Examining the Role of Transformational Leadership in Emergency ...

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2013

Examining the Role of Transformational Leadership in Emergency Management: The Case of FEMA Hasan Karaca, Naim Kapucu, and Montgomery Van Wart It is generally accepted that all administrative agencies need a combination of transactional and transformational leaders; this is no different in emergency management agencies. However, until recently there has been relatively little study regarding the exact nature of transformational leadership in emergency management. Do standard concepts of transformational leadership apply? We used the case of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to explore this issue. Further, because of the time series data available when the agency studied was going through significant changes, we pose a further question: Do “shocks” to an agency significantly affect notions of transformational leadership? Structural equation modeling is conducted to examine and measure transformational leadership behaviors and explore how they relate to public employees’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness as reported by the 2002, 2006, and 2008 Federal Human Capital Surveys (FHCS). KEY WORDS: transformational leadership, perceived effectiveness, emergency management, Federal Human Capital Survey

Introduction While good political leadership has long been considered extremely important and the study of it has been plentiful (Kellerman, 1986), comparatively little research on the leadership of administrative leaders has been done (Terry, 1995; Van Wart, 2003). Powerful political leaders often have the practical ability to single-handedly declare war, increase or decrease the tax coffers, and create or dissolve social policies and public services. Private sector leadership has also been much studied (Bass, 1990). Leading private sector companies can also have a tremendous impact on their organizations because of the scope of their decision making; this is especially true with new and start-up companies whose fortunes are closely tied to their leaders and for whom the failure rate is high. Those leaders who find themselves in private companies but who operate under public ownership work within more a constrained environment by practice and law, yet still have a significant impact. However, a number of scholars have discounted the importance of organizational leadership by providing some useful

19 1944-4079 # 2013 Policy Studies Organization Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX42 DQ.

20

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3:3

caveats to leadership experts and the public at large (Tervio, 2008). For example, Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) and Kets de Vries (1988) have pointed out the tendency to romanticize leadership; that is, leadership is often romanticized to account for more effect than it actually has. For example, while there can be little doubt that leaders of Fortune 500 firms have an impact, significant data suggest that generally the role of a single executive leader is generally relatively small (Bass, 1990); it is only in the case of great or disastrous leaders that the effects of a single leader are significant, such as the legendary Steve Jobs or Lee Iacocca. Good leaders in organizational settings know that sometimes less “leadership” is more; consider the importance of well-articulated management protocols and well-trained employees that allow leaders to lead followers less (substitutes for leadership) and pay more attention to policy design, scanning the environment, etc. (Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). In this context, it is ironic that until relatively recently the study of leadership in administrative settings (outside the military) has been largely overlooked by academics and underappreciated by the public (Van Wart, 2011). Because of a diminished policy role, at least when compared to powerful political and private sector leaders, the importance of leadership in administrative agencies was often taken for granted as largely transactional. That is, administrative leaders were not conceived as having an important role in making major change, only in managing processes and, at most, implementing change as directed by political superiors. Recent research has indicated that leadership in administrative agencies is not only important, but that transformational leadership is often considered slightly more important that transactional leadership (Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012). Although the study of generic situations has long been an interest in leadership studies starting with Stogdill’s (1948) observations, this has more often been in order to understand classes of situations rather than disciplines. For example, what type of leadership is needed with immature employees, when the situation calls for employees to be highly motivated to sell something, or when there is a need to have major changes in an organization to respond to an evolving environment? There are some notable exceptions. Hooijberg and Choi (2001) observed private and public sector employees tend to gauge whether the basic theories of leadership in the existing literature might illustrate behavioral differences. Their study reflects that monitoring and facilitating roles have much more of an impact on the perceived performance of leadership effectiveness in the public sector. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) investigated organizational change in the public sector and Fernandez (2008) investigated the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions and job satisfaction. Gozubenli (2009) investigated the wide range of leadership styles necessary in police departments. Most academic studies of the leadership profile of specific organizations have been relegated to miscellaneous case studies rather than for the purpose of distinguishing the profile of leadership in industry clusters with relatively few exceptions, such as educational leadership. Leadership in emergency management will have similarities with other public sector disciplines, to be sure, but

Karaca/Kapucu/Van Wart: Examining the Role of Transformational Leadership

21

would hardly be identical to leadership in social service agencies, financial agencies, or public works agencies, for example. In investigating the nature of leadership of just one phase of the emergency management environment, Kapucu and Van Wart (2006, 2008) have found that both transactional and transformational leadership are important in catastrophic events. Transactional characteristics of leadership are important in the efficient execution of response because of the criticality of time, the spike in demand, and the inability to learn on the job. Leaders and followers must respond with alacrity to the vast number of situations that require immediate attention. They hypothesize that in more conventional emergency management situations not involving catastrophes, the ideal of training and protocols is to reduce the need for transformational leadership because of the criticality of time and increased likelihood of mistakes. Transformational characteristics are involved inasmuch as the system is often overwhelmed in catastrophic events, requiring leaders to creatively fix major process lapses, and often local responders must innovate due to resource constraints or rare occurrences stemming from catastrophe. As such, their research found that the difference between good and great leaders was the transformational element. The best leaders could maintain transactional processes and standard support, but inspire in difficult circumstances, stay level-headed under pressure, and be willing to intervene quickly when system failures occurred. In yet another study, they hypothesized the types of competencies that would be ideal for emergency managers in the heightened circumstances of the response phase of major emergencies (Van Wart & Kapucu, 2011). The findings indicate that senior emergency managers in administrative leadership positions do not abandon emergency management practices, but rather adapt them selectively. Change management is important, but it must be targeted and time sensitive. Crises are no time to reorganize adequately operating response systems, much less try to implement wholesale organizational changes. Finally, while some of the commonly associated features of transformational leadership do indeed apply, such as self-confidence and decisiveness, others are conspicuously deemphasized, such as the need for achievement. These findings are consistent with Waugh and Streib (2006) and Wise (2006), who looked at the role of collaboration in emergency management and found that adaption suffers when collaboration is not robust. This leads to the issue of the importance and nature of transformational leadership in emergency management over the long term where catastrophes themselves are a part of the long-term “routine.” How important is transformational leadership to perceived leadership effectiveness under “average” circumstances? How important is it, not just to the senior executive an agency, but as a part of the management profile of all those with leadership responsibilities, which would include supervisors? To answer this question, we examined the effects of transformational leadership behaviors on FEMA’s employees’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness for FEMA based on the 2002, 2006, and 2008 reports from the Federal Human Capital Surveys (FHCS). This study is designed to answer the

22


following questions: To what extent do transformational leadership behaviors affect employees’ perception of leadership effectiveness? Which dimensions of transformational leadership have an influence on an employees’ perception of leadership effectiveness? How do the three dimensions (idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation) of transformational leadership influence employees’ perception of leadership effectiveness? How do these three dimensions of transformational leadership correlate with each other? And finally, because of the changes in the FEMA environment that we will discuss below, to what extent did perceived leadership effectiveness alter as FEMA changed from a separate agency to an agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)? Theoretical Perspectives and Conceptual Framework There are many definitions of leadership, but Lenz’s (1993) definition is applicable to this study. He defines leadership as “diagnosing situations, determining what needs to be done and marshaling collective effort sufficient to achieve a desired future or avert significant problems. It entails the use of power and persuasion to define and determine the changing problems and opportunities of an organization” and helps “to foster learning and facilitate change” (p. 154). Leadership Effectiveness According to Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994), the literature on leadership effectiveness can be categorized into five parts. In the first category, leaders are evaluated on the true performance of their team or organizational unit. In the second, assessments from supervisor subordinates, or peers, are used to evaluate leaders. Third, the effectiveness of leaders is evaluated through interviews, simulations, assessment centers, or leaderless group discussions. Fourth, evaluative criteria by leaders’ own self-ratings can be used, and lastly, effectiveness can be determined by the low end of a period implying that a person is promoted or demoted depending on his or her performance. Leadership effectiveness can also be evaluated through the perceptions of their followers. Effective leaders should accomplish four criteria: (a) understand the job-related needs of followers; (b) express those needs to top managers; (c) achieve overall group success; and (d) be conducive to organizational performance (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994, 2004). Researchers have suggested that followers respect and admire their leaders when they perceive them to be effective (Bass & Avolio, 1994, 2004). Overall, effective leadership is characterized by a sense of cohesiveness, a sense of direction, personal development, higher levels of satisfaction, inspiration and trust among followers, a vigorous mechanism for innovation and creativity, and a means of energizing the organizational culture (Conger, 1989; Van Wart, 2003). Thus, it can be concluded that perceived leadership effectiveness is linked to the transformational nature of leadership.


23

Transformational Leaders Versus Transactional Leaders Bass (1996) proposes that there are two different types of leadership philosophies: transactional and transformational. The transactional leader focuses on performing specific tasks and the basic personnel functions such as rewarding and punishing. Transactional leaders emphasize getting tasks done in a timely way, monitoring, and basic training to ensure technical competence. The transformational leader, on the other hand, encourages employees to function as a team, is receptive to and provides ideas for better ways of doing things, and provides an environment open to appropriate risk-taking. Interestingly, Bass (1985) considers both the transformational and transactional leadership concepts as inseparable parts of one theory rather than as distinct notions independent of one another. Accordingly, the transformational leadership style is often built on and exceeds a successful transactional style. If that does not happen, deficiencies in the transactional style may result in a breakdown of the transformational style (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987). Shivers-Blackwell (2006) states that a difference between transactional and transformational leaders is that, “while an ordinary transactional leader’s role, also defined as a ‘mechanistic’ leader, is merely to be more effective in predictable and more stable environments, a transformational leader, also characterized as an ‘organic’ leader, will be more effective for organizations operating in unpredictable or even hostile environments” (p. 29). Waldman, Bass, and Einstein (1987) state that the difference between the two types of leaders is that the transactional leader is absorbed with authoritarian and provisional reward-exchanges while transformational leaders attend to higher level needs related to inspiration, group success, and fulfillment through empowerment. Similarly, Avolio and Bass (1988) suggest that the transactional leader prefers to solve problems independently and execute their solutions authoritatively, while the transformational leader may offer a new strategy or vision to deal with a problem, giving followers control in the problem solving process. Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) claim that in cases where the organization is out of alignment with its environment, transformational leaders can reinvent organizational value commitments, rearrange challenging interests and power discrepancies, and rebuild capacity, drawing on existing structures and practices to generate organizational innovations. Transformational Leadership Since the late 1980s, the transformational leadership theory has gained popularity in the leadership field. Contrary to earlier theories, the transformational leadership theory emphasizes symbolic behavior and the role of leaders to motivate followers to succeed beyond expectations (Yukl, 1999). Although Burns (1978) developed the transformational leadership paradigm as a new understanding of leadership, Bass (1985, 1996) articulated the concept in terms useful for researchers. He explains transformational leadership as the leader’s effect on his or her followers and the behavior applied to achieve this effect. Leaders help

24


followers to feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect, which motivates them to do more than they initially expected to do and to supersede their own selfinterest for the benefit of the organization. Accordingly, Bass (1996) defines transformational leaders by using one or more of the “Four I’s”: 1. Individualized consideration: Diagnoses and promotes the needs of each follower. 2. Idealized influence: Becomes a source of esteem for followers, often functioning as a role model, and increases follower pride, devotion, and confidence. 3. Intellectual stimulation: Stimulates followers to look at the world from new viewpoints by questioning old assumptions, beliefs, and paradigms. 4. Inspirational motivation: Articulates an attractive vision and provides meaning and a sense of purpose to what needs to be performed. Although Bass (1996) includes “individualized consideration” as one of the dimensions of transformational leadership, Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang (2008) point out that it is also subsumed in transactional behavior because it increases satisfaction and performance in day-to-day settings and reduces turnover. In order to get a more realistic sense of “true” transformational behavior, they recommend placing it in the transactional cluster. As a result, “individualized consideration” was not included in the transformational leadership dimensions utilized for this study. Idealized Influence. At the highest level of morality, leaders and their followers may dedicate themselves to the best ideals. If someone serves his or her country to the best of his or her abilities, that someone can be a great motivator to followers (Bass, 1999). Transformational leaders demonstrate superior levels of ethical and moral conduct while serving as role models for their supporters. They elevate the importance of common values and beliefs, emphasize the significance of a strong sense of purpose, and underline the worth of achieving a collective sense of the organization’s mission (Bass & Avolio, 1994, 2004; Gozubenli, 2009). The followers who identify with the leader are moved to share the leader’s concerns and come to recognize the problem as their own (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Hypothesis 1: Idealized influence behaviors are positively associated with the perceived leadership effectiveness of FEMA. Intellectual Stimulation. Transformational leaders encourage followers to generate ideas and assess their efforts to be more creative in solving problems by questioning assumptions, reiterating problems, and redefining old situations in new ways. This stimulation occurs mainly through empowering followers to take the initiative (Riggio & Orr, 2004). Transformational leaders posit challenging expectations and support new ideas so followers will accomplish higher performance levels and simultaneously show compassion in regard to past mistakes. Finally, leaders who intellectually stimulate their followers do not condemn them for having diverse ideas and support them in taking necessary risks (Bass &


25

Avolio, 1994, 2004). Bass and Avolio (1994) also state that these types of leaders may shift perspectives or unearth hidden assumptions to expose alternative causes that alter the agency’s direction. Redmond, Mumford, and Teach (1993) specify that when leader behavior increases follower self-efficacy, follower creativity in problem-solving situations increases. Therefore, leader-follower cooperation gains in importance as the followers’ desires increase to find mutual solutions to problems. Once this takes place, followers will have an increased trust in and an attachment to both their leaders and their organization. Hypothesis 2: Intellectual stimulation behaviors are positively associated with the perceived leadership effectiveness of FEMA. Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational motivation represents the utilization of vision by transformational leaders (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Conger (1991) mentions that effective leaders are the ingenious craftsmen of their organization’s mission. Vision is a key leadership behavior for increasing workforce support in organizational development. Inspirational motivation enhances vision by the utilization of symbols, metaphors, and basic emotional demands to raise awareness and understanding of commonly desired goals (Conger, 1991; Densten, 2002). Thus, motivation and inspiration are two common values of transformational leaders. They speak positively and passionately about the future and express confidence that organizational goals will be achieved. Transformational leaders also stimulate team spirit, generating hope and passion among followers (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994, 2004). Thus, inspirational motivation helps to increase employees’ feelings of self-reliance, enabling them to optimally carry out their jobs (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Hypothesis 3: Inspirational motivation behaviors are positively associated with the perceived leadership effectiveness of FEMA. Leadership Effectiveness Since transformational leadership is the sum of its parts, Conger (1989) notes that effective leaders simultaneously generate an environment allowing for new ideas and new vision (intellectual stimulation), communicate vision in ways that arouse commitment and passion for their organization based on follower trust (idealized influence), and support commitment in followers and build a sense of teamwork and cohesion centered around purpose (inspirational motivation). Hypothesis 4: Idealized Influence, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation correlate with each other. A proposed analytical model of perceived transformational leadership effectiveness based on the literature review is shown in Figure 1. It indicates that each dimension of transformational leadership behaviors—idealized influence,

26


Figure 1. Proposed Analytical Model of Perceived Performance of Leadership Effectiveness.

intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation—relates to and influences perceived leadership effectiveness. Context of the Study: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency management can be defined as the course of developing and executing emergency policies that are pertinent to mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities (Petak, 1985). Mitigation involves risk assessment and preventive measures before an emergency, such as improving building codes before a disaster occurs. Preparedness covers pre-emergency actions taken to respond to an emergency, such as preventative plans, training, accumulating supplies, and signing interagency agreements. Response involves fulfilling instant actions, such as handling injured and dead victims and preventing secondary damages. Recovery covers post-disaster efforts to deal with the consequences of the emergency, such as providing basic services (temporary housing, food, and clothing), cleaning debris, rebuilding infrastructures, providing psychological therapy, and so on (Kapucu & Van Wart, 2006). In the United States, the discipline of emergency management has largely grown in response to events, the desires of Congress, and the public’s growing appetite for risk reduction leadership at the federal level. Structurally, the Constitution delegates individual states with public health and safety liability and entrusts the federal government to a secondary, supplementary role that is required when state, local, or individual organizations are overwhelmed (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2006). However, the threshold for being overwhelmed has been lowered over time, and public’s expectation of fast and comprehensive response in a media agency has required better coordination of resources at all levels of government and has necessitated more federal leadership in coordination. Due to a perceived absence of leadership in emergency management, FEMA was created as an independent, executive-branch agency that reported directly to the president, consolidating a number of ad hoc offices and divisions. On June 19, 1978, President Jimmy Carter submitted the Reorganization Plan Number 3 to


27

Congress in order to establish a federal emergency management organization wherein all emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response activities would be merged. In the 1980s, FEMA experienced severe morale problems, lack of leadership, budget issues, and conflicts with state and local partners about its priorities. The response to Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and, 3 years later, Hurricane Andrew all put FEMA in the national spotlight. The agency was seen as responding too slowly and relying too much on the decisions of individual states. In the 1990s, President Clinton designated James L. Witt as the new director of FEMA, the first agency administrator who had state emergency experience. The agency’s ability to respond escalated dramatically, and the agency was given Cabinet status. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 initiated a new focus for the nation’s emergency management, which was preparedness for a terrorist event. President George W. Bush’s nominees for FEMA director were not experienced in emergency management and, consequently, their response to the terrorist attack of Sepember 11 was weak and the federal response was fragmented. After the attack, President Bush formed the Office of Homeland Security (OHS). The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) was established under DHS, and FEMA was moved relatively intact into this directorate by retaining many of its original functions (Haddow et al., 2006). This was perceived by emergency management experts as both diluting the natural disaster dimension of emergency management as well as burying the agency under a large bureaucracy. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit in 2005, FEMA was not well prepared to respond to events of such a magnitude. Subsequently in October 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was ratified into law, which made FEMA a separate entity within DHS. This Act put limits on how DHS affects FEMA and allows the FEMA director to contact the president during emergencies (Haddow et al., 2006; Rubin 2007). Thus, FEMA’s autonomy and functionality was partially restored. Nonetheless, the can-do attitude that existed in the hey-day of the agency under Witt in the 1990s has never fully returned. The historical record reveals that operational success has been dramatically tied to both the quality of executive leadership and leadership embedded throughout the organization. Both purposes (mission alignment) and morale have experienced significant changes. In one sense, FEMA can be seen as an operational agency with important transactional functions and processes as it deals with ordinary emergencies in preplanned protocols with ample resources. However, the nature of emergency management, with the unpredictability of major disasters in which full preparation is unrealistic in terms of expense and people’s willingness to prepare, will also necessitate transformational leadership as unique situations evolve and overwhelm local and state resources. Methodology A review of the literature suggests that transformational leadership behaviors have direct causal relationships with perceived leadership effectiveness. A model

28


was designed to test the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors (idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational stimulation) and perceived leadership effectiveness in FEMA. The data for this study were obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) was used to explore the conditions that create and define high-performance organizations. To answer the research questions, the study combined FHCS information (from 2002, 2006, and 2008) into a 3-year dataset with equality constraints applied. A yearly variable was included (coded 1, 2, and 3) as a predictor for the perceived effectiveness of leadership. The 3-year FHCS data consisted of 1,856 FEMAemployee subjects who worked in the positions of executive, manager, supervisor, non-supervisor, or team leader. In 2002, FEMA was an independent agency, while in 2006 and 2008 FEMA was organized under DHS. The revised perceived leadership effectiveness structural equation model was retested by using multiple group analysis to find out whether a difference exists between transformational leadership behaviors and perceived leadership effectiveness in FEMA. In this study, perceived leadership effectiveness, as an endogenous latent construct, is being replicated by three exogenous constructs of transformational leadership dimensions—idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation—which reflects FEMA employees’ perceptions about how their leaders perform. The construct is measured by four items: “My supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues” (PLE-1); “Supervisors/ team leaders in my work unit provide employees with opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills” (PLE-2); “The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year” (PLE-3); and, “My talents are used well in the workplace” (PLE-4). Idealized influence, as an exogenous construct, is represented by a combination score of three survey items that determine the idealized-influence dimension of transformational leadership: “Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and objectives”; “Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are worthwhile”; and, “How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what’s going on in your organization?” Intellectual stimulation, as an exogenous construct, is represented by a combination score of three items: “Supervisors/ team leaders in my work unit support employee development”; “How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization?”; and, “Creativity and innovation are rewarded.” Lastly, inspirational motivation as an exogenous construct is represented by a combination score of three items: “Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes”; “In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce”; and “How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?” The FHCS is a tool used by OPM that measures employees’ perceptions to evaluate and determine the characteristics of high performance organizations. The FHCS was administered to full-time, permanent employees of major agencies


29

represented on the President’s Management Council (PMC) and small/independent agencies that accepted an invitation to participate (OPM, 2009). The first survey took place in 2002 and was repeated in 2004, 2006, and 2008. The data from 2002, 2006, and 2008 were utilized for multiple group analysis. Data from FHCS 2004 were not included, as FEMA was not specified as a sub-unit under DHS. The FHCS-2002, FHCS-2006, and FHCS-2008 datasets were combined into pooled 3-year data for this study with a sample size of 1,856. The responses of the surveys are categorized using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (coded 1) to “strongly agree” (coded 5), or “do not know” (coded 0) for each item. The consistency of the measuring instrument has been tested for several years and is considered reasonably reliable. The study hypotheses were examined using the AMOS 16 for confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used as the main analytical tool. SEM defines the causal relationships among exogenous latent variables factored from observed variables in the measurement model, in addition to the effects of the exogenous variables (Wan, 1995). The tool integrates the measurement models with the structural models. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to estimate the validity of each proposed measurement model for the latent construct (Byrne, 2001), namely, how predictors are associated with fundamental constructs or conceptual variables (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). Each measurement model was tested according to goodness-of-fit (GOF) scores. Measurement models with a satisfactory GOF were combined to create a generic perceived leadership effectiveness covariance structure model. The generic model was then adjusted to modification index (MI) results that identify the specification sources and fit of the data. After correlating measurement errors, a revised perceived leadership effectiveness model was presented. Testing the model demonstrates how the constructed model explains perceived leadership effectiveness with transformational leadership behaviors. While SEM can be used for different applications, within this study it was used for causal modeling and confirmatory factor analysis. Results and Discussion In terms of the perceived leadership effectiveness endogenous latent construct, the overall results reveal that the majority of respondents agree that they perceive their leaders to be effective (Table 1). On the other hand, analysis of descriptive statistics of the items for exogenous latent constructs reveals that the majority of respondents agreed or were satisfied (1) that they see their leaders as sources of esteem and role models that increase their pride, devotion, and confidence (idealized influence); (2) that their leaders stimulate them to look at the world from new viewpoints, instead of old assumptions, beliefs, and paradigms (intellectual stimulation); and (3) that their leaders are articulate in providing meaning and a sense of purpose pertaining to what needs to be performed (inspirational motivation). As indicated by the descriptive statistics, the highest level of satisfaction was the supervisor’s support of work-family

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

PLE-1: My supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues

PLE-4: My talents are used well in the workplace

PLE-2: Supervisors/ team leaders in my work unit provide employees with the opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills PLE-3: The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year

Scale

Indicators

Do Not Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree




Attributes 0 39 44 63 281 205 632 4 64 110 105 281 68 632 0 36 118 125 261 92 632 2 87 119 74 261 89 632

Frequency

2002

0.00 6.17 6.96 9.97 44.46 32.44 100.00 0.63 10.13 17.41 16.61 44.46 10.76 100.00 0.00 5.70 18.67 19.78 41.30 14.56 100.00 0.32 13.77 18.83 11.71 41.30 14.08 100.00

Percent 7 20 44 95 276 241 683 8 44 91 141 287 112 683 11 36 115 189 248 84 683 3 85 105 125 282 83 683

Frequency

2006

1.02 2.93 6.44 13.91 40.41 35.29 100 1.17 6.44 13.32 20.64 42.02 16.40 100 1.61 5.27 16.84 27.67 36.31 12.30 100 0.44 12.45 15.37 18.30 41.29 12.15 100

Percent 0 29 26 76 238 172 541 7 35 75 93 241 90 541 8 35 71 126 216 85 541 0 59 78 93 237 74 541

Frequency

2008

0.00 5.36 4.81 14.05 43.99 31.79 100.00 1.29 6.47 13.86 17.19 44.55 16.64 100.00 1.48 6.47 13.12 23.29 39.93 15.71 100.00 0.00 10.91 14.42 17.19 43.81 13.68 100.00

Percent

Total

7 88 114 234 795 618 1,856 19 143 276 339 809 270 1,856 19 107 304 440 725 261 1,856 5 231 302 292 780 246 1,856

Frequency

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distributions for Perceived Leadership Effectiveness (2002, 2006, 2008, and 3-Year-Combined)

0.38 4.74 6.14 12.61 42.83 33.30 100.00 1.02 7.70 14.87 18.27 43.59 14.55 100.00 1.02 5.77 16.38 23.71 39.06 14.06 100.00 0.27 12.45 16.27 15.73 42.03 13.25 100.00

Percent

30 Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3:3


31

balance; approximately 55–60 percent of the respondents were satisfied or highly satisfied with opportunities to demonstrate leadership skills, skill levels in the unity, and use of the respondents’ talents. Correlation matrices provide meaningful information about the direction and level of the linear relationships among variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). According to Katz (2006), the correlation values of 0.70 in order to meet internal consistency reliability conditions (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2004). A Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.77 was calculated for the measurement model of perceived leadership effectiveness, meaning that the instruments measuring the construct were satisfactory (Figure 2, revised model). Parameter estimates of the generic and revised SEM models are displayed in Table 2. All critical ratios were seen as >>1.96, which shows statistically significant relationships at the p 0.05 level. The standardized regression weights of exogenous variables are 0.241 for idealized influence, 0.477 for intellectual stimulation, and 0.287 for inspirational motivation. Intellectual stimulation has the highest regression weight and idealized influence has the weakest regression weight regarding the perception of leadership effectiveness. On the other hand, the correlations among the exogenous constructs reveal that the highest correlation is between intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation (0.81), and the lowest correlation is between intellectual stimulation and idealized influence (0.72), while the correlation between idealized influence and inspirational motivation is 0.77. Overall, these predictor variables account for 86 percent of the variance in perceived leadership effectiveness. Table 3 presents the GOF statistics for the generic and revised perceived leadership effectiveness SEM model. As seen from the table, the revision slightly improved the model fit scores. The chi-square value has improved from 60.063 to 26.643 and the chi-square-degrees-of-freedom-likelihood ratio has also improved from 6.006 to 2.664, which is lower than 4. The probability score has improved from 0.00 to 0.003. The table also shows that goodness-of-fit indexes (GFI, AGFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, CFI) have all improved. As a result, the revised model provides a good fit for the data.

32


Figure 2. Perceived Leadership Effectiveness Revised SEM Model.

Table 2. Parameter Estimates for Perceived Leadership Effectiveness SEM Model Generic Model Indicator PLE IDEAINF PLE INTELSTIMU PLE INSPMOTIV PLE-1 PLE PLE-2 PLE PLE-3 PLE PLE-4 PLE IDEAINF $ INTELSTIMU INTELSTIMU $ INSPMOTIV IDEAINF $ INSPMOTIV e3 $ e4 e1 $ e2

U.R.W. S.R.W. S.E. 0.159 0.307 0.176 1 1.495 1.093 1.500 0.672 0.771 0.74 0.019

0.245 0.471 0.279 0.576 0.789 0.599 0.752 0.721 0.806 0.768 0.026

Note: *** ¼ Correlation is significant at p 0.05.

C.R.

0.016 9.674 0.02 15.581 0.019 9.427 0.060 0.053 0.062 0.027 0.029 0.028 0.02

Revised Model P. *** *** ***

25.017 *** 20.771 *** 24.268 *** 25.196 *** 27.025 *** 26.239 *** 0.943 0.345

U.R.W. S.R.W. S.E.

C.R.

P.

0.15 0.175 0.3 1 1.525 1.14 1.558 0.672 0.771 0.74

0.241 0.477 0.287 0.555 0.776 0.602 0.753 0.721 0.806 0.768

0.016 9.392 *** 0.018 9.558 *** 0.019 15.385 ***

0.106

0.156

0.019

0.06 0.056 0.067 0.027 0.029 0.028

25.546 20.294 23.307 25.196 27.025 26.239

*** *** *** *** *** ***

5.616 ***


33

Table 3. Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Perceived Leadership Effectiveness SEM Model

Chi-square (x2) Probability Degrees of Freedom (df) Likelihood Ratio (x2/df) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Adjusted GFI (AGFI) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Relative Fit Index (RFI) Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Hoelter’s Critical N (CN) (0.05)

Criterion

Generic Model

Revised Model

Low >0.05 >0.0 0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 200

60.063 0.000 10 6.006 0.991 0.974 0.992 0.984 0.994 0.987 0.994 0.052 566

26.643 0.003 10 2.664 0.996 0.989 0.997 0.993 0.998 0.996 0.998 0.030 1,275

The results show that this study supports the first hypothesis. With a standard regression weight of positive 0.24, there was a statistically significant association between idealized influence behaviors and perceived leadership effectiveness, implying that one standard deviation increase in the idealized influence behaviors suggests a 24 percent increase on perceived leadership effectiveness. For this reason, the null was rejected and it was concluded that if the leaders of FEMA become ideally influential, such as becoming role models for federal employees, it will increase the employees’ perceptions about their leaders’ effectiveness. The results also support the second hypothesis. With a standard regression weight of positive 0.48, there was a statistically significant association between intellectual stimulation behaviors and perceived leadership effectiveness. Therefore, the null was rejected and it was concluded that if the leaders of FEMA intellectually stimulate the employees, employees’ perceptions about their leaders’ effectiveness will increase. The third research hypothesis was likewise supported. With a standard regression weight of positive 0.29, there was a statistically significant association between inspirational motivation behaviors and perceived leadership effectiveness. Consequently, the null was rejected and it was concluded that if the leaders of FEMA build trust through individual commitment and provide a sense of purpose as to what needs to be performed, employees’ perceptions about their leaders’ effectiveness will be enhanced. Lastly, the revised model confirms that the three dimensions of transformational leadership that were studied are positively correlated with each other. As mentioned earlier, the highest correlation is between intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation (0.81), and the lowest correlation is between intellectual stimulation and idealized influence (0.72), while the correlation between idealized influence and inspirational motivation is 0.77. Thus, the results support the fourth hypothesis as well.

34


Structural Changes in Organizations and Leadership Effectiveness One of the goals of this study was to answer the research question, “To what extent does perceived leadership effectiveness differ when FEMA is independent or when working under the DHS?” The revised Perceived Leadership Effectiveness SEM model was retested using multiple group analysis in order to find out whether a difference exists between transformational leadership behaviors and perceived leadership effectiveness in FEMA. All critical ratios were seen as >>1.96, which shows statistically significant relationships at the p 0.05 level. Each year’s data were independently tested for a good model fit to verify model equivalence, and they all provided satisfactory model fits with small differences in variances and covariances. Table 4 presents the differences between years analyzed. It can be said that there was no significant difference in the variances of idealized influence during the three observation points. On the contrary, there was an obvious decrease, from 0.52 to 0.42, in the variances of intellectual stimulation in 2006, which may be a consequence of FEMA’s structural change of becoming a sub-agency within DHS. In 2008, it increased slightly from 0.42 to 0.46. On the other hand, although there was a small increase, from 0.26 to 0.29, in the variances of inspirational motivation in 2006, there was no difference in 2008. Thus, intellectual stimulation is the dimension that was impacted adversely when FEMA was reconfigured as an organization under DHS and lost its independent role. Table 5 presents the GOF statistics for the yearly comparisons of perceived leadership effectiveness. Although the results were almost perfect, the probability level is not >>0.05. However, this can be overlooked since the data have a large sample size. Thus, it can be concluded that the year-comparison model provided a good fit for the data, meaning that structural changes in FEMA did have an impact, though slight, on the perceived leadership effectiveness. Conclusion This study looks at the importance and structure of transformational leadership in an emergency management agency, FEMA. It also looked at the issue of the effects of dramatic agency reorganization over time in terms of respondents’ perception of the need for transformational leadership. The Table 4. Summary Table of Correlations for Year Comparison Indicator

2002

2006

2008

PLE IDEAINF PLE INTELSTIMU PLE INSPMOTIV IDEAINF $ INTELSTIMU INTELSTIMU $ INSPMOTIV IDEAINF $ INSPMOTIV

0.23** 0.52** 0.26** 0.72** 0.79** 0.77**

0.26** 0.42** 0.29** 0.73** 0.82** 0.77**

0.24** 0.46** 0.29** 0.74** 0.81** 0.81**

Note: ** ¼ Correlation significant at p 0.05.


35

Table 5. Goodness of Fit Statistics for Year Comparison

Chi-square (x2) Probability Degrees of Freedom (df) Likelihood Ratio (x2/df) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Adjusted GFI (AGFI) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Relative Fit Index (RFI) Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Hoelter’s Critical N (CN) (0.05)

Criterion

Model Results

Low >0.05 >0.0 0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 200

113.519 0.000 33 3.442 0.983 0.956 0.986 0.973 0.990 0.981 0.990 0.036 776

hypotheses were that the importance of transformational leadership would in fact be important and predict substantial amounts of leader effectiveness. The hypotheses were supported, confirming that an emergency management agency is similar to other public and private organizations in terms of the need for transformational leadership. As Bass (1985) suggests, this does not in any way negate the need for strong transactional leadership to get the operational work of the agency accomplished. In terms of the structure of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation was substantially more important than inspirational motivation or idealized influence for effectiveness. We can speculate that employees in FEMA have relatively high levels of motivation and career zeal and generalized respect for the commitment of their leaders in preventing and responding to harm. Most critical are the quest to prepare for new challenges and the creativity and innovation encouraged in envisioning new emergency scenarios and reacting to intermittent challenges due to unique constellations of factors coming together. References Avolio, Bruce J., and Bernard M. Bass. 1988. “Transformational Leadership, Charisma and Beyond.” In Emerging Leadership Vistas, eds. James G. Hunt, B. Ram Baliga, H. Peter Dachler, and Chester A. Schriesheim. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 29–50. Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and D. I. Jung. 1999. “Re-examining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72: 441–62. Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. ———. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. ———. 1996. A New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ———. 1999. “Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Physiology 8(1): 9–32.

36


Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ———. 2004. Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, and Lauire Goodheim. 1987. “Biography and the Assessment of Transformational Leadership at the World Class Level.” Journal of Management 13(1): 7–19. Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Byrne, Barbara M. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum and Associates, Inc. Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum and Associates, Inc. Conger, Jay A. 1989. The Charismatic Leader. Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ———. 1991. “Inspiring Others: The Language of Leadership.” Academy of Management Executive 5(1): 31–45. Densten, Iain L. 2002. “Clarifying Inspirational Motivation and Its Relationship to Extra Effort.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23(1/2): 40–45. Fernandez, Sergio. 2008. “Examining the Effects of Leadership Behavior on Employee Perceptions of Performance and Job Satisfaction.” Public Performance & Management Review 32(2): 175–205. Fernandez, Sergio, and Hal G. Rainey. 2006. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector: An Agenda for Research and Practice.” Public Administration Review 66(2): 168–76. Gozubenli, Murat. 2009. An Investigation of Leadership Styles in a Large American Police Department: Effects on Officers’ Extra Effort, Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with Leaders. Louisville: Spalding University. Haddow, George D., Jane A. Bullock, and Damon P. Coppola. 2006. Introduction to Emergency Management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Hogan, Robert, Gordon J. Curphy, and Joyce J. Hogan. 1994. “What We Know About Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality.” American Psychologist 49(6): 493–504. Hooijberg, Robert, and Jaepil Choi. 2001. “The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Leadership Effectiveness Models: An Examination of Leadership in a Private and a Public Sector Organization.” Administration & Society 33(4): 403–31. Kapucu, Naim, and Montgomery Van Wart. 2006. “The Evolving Role of the Public Sector in Managing Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned.” Administration & Society 38: 279–308. ———. 2008. “Making Matters Worse: An Anatomy of Leadership Failures in Managing Catastrophic Events.” Administration & Society 40: 711–40. Katz, Mitchell H. 2006. Multivariable Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kellerman, Barbara. 1986. Political Leadership: A Source Book. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Kerr, Steven. 1977. “Substitutes for Leadership: Some Implications for Organizational Design.” Organization and Administrative Sciences 8: 135–46. Kerr, Steven, and Jone M. Jermier. 1978. “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22: 375–403. Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R. 1988. “Prisoners of Leadership.” Human Relations 41(3): 261–80. Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R., and Danny Miller. 1985. “Narcissism and Leadership: An Object Relations Perspective.” Human Relations 38: 583–601. Kumar, Ranjit. 2005. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Leech, Nancy L., Karen C. Barrett, and George A. Morgan. 2005. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.


37

Lenz, Robert T. 1993. “Strategic Management and Organizational Learning: A Meta-theory of Executive Leadership.” In Strategic Thinking: Leadership and the Management of Change, eds. John Hendry, Gerry Johnson, and Julia Newton. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 154–56 Morgan, George A., Nancy L. Leech, Gene W. Gloeckner, and Karen C. Barrett. 2004. SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2009. The Federal Human Capital Survey [Online]. http://www. fhcs.opm.gov/2008/What/. Accessed April 30, 2009. Petak, William J. 1985. “Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 45: 3–7. Redmond, Matthew R., Michael D. Mumford, and Richard Teach. 1993. “Putting Creativity to Work: Effects of Leader Behavior on Subordinate Creativity.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55(1): 120–51. Riggio, Ronald E., and Sarah S. Orr. 2004. Improving Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rubin, Claire B. 2007. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900–2005. Fairfax, VA: Public Entirety Risk Institute (PERI). Shivers-Blackwell, Sheryl. 2006. “The Influence of Perceptions of Organizational Structure and Culture on Leadership Role Requirements: The Moderating Impact of Locus of Control and Selfmonitoring.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 12(4): 27–50. Snyder, Charles R., and Shane J. Lopez. 2002. Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stogdill, Ralph M. 1948. “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.” Journal of Psychology 25: 35–71. Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tervio, Marko. 2008. “The Difference That CEOs Make: An Assignment Model Approach.” The American Economic Review 98(3): 642–68. Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang. 2008. “Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in Government Organizations.” Public Administration Review 68(2): 319–34. Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. “Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment.” Public Administration Review 23(2): 214–28. ———. 2011. Dynamics of Leadership. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Van Wart, Montgomery and Naim Kapucu. 2011. “Crisis Management Competencies: The Case of Emergency Managers in the U.S.” The Public Management Review 13(4): 489–511. Waldman, David A., Bernard M. Bass, and Walter O. Einstein. 1987. “Leadership and Outcomes of the Performance Appraisal Process.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 60: 177–86. Wan, Thomas T. H. 1995. Analysis and Evaluation of Health Care Systems: An Integrated Approach to Managerial Decision Making. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press. Waugh, William L., Jr., and Gregory Streib. 2006. “Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management.” Public Administration Review 66(1): 131–40. Wise, Charles R. 2006. “Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive Management What’s Missing?” Public Administration Review 66(2): 302–18. Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. “Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence.” Public Administration Review 72(2): 206–15. Yukl, Gary. 1999. “An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories.” The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 285–305.