COMMUNICATION AND THE FULL RANGE LEADERSHIP
MODEL: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION,
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AND LISTENING STYLES
Lucille Allen
B.A., University of California, Davis, 1984
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
© 2010
Lucille Allen
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
COMMUNICATION AND THE FULL RANGE LEADERSHIP
MODEL: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION,
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE AND LISTENING STYLES
A Thesis
by
Lucille Allen
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kimo Ah Yun, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Mark Stoner, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Dr. Gerri Smith, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Lucille Allen
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
____________________________, Graduate Coordinator __________________
Dr. Michele Foss-Snowden, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Communication Studies
iv
Abstract
of
COMMUNICATION AND THE FULL RANGE LEADERSHIP
MODEL: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION
APPREHENSION, COMMUNICATION
COMPETENCE AND LISTENING STYLES
by
Lucille Allen
This study examined the relationship between the laissez-faire, transactional,
and transformational leadership styles identified in Bass and Avolio’s full
range leadership model and communication apprehension, communication
competence, and listening styles. In this study, 266 participants reported on the
leadership style and communication skills of a current or previous manager.
Results indicate that there is a relationship between communication skills and
leadership style: laissez-faire leaders have higher communication apprehension
than transformational leaders. Also, transformational leaders have higher
communication competence and are more active listeners than transactional or
laissez-faire leaders. Future research recommends testing for a causal
relationship between communication apprehension and laissez-faire leadership
style as well as incorporating specific communication skills training into full
v
range leadership training programs to determine whether communication training affects
dominant leadership styles.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kimo Ah Yun, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................7
The Full Range Leadership Model ..........................................................................7
Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational Leadership .............................9
Laissez-Faire Leadership .................................................................................10
Transactional Leadership .................................................................................10
Transformational Leadership ...........................................................................13
Communication Apprehension and Leadership .....................................................20
Communication Competence and Leadership .......................................................22
Listening Styles and Leadership ............................................................................25
3. METHOD ......................................................................................................................28
Participants .............................................................................................................28
Procedures ..............................................................................................................29
Measures ................................................................................................................30
Leadership Style...............................................................................................30
Communication Apprehension ........................................................................33
Communication Competence ...........................................................................33
Listening Styles ................................................................................................34
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................35
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................36
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...........................................................................39
Discussion ..............................................................................................................39
Limitations .............................................................................................................44
vii
Future Research .....................................................................................................46
Conclusion .............................................................................................................48
Appendix A.
Instructions to Participants .......................................................................49
Appendix B.
Demographic Items ..................................................................................50
Appendix C.
Laissez-Faire Measure ..............................................................................52
Appendix D.
Management by Exception (Passive) Measure ........................................53
Appendix E.
Management by Exception (Active) Measure ..........................................54
Appendix F.
Contingent Reward Measure ....................................................................55
Appendix G.
Individual Consideration Measure ...........................................................56
Appendix H.
Inspirational Motivation Measure ............................................................57
Appendix I.
Idealized Influence (Attributed) Measure ................................................58
Appendix J.
Idealized Influence (Perceived) Measure .................................................59
Appendix K.
Intellectual Stimulation Measure..............................................................60
Appendix L.
Group Communication Apprehension Measure .......................................61
Appendix M.
Meeting Communication Apprehension Measure ....................................62
Appendix N.
Dyadic Communication Apprehension Measure .....................................63
Appendix O.
Public Speaking Communication Apprehension Measure .......................64
Appendix P.
Communication Competence Measure ....................................................65
Appendix Q.
Listening Styles Measure .........................................................................67
References ..........................................................................................................................68
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Factors of Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational
Leadership Styles ...................................................................................................31
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1. Presumed relationship between communication apprehension,
listening, and communication competence. .............................................................6
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to better understand behaviors related to leadership, researchers have
created tools to identify, describe, and assess the leadership style of others. For example,
Bass (1985) created the full range leadership model that identifies three styles of
leadership behavior including laissez-faire leadership, transactional leadership, and
transformational leadership style. Laissez-faire leadership is essentially non-leadership,
or the behavior of leaders who avoid making decisions and provide follower feedback
only when problems need to be corrected (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999). Transactional leadership is based on an exchange of action and reward and these
leaders make decisions based on the rules of the organizational culture and provide
feedback to followers for successful enactment of an agreed-upon role (Avolio & Bass;
Avolio et al.). Finally, transformational leadership is based on charisma designed to
motivate and inspire. Leaders identified as having a transformational leadership style
redefine or change the status quo in order to enact a vision of a more satisfactory future
state and they help followers to go beyond their own interests and consider the moral and
ethical implications of their actions and goals (Avolio & Bass; Avolio et al.).
Although the full range leadership model has been studied and researched for
more than 20 years, several concerns exist from a communication perspective. First,
although the behaviors of each style within the model have been described and
researched at length by Bass (1985, 1990, 1995, 1998) and others (Avolio, 1999;
2
Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Price, 2003), the communication skills necessary for the
leader to achieve the outcomes associated with each style have been insufficiently
identified. Whereas transformational leaders “have the ability to build on the needs,
values, and hopes [of their followers] through dramatic and persuasive words” (Bass,
1985, p. 46) and can “articulate goals that lift people out of their petty preoccupations”
(p. 46), one can only assume that a transformational leader is an articulate speaker, an
effective listener and in effect, a skilled communicator. The model is unclear in relation
to specific communication skills and the operational definitions used in the model’s
measurement of the important elements do not include questions related directly to
communication skills.
A second concern about the full range leadership model is the implied assumption
that the leader who demonstrates a transformational style has better communication skills
than leaders who model transactional or laissez-faire styles. Bass (1995) and Avolio
(1999) tout transformational leadership as the most effective of the three styles in relation
to follower effort, commitment, performance, and satisfaction, but no research has shown
the same result regarding a leader’s style and his or her communication competence.
Third is a similar concern related to laissez-faire leadership. While this leadership
style is rarely addressed in research except to dismiss it as non-leadership or an act of a
leader who is not, at the moment, focused on leadership responsibilities (Bass, 1985), it is
included as part of the model because every leader displays the distinctly different
behaviors of the laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership styles
3
(Avolio, 1999), and thus all three styles combine to form a “full range” in the full range
leadership model. It is unclear, however, why leaders who demonstrate laissez-faire
behaviors fail to engage: is communication competence a factor, is communication
apprehension involved, or is it, perhaps, a combination of both? Although it may be
inferred from Bass’ descriptions that laissez-faire leaders have some form of
communication apprehension, the relationship remains unstudied.
The communication concerns addressed here are not meant to imply that the
leadership model and its associated measure, the multifactor leadership questionnaire, are
invalid or inappropriate tools for describing or understanding leadership. The leadership
model is well known as an effective tool in academic, military, and industry settings
(Bass, 1998), has been researched for more than 20 years, and “has rapidly become the
approach of choice for much of the research and application of leadership theory” (Bass
& Riggio, 2006, p. xi). Additionally, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) is
the most widely used survey for measuring the factors related to transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam,
2003; Bass & Riggio) and since 1983, participants from manufacturing, health care,
education, and government agencies have completed training programs in
transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1998). The model, in summary, is well
known and considered to be an effective leadership tool with which to analyze and train.
However, analyzing the communication aspects of the model will provide knowledge
about the creation, application, understanding, and effects of messages within the
4
leadership arena, and ultimately about the process by which leader and follower
relationships are managed.
Despite its practical value, considering the importance of communication as part
of leadership, it could be asked, whether the full range leadership model measures all
aspects of leadership? It could be further asked whether the model and its measure, by
neglecting to address specific communication skills, ignore key elements of leadership?
This study addresses these questions through the study of the relationship between
leadership styles and communication apprehension, communication competence, and
listening styles.
Why choose to study the leadership model in relation to the communication skills
identified? What makes communication apprehension, communication competence, and
listening styles worthy of study? First, research has shown a link between communication
apprehension, communication competence, and listening skills. In an effort to identify
the listening attributes that are related to communication competence in organization
contexts, it was found that listening “plays a pivotal position in conceptions of
communication competence in co-workers” (Haas & Arnold, 1995, p. 134). Nearly
one-third of the characteristics used to describe a communicatively competent co-worker
was related to listening. It has also been found that those with a high people orientation
in listening were associated with low communication apprehension (Bodie & Villaume,
2003). In other words, those who listen with a relation orientation and who tend to be
concerned with emotional states of others are not communicatively apprehensive.
5
Similarly, Villaume, and Bodie (2007) found that people oriented listeners have high
communication competence and low communication apprehension. It is evident from
these studies that there is a relationship between communication apprehension,
communication competence, and listening. It may also be concluded that communication
competence is at a level above communication apprehension and listening skillfulness.
As shown in Figure 1, communication apprehension and listening skillfulness are factors
that are related to each other, and that also contribute to one’s communication
competence. What is yet to be determined, however, is how these three factors are
related to the leadership styles identified in the full range leadership model. To date, only
assumptions can be made about the relationships between leadership style and
communication apprehension, communication competence, and listening style. The
purpose of this study is to establish a relationship and thus increase the understanding of
leadership as it relates to one’s communication skills.
A second reason to study communication apprehension, communication
competence, and listening styles in relation to leadership is that each of these
communication variables have desirable outcomes – in other words, it is preferable to be
less communicatively apprehensive than more (McCroskey, 1984); to be more
communicatively competent than less (Spitzberg, 1988); to have more approachable
listening styles than less (Pearce, Johnson, & Barker, 2003). While other communication
variables such as self-disclosure, argumentativeness, and immediacy may be related to
leadership style in one way or another, none have a distinct and consistent preference. In
6
Communication
Apprehension
Communication
Competence
Listening
Skillfulness
+
Figure 1. Presumed relationship between
communication apprehension, listening, and
communication competence.
other words, a variety of other variables may moderate appropriateness of self-disclosure,
argumentativeness and immediacy. As such, if a relationship between leadership skills
and communication variables that have distinct preferences are found to exist, it would
help to build an argument for the value of including communication in the research and
training of leadership skills.
Finally, each of the chosen communication variables has proven training
programs (deLisser, 2004; Fordham & Gabbin, 1996; Richmond & McCroskey, 1990;
Wiemann & Backlund, 1980; Wolvin & Coakley, 1991) that help individuals to improve
their communication skills. Thus, if a relationship between the communication variables
studied here and leadership styles is established then additional research can study
whether leadership behaviors can be improved with communication training.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature on the relationship between leadership and communication will be
reviewed through an introduction of the full range leadership model and the associated
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Then a review of studies relating leadership to the
communication variables communication apprehension, communication competence and
listening skills will be made.
The Full Range Leadership Model
The full range leadership model and its associated measure, the MLQ was
introduced in order to determine “who attempts, who is successful, and who is effective
as a leader” (Bass, 1995, p. 464). The model describes and the questionnaire measures
the factors related to three leadership styles: laissez-faire, transactional, and
transformational leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is described as essentially
non-leadership, or leaders who avoid making decisions and provide follower feedback
only when problems need to be corrected (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio et al., 1999).
Transactional leadership is based on an exchange of action and reward. Transactional
leaders make decisions based on the rules of the organizational culture and provide
feedback to followers for successful enactment of an agreed-upon role (Avolio & Bass;
Avolio et al.). Transformational leadership is based on charisma designed to motivate
and inspire. Transformational leaders redefine or change the status quo in order to enact
a vision of a more satisfactory future state and they help followers to go beyond their own
8
interests and consider the moral and ethical implications of their actions and goals
(Avolio & Bass; Avolio et al.).
Transformational leadership is the most effective of the three styles in relation to
follower effort, commitment, performance, and satisfaction (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1995).
Perhaps as a result, more research has been done on transformational leadership than the
other leadership styles combined. This research, however, is based on a leader’s behavior
rather than on his or her communication skills or styles. For example, research shows
that personal characteristics such as proactivity, locus of control, self-confidence,
dominance, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience are all related to
transformational leadership (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Judge &
Bono, 2000; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001; Ross & Offermann, 1997). Though finding a
relationship between these characteristics and leadership sheds light on the
transformational leader, it may be even more important to understand to what level
transformational leaders have communication apprehension, are competent
communicators, and how they listen.
The questionnaire that measures the factors of each of the three styles in the full
range leadership model is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). It has been
used in more than 200 theses and doctoral dissertations (Bass, 1995) and various versions
of the MLQ have been translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, Hebrew,
Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese (Bass). The original MLQ has undergone several
revisions enhancing the reliability and validity of the measure (Antonakis et al., 2003;
9
Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997;
Price, 2003; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). The most current version (Form 5X) has
been in use since 2000 and is available in both leader and follower forms.
Undoubtedly, given the extensive use of both the full range leadership model and
the multifactor leadership questionnaire, the model’s benefits from a qualitative and
quantitative perspective are evident. By understanding the communication skills
associated with the full range leadership model, however, the model can be even more
comprehensive, practical, and effective.
Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational
Leadership
For each of the three leadership styles, there are several components, or factors,
used to define the behaviors associated with each style. These factors are described by
Bass (1985) and others (Antonakis et al., 2003; Avolio, 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1997)
and have been operationalized in the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Additional
research has been conducted on the individual factors in order to learn more about the
model, its relationship to a variety of other factors and ultimately how leaders behave
(Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Conger, 1988; Price, 2003). By looking closely at each of
these factors and how they are described and researched from a communication
perspective, the gaps in the research can be identified. The discussion will begin with
laissez-faire leadership, progress to transactional, and then conclude with a review of
research relating to the transformational leadership style.
10
Laissez-Faire Leadership
While transactional and transformational leadership styles are defined through
many factors, laissez-faire leadership is described only as an individual who avoids
making decisions, abdicates responsibility, and does not use authority (Avolio, 1999).
The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000) measures laissez-faire
leadership through Likert-type questions such as, “avoids getting involved when
important issues arise,” “avoids making decisions,” and “is absent when needed.”
From a communication perspective, it appears that the laissez-faire leader fails to
communicate with followers regarding salient issues or problems. Evidence includes the
only direct reference to a communication skill (or lack thereof) as part of the multifactor
leadership questionnaire -- the leader’s lack of or at best, delay in response. Evidence
also includes the indirect reference to the leader’s failure to recognize, acknowledge or
endorse followers, thus failing to use the basic tools necessary to create a confirming
communication climate. The reasonable conclusion is that a laissez-faire leader fails to
use even the most basic communication skills due perhaps from a lack of communication
competence or perhaps from communication apprehension. No research, however, exists
to support that conclusion.
Transactional Leadership
There are two factors that describe the transactional leadership style: management
by exception and contingent reward. A review of the active and then the passive
management by exception factor and its related communication skills will be presented,
and then the same will be provided with contingent reward.
11
Two types of behavior describe management by exception (Bass 1985, 1990; Bass
& Riggio, 2006). First is the active monitoring by a leader in an effort to ensure that
standards and goals are met. Mistakes or deviations from the standards by followers are
identified and corrected by the leader as necessary. The second is a more passive
behavior. Leaders intervene rarely or when absolutely necessary – to ensure safety, for
example. The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000) measures
management by exception through Likert-type questions such as, “the leader focuses
his/her attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards,”
“the leader keeps track of all mistakes,” and “the leader fails to interfere until problems
become serious.”
In both the active and passive descriptions of management by exception, the
communication by the leader is essentially unidirectional and potentially negative. In a
business environment, for example, the chief financial officer may chastise her staff for a
grammatical error in a detailed (and otherwise accurate) quarterly report instead of
commending them for the accuracy in the remainder of the report. Similar to the
laissez-faire style, leaders who utilize the management by exception style of transactional
leadership seem to lack communication skills or fail to use them. That may not
necessarily be a bad thing; it has been argued that management by exception is an
appropriate style in stable environments that require only minor adjustments (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). The caveat to this argument is that both leaders and followers must have
already actively communicated in order to create understanding of requirements and
12
related rewards, an action which is described in the second factor of transactional
leadership, contingent reward. In other words, before a leader can effectively and
successfully utilize the management by exception style, he or she must at the very least
have behaved and communicated in alignment with the contingent reward style.
Contingent reward is the factor in which comprehensive and interactive
communication skills can be initially inferred as part of the model. Contingent reward is
described as a leader’s ability to clarify role and task requirements (Avolio, 1999). First,
the leader offers material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfillment of
contractual obligations; second, the leader sets clearly defined expectations; and third, the
leader establishes agreement relating to levels of performance. When transactions are
constructive and address the interests of both the follower and leader, the results are
increased follower satisfaction, performance, and trust in the leader (Bass & Avolio,
2000). The multifactor leadership questionnaire measures contingent reward through
Likert-type questions regarding a leader including, “the leader discusses in specific terms
who is responsible for achieving performance targets,” “the leader makes clear what one
can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved,” and “the leader provides me
with assistance in exchange for my efforts.” Although no direct research has been done to
relate communication competence with this leadership style, from the
communication-related inferences made in both the description and in the measure, it can
be concluded that a transactional leader must be able to communicate effectively with a
follower in order to establish agreement on what is a fair task and a desired reward.
13
Transformational Leadership
The third style, transformational leadership, is more comprehensive than the other
two styles in relating communication skills to effective leadership behavior (Zorn, 1991).
Even so, despite the fact that communication-based research and analysis on the entire
full range leadership model has been almost exclusively focused on transformational
leadership, the research often discusses the benefits resulting from effective
communication skills (and not the skills themselves), and at best simply implies the
communication skills necessary to achieve those results. Nevertheless, the
communication related research on transformational leadership will be presented here in
relation to each of the style’s four factors: individual consideration, inspirational
motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation.
The first of the factors related to transformational leadership style is individual
consideration. It is defined as behavior that recognizes followers as individuals and that
provides advice and support in order for followers to identify and create a path toward
self-actualization (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Individualized consideration and contingent
reward (as part of transactional leadership) are similar in that they both include the act of
providing feedback to followers. The transformational leader who attends to individual
subordinates, however, moves followers to consider not only their self-interests, “but also
the moral and ethical implications of their actions and goals” (Avolio & Bass, p. 202).
The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000) measures individualized
consideration through Likert-type questions including, “the leader spends time teaching
14
and coaching,” “the leader treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a
group,” and “the leader helps me to develop my strengths.”
There are a number of communication insights related to individualized
consideration. The individually considerate leader must show “appreciation of follower
needs and perspective-level capacity. . .[and then]. . .craft messages, ideas, and words in
ways that grab followers’ attention and put into simple language what is an amorphous,
longing in the mind of a particular follower and/or group of followers” (Avolio & Bass,
1995, p. 204). This is accomplished through “a two-way exchange in communication”
between leader and follower, and by a leader who “listens effectively” in order to “make
sure that what was heard was what the speaker intended” (Avolio, 1999, pp. 47-48).
From this summary of relevant research, it can be concluded that the individually
considerate leader will continue to use the listening and responding skills utilized in
transactional leadership to determine and acknowledge follower needs.
The second factor related to transformational leadership is inspirational
motivation, which is the transformational leader’s ability to motivate and energize
followers through the creation of an achievable, yet idealized vision of the future. The
leader inspires followers with optimism, stressing ambitious goals that followers want to
meet. Transformational leaders provide “meaning and challenge to their followers’ work
[through the creation of] clearly communicated expectations that followers want to meet”
(Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6). The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio,
2000) measures inspirational motivation through Likert-type questions such as, “the
15
leader talks optimistically about the future,” “the leader talks enthusiastically about what
needs to be accomplished,” and “the leader articulates a compelling vision of the future.”
Except for one question related to contingent reward (“discusses in specific
terms”), the multifactor leadership questionnaire to this point has not included terms that
directly relate to communication. Here finally, the questions speak to communication
activities: “talks optimistically,” “talks enthusiastically,” and “articulates a vision” are
phrases that start to get to the heart of communication.
Using the communication skills related to other factors, the leader learns the
existing status of the followers, as well as their future potential. With that information,
the transformational leader creates a vision of an idealized future. The emphasis here is
on the creation of the vision rhetorically.
Inspirational motivation is one of the few leadership factors analyzed more than
perfunctorily from a communication perspective, and includes research topics such as
communication framing, rhetorical crafting, and message content. For example, Conger
(1991) describes two distinct communication skills required of a transformational leader.
The first, framing, is defining the purpose of the organization in a meaningful way
because “wording an opportunity in a particular manner influences our perceptions of its
outcomes” (p. 32). A leader uses framing to craft a message so that it ensures “emotional
impact particularly in terms of building a sense of confidence and excitement” (p. 34).
When framing a vision, it is important for a leader to include values that both appeal
strongly to followers and that justify their activities. Conger describes the second
16
communication skill as the ability to identify and amplify the beliefs or “ideas about
which factors support or impede actions taken to achieve the desired values” (p. 36).
Rhetorical crafting has been found also as an important element to inspirational
motivation and includes the use of metaphor and analogies, which “capture and illustrate
an experience of reality by appealing simultaneously to the varied senses of the listener”
(Conger, 1991, p. 39). While statistical summaries and factual analysis serve a purpose
to the transformational leader, stories and metaphors evoke “meanings or symbols that
have deep cultural roots, and as a result, elicit stronger emotions” (p. 41).
Research has shown that message content is another communication construct
related to inspirational motivation. Recognizing that “little explanation is available on
why leader rhetoric is related to charisma,” (p. 355) Den Hartog and Verburg (1997)
studied the speech content of three international CEOs. The researchers found that
transformational leaders use speech that contain contrast (“while my opponent is for it, I
am against it”), lists (“first, I’ll discuss revenue, then profits”), position taking (“some
might say this company is not concerned with profits, but I’m here to tell you it is”),
repetition (“let me say again, we are concerned with profits”), and alliteration (“we are
judged by the content of our character”). According to Awamleh and Gardner (1999),
“these rhetorical analyses make a compelling case that the content and construction of a
leader’s vision can serve as powerful sources for follower inspiration” (p. 349).
The third factor of transformational leadership is idealized influence. This is the
partner to inspirational motivation as it deals with the delivery of the well-crafted vision
17
through the charismatic element of leadership. According to Avolio (1999), the leader
demonstrating the behaviors of idealized influence is admired, trusted, and respected, and
is considered a role model by followers who perceive the leader as persistent, determined,
and ethical. The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000) measures
idealized influence in both attributed and perceived perspectives with Likert-type
questions regarding a leader such as, “going beyond self-interest for the good of the
group,” “acting in ways that builds respect,” and “displays a sense of power and
confidence.”
Communication as part of idealized influence is more evident in discussions of
the factor than in the questionnaire itself. Awamleh and Gardner (1999) for example,
discuss the importance of effective nonverbal communication and its relation to
charismatic leadership. They write, “Charismatic leaders are purported to project a
power, confidence, and dynamic presence through the delivery factors of eye contact,
fluency, gestures, facial expressiveness, eloquence, energy, and voice tone variety”
(p. 346). In addition, “followers expect charismatic leaders to be articulate and skillful in
communicating their ideas and feelings” (p. 359). Bass (1988) adds, “Charismatic
leadership manifests itself in nonverbal emotional expressiveness. Expressive persons
can use nonverbal cues to move, inspire or captivate” (p. 47). To test the relationship
between delivery and charisma, research was conducted in which participants designed
and delivered a speech after either receiving charismatic communication training,
presentation skills training or no training (Towler, 2001). Participants who received the
18
charismatic communication training performed better, adhered more to a vision and
enjoyed the task more. In addition, hypotheses stating that the action of followers who
watched the delivery of the presentation would be mediated by the leader training were
partially supported. Although limited in scope, this study provides evidence that training
leaders to communicate in a particularly charismatic way can make a difference to
followers.
The fourth and final factor for transformational leadership is intellectual
stimulation, which includes actions that appeal to followers’ sense of logic and analysis
by challenging them to find solutions to difficult problems. Followers are included in the
process of finding solutions and are encouraged to consider alternative approaches even if
they differ from the leader’s ideas. According to Avolio (1999), “transformational
leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning
assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations with new methods and
perspectives. . ..There is no public criticism of individual members’ mistakes” (p. 46).
The multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000) measures intellectual
stimulation through Likert-type questions, including, “the leader seeks differing
perspectives when solving problems,” the leader gets me to look at problems from many
different angles,” “the leader suggests new ways of looking at how to complete
assignments”.
Through intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader challenges followers
to find ways within their own roles and responsibilities (and a little beyond) in which
19
they can contribute to achieving the future state envisioned and communicated by the
leader. The transformational leader asks and expects followers to revisit their goals and
objectives and reformulate them in a way that is clear, specific, realistic, and observable.
Through learning themselves and communicating to followers how to create these goals,
both the leader and followers identify the more specific and detailed actions required in
order to achieve the future state.
The descriptions of and research on the three types of leaders in the full range
leadership model can lead to certain conclusions regarding the model and its relationship
to communication. First, it is likely that transformational leaders are more competent
communicators than laissez-faire leaders. While the laissez-faire leader is described as
essentially a reluctant or non-communicator, the transformational leader is much more
communicative and is able to form the vision of a future state and communicate
effectively not only the vision but how each follower can help achieve the future state.
While the conclusion regarding communication competence can be easily made, no study
has been done to show the relationship. Alternatively, a conclusion to explain the
communication reluctance of the laissez-faire leader and the more readily communicative
transformational leader is apprehensiveness. The transformational leader may be less
apprehensive in public, group, and one-on-one communication scenarios than the
laissez-faire leader. Again, although this conclusion may be apparent, no studies have
been done to show the relationship between communication apprehension and leadership
styles.
20
A third conclusion is related to the act of listening. Given that laissez-faire
leaders seem to be reluctant communicators, transactional leaders exchange information
in order to agree on how a job is to be done and what the reward will be, and
transformational leaders seek different perspectives and ideas from followers, one might
conclude that the transformational leader is the most active and effective listener of the
three styles. Again, this is a reasonable conclusion, but one that has not been validated.
In order to explore these ideas, the communication variables communication
apprehension, communication competence and listening styles will be discussed in
relationship to leadership in general and wherever possible, in relationship to the full
range leadership model in particular.
Communication Apprehension and Leadership
McCroskey (1977) defined communication apprehension as “fear or anxiety of
either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (p. 78).
McCroskey’s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24; 1978) is the
most popular and most valid measure of communication apprehension (Rubin,
Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994) and measures both state- and trait-like orientations of
communication apprehension in four separate contexts: dyadic, small group, meeting, and
public speaking. The sum of the results measuring each individual context provides an
indication of overall communication apprehension.
While communication apprehension has been studied extensively in classroom
situations (i.e., Borzi & Mills, 2001; Burk, 2001; Butler, Pryor, & Marti, 2004; Zhang,
21
2005), and in relation to cultural contexts (Hye Yoon & McCroskey, 2004; Pryor, Butler,
& Boehringer, 2005; Sarquisse, Butler, & Pryor, 2003), it has been studied less frequently
in business contexts or in leader/follower situations. The studies that have been
conducted, though, do offer a chain of logic relating to communication apprehension and
the full range leadership model. For example, research reveals that communication
apprehension is associated negatively with leadership emergence in a work group (Limon
& La France, 2005). Those who scored low on a communication apprehension survey
were perceived as leaders significantly more than those who scored as moderately or
highly apprehensive. Similarly, it was found that people who rated lower in
communication apprehension are more likely to be perceived as leaders in a group by
both themselves and other group members (Hawkins & Stewart, 1991). It seems logical,
based on this research, that a transformational leader would have low communication
apprehension; the leader who speaks optimistically and enthusiastically while articulating
a compelling vision is probably not fearful of communicating. Other studies of
communication apprehension mirror the description of the laissez-faire leader: those with
high levels of communication apprehension are associated with a low level of verbal
output (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979); similarly, the higher the level of communication
apprehension in a supervisor, the less information employees reported receiving from that
supervisor (Bartoo & Sias, 2004).
Based on the results of the research presented, one might conclude that those who
experience high levels of communication apprehension would not be transformational
22
leaders; they would instead tend to fall into transactional or laissez-faire leadership styles.
If a leader were afraid to speak in a one-on-one situation, in a group, or in public, it
would easily follow that he or she would also avoid the actions or lack the skills and
behaviors of a transformational leader. However, should a definitive relationship be
made between the factors of leadership style and communication apprehension, further
studies can be done to explore and define the relationship and eventually causal
relationships may be identified. Considering the volume of research on communication
apprehension in university students, perhaps a training program on the elements of
leadership would positively affect communication apprehension. Conversely, training a
student to effectively deal with communication apprehension may help him or her to
become a better leader. Thus, as a first step, the following hypothesis is made to
understand the relationship between leadership and communication apprehension:
H1: The relationship between perceived manager leadership style and
communication apprehension will differ, such that the relationship between laissez-faire
leadership style and communication apprehension will be positively related and the
relationship between transactional and transformational leadership and communication
apprehension will be negatively related.
Communication Competence and Leadership
Communication competence is defined as the ability “to choose among available
communicative behaviors” to accomplish one’s own “interpersonal goals during an
encounter while maintaining the face and line of fellow interactants within the constraints
23
of the situation” (Wiemann, 1977, p. 198). For example, when faced with the choice of
yelling in frustration, saying nothing, or calmly addressing an employee who had made a
mistake, a manager with a high level of communication competence would probably
choose to calmly deliver appropriate words in order to ensure the employee understood
what was done wrong. In addition, the communicative competent manager, in seeking to
accomplish a goal of making fewer mistakes, would also provide appropriate instruction
so that the employee would know how to accomplish the task correctly.
Arguing that “in order for an individual to function as a leader, she or he must
possess various encoding and decoding skills. . .so as to facilitate the group’s ability to
understand and deal with existing barriers and problems appropriately,” Barge and
Hirokawa (1989) proposed a model of group leadership based on communication
competency (p. 172). Presented as an alternative to traditional leadership approaches, the
communication competency model is designed to predict the types of communication
skills required to manage the dimensions of group situations including task complexity,
group climate and role relationships. “A communication competency approach
recognizes that as group situations evolve and change, the performance of a particular
[communication] skill at an earlier time in the group development may be inappropriate
later, and vice versa” (p. 185).
Claiming “the research concerning communication competency of organizational
managers is still very limited in scope,” Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, and Henwood
(1991) conducted a study designed to clarify the relationship between managerial
24
performance and communication competence (p. 58). Questionnaires completed by
354 middle and upper level bank managers revealed a significant positive association
between communication skills and performance. Additionally, the poorest performers in
the study reported the highest levels of communication apprehension.
Other research on communication competence also has been linked to
communication apprehension. The link makes sense, as one could logically assume that
those with low public speaking apprehension would demonstrate high levels of
communication competence, and vice versa. In assessing how classroom instruction
might result in changes in students’ communication competence and communication
apprehension, Rubin, Rubin, and Jordan (1997) confirmed an inverse relationship
between communication competence and communication apprehension, and also found
that students with high apprehension, regardless of competence, had a greater tendency to
drop out of communication courses.
Extending the association between communication competence and
communication apprehension to leadership style is not a stretch. By establishing a
relationship, though, one could then study the effect of communication training on
leadership styles. As a first step, the following hypothesis is offered:
H2: The relationship between perceived manager leadership style and
communication competence will differ, such that the relationship between laissez-faire
leadership style and communication competence will be negatively related and the
25
relationship between transactional and transformational leadership and communication
competence will be positively related.
Listening Styles and Leadership
The importance of listening in any communication process is vital, and although a
variety of studies have been conducted on listening in organizational environments
(i.e., Brownell, 1990; Imhof, 2004; Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert, 1989), only a few have
studied listening in relation to leadership or leaders (Brownell; McGill & Slocum, 1998;
Wolvin, 2005), and none have been found relating directly to the full range leadership
theory. Interestingly, in the popular press, there exist several guides dedicated
exclusively to effective listening for leaders (Harris, 2006; Steil & Bommelje, 2004)
perhaps because “many Fortune 500 companies as well as several management training
programs used across the United States identify listening as one of the most important
communication skills needed in the workplace” (Haas & Arnold, 1995, p. 125).
Regardless of the context, part of the challenge in studying listening is defining
listening. According to Sypher et al. (1989), “there is no one generally accepted
definition of listening” (p. 293). Weaver (1972), for example, defined listening as, “the
selection and retention of aurally received data” (p. 12). Brownell (1985) defined
listening as a process that includes hearing, understanding, interpreting, evaluating,
remembering, and responding. Pearce et al. (2003) identified and defined several terms
including listening - the active process of selecting and integrating relevant information
from acoustic input, listening effectiveness - a person’s listening competency, listening
26
style – the method a person uses when listening, and attention style - what a person tends
to focus on when listening.
A concern related to studies on listening, including listening-related studies on
leadership, is that many depend on self-reported data. Barge and Schleuter (1991) and
Corman and Krizek (1993) argue that the accuracy of communication behavior may be
called into question when reported solely by individuals. For example, in a study in
which subordinates were asked to rate the listening ability of their bosses “more than half
put their managers in the ‘poor’ category. When the same managers were asked to rate
themselves, 94% described themselves as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ listeners” (Adler &
Elmhorst, 2008, p. 79). Pearce et al. (2003) acknowledge that their listening styles
inventory test users’ perceptions about their listening abilities, not their actual listening
comprehension. However, they offer the measure because “the instrument’s function is
to raise users’ awareness of these perceptions so that they can take appropriate action, if
necessary, to improve their listening skills” (p. 85).
The listening styles identified in Pearce et al.’s (2003) listening styles inventory
(LSI) include descriptions of four different listening styles: the active listener who “gives
full attention to listening when others are talking. . .and expends a lot of energy
participating in the speaking-listening exchange” (p. 86); the involved listener who “gives
most of his or her attention to the speaker’s words and intentions” (p. 86); the passive
listener who “receives information as though being talked to rather than being an equal
partner in the speaking-listening exchange” (p. 86); and the detached listener who
27
“withdraws from the exchange. . .is inattentive. . .has a lack of enthusiasm and. . .avoids
direct eye contact” (pp. 86-87). The descriptions of the listening styles are somewhat
similar to the descriptions of the leadership styles in the full range leadership model. For
example, the laissez-faire leader seems to reflect the LSI’s detached listener and it would
seem probable that the transformational leader would be an active listener. Despite the
similarity in the descriptions, the MLQ and the full range leadership model fail to
describe the specific communication behaviors that are associated with each style. If, in
fact, it can be shown that laissez-faire leaders, for example, tend to be more detached
listeners, then they would have more awareness of their communication skills and, as
recommended by Pearce et al., they can “take appropriate action to improve their
listening skills” (p. 85). First, though, the question must be asked:
RQ: Is there a relationship between leadership style and listening style?
28
Chapter 3
METHOD
The previous chapters introduced the topics of leadership styles, communication
apprehension, communication competence and listening styles. A literature review of
these topics was presented, and arguments were shown to justify the hypotheses and
research question. This chapter presents the methodology used in this study.
Participants
Surveys from 327 participants were collected via online questionnaire. Of those,
61 surveys were eliminated because they were incomplete or otherwise unusable. Of the
266 useable questionnaires, there were 71 (27%) male participants, and 185 (70%) female
participants, and 10 participants (3%) not indicating their sex. Participant ages ranged
between 19 and 78 with a mean age of 42.68 (SD = 12.11). The education level of
participants were as follows: four (2%) with some high school or high school graduation;
65 (24%) with some college education; 89 (33%) college graduates; 38 (14%) with some
graduate work; 64 (24%) with a master’s or doctorate degree. Six participants failed to
indicate their education level (2%). Of those responding, 231 (87%) identified
themselves as Caucasian, six (2%) African-American, 10 (4%) Asian, and seven (3%)
Hispanic. Twelve participants (4%) failed to describe their ethnicity.
Because this study examined the perceptions of managers by their subordinates,
participants also answered questions about their manager. The managers described
ranged in age from 23 to 76 years with a mean age of 47 (SD = 10.13). Of those
29
surveyed, 151 (56%) participants described a male manager, and 114 (43%) participants
described a female manager. Regarding education level, 18 (7%) participants described a
manager who had some high school or were high school graduates; 21 (8%) described a
manager who had some college experience; 104 (39%) described a manager with a
college degree; 21 (8%) described a manager with some post graduate work, and
84 (31%) participants described their manager as having a post graduate degree.
Eighteen (7%) participants either did not know or failed to describe the education level of
their manager. The average number of years managers held their position was
9.32 (SD = 8.53). With respect to number of years participants worked with their
described manager was 3.47 years (SD = 4.36). Finally, 230 (86%) of the managers were
described as Caucasian; 18 (7%) as Asian; 18 (7%) were African American, Hispanic or
other.
Procedures
The survey instrument completed by participants was made available through an
easy to remember URL (OnlineLeadershipSurvey.com), which pointed to the survey
hosted by Survey Monkey, an online survey service. Friends and business associates
were contacted through an email campaign and through requests made on social
networking websites including “Facebook” and “LinkedIn.” A message accompanying
the survey (see Appendix A) asked individuals to do two things: (1) participate in a
survey; and (2) forward the link to others who may be inclined to participate. The email
30
explained that the survey was part of a master’s thesis and the gathered information
would be kept confidential and discussed only in aggregate form.
Measures
The instrument consisted of a self-administered survey, which included several
background information questions as well as a series of Likert-type items. The
demographic questions (see Appendix B) asked the participants to provide information
on their age, sex, education level, amount of time having worked for their manager.
Questions were also asked about their manager including age, sex, education level, and
time that the manager had been in his or her position. The Likert-type items were used to
measure the leadership style (36 items), communication apprehension (24 items),
communication competence (15 items), and listening style (10 items) of the participant’s
manager. The entire survey included a total of 11 descriptive questions and
85 Likert-type questions.
Leadership Style
The nine factors that combine to create the three leadership styles (see Table 1)
identified in the full range leadership model were measured with the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000). Laissez-faire leadership (see
Appendix C), management-by-exception (passive; see Appendix D),
management-by-exception (active; see Appendix E), contingent reward (see
Appendix F), individual consideration (see Appendix G), inspirational motivation (see
Appendix H), idealized influence (attributed; see Appendix I), idealized influence
(perceived; see Appendix J), and intellectual motivation (see Appendix K) were each
31
Table 1
Factors of Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational Leadership Styles
Leadership Style
Related Factor
Laissez-Faire (1 Factor)
Laissez-Faire
Management by Exception (Passive)
Transactional (3 Factors)
Management by Exception (Active)
Contingent Reward
Individual Consideration
Inspirational Motivation
Transformational (5 Factors)
Idealized Influence (Attributed)
Idealized Influence (Perceived)
Intellectual Stimulation
measured with four questions in a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all” to
“frequently, if not always.” The questions were used in this study as they are shown in
the original model and were framed in the “other” orientation. An example of a question
related to laissez-faire was, “My manager delays responding to urgent questions.” An
example of a question related to management-by-exception (passive) is, “My manager
demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action.” An example of a
question related to management-by-exception (active) is, “My manager directs my
attention toward failures to meet standards.” An example of a question related to
32
contingent reward is, “My manager discusses in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets.” An example of a question related to individual
consideration is, “My manager spends time teaching and coaching.” An example of a
question related to inspirational motivation is, “My manager talks enthusiastically about
what needs to be accomplished.” An example of a question related to idealized influence
(attributed) is, “My manager displays a sense of power and confidence.” An example of a
question related to idealized influence (perceived) is, “My manager talks about his/her
most important values and beliefs.” An example of a question related to intellectual
stimulation is, “My manager suggests new ways of looking at how to complete
assignments.” Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor scale have
been reported to range from .74 to .94 (Bass & Avolio, 2000). In this study, Chronbach’s
alpha tests showed the reliability of each of the nine factors to range between .73 and .90.
When combined to form the three higher level leadership styles of laissez-faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership, alpha scores ranged from .39 to .96.
Laissez-faire reliability was α = .80 (M = 1.14, SD = .95). Transactional leadership,
combining management by exception passive, management by exception active, and
contingent reward was α = .39. By eliminating four of the 12 questions that combine to
measure transactional leadership, the reliability improved to α = .72. Transformational
leadership reliability was α = .96 (M = 2.42, SD = 1.00) when combining individual
consideration, inspirational motivation, idealized influence (attributed), idealized
influence (perceived), and intellectual stimulation.
33
Communication Apprehension
The four contexts of communication apprehension were measured through
McCroskey’s (1978) Personal Report of Communication Apprehension. The contexts
include group (see Appendix L), meeting (see Appendix M), public speaking
(Appendix N) and dyadic encounters (see Appendix O). For each context, six items were
measured by a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree.” The questions were adapted from a self-oriented perspective to an
other-oriented perspective. Items for group communication apprehension included, “My
manager dislikes participating in group discussions.” Items for meeting communication
apprehension included, “Generally, my manager is nervous when he/she has to
participate in a meeting.” Items for public speaking communication apprehension
included, “My manager looks tense and rigid while giving a speech.” Items for dyadic
communication apprehension included, “Ordinarily my manager is very tense and
nervous in conversations.” Alpha scale reliability estimates for the sum of all 24 items
have ranged between .93 and .95 (Rubin et al., 1994). In this particular study, the
Chronbach’s alpha reliability ranged from α = .84 to α = .91 for each of the four contexts,
and combined, the reliability was α = .96 (M = 1.95, SD = .76).
Communication Competence
Communication competence (see Appendix P) was measured through an
adaptation of Wiemann’s (1977) Communicative Competence Scale (CCS). The five
point Likert-type inventory ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” includes
36 other-oriented questions such as, “S is a good listener” and “S is an effective
34
conversationalist.” With the intention of building on research that has successfully
utilized abbreviated questionnaires (Flett, Hewitt, & Cheng, 2008; Nielsen, 2005;
Schumm, Jurich, & Bollman, 1980), the measure for this study included 15 of the
36 items and was adapted to focus on one’s manager. Items chosen for this study implied
more observable communication behaviors such as, “My manager is not afraid to speak
with people in authority,” and “My manager is relaxed and comfortable when speaking.”
Items removed from this survey included less observable behaviors such as, “My
manager generally knows how others feel.” Reliability for the full scale has been reported
at ranges between α = .85 and α = .91 (Wiemann, 1977). In this particular study, the
reliability was α = .95 (M = 3.78, SD = .83).
Listening Styles
Listening styles were measured through an adaptation of Pearce et al.’s (2003)
Listening Styles Inventory (LSI; see Appendix Q). This five point Likert-type inventory
ranging from “almost always” to “almost never” was created as a means of identifying
four different listening styles: active, involved, passive, and detached. The ten questions
in the original survey are self-oriented and include items such as “I listen to the complete
message before making judgments about what the speaker has said.” For this study, the
measure was revised to focus on one’s manager and included questions such as, “My
manager wants to listen to what others have to say when they are talking.” Past reliability
has been reported between α = .70 and α = .75 (Pearce et al., 2003). In this particular
study, the reliability was α = .71 (M = 3.34, SD = .58).
35
Data Analysis
SPSS version 16.0 was used to compute and analyze the results. In order to
investigate the hypotheses and research question, regression analysis was used to estimate
the unique relationship between each of the leadership styles and outcome variables in
this study. Furthermore, to assess where there were significant differences amongst the
effect sizes, Fisher’s r-to-z transformation was calculated.
36
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Hypothesis one predicted that the relationship between a manager’s perceived
leadership style and communication apprehension would differ, such that the relationship
between laissez-faire leadership style and communication apprehension would be
positively related and the relationship between transactional and transformational
leadership style and communication apprehension would be negatively related. Results
from multiple regression indicated that the relationship between laissez-faire leadership
and communication apprehension was positive and significant ( = .15, t = 2.62, p < .01),
transactional leadership style was positive and significant (ß = .16, t = 3.15, p < .01), and
transformational leadership was negative and significant (ß = -.50, t = 9.08, p < .001).
The hypothesis was partially supported: laissez-faire leadership and communication
apprehension were positively related, and transformational leadership and
communication apprehension were negatively related. However, transactional leadership
and communication apprehension were positively related, which is opposite of what was
predicted.
To determine whether the effect sizes of the three leadership styles differed in
their prediction of the outcome variable communication apprehension, Fisher’s r-to-z
transformation was calculated. For these data, laissez-faire leadership style did not differ
from transactional leadership style (z =.12, p = .99), however, laissez-faire differed from
37
transformational (z = 8.02, p < .001), and transformational leadership style also differed
from transactional leadership style (z = 8.17, p < .001).
Hypothesis two predicted that the relationship between perceived manager
leadership style and communication competence would differ, such that the relationship
between laissez-faire leadership style and communication competence would be
negatively related and the relationship between transactional and transformational
leadership and communication competence would be positively related. Results from
multiple regression indicated that the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
communication competence was negative and significant (ß = -.10, t = 2.4, p = .02),
transactional leadership was negative and significant (ß = -.19, t = 4.96, p < .001), and
transformational leadership was positive and significant (ß = .68, t = 16.74, p <.001).
The hypothesis was partially supported: laissez-faire leadership and communication
competence were negatively related, and transformational leadership and communication
competence were positively related. However, transactional leadership and
communication competence were negatively related, which is opposite of what was
predicted.
To determine whether the effect sizes of the three leadership styles differed in
their prediction of the outcome variable communication apprehension, Fisher’s r-to-z
transformation was calculated. For these data, laissez-faire did not differ from
transactional (z = 1.29, p = .10), however laissez-faire differed from transformational
38
(z = 9.32, p < .001), and transactional differed from transformational (z = 10.61,
p < .001).
The research question asked whether there was a relationship between listening
skills and leadership style. Results from regression analysis indicate a negative but
insignificant relationship between listening skills and laissez-faire leadership (ß = -.05,
t = .89, p = .38), a negative and significant relationship with transactional leadership
(ß = -.16, t = 3.32, p < .01), and a positive and significant relationship with
transformational leadership (ß = .65, t = 12.92, p < .01).
To determine whether the effect sizes of the three leadership styles differed in
their prediction of the outcome variable communication apprehension, Fisher’s r-to-z
transformation was calculated. For these data, laissez-faire leadership style did not differ
from transactional leadership style (z = 1.02, p = .15), however, laissez-faire differed
from transformational (z = 10.71, p < .001). Transformational leadership style also
differed from transactional leadership style (z = 11.73, p < .001). To summarize, a
relationship was shown between transformational leadership and listening skills as well
as between transactional leadership and listening skills. Further, although not predicted,
it was shown that the relationship was strongest between transformational leadership and
listening skills; in other words, transformational leaders are more active listeners.
39
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter summarizes the results of the statistical analysis reported in
Chapter 4 and provides a discussion of the implications of the findings in this study.
Additionally, a presentation of the potential limitations to this study and suggestions for
future research are provided.
Discussion
It is no great surprise that relationships were found between communication skills
and the leadership styles in the full range leadership model. The importance of this
study, however, is in the act of showing that the Bass and Avolio model can go further to
identify the communication skills that lead to the behaviors described in their model.
Through the deepening of the model, it can become stronger and, possibly, more
effective.
Hypothesis one was shown to be mostly supported. A positive relationship was
found between individuals with a predominantly laissez-faire leadership style and
communication apprehension. In addition, a negative relationship was shown between
individuals with a predominantly transformational leadership style and communication
apprehension. However, the hypothesis did not support the relationship regarding
transactional leaders. Although the relationship was shown to be significant, it was a
positive one, as opposed to the predicted negative relationship.
40
There are several possible explanations for the results that occurred. Because the
instructions asked participants to answer questions about a current or recent boss or
manager, participants may have chosen a manager that stood out in their memory as
being especially good or especially bad. As a result, the laissez-faire and the
transformational leadership style could be over represented, in essence leaving the
transactional leader under represented. This can be seen in the fairly heavy weighting of
the transformational leadership style results. A second possible explanation for the result
relating to transactional leadership style is that management by exception behaviors as
part of transactional leadership style, by definition, means the leader engages rarely, and
often in a negative way. This behavior may be perceived as communication
apprehension by participants rather than as an exchange of reward for agreed-upon
behavior.
An important outcome of this hypothesis, however, is the significant relationship
between laissez-faire leadership style and communication apprehension. If it could be
shown with further testing that communication apprehension is a predictor of laissez-faire
leadership, then predominantly laissez-faire leaders can have options that include proven
training to overcome apprehension. With a better understanding of this relationship,
leaders can have more control over their leadership style and make the choice of style
rather than be controlled by it as a result of apprehension.
Hypothesis two was supported in ways similar to the first hypothesis.
Laissez-faire leadership style and communication competence were shown to be
41
negatively related, and transformational leadership and communication competence were
shown to be positively related. However, like hypothesis one, the predicted relationship
between transactional leadership style and communication competence was wrong. The
results showed a negative relationship between transactional leadership style and
communication competence as opposed to the predicted positive relationship. Again, this
could be because the transactional leader was under represented and was possibly
perceived as having more management by exception behaviors (more similar to the
laissez-faire leadership style) than contingent reward behaviors.
There are several important ideas that arise from the results of hypothesis two.
First, although it is not a considerable surprise that transformational leaders are shown to
be competent communicators, and laissez-faire leaders are not shown to be competent
communicators, it is nevertheless important to show this result so that those who work to
develop and improve the testing and training related to the full range leadership model
are able to better understand the communication skills that result in the behaviors
identified in the theory. That understanding can lead to improved and possibly more
effective training of leaders. Second, the results of hypothesis two help to support the
results of hypothesis one. The relationship between communication skills and managerial
performance has been shown (Penley et al., 1991), along with the relationship between
communication competence and communication apprehension (Rubin et al., 1997). By
showing that managers with a laissez-faire leadership style are lacking communication
competence, the support for possible communication apprehension in laissez-faire leaders
42
is stronger. Even so, a training program that helps leaders with primarily a laissez-faire
style to improve their communication skills as well as their communication apprehension
could be useful to those leaders.
Other explanations of the results could be related to the issue of liking. In other
words, because a transformational leader engages in behaviors that followers may like,
the followers would also consider them to have high communication competence. In a
study by Johnson (1992), it was found that superiors were perceived by subordinates as
being more communicatively competent when using a prosocial compliance-gaining
tactic (liking) than when using an antisocial compliance-gaining tactic. Similarly, Cole
and McCroskey (2003) found that subordinate affect (liking) was far more negative
toward supervisors perceived as communicatively apprehensive. Given that
communication apprehension is negatively related to communication competence, it may
be that liking moderates the relationship between leadership style and communication
competence. In other words, if a subordinate likes a supervisor, that leader may be
perceived as having a transformational leadership style and high communication
competence. Alternatively, if a subordinate dislikes a supervisor, that leader may be
perceived as having a laissez-faire leadership style and low communication competence.
Further testing is required to explore these possibilities.
The results of the research question showed a significant and positive relationship
between listening skills and the transformational leadership style. In other words,
transformational leaders are the most active listeners. This makes sense; the description
43
of the transformational leader and the measures in the MLQ actually describe an active
listener. Although the results seem to validate the listening skills of the transformational
leader, the opposite is not true; laissez-faire leaders were not shown to be detached
listeners. Transactional leaders were, however, shown to be less active listeners than
transformational leaders and these two significant results again support the two
hypotheses. Because listening is related to communication competence (Haas & Arnold,
1995) as well as to low communication apprehension (Bodie & Villaume, 2003), it can be
argued that the relationship between leadership style and communication apprehension,
communication competence and listening skills is a strong one. In other words, because
there is a relationship between the three communication variables in the study, it makes
sense that when tested against leadership styles, the results reflected the demonstrated
relationships. If laissez-faire leaders are shown to have more communication
apprehension, then they should also have lower communication competence and listening
skills. Similarly, if transformational leaders have less communication apprehension, they
should also have higher communication competence and listening skills. These results
not only provide more understanding of the full range leadership model, they also build
on, but also validate previous communication research. Testing the causality of this
relationship is the next opportunity. If it can be shown that communication skills can
lead to dominant leadership styles, the depth of the understanding of the full range
leadership model would increase considerably.
44
Limitations
Although this thesis advances the existing knowledge about communication skills
and the full range leadership model, several limitations in the research should be noted.
They include reporting bias, external validity, and measure reliability.
The survey used in this research effort asked individuals to report on the
leadership styles and communication skills of another person. While results were
significant, the question of perception comes into play. Like the listening studies
previously discussed (Adler & Elmhorst, 2008; Barge & Schleuter, 1991; Corman &
Krizek, 1993), subordinates can describe their managers in a very different light than the
managers consider themselves to be, and as Kim and Yukl (1995) report, subordinates
can provide a more accurate description of leadership behavior than the actual leader.
Nevertheless, possible bias could exist; to avoid it in future studies, a more thorough
analysis of a leader could be done that includes surveys of more than one subordinate, of
co-workers, of managers of the leader in question, and of the leader him or herself.
External validity, also known as generalizability, is the extent to which findings
can be generalized to other populations. First studied by Campbell and Stanley (1963),
external validity has since been viewed as being equally important as construct and other
validity issues in research (Lynch, 1983). It has also been argued that external validity is
less important than other forms of validity when the objective of research is to test theory
(Calder, Phillips & Tybout, 1982). Further, it has been argued that external validity is a
matter of the applicability of behavioral research (Calder, Phillips & Tybout, 1983). In
45
other words, instead of creating studies that can be generalized to other populations, it is
recommended to vigorously test theories in a variety of contexts in order to enhance the
robustness of a theory.
For this particular study, the external validity comes into question on several
levels. Although the participants’ education level was fairly well distributed, most
participants were white women. In addition, although there was almost an equal
distribution of male and female managers described, most of the managers described
were white. While the full range leadership model has been studied under a variety of
contexts and with people of multiple races and ethnic backgrounds (Avolio & Bass,
1998), this study was, unfortunately limited in race, and to some extent, sex. A more
diverse group of participants and managers may change the results of the study.
A second factor that may have contributed to external validity is the possible
similarity of the participants to the author. Participants were initially found through an
email campaign of known business and personal contacts, and additional participants
were found by an extended request to participate by the first level of participants. As a
result, it is probable that the participants not only reflected the author from an ethnic and
gender perspective, but also from a socioeconomic, professional and personal
perspective. Unfortunately, the demographic questions posed in the survey were not
specific enough to allow identification of a particular group or identity with which the
results could be attributed; instead, they were fairly obscure and resulted in a nebulous
46
participant group. The results, therefore, can neither be considered generalizable or
specific to any group.
The framework of the MLQ has been questioned in the past (Avolio & Bass,
1995; Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1997; Tejeda et al., 2001), and in this
particular study, the results relating to transactional leadership suggest that there may be a
problem with the reliability of the measure: nearly one third of the questions related to
transactional leadership had to be removed to achieve reliability, and it failed to be
identified as an independent outcome variable in either of the hypotheses or the research
question. In this particular study, the results relating to transactional leadership may not
be accurately reflective of a transactional leader; in future studies, the measure itself may
need to be reconfigured in some way in order to more accurately measure those behaviors
and of course, the communication skills related to them.
Future Research
The objective for future research is twofold: first, to improve the understanding of
the full range leadership model and its related training programs by showing that
communication skills are related to the model’s behaviors; and second, to help leaders
become more effective in their chosen leadership styles. Future research in achieving
both of these goals includes the following activities.
First, develop and execute a test to determine whether there is a causal
relationship between communication skills and leadership styles. More specifically,
determine whether there is there a causal relationship between communication
47
apprehension and laissez-faire leadership. In other words, are leaders with
communication apprehension more likely to have a dominant laissez-faire leadership
style? The answer to this question could lead to a whole new and worthwhile line of
research between communication and leadership studies.
Utilizing proven training programs related to communication apprehension,
communication competence, and listening skills (deLisser, 2004; Fordham & Gabbin,
1996; Richmond & McCroskey, 1990; Wiemann & Backlund, 1980; Wolvin & Coakley,
1991), the next line of future research is to conduct experiments with predominantly
laissez-faire leaders to determine whether communication training affects dominant
leadership styles. With this line of research, it can be explored whether by reducing
communication apprehension, and improving both communication competence and
listening skills, laissez-faire leaders can change their predominant leadership style. In
addition, by integrating comprehensive and specific communication training in the full
range leadership model, leaders would have, as recommended by Antonakis et al. (2003),
concrete skills to utilize as opposed to general recommendations such as “be more
transformational in your leadership style” (p. 294).
In another vein of research, the MLQ could be tested to include measures that are
more communication related. While overall, the MLQ describes behaviors rather than
communication skills to identify different leadership styles, it may be worthwhile to
determine whether adding measures that specifically test for communication skills
improves the accuracy and the depth of the measure and of the model as a whole.
48
Finally, additional research that studies the relationship between the full range
leadership model and other communication variables is a worthwhile line of study.
While communication apprehension, communication competence and listening skills are
interesting and somewhat obvious areas of study in relationship to leadership styles, other
communication variables such as immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness
and issues of liking could lead to insightful understanding of the full range leadership
model and to leadership in general.
Conclusion
A leader’s style is not based on communication skills alone, however, the
relationship is an important one, and one worth continuing research (Fairhurst, 2001;
Mann, 1988; Zorn, 1991). The age-old argument as to whether leaders are made or born
rages on (Avolio, 2005; Brungardt, 1997; Kets de Vries & Engellau, 2004), but one
argument for the making of a leader is communication training. In this study, it has been
shown that the leadership styles identified in the full range leadership model have
significant relationships to trainable communication skills. By incorporating these skills
into the model and its related training programs, the model may become stronger, it may
become more effective and ultimately it may help leaders to have more ability to choose
their leadership style rather than be controlled by them.
49
APPENDIX A
Instructions to Participants
Thank you for taking part in this survey. It is an integral part of my thesis and your
participation will help me to complete my master’s degree. The survey will take less than
10 minutes to complete. Please answer each question to the best of your ability.
Although individual results will be kept private and confidential, I will be happy to send
you a summarized report of the results when analyzed. Please email me at
Lucille_Allen@yahoo.com to let me know of your interest.
In addition, should you think of any friends or business associates who might be willing
to complete the survey, please direct them to www.OnlineLeadershipSurvey.com.
Again, your participation in this survey is greatly appreciated!
The survey starts out with questions regarding a current or recent boss or manager.
Please keep this person in mind throughout the survey.
50
APPENDIX B
Demographic Items
Section I: Please complete the following information about yourself.
1. What was your age on your last birthday?
____
2. What is your sex?
Female____
Male____
3. What is your education level?
Some High School____ High School Grad____ Some College____
College Grad____ Post-Grad____
4. How long have you worked with your current manager or boss?
5. How long have you been in your current position?
____months
____months
6. What race do you most closely identify with? (Check One)
Caucasian____ African-American____ Asian____ Native American____
Hispanic____ Other____
7. Of the industry categories shown below, please choose one that best describes your
current work. (Check One)
____Arts and Entertainment
____Home and Garden
____Automotive
____Industry and Agriculture
____Business and Professional
Services
____Legal and Financial
____Clothing and Accessories
____Personal Care Services
____Community and Government
____Real Estate
____Computers and Electronics
____Media and Communications
____Sports and Recreation
____Construction and Contractors
____Travel and Transportation
____Education
____Other (Describe)
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
____Food and Dining
____Health and Medicine
51
Section II: Please complete the following information about your current boss or
manager.
1. What is the approximate age of your current manager? ____
2. What is his/her sex?
Male____
Female____
3. If you know, what is the education level of your manager?
Some High School____ High School Grad____ Some College____
College Grad____ Post-Grad____
4. How long has your manager been in his/her current position of leadership?
______ months
5. What race do you most closely identify your manager with? (Check One)
Caucasian____ African-American____ Asian____ Native American____
Hispanic____ Other____
52
APPENDIX C
Laissez-Faire Measure
My manager avoids getting involved when important issues arise.
My manager is absent when needed.
My manager delays responding to urgent questions.
My manager avoids making decisions.
53
APPENDIX D
Management by Exception (Passive) Measure
My manager fails to interfere until problems become serious.
My manager waits for things to go wrong before taking action.
My manager shows that he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
My manager demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking
action.
54
APPENDIX E
Management by Exception (Active) Measure
My manager focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards.
My manager concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes,
complaints, and failures.
My manager keeps track of all mistakes.
My manager directs my attention toward failures to meet standards.
55
APPENDIX F
Contingent Reward Measure
My manager provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts.
My manager discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving
performance targets.
My manager makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals
are achieved.
My manager expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations.
56
APPENDIX G
Individual Consideration Measure
My manager spends time teaching and coaching.
My manager treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group.
My manager helps me to develop my strengths.
My manager considers me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from
others.
57
APPENDIX H
Inspirational Motivation Measure
My manager talks optimistically about the future.
My manager talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
My manager articulates a compelling vision of the future.
My manager expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.
58
APPENDIX I
Idealized Influence (Attributed) Measure
My manager instills pride in me for being associated with him/her.
My manager goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
My manager acts in ways that builds my respect.
My manager displays a sense of power and confidence.
59
APPENDIX J
Idealized Influence (Perceived) Measure
My manager talks about his/her most important values and beliefs.
My manager emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
My manager specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
My manager considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
60
APPENDIX K
Intellectual Stimulation Measure
My manager reexamines critical assumptions in order to question whether they
are appropriate.
My manager seeks differing perspectives when solving problems.
My manager gets me to look at problems from many different angles.
My manager suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
61
APPENDIX L
Group Communication Apprehension Measure
My manager dislikes participating in group discussions.
Generally, my manager is comfortable while participating in group discussions.*
My manager is tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
My manager likes to get involved in group discussions.*
Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes my manager tense and
nervous.
My manager is calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.*
* = Reverse Coding
62
APPENDIX M
Meeting Communication Apprehension Measure
Generally, my manager is nervous when he/she has to participate in a meeting.
Usually my manager is calm and relaxed while participating in meetings.*
My manager is very calm and relaxes when called upon to express an opinion at a
meeting.*
My manager is afraid to express himself/herself at meetings.
Communicating at meetings usually makes my manager uncomfortable
My manager is very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.*
* = Reverse Coding
63
APPENDIX N
Dyadic Communication Apprehension Measure
While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, my manager feels
very nervous.
My manager has no fear of speaking up in conversations.*
Ordinarily my manager is very tense and nervous in conversations.
Ordinarily my manager is very calm and relaxed in conversations.*
While conversing with a new acquaintance, my manager feels very relaxed.*
My manager is afraid to speak up in conversations.
* = Reverse Coding
64
APPENDIX O
Public Speaking Communication Apprehension Measure
My manager has no fear of giving a speech.*
My manager looks tense and rigid while giving a speech.
My manager feels relaxed while giving a speech.*
My manager’s thoughts become confused and jumbled when giving a speech.
My manager faces the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.*
While giving a speech, my manager gets so nervous he/she forgets facts he’/she
really knows.
* = Reverse Coding
65
APPENDIX P
Communication Competence Measure
My manager finds it easy to get along with others.
My manager can adapt to changing situations.
My manager treats people as individuals.
My manager interrupts other too much.*^
My manager is “rewarding” to talk to. ^
My manager can deal with others effectively.
My manager is a good listener.^
My manager’s personal relations are cold and distant.*
My manager is easy to talk to.^
My manager won’t argue with someone just to prove he/she is right.^
My manager’s conversation behavior is not “smooth.”*
My manager ignores other people’s feelings.*
My manager generally knows how others feel.
My manager lets others know he/she understands them.^
My manager understands other people.
My manager is relaxed and comfortable when speaking.^
My manager listens to what people say to him/her.^
My manager likes to be close and personal with people.
My manager generally knows what type of behavior is appropriate in any given
situation.
My manager usually does not make unusual demands on his/her friends.
66
My manager is an effective conversationalist.^
My manager is supportive of others.
My manager does not mind meeting strangers.
My manager can easily put himself/herself in another person’s shoes.
My manager pays attention to the conversation.^
My manager is generally relaxed when conversing with a new acquaintance.^
My manager is interested in what others have to say.^
My manager doesn’t follow the conversation well.*^
My manager enjoys social gatherings where he/she can meet new people.
My manager is a likeable person.
My manager is flexible.
My manager is not afraid to speak with people in authority.^
People can go to my manager with their problems.
My manager generally says the right thing at the right time.^
My manager likes to use his/her voice and body expressively.
My manager is sensitive to others’ needs of the moment.
* = Reverse Coding
^ = Items Used In This Study
67
APPENDIX Q
Listening Styles Measure
My manager wants to listen to what others have to say when they are talking.*
My manager does not listen at his/her capacity when others are talking
By listening, my manager can guess a speaker’s intent or purpose without being
told.*
My manager has a purpose for listening when others are talking.*
My manager keeps control of biases and attitudes when listening to others speak
so that these factors won’t affect his/her interpretation of the message.*
My manager analyzes his/her listening errors so as not to make them again.*
My manager listens to the complete message before making judgments about
what the speaker has said.*
My manager cannot tell when another speaker’s biases or attitudes are affecting
his or her message.
My manager asks questions when she/he doesn’t fully understand a speaker’s
message.*
My manager is aware of whether or not a speaker’s meaning of words and
concepts is the same as his or hers.*
* = Reverse Coding
68
REFERENCES
Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2008). Communication at work: Principles and
practices for business and the professions (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ:
Earlbaum.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). You can drag a horse to water, but you can’t make it
drink unless it’s thirsty. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 4-17.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
441-462.
69
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and
effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational
performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-373.
Barge, J. K., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1989). Toward a communication competency model of
group leadership. Small Group Behavior, 20, 167-189.
Barge, J. K., & Schleuter, D. W. (1991). Leadership as organizing: A critique of
leadership instruments. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 541-570.
Bartoo, H., & Sias, P. M. (2004). When enough is too much: Communication
apprehension and employee information experiences. Communication Quarterly,
52, 15-26.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger &
R. N. Kanugo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness (pp. 40-77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly,
6, 463-478.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
70
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bodie, G. D., & Villaume, W. A. (2003). Aspects of receiving information: The
relationship between listening preferences, communication apprehension, receiver
apprehension and communicator style. International Journal of Listening, 17,
47-67.
Borzi, M. G., & Mills, T. H. (2001). Communication apprehension in upper level
accounting students: An assessment of skill development. Journal of Education for
Business, 76, 193-199.
Brownell, J. (1985). A model for listening instruction: Management applications. ABCA
Bulletin, 48, 39-44.
Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. The Journal
of Business Communication, 27, 401-415.
Brungardt, C. (1997). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership
development and education. Journal of Leadership studies, 3, 81-95.
Burk, J. (2001). Communication apprehension among master’s of business administration
students: Investigating a gap in communication education. Communication
Education, 51, 51-58.
71
Butler, J., Pryor, B., & Marti, S. (2004). Communication apprehension and honors
students. North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 293-296.
Calder, B. M., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The concept of external validity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 112-114.
Calder, B. M., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1983). Beyond external validity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197-207.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cole, J. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). Communication apprehension, shyness, and
verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational
and interpersonal contexts. Communication Quarterly, 51, 101-110.
Conger, J. (1988). Theoretical foundations of charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger &
R. N. Kanugo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness (pp. 12-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of
Management Executive, 5, 31-45.
Corman, S. R., & Krizek, R. L. (1993). Accounting resources for organizational
communication and individual differences in their use. Management
Communication Quarterly, 7, 5-36.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The
impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
72
deLisser, P. (2004). Listening training: A professional communication coach reveals his
formula for designing a workshop on listening to difficult messages. Listening
Professional, 3, 8-10.
Den Hartog, D. N, Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-34.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative
techniques of international business leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355-391.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam
(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (pp. 379-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Cheng, W. M. W. (2008). Perfectionism, distress, and
irrational beliefs in high school students: Analyses with an abbreviated survey of
Personal Beliefs for adolescents. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive
Behavior Therapy, 26, 194-205.
Fordham, D. R., & Gabbin, A. L. (1996). Skills versus apprehension: Empirical evidence
on oral communication. Communication Quarterly, 59, 88-97.
Haas, J. W., & Arnold, C. L. (1995). An examination of the role of listening in judgments
of communication competence in co-workers. The Journal of Business
Communication, 32, 123-139.
73
Harris, R. M. (2006). The listening leader: Powerful new strategies for becoming an
influential communicator. Teaneck, NJ: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing
Group.
Hawkins, K., & Stewart, R. A. (1991). Effects of communication apprehension on
perceptions of leadership and intragroup attraction in small task-oriented groups.
Southern Communication Journal, 57, 1-10.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission
or liberation. The Executive, 5, 43-54.
Hye Yoon, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Communication apprehension in a first
language and self perceived competence as predictors of communication
apprehension in a second language: A study of speakers of English as a second
language. Communication Quarterly, 52, 170 181.
Imhof, M. (2004). Who are we as we listen? Individual listening profiles in varying
contexts. International Journal of Listening, 18, 36-45.
Johnson, G. M. (1992). Subordinate perceptions of superior’s communication
competence and task attraction relation to superior’s use of compliance-gaining
tactics. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 54-67.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Engellau, E. (2004). Are leaders born or are they made? The
case of Alexander the Great. London, UK: Karnac.
74
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement
to self-reported and subordinate-reported leaderships behaviors from the
multiple-linkage model. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361-377.
Limon, M. S., & La France, B. H. (2005). Communication traits and leadership
emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication
apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern
Communication Journal, 70, 123-133.
Lynch, J. G. Jr. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 225-239.
Mann, C. P. (1988). Transformational leadership in the executive office. Public Relations
Quarterly, 33, 19-23.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication
apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly &
J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and
communication (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of communication
apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 27,
55-61.
75
McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1998). A little leadership, please? Organizational
Dynamics, 26, 39-49.
Nielsen, M. R. (2005). Couples making it happen: Marital satisfaction and what works
for highly satisfied couples. In B. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together,
working apart: Dual-career families and the work-life balance (pp. 196-216).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pearce, C. G., Johnson, I. W., & Barker, R. T. (2003). Assessment of the listening styles
inventory: Progress in establishing reliability and validity. Journal of Business
and Technical Communication, 17, 84-112.
Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991). Communication
abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management,
17, 57-76.
Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B., & Chan, K. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and
maximum performance ratings and the five-factor model of personality.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 809-843.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 67-81.
Pryor, B., Butler, J., & Boehringer, K. (2005). Communication apprehension and cultural
context: A comparison of communication apprehension in Japanese and American
students. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 247-252.
76
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Communication in organizations. Edina,
MN: Bellweather Press.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of
personality attributes and work group performance. Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, 23, 1078-1086.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds.). (1994). Communication research
measures. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., & Jordan, F. F. (1997). Effects of instruction on
communication apprehension and communication competence. Communication
Education, 46, 104-114.
Sarquisse, V., Butler, J., & Pryor, B. (2003). A comparison of communication
apprehension scores between Americans and Argentineans. North American
Journal of Psychology, 5, 223-227.
Schumm, W. R., Jurich, A. P., & Bollman, S. R. (1980). The dimensionality of an
abbreviated relationship inventory for couples. Journal of Psychology, 105,
225-230.
Spitzberg, B. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness.
In C. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication
(pp. 67-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Steil, L. K., & Bommelje, R. K. (2004). Listening leaders: The ten golden rules to listen,
lead and succeed. Edina, MN: Beavers Pond Press.
77
Sypher, B. D., Bostrom, R. N., & Seibert, J. H. (1989). Listening, communication
abilities and success at work. The Journal of Business Communication, 26,
293-303.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric
properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.
Towler, A. J. (2001). The language of charisma: The effects of training on attitudes,
behavior, and performance (Doctoral dissertation, Rice University, 2001)
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (7-B).
Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact
of trait-like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for
listening style. International Journal of Listening, 21, 102-123.
Weaver, C. H. (1972). Human listening: Processes and behavior. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merill.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence.
Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative
competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185-199.
Wolvin, A. D. (2005). Listening leadership: Hillary Clinton’s listening tour. International
Journal of Listening, 19, 29-38.
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1991). A survey of the status of listening training in
some fortune 500 corporations. Communication Education, 40, 152-164.
78
Zhang, Q. (2005). Teacher immediacy and classroom communication apprehension: A
cross cultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,
34, 50 64.
Zorn, T. E. (1991). Construct system development, transformational leadership and
leadership messages. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 178-193.