Desktop version

Home arrow Business & Finance

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font

<<   CONTENTS   >>

Leadership Behavior

Many studies have failed to include the entire Full Range Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio, 1995) into investigations and hence a holistic reflection of all facets of leadership behavior has often been impossible. The present research differentiates itself by the accommodation of all elements of the leadership spectrum and by its clear focus on the incorporation of distance dimensions. In addition, underlying work takes into account the post-heroic concept of self-leadership, which has been applied sparsely in organizational research thus far (Furtner & Baldegger, 2013). Indeed, only one prior study has applied self-leadership to a context of physical distance (Andressen et al., 2012).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

A summary on leadership measures identified seven validated scales to assess leadership behavior (Zach, 2014). The MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1995) was found to bear advantages over other measures. The revised scale, the MLQ 5X short (Bass & Avolio, 1997) showed acceptable reliability in previous research attempts (e.g., An- tonakis et al., 2003). The scale is, however, criticized for neglecting task and strategic facets of leadership. Mumford (2006) argues that considerations should include environmental aspects when leadership behavior is studied.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2017

N. Poser, Distance Leadership in International Corporations,

Advances in Information Systems and Business Engineering,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-15223-9_7

Full Range Leadership dimensions showed proper reliability (alpha scores ranged between .70 and .83), except for the higher-order factor of passive leadership. This work followed the advice of recent research and integrated passive management- by-exception with laissez-faire leadership to the higher-order factor of passive leadership (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Felfe & Goihl, 2002). This was done for two reasons: first, taking passive MBE up to the transactional dimension seemed far away from what theory on active and passive leadership recommended. Transactional leadership is characterized by the active involvement of a leader, using the effort-reward relationship to improve performance-related outcomes of followers (Pearce & Sims, 2002, p. 174). Passive management-by-exception would therefore appear in the wrong position (already indicated by the name). Also the negative intercorrelation between passive MBE and contingent reward (r = -.20, p < .001) and the missing correlation with the transactional scale (r = .04, n.s.) confirm the assumption. Typically, passive management-by-exception correlated significantly with laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Yammarino, 1991), which is confirmed in the present work (r = .16, p < .01). Second, when passive management-by-exception was left out of the transactional scale, and added to the passive scale, Cronbach alpha scores increased considerably.

The data showed high intercorrelations between the single facets and lacked discriminant validity especially for higher-order factors of transactional and transformational leadership. Intercorrelations between dimensions of the FRL and the subscales have often been criticized by researchers (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Transformational leadership revealed high intercorrelations with transactional leadership (r = .71, p < .001), attributed mainly to the high correlation between contingent reward and transformational leadership (r = .87, p < .001). Because of the consistent honoring of contracts over time, Avolio et al. (1999) declare transactional leadership as the foundation for developmental expectations and therefore high intercorrelation is to be expected. As opposed to the two active higher-order factors, passive leadership displays high negative correlations with the subscales.

<<   CONTENTS   >>

Related topics