approach'' (Bryman, 1992) in the 1980s This paper sets out to provide represented a paradigm shift from evidence of the convergent and ``transactional'' methods such as the discriminant validity of a recently situational and contingency models of developed leadership Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), and questionnaire, the Transformational Leadership Yukl (1989), to the ``visionary'' (Sashkin, Questionnaire (Local Government 1988), ``charismatic'' (Conger and Kanungo, Version) (TLQ-LGV). Evidence is 1988; House 1977), and the ``transformational'' presented, from a random, (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998a, 1998b, Bass and Avolio, stratified sample of 1,464 male and female managers, working in 1994b). All these models, like the majority of local government, that each of the leadership publications, have emanated from scales was significantly correlated the wealth of studies by US scholars of with each of five criterion managers in US organisations, and have had variables, even when the sample was divided by level, sex, and level a major impact on the content of x sex. Multiple regression management education and development analyses suggested differential patterns of relationships between texts, and on related organisational practices (see Chelmers and Ayman, 1993; Hunt, 1996; the scales and the criterion variables among different groups Rosenbach and Taylor, 1993; Wright, 1996, for and sub-groups of managers, reviews). It is not an exaggeration to state divided by level, sex, and level x that they have contributed significantly to sex. These latter data were ``the received wisdom'' of leadership. interpreted as evidence of the discriminant validity of the More recently, however, writers in the instrument. field of leadership, such as Adler (1983a, 1983b, 1991), Ayman (1993), Smith and Bond (1993), and Triandis (1990, 1993) have Received/Accepted: questioned the generalisability of US May 2000 findings to non-US cultures. Indeed, two recent issues of The Leadership Quarterly The authors wish to thank journal have included articles devoted to this the Local Government matter (Hunt and Peterson, 1997; Peterson Management Board (now and Hunt, 1997), with Hunt (1999, p. 138) the Improvement and Development Agency), in stating recently that: ``many scholars outside particular Carole Barrie, the USA saw [leadership research] as a Ian Briggs and Stephanie Goad, and the University of virtual US hegemony''. As researchers and consultants in the field Leeds for co-funding this research. of leadership working with organisations in the UK, the issue of generalisabilty was also our main concern and led us to develop a UK leadership questionnaire, the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (Local Leadership & Organization Abstract

Development Journal 21/6 [2000] 280±296

# MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739]

[ 280 ]

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com

Government Version) (TLQ-LGV) (AlimoMetcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999), which was developed from perceptions of leadership of middle, senior and top managers in local government. In addition, we were also aware of other issues that might affect the validity of the US leadership research for a non-US context.

Leadership and social distance Bryman (1996) draws attention to the fact that most of the ``new leadership'' models have emerged from studies of managers in top positions. He contrasts this with the ``classic'' Ohio State studies of the 1950s and 1960s, which focused on the styles of first-line supervisors and lower-level managers. Our concern in relation to the organisational level of managers studied in US research becomes particularly relevant in the light of studies on leadership and social distance. Some writers have asserted that for attributions of ``charisma'' ± a central construct of the new leadership models to be ascribed to `à leader'' ± social distance is an essential condition (e.g. Etzioni, 1961; Hollander, 1978). Thus, for example, Katz and Kahn (1978) maintain that, since leaders are being constantly evaluated by their staff, social proximity will reveal that they are ``very human and very fallible and [thus] their subordinates cannot build an aura of magic about them. Day to day intimacy destroys illusions'' (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p. 546). This view is in stark contrast to the position taken by other writers, including Bass, (1985, 1988a, 1988b), Conger and Kanungo (1987), House (1977), and Yagil (1998), who view leadership as a function of the relationship between a manager/leader and her/his followers. Bass, for example, has stated that since charisma is a product of interpersonal relationships, and can be attributed by an individual to their immediate supervisor/manager, it is not the

Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe The transformational leadership questionnaire Leadership & Organization Development Journal 21/6 [2000] 280±296

monopoly of top leaders in an organisation (Bass 1998a, 1998b). It may be that the different views of these writers reflect their particular social/historical era, with more recent writers emphasising close relationships between leader and follower. The distinction as to which ``leaders'' in an organisation are the subject of leadership research is a crucial one in the light of Shamir's (1995) findings of the different characteristics attributed to ``distant'' versus ``nearby'' leaders. Distant leaders were characterised as displaying an ideological mission, communicated through their rhetorical skills, and as being courageous in their persistence and determination. Close or nearby leaders were more frequently admired for their consideration, openness, sociability, humour and dynamic presence (Shamir, 1995). This study by Shamir, and a later one by Yagil (1998), made a great deal of sense to us in our project to develop a questionnaire based on constructs of leadership of immediate line managers. They were of particular value as we were intending to investigate what appeared to distinguish those individuals who had an extraordinary positive effect on the motivation, morale and performance of the staff with whom they worked closely (Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe, 1999). We noted, however, that Shamir's subjects were students and therefore not typical of the organisational members usually studied in leadership research.

Qualitative methodology in leadership research

In developing the TLQ-LGV, two further matters occupied our minds. One was the belief that we should adopt a qualitative, grounded theory approach rather than beginning the investigation with particular preconceived ideas of leadership (as far as this is possible). The second was the omission from most leadership studies, such as those cited above, of not considering gender as an important variable, when developing models of what is leadership. In relation to the former issue, it appeared to us essential to investigate leadership, which is in its very nature about the effect one individual has on another/others, from the initial stance of grounded theory (e.g. Martin and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1983). Parry (1998) who is by no means alone in a belief of the importance of adopting such an approach (e.g. Avolio, 1995; Bass, 1990; Bryman, 1992, 1996; Conger, 1998; Hunt, 1999; Strong, 1984; Yukl, 1994), succinctly summarised the common sense of this approach in asserting

recently that, ``leadership can be conceptualised as a social influence process. Hence, leadership research needs to investigate the nature of this social influence process. An appropriate methodology must reflect this need'' (p. 85). Conger (1998) observed that qualitative methodologies `àre responsible for paradigm shifts, insights into the role of context . . . that other methods often fail to capture'' (p. 107). Parry (1998) also argued for complementarity, rather than competition between qualitative and quantitative methods, in the interest of ``triangulation''.

Gender and leadership

Our second concern related to our views of the importance of any research we conducted being gender-inclusive. Astonishingly, the research we undertook to develop the TLQLGV appears to be the first gender-inclusive national research study of its kind. This is not only surprising for the obvious reason that both women and men work in organisations, but also because of the recent research findings on gender differences in relation to transformational leadership. These can be summarised as follows: . Women, in general, have been found to construe leadership more in transformational terms; men, in general, more in transactional terms (e.g. AlimoMetcalfe, 1995; Sparrow and Rigg, 1993). . Women, in general, are more likely to describe the style of leadership they adopt as transformational; men, in general, more likely to describe their leadership in transactional terms (Rosener, 1990). . Women, in general, are significantly more likely to be described by their direct reports as adopting a transformational style (irrespective of the sex of their report); men, in general, are more likely to be described as adopting a transactional, laissez-faire, or management-by-exception style (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998b; Bass and Avolio, 1994b; Bass, Avolio and Atwater, 1996; Druskat, 1994; Komives, 1991).

The development of ``The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire''

We, thus, set about designing a questionnaire, which was to be based on female and male constructs of leadership and to be piloted on a national sample of male and female UK public sector managers. The methodology and initial findings of the instrument's convergent validity are detailed elsewhere (Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe, 1999), but a brief summary of the process and findings follows.

[ 281 ]


[ 282 ]

The initial stage included the elicitation of constructs of leadership held by managers (female and male) at top, senior, and middle level, in two major public sector organisations, namely the National Health Service (NHS) and local government. Adopting the repertory grid techniques of interviewing (Kelly, 1955), we conducted 92 interviews with managers at all levels from executive to middle managers, and gathered additional data from six focus groups of doctors who were attending a leadership development programme. Around 2,000 constructs were identified. From these data a questionnaire was developed which contained 176 items (independent variables) and five criterion variables, four of which were taken from the Bass and Avolio Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1990a, 1990b), plus one relating to job-related stress. We noted the criticism made of an early version of the MLQ, namely that it included both statements of leader behaviour, and statements relating to the effects of leader behaviour (Hunt, 1996). Accordingly, 13 items were removed since it could be argued that they reflected the latter. The latter enabled us to provide evidence of the convergent validity of the instrument: for the sample as a whole, (p < 0.001), for the sample divided by level (p < 0.01); and for males and females separately (p < 0.01). Use of the MLQ criterion items would also enable us, in future research, to investigate crosscultural similarities/differences. This paper focuses solely on the instrument developed from analyses of local government data. The TLQ-LGV instrument emerged from the identification of nine factors obtained from principal components analysis and rotation of nine factors to an oblimin solution (n = 1,464, of whom 394 were female, 1,061 male, 9 not known). The intercorrelations between the factor scores ranged from r = -0.52 to r = 0.54. These factors formed the basis of nine leadership scales which reflected transformational aspects of leadership. The assertion that each of the scales measures an aspect of transformational leadership is consistent with the Third Corollary proposed by Bass and Avolio (1993), which states that, ``whatever the country, when people think about leadership, their prototypes and ideals are transformational'' (Bass, 1997, p. 135). In the light of this corollary, and given the care taken to ensure that the items reflected accurately the constructs elicited, the TLQ-LGV can be regarded as measuring transformational leadership. Furthermore, the phraseology of

the items is consistent with concepts of transformational leadership that emerge in the literature. The scales are described in Appendix Table AI, and details of the number of items, means and standard deviations, and internal reliability and inter-item coefficients, are presented in Appendix Table AII. As noted, the number of items ranged from 5 to 17, and the Cronbach alpha coefficients were acceptably high (range = 0.97 to = 0.85). Furthermore, within each of the factors, the inter-item coefficients all exceeded the r = 0.30 recommended by Kline (1986) as suggesting unidimensionality (Cortina, 1993). The convergent validity of the TLQ-LGV, both for managers at different levels in their organisation, and for male and female managers, was reported by Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (1999), among local government employees, using the same criterion variables used by Bass and Avolio (1994a, 1994b), plus an additional one measuring level of stress (see Method section). For managers as a whole, statistically significant product-moment correlations were detected, which ranged from r = 0.42 (Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills and reduced Stress) to r = 0.85 (Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and Motivation) (p < 0.001, in each case). When subjects were divided by level, the ranges of the corresponding coefficients were as follows: Level 1: Board/chief executive and Level 2: Directorate/director, r = 0.52 (Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills and Reduced stress) to 0.86 (Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and Job satisfaction); Level 3: Senior/ assistant director, r = 0.40 (Political sensitivity and skills and Achievement) to 0.84 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation); Level 4: Middle/section-unit head), r = 0.43 (Political sensitivity and skills and Reduced stress) to 0.87 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation) (p < 0.01, in each case). Statistically significant coefficients, range r = 0.30 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for others and Job satisfaction, and Motivation), were also detected among female managers; with the corresponding coefficients for males ranging from r = 0.47 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Reduced stress) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation) (p < 0.01 in each case). Some of the scales resemble those transformational scales identified by Bass and Avolio (1990a, 1990b) in their widely used instrument, MLQ. Following more recent


analyses, the MLQ has been found to comprise three transformational factors: 1 Charismatic and inspirational leadership: leadership which creates a vision of a valued future and how it may be attained, and which embodies a role model which followers seek to emulate. 2 Intellectual stimulation: the leader encourages followers to challenge assumptions, look at problems from new perspectives, and to think more creatively and be more innovative. 3 Individualized consideration: the leader treats each follower as an individual with particular hopes, needs and potential, and develops individuals' potential (Bass, 1998a). Other researchers, however, also have recently examined the factor structure of the MLQ (Carless, 1998; Den Hartog et al., 1997), and concluded that a single higher order factor best fits the data. Initial exploratory and confirmatory principal components analysis of the TLQLGV (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999), identified factors additional to those identified in the MLQ. It also includes a ``Political sensitivity and skills'' scale, designed to reflect the particular context of managers working in UK local government organisations. In our discussion of the TLQ-LGV, we noted certain additional features of the instrument. Perhaps the most important of these is that the first factor, ``Genuine concern for others'', which explained more variance than twice the amount of variance explained by the remaining factors, is similar to the third factor in the MLQ ± Individualized consideration. In contrast, the first factor in the MLQ ± charismatic and inspirational leadership ± defines very different behaviours. It relates to the leader envisioning a valued future, articulating how to reach it, and providing followers with a role model which they seek to emulate (Bass, 1998a p. 3). There is no such notion of transformational leadership in the UK data. The emphasis here is in what the leader does for the individual, such as valuing, supporting and developing potential. The US model has a strong sense of ``followership'', almost entirely absent from the TLQ-LGV. In addition, there is an element of ``humility'' and ``vulnerability'' in the UK data, as reflected in components of the Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open (again, not represented conspicuously in the MLQ). Scale 4 items make reference to openness and honesty in dealings with others, and to consistency and equability in

treating different members of staff. Further, the TLQ-LGV includes a greater sense of inclusiveness in decision making (Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, involves others in decision making), reflected also in Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and promoter, and Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability. Together these four scales provide a clue as to the essential difference between the TLQLGV and the MLQ. It may be the fact that the TLQ-LGV was: . based on adopting a grounded theory approach to eliciting constructs of leadership; . comprised constructs of leadership that were elicited from both females and males; . based on a pilot instrument developed from the constructs, that was piloted on a substantial proportion of both females and males; and . based on responses from managers in one large public sector organisation, that influenced the final structure. Such a conclusion would not be surprising, given the research findings cited earlier in relation to gender and leadership. Alternatively, of course, the differences could be a result of national cultural factors, and/ or the fact that the instrument was based on constructs derived from a sample of managers in one public sector, and piloted in the same large public sector. Only additional research can provide answers to these questions.

Present investigation In devising the TLQ-LGV, care was taken to ensure that the instrument was based on constructs elicited from a sample which comprised an approximately equal number of male and female managers and managers at different levels of seniority (executive, top, senior, middle). Factor analysis of the items revealed the existence of nine separate factors, each of which reflected a different aspect of transformational leadership. Each factor demonstrated a statistically significant level of internal reliability (range = 0.85 to 0.97) and convergent validity for the sample as a whole, or divided by level or sex (range r = 0.30 to 0.86) (Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe, 1999). The present investigation was designed to determine whether the scales derived from these factors: show convergent validity, even when the subjects are sub-divided by level of seniority and sex; and have differential patterns of relationships with criterion variables among the sample as a whole, and

[ 283 ]


among the sample subdivided by level of seniority, by sex, and by level x sex. The latter would provide further evidence that each of the nine scales measures a different aspect of transformational leadership. Accordingly, the following two hypotheses were proposed: H1:

that each of the nine scales that comprise the TLQ-LGV is significantly positively correlated with each of five criterion variables (enabling more achievement than expected, job satisfaction, motivation to achieve more than expected, satisfaction with leadership style, jobrelated stress), when the subjects are subdivided by level and sex;

H2:

that differential patterns of relationships exist between the nine scales and the five criterion variables.

Method In order to examine further the convergent validity and to determine the discriminant validity of the TLQ-LGV, five items (criterion variables) were used. These were designed to measure the perceived effect of the manager on the individual's Achievement (`Ènables me to achieve more than I expected''), Job satisfaction (``Behaves in ways which increase my job satisfaction''), Motivation (`Ìncreases my motivation to achieve''), and Satisfaction with leadership style (``Leads in a way that I find satisfying''). A single item criterion variable was added which relates to Stress (``Leads in a way which reduces my job-related stress''). Four of these criteria were chosen since they had been used to establish the convergent validity of other, comparable instruments (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990a, 1990b). The items were included within a pilot instrument, the Leadership Questionnaire ± Local Government Version (LQ-Pilot LGV), which was distributed among a random, stratified sample of local authority organisation in the UK. It is recognised that the use of singlesource, self-report evidence can be criticised for leading to possible ``halo effects''. However, given that the instrument has only just been developed, evidence from objective criteria is not yet available; as noted, the criterion variables chosen were those employed in the early stages of the validation of a comparable instrument. More substantially, to have sought relevant othersource data would have compromised the construct validity of the instrument, the integrity of which is predicated on the

[ 284 ]

anonymity of the responses given. Even where codes or numbers are allocated, the suspicion remains that, at some later date, a check could be made. For each of the factors, a scale was produced, based on the sum of ratings on the items. The number of items per scale ranged from 5 to 17. The scales were labelled: Scale 1 ± Genuine concerned for others (17 items, = 0.97); Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills (6 items, = 0.92); Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence (8 items, = 0.90); Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness (9 items, = 0.93); Scale 5 ± Empowering, develops potential (9 items, = 0.91); Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and promoter (10 items, = 0.93); Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability (6 items, = 0.85); Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, involves others in decisions (5 items, = 0.85); Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking (7 items, = 0.89) (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999). Because the total number of managers at Level 1 and Level 2 (chief executive and board level, respectively) was small, the results for these two groups were combined. Thus, the responses were first analysed for the sample as a whole, and then the managers were sorted by: . level of rater (chief executive and top managers (combined); senior managers; middle managers); . sex; and . level sex (Table I).

Results Usable responses were received from 1,464 managers. These were obtained from distributing the instrument to a random, stratified sample of local government organisations in England and Wales. The data were analysed in two ways: productmoment correlation coefficients; and stepwise multiple regression equations, were calculated between the scales and each of the criterion variables. The step-wise method was selected since the scales were not themselves uncorrelated. In each case, an

Table I Composition of sample, by level and sex Level/sex Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4:

Board/chief executive Directorate/director Senior/assistant director Middle/section-unit head

Male

Female

33 127 346 555

1 22 115 256

Notes: Nine subjects did not give their sex


SPSS programme was used to perform the calculations.

1. Product-moment correlations

Statistically significant inter-correlations were detected between Scales 1-9 and each of the five criterion variables respectively (p < 0.05, in each case), divided by level sex (Table II). In analysing the data presented in Table II, there is the need for caution in relation to the cells for Level 1 and 2 females, where n = 13, and for Level 3 females, where n = 88.0 Among the Level 1 and 2 managers, the coefficients for males ranged from r = 0.42 (Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and Job satisfaction), and for females from r = 0.74 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Satisfying leadership style) to 0.89 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation, and Satisfying leadership style). Among the Level 3 male managers, the coefficients ranged from r = 0.43 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Achievement, and reduced Stress) to 0.84 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation), and for females from r = 0.37 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for others and Job satisfaction). Among the Level 4 male managers, the coefficients ranged from r = 0.52 (Political sensitivity and

skills, and reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation), and for females from r = 0.22 (Political sensitivity and skills, and Achievement) to 0.87 (Genuine concern for others and Motivation). In the cases of the male managers, p < 0.01, in each case; and of the females, p < 0.05, in each case. In the cases of the correlations involving Political sensitivity and skills, and each of the criterion variables among the managers subdivided by level x sex, the coefficients for the females were found, in each case, to be significantly lower than for the males (c ranged from 3.30 to 4.20, p < 0.001, in each case) (Liem, 1962).

2. Multiple regressions

The results of the step-wise multiple regression calculations between Scales 1-9 and each of the five criterion variables, for the sample as a whole, and for the sample divided by level, by sex, and by level sex, are summarised in Tables III (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively, where beta scores and multiple Rs are presented. In each case, F was significant beyond the 5 per cent level.

Whole sample

As indicated in Table III (a), taking the sample as a whole, there was evidence from the multiple regression analyses that four of the transformational factors (Scale 1 ±

Table II Product-moment correlation coefficients between scales 1-9 and criterion variables, for managers Factor/criterion variable

A

Achievement B C

job satisfaction A B C

A

Motivation B C

Satisfying leadership A B C

Stress (negative) A B C

Genuine concern for others

M 0.78 F 0.81

0.73 0.79

0.81 0.82

0.87 0.83

0.82 0.85

0.85 0.85

0.82 0.89

0.84 0.81

0.87 0.87

0.81 0.89

0.80 0.81

0.84 0.84

0.72 0.76

0.74 0.76

0.75 0.79

Political sensitivity and skills

M 0.53 F 0.68

0.43 0.37

0.55 0.22

0.51 0.70

0.44 0.39

0.57 0.26

0.54 0.66

0.45 0.42

0.58 0.32

0.51 0.74

0.48 0.42

0.60 0.35

0.42 0.62

0.43 0.41

0.52 0.26

Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence

M 0.56 F 0.59a

0.60 0.60

0.65 0.62

0.61 0.50a

0.61 0.66

0.67 0.63

0.63 0.60

0.63 0.68

0.67 0.69

0.61 0.72

0.65 0.69

0.71 0.70

0.54 0.60a

0.56 0.60

0.58 0.61

Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness

M 0.66 F 0.81

0.64 0.67

0.71 0.72

0.81 0.67

0.78 0.82

0.76 0.79

0.71 0.65a

0.74 0.77

0.75 0.81

0.82 0.75

0.79 0.78

0.79 0.81

0.73 0.5a

0.70 0.81

0.69 0.74

Empowering, develops potential

M 0.62 F 0.69

0.65 0.74

0.65 0.72

0.68 0.63

0.72 0.75

0.69 0.74

0.71 0.60a

0.68 0.75

0.68 0.74

0.70 0.64

0.67 0.72

0.71 0.74

0.61 0.54a

0.62 0.69

0.64 0.65

Networker, promoter, communicator

M 0.59 F 0.61

0.62 0.63

0.66 0.61

0.71 0.59

0.66 0.75

0.69 0.61

0.64 0.61

0.67 0.72

0.73 0.69

0.73 0.76

0.69 0.75

0.75 0.68

0.57 0.59

0.62 0.71

0.61 0.56

Accessibility, approachability

M 0.50 F 0.66

0.58 0.64

0.67 0.65

0.69 0.72

0.66 0.69

0.69 0.73

0.60 0.79

0.62 0.69

0.71 0.74

0.66 0.78

0.66 0.70

0.72 0.75

0.62 0.64

0.61 0.65

0.65 0.67

Clarifies boundaries

M 0.52 F 0.64

0.66 0.57

0.67 0.71

0.63 0.59

0.73 0.72

0.71 0.76

0.57 0.62

0.69 0.67

0.71 0.74

0.65 0.66

0.73 0.70

0.73 0.78

0.54 0.62

0.69 0.73

0.62 0.69

Encourages critical and strategic thinking

M 0.67 F 0.68

0.66 0.81

0.72 0.72

0.78 0.63

0.69 0.72

0.74 0.73

0.73 0.70

0.69 0.74

0.75 0.78

0.76 0.79

0.70 0.72

0.76 0.74

0.59 0.68

0.59 0.67

0.60 0.65

Notes: Level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n 126), females (F) (n 13); Level 3, males (M) (n 294), females (F) (n 88); Level 4, males (M) (n 393), females (F) (n 162); a Denotes p < 0.05; p < 0.01 (in all other cases) [ 285 ]


Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence, and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, involves others in decisions), were all significant predictors of each of the five criterion variables. In each case, the largest beta coefficient was for Genuine concern for others. Two other scales (Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability, and Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking) were significant predictors of four of the criterion variables, though with slightly different patterns of relationship. Three of the remaining scales (Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open, Scale 5 ± Empowers, develops potential, and Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and promoter) were significantly related to at least one criterion variable, while Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills was not a significant predictor of any of them.

The multiple Rs ranged from 0.74 to 0.84, suggesting that a large amount of variance was being accounted for.

Subjects divided by level

Analysis of the pattern of relationships among managers at different levels (Table III (b)) reveals that, while there was consistency with the results for the sample as a whole, in that Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others continued to show the greatest predictive power, there were some level-related differences. Thus, there was similarity between the whole sample (Table III (a)) and managers at the different levels in the predictive power of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and Scale 4 ± Integrity. For managers at all levels, these two factors continued to be significant predictors of the relevant variables, with the largest beta values associated with Genuine concern for others. Scale 3 ± Decisiveness continued to be significantly related to Achievement; Scale 7

Table III (a) Multiple correlations between factor 1-9 and criterion variables Factor/criterion variable

Achievement

Job satisfaction

Motivation

Satisfying leadership style

Stress (negative)

0.367 ± 0.157 ± 0.100 ± ± 0.081 0.189 0.78

0.345 ± 0.109 0.138 ± ± 0.086 0.155 0.137 0.83

0.413 ± 0.177 ± 0.0.51 ± 0.065 0.105 0.152 0.83

0.251 ± 0.144 0.150 ± 0.068 0.090 0.178 0.122 0.84

0.297 ± 0.118 0.157 ± ± 0.119 0.178 ± 0.74

Genuine concern for others Political sensitive and skills Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness Empowering, develops potential Networker, promoter, communicators Accessibility, approachability Clarifies dounaries, involves others Encourages critical and strategi thinking Multiple R

Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for whole sample (n 1172) Table III (b) Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variable Factor/criterion variable

A

Achievement B C

Job satisfaction A B C

A

Motivation B C

Genuine concern for others 0.617 0.274 0.387 0.440 0.241 0.353 0.470 0.404 Political sensitivity and skills ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.124 ± Decisiveness, determination, selfconfidence 0.238 0.183 0.123 ± ± 0.110 0.198 0.208 Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness ± ± ± 0.178 0.222 0.085 ± ± Empowering, develops potential ± 0.214 0.070 ± 0.107 ± ± 0.150 Networker, promoter, communicator ± ± ± 0.156 0.111 ± ± 0.118 Accessibility, approachability ± ± ± ± 0.078 0.076 ± ± Clarifies boundaries ± ± 0.136 ± 0.145 0.183 ± 0.103 Encourages critical and strategic thinking ± 0.233 0.180 0.174 0.098 0.145 0.167 ± Multiple R 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.83

Satisfying leadership A B C

0.328 0.293 0.231 0.248 0.335 0.145 0.351 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.135

±

0.127 0.166

±

±

0.124

± 0.230 0.211 0.122 0.296 0.199 0.109 ± ± ± ± ± 0.096 ± ± 0.251 0.124 ± ± 0.120 ± 0.076 ± 0.078 0.096 0.173 0.094 0.112 0.142 ± 0.146 0.228 ± 0.252 0.156 0.180 0.176 0.095 0.133 ± 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.71

Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) (n 388), and Level 4 (n 597) [ 286 ]

Stress (negative) A B C

± 0.77

± 0.74


± Accessibility to reduced Stress, and Scale 9 ± Encouraging critical and strategic thinking to Job satisfaction and to Satisfaction with leadership style. At the same time, a number of differences between managers at the different levels were evident. Thus, three level-related patterns of relationships were evident in the case of Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, one involving Scale 5 ± Empowers, two involving Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker, two involving Accessibility, and five involving Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries. Only among Level 1 and 2 (combined) managers did Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity

and skills emerge as a significant predictor, in this case, of Motivation. The multiple Rs ranged from 0.71 to 0.84, again suggesting that the different factors together account for a large amount of criterion variable variance.

Subjects divided by sex

There were no differences between the patterns of relationships for the sample as a whole, and when males and females were analysed separately, in the cases of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others (which continued to have the highest beta coefficients), Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, Scale 4 ± Integrity and Scale 9

Table III (c) Multiple correlations between factors 1-9 and criterion variables Achievement M F

Factor/criterion variable Genuine concern for others Political sensitivity and skills Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness Empowering, develops potential Networker, promoter, communicator Accessibility, approachability Clarifies boundaries Encourages critical and strategic thinking Multiple R

0.359 0.060 0.135 ± 0.074 ± ± 0.106 0.168 0.77

0.368 ±0.094 0.202 ± 0.171 ± ± ± 0.237 0.81

Job satisfaction M F 0.355 ± 0.090 0.145 ± ± 0.086 0.150 0.138 0.83

0.329 ±0.068 0.174 0.115 ± ± 0.095 0.172 0.136 0.84

Satisfying leadership M F

Motivation M F 0.457 0.056 0.129 ± ± ± 0.058 0.117 0.140 0.82

0.385 ± 0.233 ± 0.093 ± 0.085 ± 0.198 0.85

0.249 ± 0.108 0.173 ± 0.084 0.082 0.176 0.123 0.84

0.266 ± 0.226 0.102 ± ± 0.122 0.173 0.125 0.85

Stress (negative) M F 0.267 ± 0.098 0.138 0.066 ± 0.125 0.166 ± 0.73

0.358 ± 0.163 0.185 ± ± ± 0.189 ± 0.77

Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for males (M) (n 855), females (F) (n 289), at all levels Table III (d) Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variables Factor/criterion Genuine concern for others

M F Political sensitivity and M skills F Decisiveness, determination, M self-confidence F Integrity, trustworthiness M F Empowering, develops M potential F Networker, promoter, M communicator F Accessibility, M approachability F Clarifies boundaries M F Encourages critical and M strategic thinking F Multiple R M F

A

Achievement B C

0.628 0.177 0.377 0.659 0.360 0.380 ± ± ± ± ± ±0.138 0.236 0.127 0.116 ± 0.209 0.193 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.184 ± ± 0.243 ± ± 0.112 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.085 ± ± ± ± 0.157 0.133 ± ±0.194 0.192 ± 0.156 0.178 ± 0.321 0.217 0.78 0.76 0.78 0.66 0.82 0.81

Job satisfaction A B C 0.535 0.714 ± ± ± ± 0.228 ± ± ± 0.189 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.85 0.71

0.217 0.454 ± ± ± 0.190 0.236 0.201 0.126 ± ± 0.171 0.118 ± 0.188 ± 0.105 ± 0.84 0.86

0.409 0.333 ± ±0.106 0.121 0.165 0.091 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.104 0.165 0.249 0.145 0.158 0.82 0.83

A

Motivation B C

0.629 ± ± ± 0.295 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.532 ± ± ± 0.402 0.82 0.82

0.405 0.414 ± ± 0.128 0.378 ± ± 0.103 0.202 0.114 ± ± ± 0.120 ± 0.100 ± 0.83 0.83

0.444 0.414 ± ± 0.102 0.191 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.095 ± 0.149 0.133 0.153 0.249 0.83 0.86

Satisfying leadership A B C 0.391 0.277 ± ± ± ± 0.315 ± ± ± 0.230 0.414 ± ± ± ± ± 0.407 0.83 0.90

0.194 0.359 ± ± ± 0.275 0.291 ± ± 0.164 0.167 0.226 ± ± 0.196 ± 0.142 ± 0.85 0.84

0.264 0.241 ± ± 0.152 0.186 0.124 0.142 ± ± ± ± 0.105 ± 0.197 0.291 0.138 0.146 0.84 0.86

Stress (negative) A B C 0.409 ± ± 0.377 ± ± 0.369 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.493 0.72 0.73

0.212 ± ± ± ± ± 0.161 0.410 ± ± 0.107 ± 0.115 0.205 0.291 0.267 ± ± 0.76 0.78

0.330 0.394 ± ± 0.104 0.156 0.107 0.139 ± ± ± ± 0.143 ± 0.144 0.200 ± ± 0.72 0.77

Notes: Beta coefficients, for managers at level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n 126), females (F) (n 13); level 3, males (M) (n 294), females (F) (n 88); and level 4, males (M) (n 393), females (F) (n 162) [ 287 ]


± Encourages critical and strategic thinking (Tables III (a) and (c)). There was also much similarity in the patterns for Accessibility, which did not, however, emerge as a significant predictor of Reduced stress among females; among the men it had the lowest beta coefficient (0.07). Sex-related differences in the relationship between Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and Achievement, evident in the correlational data, were also found here; for males the relationship was positive, for females negative. Sex-related differences were also found in that Political sensitivity and skills was negatively related to Job satisfaction among females, but positively related to Motivation among males. In relation to each of the criterion variables, there was at least one sex-related difference; two of the differences involved Political sensitivity and skills (q.v.) and Empowers, respectively; Empowers and Accessibility were only predictors of Reduced stress among males. Also, uniquely among males, Clarifies boundaries was related to Achievement and to Motivation, and Inspirational networker to Satisfying leadership style; while among females, a unique link was found between Empowers and Motivation. Once again, the multiple Rs (range 0.73 to 0.85) were high.

Subjects divided by level and sex

In analysing the data presented in Table III (d), there is, again, the need for caution in relation to the cells for Level 1 and 2 (combined) females, and for Level 3 females. Thus, differences between these data, particularly in relation to Level 1 and 2 (combined) females, and the data for Level 1 and 2 (combined) managers as a whole (Tables III (a) and (b)), e.g. in the cases of the relationships between Motivation and the Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, and between Stress and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and Encourages critical and strategic thinking, may be owing to the small sample size. There was similarity between the relationships between dependent and independent variables for managers as a whole and when divided by sex, in the following cases: Achievement and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, and Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking; Job satisfaction and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others; Motivation and Scale 5 ± Empowers; Satisfying leadership style and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, and Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker; and Reduced stress and Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries.

[ 288 ]

Noteworthy among the differences were the relationships involving: Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, where oppositely-valent beta values were detected in relation to Achievement, and there were other sexrelated differences in relation to Job satisfaction, Motivation, and Satisfying leadership style; Scale 4 ± Integrity, which continued to be a consistent predictor of Job satisfaction, and of Satisfying leadership style, only among the male managers; Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, which appeared to be more related to Job satisfaction, and to Satisfying leadership style, among female than male managers; and Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, which, among Level 4 females, was a negative predictor of Achievement, and of Job satisfaction.

Discussion 1. Product-moment correlations

Both the correlational and the multiple regression data provide evidence of statistically significant relationships between each of the criterion variables and transformational leadership Scales 1-9. These data, then, provide evidence of the convergent validity of each of the factors, even though, as noted above, Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills is different in its provenance from the other scales. The correlational data for the managers divided by level sex suggest that, in the case of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, between 56 and 72 per cent of criterion variable variance can be accounted for by this aspect of transformational leadership. Even in the case of the lowest coefficients, other than those involving Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, the amount of Stress variance accounted by Scale 3 ± Decisiveness is 34 per cent. The psychological significance of the correlational data is, then, that they indicate that each of the nine transformational scales is significantly correlated to the different measures of satisfaction, stress and outcome, assessed by the five criterion variables. Thus, they provide evidence of the convergent validity of each of the transformational leadership scales, even when the managers are subdivided by level of seniority and sex.

2. Multiple regressions

The psychological significance of the multiple regression analyses is: that they focus attention on the way in which the different scales are particularly relevant to different aspects of satisfaction, stress and


outcome; and, thus, that they provide evidence that, in spite of themselves being significantly intercorrelated, each of the scales measures a distinct aspect of transformational leadership, and the discriminant validity of the instrument. In other words, within the context of their validity, each of the scales may have particular relevance to certain aspects of how a manager feels or acts. This particular relevance may be described as the scale's ``focus of convenience''. In Personal Contract Theory (Kelly, 1955), this term is defined as, `à set of events which its user finds can be most conveniently ordered within its context'' (Bannister and Mair, 1968, p. 19), in contrast to the ``range of convenience'' which is `à broader set of events which the construct can deal with, if sometimes less effectively''. In the present context, the focus of convenience of a particular scale refers to those aspects of job-related behaviour or feelings to which that scale is most relevant. In some cases, the focus of convenience of a scale relates to an aspect of behaviour or feelings among a group or sub-group of managers. To suggest that a scale does not have a particular focus of convenience does not have implications for its range of convenience. The range of convenience of a scale is the wider range of feelings and behaviours, among a wider range of groups and sub-groups of managers, for which the scale still has relevance (as evidenced by the correlational data). Thus, the correlational data suggest that each of the five aspects of job-related behaviour or feelings is within the range of convenience of each of the nine scales. It is important to be clear that the process of stepwise multiple regression analysis entails a successive removal of the variance accounted for by each scale as it is partialed out of the equation. The effect of this process is, therefore, to remove both the variance uniquely accounted for by the scale and also any variance that it may share with other scales. For this reason, the full amount of variance accounted for by scales that are extracted at subsequent steps in the process will not always be evident. For this reason, the focus of convenience of scales that explain less of the common variance will not always be evident. Either it will be reduced, or when the amount of unique variance that a scale can account for is very small, it may not be at a level that will reach statistical significance, and thus not be evident at all. There is an underlying reason for not expecting either the product-moment or the multiple regression data to be identical for the different groups and sub-groups of

managers. This is evidence of the influence of ``substitutes for leadership'' ± that is, personal factors (e.g. high need for independence, indifference to organisational rewards, or a professional orientation) and contextual factors (e.g. work group autonomy, or routine or programmed work), which can have a modulating effect on leader behaviour (e.g. Bass, 1990; Gronn, 1999; Howell, 1997; Howell, Dorfmann and Kerr, 1986; Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Jermier and Kerr, 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). Recent research by Stordeur, Vandenberghe and D'Hoore (1999) among nurses in a Belgian hospital indicated a significant moderating effect of such factors on the relationship between MLQ scores and the four criterion variables, including job satisfaction and satisfaction with leadership style. Both the correlational and multiple regression data provide evidence of the significance of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others. Not only does this scale have the highest correlations with each of the criterion variables, but it also contributes the greatest amount of predictive variance in each of the multiple regression equations, where it also has the largest beta values. From the pattern of relationships between the criterion items and the transformational leadership factors (Table III (a)), it is clear that each of the scales, except Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, is a significant predictor of one or more of the criteria used. Three of the scales ± Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence, and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries ± are significant of all five criteria, though to differing degrees. Two scales ± Scale 7 Accessibility, approachability, and Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking ± are significant predictors of four criteria. Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open is a significant predictor of Job satisfaction, Satisfying leadership style, and Stress (reduced level); while Scale 8 ± Empowers, develops potential is a significant predictor of Achievement, and Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and promoter is a significant predictor of Satisfying leadership style.

Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others

This scale emerged as being a consistently significant predictor of each of the five criterion variables, and also the greatest single predictor, both for the sample as a whole and when the sample was divided either by level or by sex. However, when the sample was subdivided by level sex, this was not true for Motivation and for Stress.

[ 289 ]


Here, though, the absence of significant relationships involving Levels 1 and 2 and Level 3 female managers may be attributable to the small size of the sample for these analyses. Overall, the results are consonant with the nature of the scale, which relates both to sensitivity to the feelings of others, and to offering personal support and communicating positive expectations. Furthermore, they suggest that the scale shows a measure of robustness, as evident in an absence of sex-related differences, or of differences between managers at different levels in their organisation.

Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence

Two other scales, Scale 3 and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, also emerged as significant predictors of each of the criterion variables for the sample as a whole. For Scale 3, these relationships held true when the results for female and male managers were analysed separately, and also for managers at Level 4. However, the evidence suggests that, for managers at all levels, high scores on this scale were only predictors of a feeling of enabling greater achievement than expected (Achievement) and of increasing motivation to achieve (Motivation). The results for when the managers were subdivided both by level sex are broadly consistent with the results of the other analyses. In view of the small sample size of Levels 1 and 2 female managers, the absence of statistically significant links with Achievement and Motivation is probably an artefact. As the label indicates, Scale 4 relates to personal attributes of a manager as perceived by a direct report. Thus, just as much for female as male managers, and certainly for managers at the lowest level, that they perceive their boss to have these attributes is a cause of satisfaction with their job and with the leadership style of their manager, leads to a reduced level of job-related stress, and encourages and enables achievement.

Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, keeps others informed, involves others in decision making

As noted above, Scale 8 is also a significant predictor of all five criterion variables for the sample as a whole. However, when the sample was analysed by level, in no case did the relationship hold true among the chief executive and top-level managers, though among the Level 3 and Level 4 managers the whole sample results were more or less replicated, the exception being Level 3 managers in the case of the Achievement criterion. Furthermore, whereas there were

[ 290 ]

no sex-related differences in relation to measures of satisfaction and Reduced stress, there was evidence of such differences in relation to Achievement and Motivation. Thus, it would seem that only among male managers, in general, do clarification of boundaries and involvement in decisions emerge as significant predictors of encouraging and enabling achievement. Quite why no such effect was detected among females is not immediately apparent, though clarification of boundaries was equally relevant to both measures of satisfaction, and to a reduced level of stress for both males and females. The evidence of level-related differences may be interpreted as suggesting that only managers at lower levels need to have their boundaries clarified for them; managers at more senior levels are likely to enjoy greater autonomy in determining the parameters of their work on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, for Levels 1 and 2 managers, only two of the nine scales are significant predictors of enabling them to achieve more than they expected (Achievement). The results for when the managers were subdivided by level sex are consonant with the interpretation that clarification of boundaries and involving others in decision making are important to the job performance of lower-level managers, both male and female. The negative beta value for Achievement among Level 3 female managers is not readily interpretable and, for reasons of sample size, most likely artificial. Thus, while for managers, Clarifies boundaries emerges as a significant predictor of job-related satisfaction and of reduced job-related stress for both male and female managers in general, and of encouraging and enabling achievement among male managers in general, its relevance or ``focus of convenience'' is principally, if not exclusively, among senior and particularly middle managers of both sexes, i.e., those at lower levels in their organisation.

Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic thinking

For the sample as a whole, Scale 9 is a significant predictor of four of the criterion variables for the sample as a whole, and when the sample was divided by sex. However, when the data were analysed by level, this consistency persisted only for the two measures of satisfaction. Only among Level 3 (senior) and Level 4 (middle) managers was the encouragement of critical and strategic thinking a significant predictor of Achievement, though for Motivation the results were ambiguous. The analyses by level and sex support the suggestion that the


focus of convenience of this scale is lowerlevel managers, with the results being consistent for both females and males at Level 4. For a manager to be scored highly on encouraging critical and strategic thinking implies that s/he is not only confident in her/ himself and but is also open to the ideas of others ± two of the prerequisites of creativity identified by Carl Rogers (1961). It has also been identified as a factor (intellectual stimulation) in the Bass and Avolio MLQ (Bass, 1990a, 1990b).

Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability

Scale 7 was also found to be a significant predictor of four of the criterion variables for the sample as a whole. When the sample was divided by level, the same pattern persisted in the case of managers at Level 4, and also for male managers, when the sample was divided by sex. However, analyses of the sample subdivided by level and sex were not readily interpretable. Thus, in no case did Accessibility emerge as a significant predictor of enabling greater achievement but, among both males and females, it was a significant predictor of both measures of satisfaction and of increased motivation to achieve. It was also significantly linked to reduced stress among males, but not females. Why a sex-related difference should exist is not self-evident, though it may be hypothesised that among female managers the perception of one's line manager as relatively inaccessible and unapproachable may be only one of many job-related causes of stress. For males and females combined, Accessibility was significantly linked to reduced level of stress among managers at all levels, which is consonant with the results for the sample as a whole. That Accessibility is a significant predictor of satisfaction with the job and with leadership style among lower-level (Level 3 and Level 4) managers is readily interpretable; that the relationship is limited to them, may be a reflection of generally more collegial relationships among executive and top-level managers, with access readily available and taken for granted. Similarly, that the Motivation to achieve is linked to Accessibility only among middle-level (Level 4) managers may be an organisational culture-related phenomenon. It might also relate to findings from an earlier study of the career development of British managers (Alban-Metcalfe and Nicholson, 1984) which included an investigation of relative motivators in a job. Based on an analysis of the rank ordering of items identified in the literature at the time of what motivates managers in a job,

``High quality senior managers'' was found to emerge as the second and third of 17 factors, for males and females respectively. Among the comments regularly made in the final, open-ended section of the survey instrument used, were those relating to senior managers' availability and accessibility, and their familiarity with the difficulties faced by those whom they managed (Alban-Metcalfe, 1985). Thus, the focus of convenience of Accessibility, approachability emerges as being predominantly among lower-level managers, though among both female and male managers in general.

Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness

Among the sample as a whole, Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness emerged as a significant predictor of three criterion variables ± both measures of satisfaction and reduced stress ± a pattern which was replicated when the data were analysed by level and by sex. When the sample was subdivided by level sex, the pattern was again replicated among the male managers, but not the female. Given that the scale is predicated on perceptions of the line manager as someone whose actions are based on moral and ethical principles, relationships between it and the three criterion variables are readily interpretable, and indeed to be expected. What is difficult to understand is the apparent inconsistency among the female managers, when analysed by level. While evidence of sex-related differences among the Level 1 and 2 group can, perhaps, be attributed to sample size, the absence of significant relationships involving Job satisfaction (Level 4 females) and Satisfaction with leadership style (Level 3 females) are less readily explicable, and would warrant further investigation. Could it be that, for females, satisfaction at work is not as strongly predicated on the integrity or trustworthiness of their line manager, or perhaps more radically, that females have learnt not to expect satisfaction from working with their boss? Further analyses by sex of rater and sex of target manager might inform discussion.

Scale 5 ± Empowers, delegates, develops potential

Two criterion variables ± both achievementrelated ± were predicted by this scale among the sample as a whole, but only the relationship with Achievement was replicated among sub-groups, and only when the sample was divided by sex. Why different patterns of significant relationships should

[ 291 ]


emerge when the sample was subdivided may be attributable to the nature of the scale. Thus, while the scale does relate to a psychologically coherent entity and, in statistical terms, the internal reliability was high ( = 0.91) and the individual items were significantly intercorrelated (r = 0.37 ± 0.73), the component items assess different aspects of what is, in reality, a continuous process. It may be that different groups of managers attribute different levels of personal significance to different aspects of the scale. However, in the absence of concrete evidence of this, it would be inappropriate to speculate further. It might prove valuable to investigate further the nature and the correlates of this scale.

Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and promoter

Among the sample as a whole, this scale emerged as a predictor only of Satisfaction with leadership style, though when the sample was analysed by sex, the relationship only persisted among the male managers. However, analyses by level indicated that the scale predicted both sources of satisfaction among managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) and Level 3, a finding that was replicated for Satisfaction with leadership style, though not Job satisfaction for both male and female managers, analysed separately. In spite of having high internal reliability ( = 0.93) and significant inter-items correlations (r = 0.42 ± 0.74), the Inspirational networker and promoter scale relates to different aspects of manager behaviour ± drawing people together, communicating, promoting the department ± that are linked by a common theme. Thus, while the scale tends to lead to satisfaction among higher (Level 1 and 2 and Level 3), rather than middle-level (Level 4) managers, it may be the case that different groups and sub-groups of managers relate to different aspects of it; or, alternatively, that these behaviours are more likely to be observed by higher-level managers, or both reasons combined.

Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills

The absence of significant relationships involving this scale among the sample as a whole must be interpreted in the light of the results when the sample was analysed by sex, where oppositely-valent beta values were detected for Achievement. These, and the sexrelated differences in the relationship between Scale 2 and both Job satisfaction and Motivation, suggest that perceiving their line manager to be politically sensitive and politically skilled may have an opposite effect on the actions and feeling of female and male managers. This interpretation may prove to

[ 292 ]

be consonant with the finding that among managers at each of the levels, scores on Scale 2 were significantly lower for females than males. If replicated by others, the implications of these findings may be important for the dynamics of an organisation at different levels, and would certainly warrant further investigation. The only other relationship to merit comment is the readily interpretable link between Political sensitivity and skills, and Motivation (increases my motivation to achieve) among Level 1 and 2 managers in general. These two groups, particularly those at Level 1 (executive), are those who come into most contact with elected members (i.e. locally elected councillors), and are therefore most likely to respect this attribute in others and themselves to need to possess the attributes measured by Scale 2. At the same time, it is important to be conscious of the provenance of the items that comprise the scale; five of the six items were proposed by management trainers working in local government, and not, as with all the other items, based on constructs elicited by staff working in local government at each of the four levels. The focus of convenience of this scale is executive and top-level managers, for whom it was devised.

Conclusions Overall, the results support the hypotheses that each scale is a valid predictor of each of the five criterion variables used, and that the nine scales that comprise the TLQ-LGV measure different aspects of transformational leadership. Thus, the product-moment correlations indicated that the nine scales are all valid, even when the managers were subdivided by level and sex. What emerged from the regression analyses was firstly that, for the sample as a whole, the nine TLQ-LGV scales differ from each other in the extent to which they are significant predictors of the five criterion variables, in other words in their focus of convenience. Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others emerged consistently as the greatest single predictor, but the use of the stepwise method meant that, with each successive step, the variance attributable to previously extracted scales was partialed out. In this way, the unique predictive value of each scale could be determined. Thus, there is evidence that the eight remaining scales demonstrated a statistically significant level of predictive validity in their own right. This constitutes further evidence of the validity of distinguishing


between different aspects of transformational leadership as measured by the TLQ-LGV, even though the scales themselves share variance in common. That, by and large, the pattern of relationships between scales and criterion variables persisted when the sample was divided by sex is not surprising given the lengths that were undertaken to ensure that the TLQ-LGV was free from gender-bias. It is, nevertheless, reassuring that such overall consistency should be evident. Where sexrelated differences were detected, these were associated with differences in level, and were mostly interpretable with reference to sexplus-level-related influences, and the possible effects of ``substitutes for leadership'' factors. While there was much consistency between the sample analysed as a whole and when divided by level, a number of interpretable level-related differences were detected. Since a close/nearby concept of leadership was adopted, and this was reflected both in eliciting initial constructs and in the nature of the ratings provided by the respondents (i.e. of their current or previous boss), and in the stratified sample used to construct the TLQ-LGV, these differences cannot readily be dismissed as artefacts. Rather, the nine scales should be regarded as having particular relevance to the job-related perceptions of managers at different levels in their organisation ± their own, unique focus of convenience. Here, there often appeared to be a dichotomy between top managers versus those at senior and middle level. Furthermore, where sexrelated differences were reported, they were also level-related. These findings would also appear to justify the researchers' aim to investigate the effects of culture, gender, and social distance, in relation to models of transformational leadership in a country other than the US, from which most respected leadership models emanate. Given the differences in the dimensions identified in the TLQ-LGV, coupled with those in the MLQ , it would seem important to consider the implications of these differences for multinational organisations, and for UK-US organisations seeking to select and develop individuals with leadership qualities.

Criticisms and further investigations The conclusions to be drawn from these analyses must be interpreted in light of the small number of female managers at Levels 1 and 2, and the fact that, even though a representative range of organisation was

used, the sample was derived from only one part of the UK public sector. The research is limited in that each of the five criterion variables was assessed on the basis of selfperceptions, that each variable was measured using a single item, and that there is the possibility of ``halo effects'', at least in the correlational data. The next stages of the research will include: . testing the `ècological'' validity of the TLQ-LGV in a different public sector, and against independent criteria; . examining the factorial structure of the TLQ-LGV, using confirmatory factor analysis; . identifying dispositional and other personal correlates of the different aspects of transformational leadership; . analysing data for various raters participating in a 360-degree feedback process, based on the TLQ-LGV; . analysing the data by sex of rater and sex of target manager rated; . developing a UK Model of Transformational Leadership; . cross-cultural studies of transformational leadership. While this study has examined the validity of a new transformational leadership instrument, and provided supportive evidence, the authors would urge that more qualitative research be conducted on constructs associated with leadership in: . different organisations; . different sectors (public and private); . different countries; and . at different organisational levels. The intention here was not to replace a grand US model of transformational leadership with a ``grand UK model''; rather, to start from a grounded theory approach, to identify further the nature of the ``leadership phenomenon'' in different cultural and organisational settings, and to contribute to an ongoing debate.

References

Adler, N.J. (1983a), `À typology of management studies involving culture'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-47. Adler, N.J. (1983b), ``Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 226-32. Adler, N. (1991), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., PWSKENT, Boston, MA. Alban-Metcalfe, B. (1985), ``What motivates managers in the public and private sectors'', Public Administration, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 95108.

[ 293 ]


[ 294 ]

Alban-Metcalfe, B. and Nicholson, N. (1984), The Career Development of British Managers, British Institute of Management, London. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), `Àn investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment'', Women in Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 3-8. Alimo-Metcalfe, B.M. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2000), ``The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (Local Government Version) (TLQ-LGV); a factor analytic study''. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (accepted for publication). Avolio, B.J. (1995), ``Transformational leadership'', Leadership Review Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 4. Ayman, R. (1993), ``Leadership perception: the role of gender and culture'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 137-66. Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M.M. (1968), The Evaluation of Personal Constructs, Academic Press, London. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-9. Bass, B.M. (1998a), Current Developments in Transformational Leadership: Research and Applications, invited address to the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, August. Bass, B.M. (1998b), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990a), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990b), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), ``Transformational leadership: a response to critiques'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research, Academic Press, London, pp. 49-80. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994a), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994b), ``Shatter the glass ceiling: women may make better managers'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 549-60.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996), ``The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women'', International Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 5-34. Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, Sage Publications, London. Bryman, A. (1996), ``Leadership in organizations'', in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Studies, Sage Publications, London, pp. 276-92. Carless, S.A. (1998), `Àssessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as measured by the MLQ'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 353-8. Chelmers, M. and Ayman, R. (Eds) (1993), Leadership Theory and Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Conger, J.A. (1998), ``Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 107-21. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), ``Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), ``Behavioural dimensions of charismatic leadership'', in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78-97. Cortina, J.M. (1993), ``What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 98-104. Den Hartog, D.N., van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), ``Transactional versus transformational leadership: an observational field study'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 19-34. Druskat, V.U. (1994), ``Gender and leadership style: transformational and transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic Church'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 99-119. Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Gronn, R. (1999), ``Substituting for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-62. Hollander, E.P. (1978), Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships, Free Press, New York, NY. House, R.J. (1977), `À 1976 theory of charismatic leadership'', in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 189-207. Howell, J.P. (1997). ``Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement ± an


historical assessment'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 113-16 Howell, J.P., Dorfman, J.W. and Kerr, S. (1986), ``Moderator variables in leadership research'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 88-102. Hunt, J.G. (1996), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Hunt, J.G. (1999), ``Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field: an historical essay'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-44. Hunt, J.G. and Peterson, M.F. (1997), ``Two scholars' views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 343-54. Jermier, J.M. and Kerr, S. (1997), ``Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement ± contextual recollections and current observations'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-101. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., J. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Kelly, G.A. (1955), Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vols 1 and 2, Norton, New York, NY. Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. (1978), ``Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement'', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 374-403. Kline, P. (1986), Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design, Methuen, London. Komives, S.R. (1991), ``The relationship of hall directors' transformational and transactional leadership to select resident assistant outcomes'', Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 32, pp. 509-15. Liem, K. (1962), Statistical Tables: Documenta Geigy, Geigy, Macclesfield. Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), ``Grounded theory and organizational research'', Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-57. Parry, K.W. (1998), ``Grounded theory and social processes: a new direction for leadership research'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-105. Peterson, M.F. and Hunt, J.G. (1997), `Ìnternational perspectives on international leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 203-31. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), ``Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership model: background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for further research'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-25. Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Rosenbach, W.E. and Taylor, R.L. (Eds) (1993), Contemporary Issues in Leadership, Westview Press, Oxford.

Rosener, J. (1990). ``Ways women lead'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, NovemberDecember, pp. 119-225. Sashkin, M. (1988), ``The visionary leader'', in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 122-60. Shamir, B. (1995), ``Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47. Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives, Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA. Sparrow, J. and Rigg, C. (1993), ``Job analysis: Selecting for the masculine approach to management'', Selection and Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-8. Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C. and D'Hoore, W. (1999), `Àn examination of substitutes for leadership within a Belgium nursing context'', paper presented to the Sixth European Conference on Organizational Psychology and Health Care, University of Ghent and Jan Palfijn Hospital, Ghent. Strong, P.M. (1984), `Òn qualitative methods and leadership research'', in Hunt, J.G., Hosking, D.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and Stewart, R. (Eds), Leaders and Managers: An International Perspective on Managerial Behavior and Leadership, Pergamon, New York, NY, pp. 204-8. Triandis, H.C. (1990), ``Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology'', in Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.C. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 103-72. Triandis, C.H. (1993), ``The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 167-88. Turner, B.A. (1983), ``The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behavior'', Journal of Management Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333-48. Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.N. (1973), Leadership and Decision Making, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. Wright, P.L. (1996), Managerial Leadership, Routledge, London. Yagil, D. (1998), ``Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 161-76. Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Yukl, G.A. (1989), ``Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research'', Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 251-89.

(The appendix follows overleaf.)

[ 295 ]


Appendix Table AI The nine scales 1 Genuine concern for others

Genuine interest in me as an individual; develops my strengths

2 Political sensitivity and skills

Sensitive to the political pressures that elected members face; understands the political dynamics of the leading group; can work with elected member to achieve results

3 Decisiveness, determination, selfconfidence

Decisive when required; prepared to take difficult decisions; selfconfident; resilient to setback

4 Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open

Makes it easy for me to admit mistakes; is trustworthy, takes decisions based on moral and ethical principles

5 Empowers, develops potential

Trusts me to take decision/initiatives on important issues; delegates effectively; enables me to use my potential

6 Inspirational networker and promoter

Has a wide network of links to external environment; effectively promotes the work/achievements of the department/organization to the outside world; is able to communicate effectively the vision of the authority/department to the pubic community

7 Accessible, approachable

Accessible to staff at all levels; keeps in touch using face-to-face communication

8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in decisions

Defines boundaries of responsibility; involves staff when making decisions; keeps people informed of what is going on

9 Encourages critical and strategic thinking Encourages the questioning of traditional approaches to the job; encourages people to think of wholly new approaches/solutions to problems; encourages strategic, rather than short-term thinking

Table AII Factor names; number of items; means, standard deviations and coefficients of variation; alpha coefficients and range of inter-item correlation coefficients

Factor name 1 Genuine consideration for others

Mean

Range of inter-item Standard Coefficient Alpha deviation of variation coefficient coefficients

17

70.48

18.63

26.43

0.97

0.52 ± 0.81

2 Political sensitivity and skills

6

30.04

4.92

16.38

0.92

0.47 ± 0.79

3 Decisiveness, determination, selfconfidence

8

38.52

7.05

18.30

0.90

0.37 ± 0.67

4 Integrity, trusted, open and honest

9

39.94

9.72

24.34

0.93

0.48 ± 0.69

5 Empowers, develops potential

8

38.30

7.05

18.41

0.91

0.37 ± 0.73

6 Inspirational networker and promoter

[ 296 ]

Number of items

10

43.89

9.78

22.28

0.93

0.42 ± 0.74

7 Accessibility, approachability

6

26.16

5.89

22.52

0.85

0.43 ± 0.65

8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in decisions

5

20.77

4.98

23.98

0.85

0.43 ± 0.61

9 Encourages critical and strategic thinking

7

29.83

6.98

23.40

0.89

0.44 ± 0.66