Reputational Change Among Managers

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012: 9-26

Reputational Change Among Managers Robert Zinko

Faculty of Business and Law University of Newcastle, Australia

William A. Gentry

Sr. Research Associate and Coordinator - Internships and Post-Docs Center for Creative Leadership

Angela Hall

College of Business, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Gary L. Grant

Attorney-at-Law Tallahassee, Florida

Few would argue the importance of having a good reputation. Being viewed in a positive light by others has been shown to affect such things as career advancement (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2000), power (Pfeffer, 1992), management capital (Gowler and Legge, 1989), and the ability to persuade others (e.g., Ferris et al., 2005; Sosik and Jung, 2003). Additionally, those who have positive reputations are promoted faster and rewarded more generously than their colleagues with lesser reputations (Tsui, 1984). Not only are individuals motivated by societal rewards to create a good reputation (Zinko et al., 2007), but human nature drives individuals to create a positive reputation. Within humans there exists a desire to “be known for something” (Baumeister, 1982). This innate force causes a person to attempt to signal to others their intentions and wishes through actions that they hope will be viewed in a positive light (Ferris et al., 2003). Although not always successful, individuals aspire to have others around them see them as they see themselves (Baumeister, 1982). JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012

(9)

10

ZINKO, GENTRY, HALL, AND GRANT

The purpose of this study is to examine and extend research on the burgeoning area of a manager’s reputation. Not only is current theory still being developed regarding how a reputation is formed (e.g., Ferris et al., 2003; Tsui, 1984; Zinko et al., 2007), but even less is known about whether and how a manager’s reputation could change. Building upon current theory, this study is one of the first to examine whether managers are able to change their reputations by altering their observable actions. Such actions are a way of “signaling” to their audience that change is occurring (Ferris et al., 2003; Spence, 1974). In turn, this study proposes that an audience will reassess the focal-manager in question, assigning a new reputation to the manager based upon these observable changes. First, a theoretical foundation for reputation is offered, and hypotheses developed. Next, the methodology is explained and the results of the change of the reputation of the focal-managers are described. Finally, a discussion of the findings and how they contribute to the field, practical applications, limitations, and future research directions for the field are presented. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Reputation in Our Daily Lives Reputation helps decrease ambiguity about an individual, group, or organization by suggesting predictable patterns of behavior in given situations (Zinko et al., 2011). When complete information is not known about an individual, reputation helps to reduce uncertainty by providing a “reasonable expectation” of an individual’s actions, given a specific set of circumstances (i.e., this individual is reputed to take this course of action in a given situation). Reputations not only help reduce instances of uncertainty about an individual, but they also allow individuals to focus finite resources on other matters by accepting certain aspects as a given (Zinko et al., 2007). An individual’s reputation is equally as useful due to the same reduction of ambiguity about individuals or groups in an organizational context. Frequently, this occurs in the hiring of a new chief executive officer (CEO) by a board of directors. Agency theory dictates that a board must consider the cost of monitoring an individual’s actions versus the extent of positive gain the individual will bring to the company (Eisenhardt, 1989). If there is a solid personal reputation in place, the board can expect certain behaviors and will not need to monitor the individual as closely. Although improved knowledge regarding reputation is advantageous at the organizational level, it may be of even greater value to the individual. Mirroring marketing theory (e.g., Erdem and Swait, 1998), organizational scientists have suggested that reputation can be a form of “signaling” (Ferris et al., 2003; Spence, 1974). As with organizations, reputation is important to individuals in that it reduces ambiguity. It gives people an opportunity to tell others, beyond their immediate cohorts, something about themselves that they deem important. Reputation gives individuals in organizations a chance to communicate intentions and beliefs through actions (Carroll et al., 2003). This communication is an opportunity to be seen and heard by more than one’s immediate supervisor. Individuals can focus on a specific skill or trait for which they wish to acquire a reputation, and attempt to convince others (e.g., their supervisors) of this. If they are JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


11

successful, they will gain a reputation for that particular characteristic, and as such, individuals outside their immediate influence (e.g., coworkers, subordinates, and those above their immediate supervisor) will know them for their positive reputations. Individuals may focus on one or two traits for which they wish to be known, and excel in those, thereby sending a message that they are to be identified by their performance in those areas (Carroll et al., 2003). Besides signaling, reputation affects individuals by aiding their career progress (although, of course, not all ascend to the top management). Pfeffer (1992) suggests that a reputation for being a powerful individual brings even more power. Additionally, Hall et al. (2004) suggests that as individuals’ reputations increase, their accountability decreases. This belief follows not only theories in organizational behavior, but also is supported by work in the field of marketing. When customers do not have complete information about products in a market, they will choose familiar brands, expecting the same level of quality in the new product created by that brand (Grassl, 1999). With this increased autonomy, reputation builders will have even more opportunities to excel beyond expectations, thus increasing their reputations. Affecting Reputational Change But what happens when an individual does not have a positive reputation? Changing one’s reputation is not an easy task. In fact, some suggest that reputation is rather static (e.g., Tsui, 1984) and as such, to quickly change other’s opinions may be difficult. Although research regarding personal reputation is still in its beginning stages (Ferris et al., 2003; Zinko et al., 2007), there exist two solid theories regarding changing reputation. The first theory suggests that a large event can alter a reputation (e.g., Rudy Giuliani and the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001; Al Dunlap and the destruction of Sunbeam; or Tony Hayward after the BP oil spill in 2010). Such considerable occurrences, being an extreme deviation from the norm, may cause individuals to instantly reevaluate an individual or organization (Ranft et al., 2006). Although such grand events may be effective ways to persuade audiences to view individuals or organizations in a different light, such sizeable gestures are not only difficult to make happen, they are often only associated with a loss of reputation. The second theory regarding reputational change posits that new reputations are built upon transformations in behaviors over time. No set time has been established as to how long such a reputational perception will take, but theory dictates that the more tangible the change, the faster an audience will consider a reevaluation of one’s reputation (Zinko et al., 2007). Ferris et al. (2003) explore this temporal aspect of reputation by proposing that reputation does not develop instantaneously, but instead emerges over a period of time, suggesting that this change occurs either through direct observation, or by the transmittal of information regarding the reputation by other individuals. Regardless of how the change is purported to occur, current reputation theories agree that what is necessary for a change is observable action. Even though the audience may not directly observe the action, a change must take place to be reported

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


12

to others (Emler, 1984). In this study, focal-managers are observed making a change and the effects of that change are recorded, as determined by the audience. Leader Reputation Only recently have organizational scholars begun to thoroughly investigate the reputation construct. As such, empirical studies often take a narrow view of reputation in order to reduce the introduction of noise in their studies (e.g., Hall et al., 2009). Additionally, it has been suggested that an individual may have several different reputations (i.e., individuals are known differently in different social groups), and as such, their reputations may overlap. Furthermore, because reputation is a social construct (i.e., must be examined in a social setting), a few, single aspects of reputation should be examined in order to better isolate how others may view a subject. Thus, a singular context (i.e., a single point of view such as direct reports rating a focalmanager, as opposed to someone who might be a co-worker as well as friend outside of work) would further eliminate the possibility of reputational overlap (i.e., different reputations affecting each other). This study attempts to adhere by these guidelines by examining three reputations (approachability, integrity, and mentoring) from the perspective of a focal-manager’s direct reports. This study chooses to investigate reputation in the context of leadership. The reasoning for this is twofold. As previously discussed, individuals often have several different reputations. Leaders (i.e., managers), as viewed by their followers (i.e., employees), are often seen in a single light; that is, leaders’ reputations are reasonably consistent among their followers (Zinko et al., 2007). Furthermore, leader reputation is chosen to be examined due to the extensive stream of research developed regarding leaders. Grounding the relatively new construct of reputation in the paradigm of leadership theory will aid in the development of the construct of reputation. Second, the study of a leader reputation may add to the current body of research regarding leadership in that, instead of examining a leader’s behaviors, reputation reports others’ perceptions of a leader’s behaviors. Because such a large aspect of leadership is based upon perception (Meindl and Ehrlich, 1987), a study such as this may capture an aspect of leadership (i.e., leader reputation) that has yet to be fully understood. Measuring and Evaluating a Change in Leader Reputation The link between reputation and leadership is well-established (Ammeter et al., 2002; Hall et al., 2004). Meindl (1995) suggests that the relationship between leaders and followers is not based on the solely objective actions of the leader, but rather on a socially constructed, collective perception of the followers. This “reality” that is constructed in the mind of those followers depends not only on relationships, biases, and norms, but also on the (more objective) actions of a leader (Meindl et al., 1985). Furthermore, using reputation to measure leadership is not a new approach. Indeed, Barron’s “Top 30 CEOs” is measured as follows, “assembling our third annual list of 30 top corporate leaders from around the world, we've sought to identify CEOs who have top-notch reputations in the financial community and who likely would be missed JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


13

by investors if they unexpectedly left their jobs.” (Bary, 2007: 4). Not only can reputation effectively represent leadership, but it is also an effective tool to gauge a change in one’s ability to lead. The changes (i.e., adding or subtracting individuals) to lists such as Barron’s Top 30 or Forbes represent not only a change in reputation, but a change in power, status, and ability to lead. Responsibility for an organization’s success or exceptional performance many times is attributed to a leader (i.e., “The Romance of Leadership”; see Meindl and Ehrlich, 1987). Many people may, therefore, want or desire prominent figureheads with a reputation because they bring success to their organizations. When building a reputation (intentional or otherwise), an individual’s actions (i.e., signals) will be assessed in an effort to discover the individual’s intentions. As stated, often these actions are an attempt at signaling one’s intent (Ferris and Judge, 1991). In the case of leader assessment, the actions are not only considered by a leader’s peers and subordinates, but by the social groups of those individuals as observers discuss the leader’s actions (Emler, 1984). When a leader attempts to change his or her image via informational cues (i.e., intentional signaling or otherwise), the group views these actions in the context of what they know about the individual as well as the norms of the group (Zinko et al., 2010). Green and Mitchell (1979) propose a model depicting how an individual’s behavior leads to informational cues that influence leader attributions. This, in turn, influences how the leader is viewed. When an individual shows signs of a change in behavior (i.e., developing into a better leader), the audience may not immediately accept the change. A theory that explains this hesitation lies in the contextual assessment that occurs within the audience. When a leader changes his or her behaviors, followers then place that behavior into a context based upon all the information available (i.e., past as well as present) in order to evaluate the actions of a leader. Even if the actions are consistent with past behavior due to individual and social biases, the information processed may not be consistent with the reality of the observed situation (Zinko et al., 2007). This is due to the fact that the individuals receiving the set of cues are receiving them in the context of social norms and expectations. The person’s behavioral response to the cues occurs as a function of a mental process that encodes those cues through sensation and perception (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Many of the cues are received through selective attention, so the storage of information into memory is not consistent with objective reality. This selective encoding is partially predictive of how the individual will respond to the observed situation. The interpretation of the cues, which often include attributions regarding what caused the situation, is dependent upon both the environment in which the cues are received as well as the biases of the individual (Dodge and Coie, 1987). Therefore, simply performing the actions and behaviors of a “good leader” may not culminate in a tangible change in other’s perception of that leader. Nevertheless, when a significant change in a leader’s behaviors occurs, over time the behaviors will be assessed and categorized by others (Haviland, 1977; Levin and Arluke, 1987). This suggests that a change in behavior, that is consistent over time, may result in a change in reputation. Observed Actions vs. Reputation. When dealing with reputation, the perception of behaviors, not the behaviors themselves, is the relevant issue. That being said, JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012

14


reputation is primarily based upon behaviors that are first observed, then reported (Ferris et al., 2003). Is it possible for individuals to change their behaviors, but not their reputations? Absolutely. In order for a reputation to change, the new behaviors must be reported to an audience. If there is no means to spread this new information (e.g., the organization has no social structure in place to “gossip” about individuals), or if the new information is not accepted by the group (behaviors are examined in the context of what is known about the subject, if the behaviors are too far outside expectation), they may be rejected as untrue. Again, it is not behaviors that cause reputations (Zinko et al., 2007), rather individuals’ reports of perceived behaviors. Logically, one can properly deduce that most reports of reputations are based upon actual behaviors—that is to say, individuals attempt to build reputation by signaling their intentions to an audience. The present study appropriately explores the change in reputation of managers by groups of direct reports. This is accomplished by measuring an audience’s (i.e., a group of direct reports) perceptions of perceived behaviors (i.e., as opposed to observing the actual behaviors themselves) of the focal-managers in question. That is to say, the measures set forth recorded not the changes in behavior, but rather observations of those changes from the focal-manager’s direct reports. In order to accomplish this, observations from multiple direct reports are necessary (i.e., this study uses an average of 3.8 direct reports per manager). These direct reports recall an overall assessment of the focal-manager in question over a period of time. When considering the results of this study, it is import to note that past research has shown that when individuals observe the same event, and when they are asked about the event, they will often provide different accounts (Loftus, 1975; Loftus and Zanni, 1975). In the case of reputations (i.e., as opposed to actually events), this is not the case. Because the assessment of an individual is agreed upon by an audience (i.e., through gossip and other forms of informal communication), a single, specific reputation occurs (Ferris et al., 2003; Tsui, 1984). This high correlation among direct reports suggests that there is some discussion of the new behaviors and direct reports arrive at a consensus as to those actions (Emler, 1994). This “consensus” would be of interest to other individuals in the organization because the reported new actions of the focal-managers are not consistent with what is currently known about the subject, and as such, based upon this new information, others in the organization may reassess the reputation of the manager (Haviland, 1977; Levin and Arluke, 1987). This reassessment could be carried to others in the organization who do not have direct contact with the manager and potentially creates a new reputation (Bromley, 1993; Emler, 1994; Zinko et al., 2007). Operationalizing the Leader Reputation Measurement Personal reputation is viewed by sociologists as a phenomenon arising from social processes within a community of individuals, linking people to specific social identities. An individual’s attributes and status are acknowledged through these links (Carroll et al., 2003; Emler, 1984). Unlike some other social measures, reputation measures are context specific because reputations are based upon the specific norms of the group (Zinko et al., 2007). What constitutes a good reputation in one setting may not create a JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


15

desirable reputation in a different setting. This is because reputations are based upon deviation from the norms of the group. For example, an individual may become “known” for being an excellent singer in their church; however, individuals at the subject’s workplace may not care about singing, and therefore will not talk about it (Emler, 1994). Therefore, in order to gauge reputation, the measure used must reflect the environment in question. Specific to this study, measures must examine important managerial characteristics and behaviors that are context-specific to the workplace environment, as opposed to singing ability. A change in a leader’s reputation suggests more than simply a change in the leader’s behavior. It suggests an acknowledgement of not only the new behavior by the followers, but an attributional assessment of the leader’s behaviors by those followers. This is because the change is being analyzed by assessing the collective belief of the followers regarding the leader. Current scales used for measuring reputation are much too broad for use in measuring a manager’s reputation (i.e., Hochwarter et al., 2007); they address an overall reputation that may include social as well as professional aspects. Instead of attempting to adapt such scales for use in measuring a change in a leader’s reputation, scales not previously employed in the reputation literature were used in order to capture specific dimensions of managerial reputation. These scales (i.e., approachability, integrity, and mentoring) are based upon and reflect current managerial and leadership research and theory (e.g., Ammeter et al., 2002; Hall et al., 2004; Hogan et al., 1994). Approachability. The social skills of managers are fundamental to their effectiveness and reputation (Hall et al., 2004). Those with social skills, which include interpersonal and political skills (Ferris et al., 2000), are more likely to engender the trust of their direct reports (Ammeter et al., 2002), which will have a positive impact on that manager’s reputation. As such, the approachability of a manager is a key dimension of a manager’s reputation. Those with a style that is perceived as positive (House and Aditya, 1997) will be more likely to have a positive reputation (Hall et al., 2004). Interpersonal skills, including the perception that the manager is easy to approach and interact with, form an important element of that person’s reputation. Sometimes direct reports must trust a leader based on limited or no interactions. For example, this swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996) must sometimes occur in newly formed teams, whereby trust serves as a substitute for actual role episodes. However, more often reputation is based on actual or observed interactions of direct reports with their manager (Ammeter et al., 2002). Thus, managers who inspire approachability are more likely to have more frequent and more positive interactions with their direct reports. Integrity. Trust in a person is a significant factor in the formation of reputation (Ammeter et al., 2002). For example, Frost and Moussavi (1992) find that trust moderates the relationship between having power and being influential, such that those powerful individuals who are not trusted wield less influence. It is important to note that there is a difference between being trusted and expectancy or being reliable (Ammeter et al., 2002). For example, someone can be relied upon to be consistently dishonest, and hence, untrustworthy. Trust is important for the cultivation and maintenance of organizational control and support (Ammeter et al., 2002). Under the social conception of trust (Tyler and DeGoey, 1996), the perception that a manager JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012

16


has integrity and a desire to maintain just and fair relations is critical to direct report perceptions and reactions to that manager. As such, integrity is a key dimension of a person’s reputation. Mentoring. Previously, the role of managers centered on production, but now, managers in contemporary organizations must equally focus on motivating and inspiring their employees (Hogan et al., 1994). Descriptors such as coach, teacher, or mentor are becoming increasingly popular for managers to symbolize (Senge, 1990). Specifically, managers are being asked to play an ever increasing role of proactively developing their employees (Ellinger et al., 2003; Ragins and Kram, 2007; Richard et al., 2008) and such behaviors are becoming particularly important in the eyes of organizations (Agarwal et al., 2009). Hence, the role of mentor becomes paramount to managers. It is true that much of the mentoring literature has focused on benefits of mentoring for the protégé (e.g., Eby et al., 2008), but recent studies have found that mentoring provides beneficial outcomes for the mentor. For instance, formal mentors have higher career satisfaction (Johnson et al., 2001), higher self-reported career success, satisfaction, incomes, and more positive job attitudes (Collins, 1994; Lentz and Allen, 2009), and higher objective and subjective career success (Allen et al., 2006; Bozionelos, 2004). Moreover, managers who are rated as performing career-related mentoring behaviors from their own direct reports are seen as better performers in their job from their own boss (Gentry et al., 2008) and as more promotable (Gentry and Sosik, 2010). Hence, it may be beneficial for the career of managers to develop their employees and to act as mentors. Therefore, because mentoring is such an important aspect of a manager’s role, it is proposed that it would also play a significant role in the formulation of reputation. Assessing a Change in Reputation In order for a change in behaviors to become a change in reputation, the change must be consistent, believable (Zinko et al., 2007), and noteworthy (Emler, 1984). The consistency is necessary because, by definition, reputation is designed to decrease ambiguity (Zinko et al., 2007). If the change in the focal-manager is not consistent, direct reports will not expect to be able to rely on the change, and therefore, will not reassess the individual in question as being different (i.e., if the focal-manager was not approachable, but is now occasionally approachable, the focal-manager will not develop a new reputation for approachability). The new actions of the focal-manager must also be believable. When reassessing the focal-manager, direct reports will attempt to understand the change as well as what caused the change (Weick, 1981). If the direct reports feel that the change is not legitimate, they will have no cause to assign the new reputation to the focal-manager. Lastly, the change must be noteworthy. Reputations only develop regarding aspects that matter to the audience (Haviland, 1977). If individuals observe actions that are of no interest to others around them, they will not discuss the behaviors (Levin and Arluke, 1987). If the change is significant to the group, they will discuss it; furthermore, if the behaviors are not consistent with how the audience views the individual, they will reassess the individual’s reputation. For this reason (i.e., relevance

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


17

to direct reports), this study examines reputation of managers. As a result, the following hypotheses are set forth. Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive change in focal-manager reputation regarding approachability, as judged by the focal-manager’s direct reports, from time 1 to time 2. Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive change in focal-manager reputation regarding integrity, as judged by the focal-manager’s direct reports, from time 1 to time 2. Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive change in focal-manager reputation regarding mentoring, as judged by the focal-manager’s direct reports, from time 1 to time 2. METHOD Participants and Procedure Participants in this study were 489 practicing managers, comprised of 69.7% males, 92.0% Caucasians, and their average age was 43.02 years (SD = 7.08). Most (92.2%) had earned at least a bachelor’s degree. The majority of study participants (85.1%) worked in organizations in the private sector, the average job tenure was 3.64 years (SD = 3.72), and average organization tenure was 10.03 years (SD = 7.40). Participants were employed in many different organizational levels, with 65.2% of them classified as being in middle or upper-middle management and 34.8% classified as top or executive level managers. All 489 managers in the present study took part in a leadership development program from a third-party vendor between September 2006 and September 2008. The program’s purpose was to help managers change their behaviors in many areas, including giving and receiving feedback more effectively, leading change in their organization, building and maintaining productive relationships, developing others to be their best, leveraging differences in other people, and setting clear and achievable goals. Three months after completing the face-to-face portion of their leadership development experience, the direct reports of the participants (i.e., focal-managers) were invited via email to take part in a post-program 360 assessment that measured the focal-manager’s development in several areas, three of which were the focus of this study: approachability, integrity, and mentoring. All direct reports knew that the manager they were rating went through a leadership development program. Measures This assessment uses the Then/Now Methodology, or retrospective pretestposttest. Recent published research has used such methodologies in their study (e.g., Allen and Nimon, 2007; Gentry and Martineau, 2010). The Then/Now methodology used in this study asks the direct reports of focal-managers to reflect back after the leadership development program to rate targeted skills and behaviors of the focalmanager as they were enacted before the leadership development program (“Then”) JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


18

and enacted three months after the program (“Now”). In a retrospective pretestposttest situation such as the one used in the current study, both the pretest and the posttest are completed three months after the leadership development initiative. Similar to the traditional pretest-posttest design, the difference between “Then” scores and “Now” scores is attributed to the leadership development program, and hence, change in the manager’s reputation. Different methodologies fit different scenarios and each methodology has its advantages and limitations. Traditional pretests-posttests are particularly good for objective measures such as cholesterol counts and number of items produced on the line. However, when the focus of the measure is to describe change that is experienced subjectively, or when the focus is something less tangible such as perceptions of skills and behaviors as this study undertakes, many argue that retrospective pretest-posttest protocol is a more effective methodology (Arrindell, 2001; Hill and Betz, 2005; Pratt et al., 2000; Rohs, 1999). For instance, the retrospective methodology prevents both “response shift bias” and also “re-test effect.” A good reason to use retrospective methodology is to prevent response shift bias, a source of contamination of self-report measures that in effect adds noise to measures of change in pre-post testing (Pratt et al., 2000; Rohs, 1999). Avoiding the “re-test effect” is another advantage of retrospective methodology (Arrindell, 2001); being tested once, allowing some time to pass, and being tested again are known to have an impact in and of itself with no other intervention, which is not an issue with the Then/Now methodology. Direct reports of managers were asked a total of ten questions: approachability (three questions α = 0.87; example item: “Displays patience with others in difficult situations”); integrity (four questions α = 0.88; example item: “Doesn't put own ambitions ahead of the organization's objectives”); and mentoring (three questions, α = 0.87; example item: “Provides ongoing feedback to direct reports”). These items were drawn from larger, developed scales that were designed to measure changes in managers. These items were chosen as a “first step” in the examination of manager reputation, with the intent of reflecting how an audience of direct reports may feel about a manager. Direct reports were asked to what extent the individual exhibited the behaviors before the leadership development program (“Then”) and currently exhibits the behaviors (“Now”, three months after the program) on a nine-point Likert-type scale with 1 = Not at all to 9 = Completely. Principal components factor analysis on each of these three sets of questions resulted in one factor each, with that factor explaining at least 70% of the variance. Data Aggregation The main concern in using such a pre/post measure is an error that may occur when relying on a subject’s memory of a situation. In order to control for such potential noise, an average of 3.80 direct reports (SD = 1.44, range 2-11) independently evaluated each manager. To ensure that data could be aggregated for each manager, intra-class correlation coefficients (i.e., ICC1 and ICC2) were computed on the direct report ratings for the “Then” and “Now” scores on each measure. ICC1 scores for each of the six measures ranged between 0.15 and 0.28 and ICC2 scores JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 1 Spring 2012


19

ranged between 0.40 and 0.59. All values are comparable to values reported in previously published multisource studies (e.g., Mayer et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2009) and acceptable for aggregating multisource ratings (Greguras and Robie, 1998; Van Velsor and Leslie, 1991). The consistency that was found between these reports suggests that error based upon individual’s perceptions was not a significant factor and gives evidence that from a statistical standpoint, ratings of direct reports can be aggregated up to the focal-manager. Furthermore, the agreement of such a high number of respondents for each subject suggests a more complete evaluation of reputation than is currently seen in today’s literature (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2007). RESULTS The results of a dependent-samples t-test are shown in Table 1. This test was conducted to evaluate whether managers changed in displaying the leadership behaviors of approachability, integrity, and mentoring. The results support all three hypotheses in that there was a significant change in reputation from before the leadership development program, to three months after the program, in all three aspects of the reputation that were measured. The effect sizes were large, which suggests that these changes are not trivial in nature.

Table 1 Results of the t-test Then Dimension

Now

M

SD

M

SD

t

d

p

Approachability

5.95

1.24

6.93

1.03

-28.61 1.29