The Full Range Leadership Model: Essentials and Practicum The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire generates a psychological inventory from propositions that aim to assess leadership styles and leadership outcomes: it is a multi-rater (or 360-degree) instrument, which means that its output—the MLQ 360 Leader's Report— interprets and compares a leader's self-assessment with ratings contributed across the same items by associates. This précis reflects on a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire exercise conducted in May 2020. Olivier Serrat 07/07/2020
1 Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced the Full Range Leadership Model to shine light on the ability and behavior of leaders in different work situations. The Full Range Leadership Model owes much to Burns's (1978) trait-based approach to leadership, from whose work Bass (1985) drew heavily: the model condenses all leadership approaches into motivation, stimulation, and influencing (transformational leadership); management-by-exception and contingent reward (transactional leadership); and de facto denial of responsibility for leadership (passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors) (Avolio & Bass, 1991). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire borne out of Avolio and Bass (1991) is used to assess leadership ability and behavior across many types of organizations—with a view to training and coaching but also selection, transfer, and promotion activities—and is much referenced in organizational studies (Mind Garden, n.d.). Understanding the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scales The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire contains 45 items (or 36 items having to do with leadership styles and nine items relating to leadership outcomes) across nine components, termed "scales". (Transformational leadership has five scales. Transactional leadership and passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors have two scales each. Leadership outcomes have three scales). Each of the nine scales for transformational, transactional, and passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors is assessed by four highly inter-correlated items, all of them having the lowest possible correlation with those of the other scales. Drawing from Mind Garden (n.d.), Figure 1 groups the categories and associated behaviors of the Full Range Leadership Model. Figure 1: Categories and Scales of the Full Range Leadership Model Transformational Leadership •Builds Trust (Idealized Influence – Attributes) •Acts with Integrity (Idealized Influence – Behaviors) •Encourages Others (Inspirational Motivation) •Encourages Innovative Thinking (Intellectual Stimulation) •Coaches & Develops People (Individualized Consideration) Transactional Leadership •Rewards Achievement (Contingent Reward)a •Monitors Deviations & Mistakes (Management-by-Exception: Active)b Passive–Avoidant (or Laissez-Faire) Leadership •Fights Fires (Management-by-Exception: Passive) •Avoids Involvement (Laissez-Faire: Avoidant) Note. a Constructive; b Corrective. (Mind Garden, n.d.) As shown in Figure 1, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses transformational leadership with five scales (20 items in toto): • Builds Trust—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader builds trust, inspires power and pride, and goes beyond his/her own individual interests to focus on those of the group.
2 • • • •
Acts with Integrity—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader acts with integrity, talks about his/her values and beliefs, focuses on a desirable vision, and considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her actions. Encourages Others—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader motivates those around him/her by providing meaning and challenge. Encourages Innovative Thinking—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader stimulates efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. Coaches & Develops People—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader pays attention to individual needs for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor. (Mind Garden, n.d.)
Next, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses transactional leadership with two scales (eight items in toto): • Rewards Achievement—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader rewards in return for achievement of expected levels of performance. • Monitors Deviations & Mistakes—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader monitors for deviations, mistakes, and errors and takes corrective action. (Mind Garden, n.d.) Then, per Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors with two scales (eight items in toto): • Fights Fires—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader waits for a problem to appear before taking corrective action. • Avoids Involvement—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader refuses to assume the responsibilities that are a part of his/her position as leader. (Mind Garden, n.d.) In addition, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses outcomes of leadership with three scales (nine items in toto), questions toward which are only put to raters: • Generates Extra Effort—This 3-item scale assess the frequency with which a leader is perceived to be able to influence his/her followers to do more than they are expected to do. • Is Productive—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader is perceived as being effective when interacting at different levels of the organization. • Generates Satisfaction—This 2-item scale assesses the frequency with which raters are satisfied with their leader's methods of working with others. (Mind Garden, n.d.) The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire comprises two forms: (a) the Leader Form (36 items); and (b) the Rater Form (45 items). (The Rater Form includes the perceptions of raters vis-à-vis the outcomes of leadership.) All scales are assessed using a 5-point scoring rubric as follows: (a) 0.0 = Not at all; (b) 1.0 = Once in a while; (c) 2.0 = Sometimes; (d) 3.0 = Fairly often; and (e) 4.0 = Frequently, if not always (Mind Garden, n.d.). Administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Using Mind Garden's Transform™ System, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is administered online to individuals (or groups) and takes about 15 minutes to complete. Leaders prepare the names and email addresses of 12–20 individuals who will serve as objective and honest raters. Preferably, 3–5 individuals should be at a higher organizational level (aka Above),
3 3–5 should be at the same organizational level (aka Same), 3–5 should be at a lower organizational level (aka Lower), and 3–5 should be others who work or have worked with the leader (aka Other). The feedback from raters is grouped so the leaders do not know how each assessed them. Mind Garden's Transform™ System's online survey platform gives leaders 24/7 access to assessments, data, and reports. As raters complete the survey, the data and scoring file is dynamically updated and individual (or group) reports become available (Mind Garden, n.d.). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report—the MLQ 360 Leader's Report—is a 50-page document that presents (a) aggregate scores; (b) self and rater feedback (by level); (c) comparison with norms; (d) transformational leadership strengths and areas for development; (e) self to all rater gaps; (f) complete ratings of all rater levels; and (g) rater feedback to open-ended questions (Mind Garden, n.d.). Interpreting the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report A leader may feel challenged by rater statements and wish to contest their importance or meaning (Mind Garden, n.d.). But, Mind Garden (n.d.) remarks commonsensically that leaders must manage what others believe as well as the reality. So that leaders might make the most of feedback, Mind Garden (n.d.) underscores that each item is a validated marker: hence, a leader may need to scrutinize his/her own implicit assumptions about leadership (Mind Garden, n.d.). Mind Garden (n.d.) underscores also that leaders should not get locked into one particular aspect of the MLQ 360 Leader's Report but reflect on the whole. Citing from Mind Garden (n.d.), when viewing the MLQ 360 Leader's Report, one should consider the following questions: • What are my leadership strengths? (Notice what leadership behaviors were rated high that you already knew were strengths.) • What are the areas where I tend not to perceive myself as having leadership strengths, but where my raters see me as having strengths? (Focus on leadership behaviors that were rated high but which you did not know were strengths.) • In which areas do I need to develop my leadership behaviors? (Notice leadership behaviors that were rated low that you know are low and could develop.) • Which specific leadership behavior items do I need to do more frequently? (Focus on leadership behaviors that are rated low that you could practice more frequently.) • Which specific behavior items do I need to do less frequently? (Focus on items in the transactional or passive–avoidant scales.) • In which areas do I see myself as being stronger than my raters see me? (Notice leadership behaviors where I rate my frequency higher than I am being rated.) (Mind Garden, n.d.) Next, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should consider how to change one's leadership style: • How can I be a more effective leader with my followers? • How can I be a more effective leader with my peers? • How can I influence "upwards" more effectively? (Focus on leadership behaviors I can practice with those at a higher organizational level than I am.) • Which issues really challenge my thinking about my leadership? (Mind Garden, n.d.) Then, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should focus on the transformational leadership section: • What are my strongest transformational leadership behaviors? How can I leverage those behaviors? • What transformational leadership behaviors are most important for me to improve given my current role in the organization and the surrounding environment? (Mind Garden, n.d.)
4 Finally, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should look at transactional and passive–avoidant behaviors: • Do I reward achievement more frequently than I monitor deviations and mistakes, and if not why not? Do I rely too much on transactional behaviors when compared with my transformational repertoire? • Am I frequently seen to be engaging in fire-fighting? Do I frequently avoid involvement? Should I pay more attention to perceptions that I am passive–avoidant lest it should discourage others. (Mind Garden, n.d.) Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report 1. Approach The first section of this précis was given over to understanding the categories and scales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; the second itemized the logistics of the survey associated with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; and the third clarified the precepts for interpretation of the MLQ 360 Leader's Report. This section summarizes key elements of feedback from my MLQ 360 Leader's Report (dated May 19, 2020). The next section will analyze my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and that which follows will conduct individual and goal setting for two areas for development. The concluding section in this précis will offer thoughts on how to appreciate multi-rater feedback in a world that is not short of it. Figure 2 outlines the organizing structure and steps for the review of my MLQ 360 Leader's Report. Figure 2: Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report Understanding the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Categories and Scales
Administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Interpreting the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report
Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report
Conducting Individual Planning and Goal Setting Table 1 gives some details of the 14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered feedback.
5 Table 1: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Rater Population Organizational Level
Number of Raters
Gender
Male Female 2 2 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 6 3 3 Total 14 8 6 Note. Ten of the 14 raters were former colleagues who were—at some point or another—closely associated with the work I conducted for an international organization in the areas of environmental management, evaluation, information and communication technology, project design and administration, public relations, and strategic planning. One worked with me from a different organization. Three are doctoral students at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Above Same Lower Other
2. Average Scores The average scores in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report are: • Transformational Leadership (14 Raters)—Score = 3.3 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal frequency of all five Transformational behaviors is a "Fairly often" rating of 3.0 or greater.] • Rewards Achievement (14 Raters)— Score = 3.3 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal frequency of Rewards Achievement is between "Sometimes" and "Fairly often" (2.0– 3.0).] • Monitors Deviations & Mistakes (14 Raters)—Score = 2.1 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal frequency of Monitors Deviations & Mistakes is between "Once in a while" and "Sometimes" (1.0–2.0).] • Fights Fires (14 Raters)—Score = 0.5 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal frequency of Passive–Avoidant behaviors is between "Not at all" and "Once in a while" (0.0– 1.0).] • Avoids Involvement (14 Raters)—Score = 0.1 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal frequency of Passive–Avoidant behaviors is between "Not at all" and "Once in a while" (0.0– 1.0).] 3. Aggregate Scores Table 2 reproduces the aggregate scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and matches the ideal frequency of behavior and outcome of research validated benchmarks to corresponding categories or scales.
6 Table 2: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Aggregate Scores Category
Scale
Score (Rater's Average)
Ideal Frequency (Research Validated Benchmark)
Transformational Leadership Builds Trust 3.3 ≥3.0 Acts with Integrity 3.3 ≥3.0 Encourages Others 3.4 ≥3.0 Encouraged Innovative 3.4 ≥3.0 Thinking Coaches & Develops 3.2 ≥3.0 People Transactional Leadership Rewards Achievement 3.3 2.0 – 3.0 Monitors Deviations & 2.1 1.0 – 2.0 Mistakes Passive–Avoidant Behaviors Fights Fires 0.5 0.0 – 1.0 Avoids Involvement 0.1 0.0 – 1.0 Outcomes of Leadership Generates Extra Effort 3.2 ≥3.5 Is Productive 3.2 ≥3.5 Generates Satisfaction 3.5 ≥3.5 Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always. Table 3 reproduces the feedback by rater level recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report. Table 3: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Feedback by Rater Level Category
Scale
Transformational Leadership Builds Trust Acts with Integrity Encourages Others Encouraged Innovative Thinking Coaches & Develops People Transactional Leadership Rewards Achievement Monitors Deviations & Mistakes Passive–Avoidant Behaviors Fights Fires
Score (Rater's Average)
Above
Same
Lower
Other
3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4
2.9 3.0 3.5 3.4
3.4 3.6 3.5 3.6
3.4 3.6 3.4 3.3
3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3
3.2
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.1
2.1
2.0
2.6
2.3
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
7 Category
Scale
Score (Rater's Average) 0.1
Above
Same
Lower
Avoids Involvement 0.4 0.1 0.0 Outcomes of Leadership Generates Extra 3.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 Effort Is Productive 3.2 2.3 3.5 3.4 Generates 3.5 3.0 3.6 3.5 Satisfaction Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.
Other
0.1 3.1 3.3 3.5
4. Style Strengths Table 4 reproduces the style strengths suggested by my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and matches each to its corresponding score and scale. Table 4: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Style Strengths Score (Rater's Average) 3.9 3.9
Scale
Item
Encourages Others Encourages Others
I articulate a compelling vision of the future. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 3.6 Encourages Innovative I get others to look at problems from many Thinking different angles. 3.6 Acts with Integrity I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 3.6 Builds Trust I act in ways that build others' respect for me. 3.5 Encourages Innovative I re-examine critical assumptions to question Thinking whether they are appropriate. 3.4 Encourages Others I express confidence that goals will be achieved. 3.4 Encourages Innovative I suggest new ways of looking at how to Thinking complete assignments. 3.4 Coaches & Develops I treat others as individuals rather than just as People members of the group. 3.4 Builds Trust I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always. 5. Areas for Development Table 5 reproduces the areas for development suggested by my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and matches each to its corresponding score and scale.
8 Table 5: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Areas for Development Score (Rater's Average) 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1
Scale Encourages Others Builds Trust Encourages Innovative Thinking Coaches & Develops People Coaches & Develops People Acts with Integrity
Item I talk optimistically about the future. I instill pride in others for being associated with me. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems. I spend time teaching and coaching. I help others to develop their strengths.
I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 3.1 Builds Trust I display a sense of power and confidence. 3.3 Coaches & Develops I consider each individual as having different People needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. 3.4 Acts with Integrity I talk about my most important values and beliefs. 3.4 Acts with Integrity I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always. Analyzing My MLQ 360 Leader's Report 1. A Disciplined and Open Mind The MLQ 360 Leader's Report provides group calculations but shares scant interpretation: the near-entirety of the report consists of sequential self-ratings, rater averages, and research validated benchmarks across the items in each scale. The only comments to be found in the MLQ 360 Leader's Report—provided unedited and in no order of relative importance—are in the section on rater feedback to open-ended questions regarding (a) what might help the leader be more effective; (b) obstacles facing the leader's effectiveness; and (c) what is admired about the leader. And so, interpreting the MLQ 360 Leader's Report requires discipline as well as an open mind. Specifically, to extract value from the MLQ 360 Leader's Report, one should according to Mind Garden (n.d.) (a) take to heart the ratings to appreciate how others perceive the leadership behaviors; (b) ponder the outcomes of leadership in relation to one's leadership style; (c) scrutinize the differences between self-ratings and those of others, paying attention to variances across rater levels; (d) compare each rating with the benchmark validated by research; and (e) formulate a plan to increase or decrease behaviors, preferably picking items that would lift the average score for a leadership style (Mind Garden, n.d.). 2. Style Strengths Table 2 indicates that all the aggregates scores for transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report were above the ideal frequency by 0.2–0.4 points; the aggregate score for
9 constructive transactional leadership is above the ideal frequency range by 0.3 points while that for corrective transactional leadership is outside the ideal frequency range by only 0.1 points. All aggregate scores for passive–avoidant behaviors are within the ideal frequency range. But, the aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal frequency range by 0.3 points in two out of three scales, a relative shortcoming that will be touched upon in the following section. Table 3 breaks down the feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report by rater level. To note, the feedback from raters at same (aka Same) and lower (aka Lower) organizational levels, or 10 of 14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered feedback, is here and there higher, sometimes by as much as 0.6 points, than that of raters at higher (aka Above) and other (aka Other) organizational levels. Then again, the population of raters at higher (aka Above) and other (aka Other) organizational levels is too small to hazard a guess for relatively lower perceptions. Lastly, although no table was prepared to demonstrate this here, the aggregate scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report show that my behaviors as perceived by the raters are in every instance higher than the universal norms (N = 3,755) associated with transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive–avoidant (or laissez-faire) leadership, and outcomes of leadership. [The word "better" would be more appropriate apropos passive–avoidant (or laissez-faire) leadership.] Table 4 shows the notable strengths of transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to be (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I articulate a compelling vision of the future (Score = 3.9); and (b) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished (Score = 3.9). Three others strengths of transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report are scored at 3.6, one is scored at 3.5, and four are scored at 3.4. The strengths cut across all five scales of transformational leadership. Concluding, the feedback on transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report does not suggest areas that the raters but not I see leadership strengths in; there was no surprise there. All scores, both from followers and peers, are characteristically high and do not volunteer behavior items I need to perform more frequently or less frequently. To note, although no table was prepared to demonstrate this here, I deemed myself—across all scales—as being stronger than my raters see me. "Ambition is not what man does … but what man would do," Robert Browning was reinterpreted as saying. Then again, one should not hang on miracles. In relation to this, one rater commented on "… the sometimes unrealistically high expectations [I have of myself]", which is representative of other rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report on what can help me be more effective and what obstacles face my effectiveness. Rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to open-ended questions on what was admired will not be reproduced in this précis but confidence, dedication, moral standards, passion, self-reflection, tenacity, transparency, trustworthiness, and vision and strategy were common themes. (Here is one representative example of a repartee: "Strong vision of the future, strong intuition and tension to accomplishment".) 3. Areas for Development Table 2 indicates that the aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal frequency range by 0.3 points in two out of three scales, as reported earlier, even if both are higher than the universal norms (N = 3,755) by 0.1–0.5 points. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report does not flag this as an area for development but the outcomes of leadership are self-evidently important and the matter assuredly demands attention in the future. The two scales are (a) Scale: Generates Extra Effort: I get others to do more than they expected to do; I heighten
10 others' desire to succeed; and I increase others' willingness to try harder (Score = 3.2); and (b) Scale: Is Productive: I am effective in meeting others' job-related needs; I am effective in representing my group to higher authority; I am effective in meeting organizational requirements; and I lead a group that is effective (Score = 3.2). Table 3 exposes perceived shortcomings relative to extra effort and productivity: specifically, the shortfall regarding Scale: Generates Extra Effort is explained by raters at higher (aka Above) organizational level perceiving that I only once in a while or sometimes—not fairly often or frequently—get others to do more than they expected to do whereas two raters at lower (aka Lower) organizational level perceive I frequently achieve this; the shortfall regarding Scale: Is Productive is explained by the same raters perceiving that I am only sometimes—not fairly often or frequently—effective in meeting others' job-related needs and effective in representing my group to higher authority. At any rate, Table 5 does flag two areas for development of transformational leadership: (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the future (Score = 2.3); and (b) Scale: Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with me (Score = 2.8). [Paradoxically, with respect to the first area for development of transformational leadership, my MLQ 360 Leader's Report identified that my two highest style strengths relate to (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I articulate a compelling vision of the future (Score = 3.9); and (b) (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished (Score = 3.9).] Although no table was prepared to demonstrate this here, the complete ratings of all rater levels for transformational leadership recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report reveal widely differing feedback regarding both (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the future (Score = 2.3); and (b) Scale: Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with me (Score = 2.8). Specifically, regarding Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the future (Score = 2.3), I note that one rater at the other (aka Other) organizational level scored me at 0 (Not at all) and that one rater at the lower (aka Lower) organizational level scored me at 1 (Once in a while). Regarding Scale: Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with me (Score = 2.8), I note also that two raters at the other (aka Other) organizational level scored me at 0 (Not at all) and 1 (Once in a while), respectively. I can think of no explanation but the disparity of feedback across these two scales explains why my MLQ 360 Leader's Report singled out them as areas for development: therefore, they will be the subject of individual planning and goal setting. No other score in the areas for development of transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report is inferior to 3 (Fairly often). Away from numbers, I found unexpected value in the rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to open-ended questions on what can help me be more effective and what obstacles face my effectiveness. Pell-mell, rater advice was to "Be a better listener, be less intense", "Don't try to be right all the time and try different, less confronting pathways to achieve your goal[s]", "[Be] more understanding of those who may not meet [your] own productivity standards, more empathetic, and less inclined to criticize or draw attention to weaknesses", "[Be] more inclusive, accepting other people's limits", and "Tak[e] on board the views of supervisors". References to "Perfectionism" and "Intolerance or lack of understanding of those who fail to satisfy his high standards" cropped up too. I probably need to manage "upwards" better: rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to open-ended questions on what can help me be more effective drew attention to "[My] tendency to assume everyone understands [me]", "Assumptions that everyone understands the nuances of what [I] try to implement", "[My] relationship with authority", and the fact that "[C]onfrontation is not always the right path. Build more coalitions. Don't theorize too much but stay practical".
11 Conducting Individual Planning and Goal Setting Exhibiting willingness to receive feedback is essential part of leadership self-development, a personal journey with different destinations that each leader works toward in the broader context of his/her life space. But, change is what all leaders have in common and change is the main goal of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Summing up, my MLQ 360 Leader's Report infers that I can be a more effective leader if, in particular, I do a better job of talking optimistically about the future and instilling pride in others for being associated with me. According to my MLQ 360 Leader's Report, I can also make marginal improvements at getting others to do more than they expected to do, meeting others' job-related needs, and representing my group to higher authority. Drawing from information received through my MLQ 360 Leader's Report, Table 6 specifies two generic developmental goals to encourage others and build trust in furtherance of my self-development. The note to Table 6 explains why the actions for changing myself and changing how I relate to others are not case-specific, hence draw in extenso from Bass and Avolio's (2015) prototypical suggestions. Table 6: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning and Goal Setting Scale
Score (Rater's Average) 2.3
Item
Outcome
Encourages I talk optimistically My associates are motivated Others about the future. by meaning and challenge. Changing Myself: • Communicate a clear scenario of the organization's potential. • Create a positive and enthusiastic work climate that will energize associates. • Speak openly about the kinds of rewards I receive from my job. • Expect resistance to change: anticipating this normal reaction, I will include requisite strategies in the change process. • Frequently consider how what I am doing now and plan to do in the future may affect associates. • Talk about the future. • Volunteer to lead and help to motivate a group that is struggling with low morale. • Respond to challenges with optimism and show energy to get them solved. (Bass & Avolio, 2015) Changing How I Relate to Others: • Communicate clearly with associates and define changes that are being planned. • Work to encourage the commitment of associates to the organization. • Build the expectation among associates that money is not the only recognition for high performance. • Meet with associates to point up how their inputs help deliver the goals of the organization. • Help associates maintain enthusiasm for their jobs by being enthusiastic myself. • Motivate employees to take on added responsibility to develop and use their skills to fullest potential. • Offer support and advice to associates when they are faced with obstacles. • Recognize early successes, respond with encouragement, and showcase the achievements of my work unit. (Bass & Avolio, 2015) Builds Trust 2.8 I instill pride in My associates have a others for being positive, team-oriented associated with me. approach.
12 Scale
Score (Rater's Average)
Item
Outcome
Changing Myself: • Become the "best" representative of associates by volunteering for initiatives. • Be more relaxed so associates do not feel inhibited by my opinions. • Recall a person from my past (e.g., an athletic coach, a cultural hero, a fictional character, a mentor, a supervisor, a teacher) who acted admirably in difficult circumstances. Behave as that person would in my situation. • Think of people with whom I am proud to be associated and reflect on why I feel that way. • Whenever I fear I may act inappropriately, I will consider how I would like associates to behave in similar circumstances and I will model their behavior. • Upon meeting someone, I will show a friendly face and display an optimistic attitude. (Bass & Avolio, 2015) Changing How I Relate to Others: • Focus still more on the qualities of associates. • Look for opportunities to build relations with associates (e.g., small talk and informal lunch invitations). • Recognize associates on the occasion of milestones (e.g., birthdays, project completions, promotions, and years of service). (Bass & Avolio, 2015) Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always. I am on a sabbatical and the actions that this development plan lists do not relate to a particular organization, except such that I may join or assist next. Hence, the actions will be acted upon as the opportunity arises or social connections demand in congruence with my philosophy of leadership and the personal leadership development plan I designed in support of my doctoral dissertation (Serrat, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). The actions are generic and behavioral and do not call for resources or support or the monitoring of progress according to a particular deadline. Afterword 1. Appreciating the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is founded on the premise that transformational and transactional attributes must be displayed if a leader is to be successful. However, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire cannot account for all the dimensions of leadership (e.g., authentic, autocratic, democratic, paternalistic) and ignores the leadership modes (i.e., administrative, enabling, and adaptive) that Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) made out. To this critique, Marion and Gonzales (2014) added the difficulty of spotting pseudotransformational leaders who display all the required abilities and behaviors but are subsequently found to have worked for their self-interest. In addition, the centered leadership approach advocates that leaders should first lead themselves (Barsh, Mogelof, & Webb, 2010). To boot, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire makes no account of the interplay between the external environment and organizational configuration and the impact that interaction has on organizational culture and related organizational ideology, thence on leadership and associated behaviors. Surely, diagnosis of organizational culture using, say, Cameron and Quinn's (2011) competing values framework would clarify what is expected (or permitted) of leaders, with differing (or dissenting) views made known by, say, Martin's (2002) integration, differentiation, and fragmentation perspectives or Schein's (2017) three intraorganizational typologies (e.g., operator, engineer, and executive). In such cacophony, leaders must spend precious time
13 learning and re-learning on which foot to dance depending on the audience, which cannot make for the effectiveness the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire means to promote. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire suffers also from the inherent limitations of questionnaire surveys. Yes: questionnaires are affordable, easy, and practical ways to gather quantitative data from a large (and often anonymous) audience, data that one can then— comfortably and without time constraint—analyze, compare, and contrast with other results to, say, examine trends or devise strategies. But, respondent bias can be an issue; respondents may not understand questions fully, may interpret them differently, or may leave them unanswered; respondents may not be entirely truthful; questionnaires cannot capture emotions or feelings; open-ended questions cannot be quantified and must be reviewed by a person, not an algorithm; survey fatigue or lack of accessibility can lead to low completion rates; and lack of personalization can put off potential respondents. Most problematic of all, what individual planning and goal setting can one confidently embark on if there is no way to know if respondents have really understood a question (as divergent responses can suggest)? To promote the likelihood of accurate and consistent results, it has been suggested that raters should be trained on the process and use of measurement instruments so they might avoid biases and rating errors (or simply "missclicks"): but, how feasible is that? Pace the above caveats, which confirm if there ever was a need to that magic bullets are not of this world, leaders who wish to gain the most from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire can consider using other personality inventory tools in tandem. The Emotional and Social Competency Inventory, another multi-rater instrument; the Emotional Intelligence (or EQ) test, a self-assessment instrument; and, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, another self-assessment instrument, come to mind. 2. Taking Back Control On the topic of my MLQ 360 Leader's Report, the issue that principally challenged my thinking is well encapsulated in Mind Garden's (n.d.) remark, paraphrased earlier, that leaders must manage what others believe as well as the reality. "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop," said Churchill (1939). If so, shock, anger, and rejection—if such are the reactions—are both meaningless and unprofitable; one had better accept as many of the ratings as one can and determine a course for action because practicable hope lies there. So, feedback gives people the opportunity to look at themselves in a different light: but in 2020, contrasted with 1939, there may be a surfeit of advice. In a world that is so driven by information and communication technology the greater ease with which one can be judged can sap the desire to pursue the life we want to create for ourselves. Gervais (2019) declared that "If you want to be your best and perform at a high level, fear of people's opinions may be holding you back". Paraphrasing, conforming to what others may or may not think harms potential and undermines the talents, beliefs, and values that make you you, Gervais (2019) explained further. And so, Gervais (2019) recommended we should (a) articulate a personal philosophy to guide thoughts, decisions, and actions; (b) commit to live in line with our personal philosophy; (c) solicit feedback from a few persons—not a grouping of individuals at various levels—who, paraphrasing, have a good sense of who we are and who we are striving to become; and (d) keep in mind that growth and learning happen best when we operate at the edge of capacity. In my view, Gervais's (2019) is not a call for splendid isolation but for taking back control, thence
14 extract even more value from the MLQ 360 Leader's Report and suchlike multi-rater (or 360degree) instruments. Gervais (2019) is consonant with positive psychology and Quinn's (2005) assertion that the leaders who do their best work do not copy others: rather, "they draw on their own fundamental values and capabilities" to lead in thought and action (p. 115). References Avolio, B, & Bass, B. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates. Barsh, J., Mogelof, J., & Webb, C. (2010). How centered leaders achieve extraordinary results. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 78–88. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featuredinsights/leadership/how-centered-leaders-achieve-extraordinary-results Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2015). Multifactor leadership questionnaire leader's workbook. Mind Garden, Inc. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and change organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Churchill, W. (1939, January 7). The British people would rather go down fighting. New Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/archive/2013/12/britishpeople-would-rather-go-down-fighting Gervais, M. (2019). How to stop worrying about what other people think of you. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/05/how-to-stop-worrying-aboutwhat-other-people-think-of-you Marion, R., & Gonzales, L. (2014). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mind Garden. (n.d.). Mind Garden: Tools for positive transformation. Retrieved from https://www.mindgarden.com/ Quinn, R. (2005). Moments of greatness. In On managing yourself (pp. 115–134, 2010). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Serrat, O. (2018a). Personal philosophy of leadership. Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Serrat, O. (2018b). Personal leadership development plans: Essentials and practicum. Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Serrat, O. (2018c). Personal philosophy of leadership (2nd edition). Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.