Leadership Effectiveness & Integrity: Wishful Thinking?

advertisement
LEADER EFFECTIVENESS AND INTEGRITY:
WISHFUL THINKING?
Robert Hooijberg
Nancy Lane
IMD 2005-1
IMD – International Institute for Management Development
Chemin de Bellerive 23
P.O. Box 915
1001 Lausanne
Switzerland
+41 21 618 0172
+41 21 618 0707 (fax)
[email protected]
Copyright © 2005 Hooijberg and Lane
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Some researchers argue that leaders need integrity to be effective, while others argue that only
results matter, not how you get them. Few have empirically examined the impact of integrity on
leadership effectiveness. We examine the impact of leadership behaviors on effectiveness as well
as values such as integrity, flexibility and conformity, using a sample of top-level public service
managers. We find that the values of Integrity and Flexibility have a significant impact on
effectiveness over and above the impact of various leadership behaviors: Integrity for managers
and their peers and flexibility for direct reports and peers.
Key words: Leadership, integrity, effectiveness
2
LEADER EFFECTIVENESS AND INTEGRITY: WISHFUL THINKING?
Whenever you discuss leadership in executive seminars, a substantial proportion of the
participants will argue that leaders need integrity to function effectively. They find support for
their arguments in the works of authors such as Covey (1992) and Gardner (1993). Covey (1992:
61 and 108), for example, argues that followers of leaders without integrity sense the leaders’
“duplicity and become guarded” and describes integrity as “honestly matching words and
feelings with thoughts and actions, with no desire other than for the good of others.” Gardner
(1993: 33) argues that leaders need to demonstrate trust and reliability because people “cannot
rally around a leader if they do not know where he or she stands.” Other participants argue that
talk about integrity is nice but that most leaders follow a more Machiavellian view. By this they
mean that in the end only results matter. Machiavelli (1981: 101) himself put it quite eloquently
when he wrote that a prince “should appear a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of
integrity, a kind and a religious man. … In the actions of all men, and especially of princes,
where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result. … The common people are always
impressed by appearances and results.”
While the debate continues in seminars around the world (and many news and talk
shows), few researchers have attempted to empirically explore the role that integrity plays in
leadership effectiveness. The current study takes a small step toward providing empirical
evidence by examining the impact integrity has on people’s perceptions of effectiveness in a
sample of public sector managers. Before we turn to the study and its results, we discuss some of
the conceptual work on integrity.
3
INTEGRITY
Becker (1998) reviews much of the work on integrity and finds that no standard
definition is used. One of the main problems he cites is that integrity is treated as synonymous
with honesty and fairness. For example, Yukl and Van Fleet (1990: 151) state that integrity
means that Kerr (1988: 126-127) does not define integrity, but rather lists ten components which
he calls the Ten Commandments of Executive Integrity: Tell the truth; obey the law; reduce
ambiguity; show concern for others; accept responsibility for the growth and nurturing of
subordinates; practice participation, not paternalism; provide freedom from corrupting
influences; always act; provide consistency across cases; and provide consistency between
values and actions.
Although no clear definition exists, integrity is supposed to be good for the organization.
People high in integrity make excellent candidates for leadership positions because they will not
steal organizational resources, treat others unfairly, or deceive themselves or others (Becker
1998: 160). This view is consistent with Badaracco and Ellsworth’s (1990) notion that valuedriven leaders make decisions in line with the purported values of the organization, and with
Srivastva et al.’s (1988) emphasis on congruence, consistency, morality, universality and
concern for others in their description of integrity. Covey (1992) emphasizes principle-centered
leadership, which he sees as the foundation of all leadership activities.
Becker further believes that most current tests of integrity do not measure integrity as he
defines it. Simons (1999:90), for example, defines the concept of Behavioral Integrity (BI) as
“the perceived degree of congruence between the values expressed by words and those expressed
through action. It is the perceived level of match or mismatch between the espoused and the
enacted. … BI, however, does not consider the morality of principles, but rather focuses on the
4
extent to which stated principles match actions.” Since integrity tests tend to invoke social
desirability responses (i.e., who would like to say they lack integrity?) and because of the
emphasis on action, Becker suggests we obtain assessments of integrity from others, such as
supervisors or peers (1998: 159).
The Role of Integrity in Organizations
Some researchers have examined the concept of integrity or concepts that are closely
related to integrity such as trust or ethics in organizational contexts. Schumm, Gade and Bell
(2003) studied the professional values of soldiers, which included loyalty to the US Army and
integrity among others. They used regression analysis to find that the best indicators of loyalty to
the Army were not integrity, as was expected, but rather military bearing and job commitment.
Kaptein (2003) developed a model called the Diamond of Managerial Integrity, which he argues
can be used to assess and improve the integrity of managers. Morrison (2001: 65) explores the
role of integrity in leading global companies and states that “Without integrity, managers will
never engender the goodwill and trust of the organization, both essential for effective
leadership.”
Davis et al. (2000) analyze the relationship between employees’ trust of a restaurant’s
general manager and its operational results. They analyzed means differences between
restaurants with high versus low levels of trust. They found that restaurants with high levels of
trust had significantly higher sales and higher profits, and had marginally but statistically
significant lower staff turnover. Treviño, Brown and Hartman (2003: 6) focused on the concept
of ethical leadership. They were interested in very senior executives, both board and non-board
members, because these leaders “create the ‘tone at the top’ that shapes the ethical climate and
ethical culture of the organization as well as the organization’s strategy” and therefore impact
5
the ethical culture of the entire organization. Their goal was “to inductively define the content
domain of ethical leadership based on a qualitative interview-based investigation.” (Treviño,
Brown and Hartman, 2003: 8). One of their conclusions is that “People perceive that the ethical
leader’s goal is not simply job performance, but performance that is consistent with a set of
ethical values and principles; and ethical leaders demonstrate caring for people (employees and
external stakeholders) in the process.” (Treviño, Brown and Hartman 2003: 21).
There have been few empirical studies on integrity, and of the ones that exist, only three
have examined the relationship between integrity, job satisfaction and leader effectiveness. Craig
and Gustafson (1998) developed a 31-item scale to measure employees’ perceptions of their
leaders’ integrity. The resulting instrument – the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) – was
then used to study the relationships between perceived integrity and job satisfaction. They found
significant positive correlation between the PLIS and job satisfaction. Parry and ProctorThomson (2002) used a revised version of the PLIS to analyze the relationship between Simons’
(1999) concept of behavioral integrity and leader effectiveness, as well as qualities that make up
transformational leaders and qualities that make up transactional leaders. Among other things,
they found that there is a significant positive correlation between the concepts of perceived
integrity and leader effectiveness. Morgan (1989) derived leadership assessment scales,
including one on integrity, and then analyzed their relationship to leader effectiveness. Using
regression analysis on the constructed scales, he found that integrity was the most important
variable related to trust, but motivation was the most important variable related to leadership
(Morgan, 1989). However, none of the studies mentioned examined what impact integrity has on
leader effectiveness.
6
INTEGRITY AND LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
The assumption in the literature on the need for integrity seems to be that it will have a
positive effect on leader and/or organizational effectiveness. We should, however, not take this
assumption for granted. Jackall (1988) shows convincingly that success can be obtained through
actions that seem to lack integrity, such as not taking responsibility for failure and taking credit
for successes one had barely anything to do with. Furthermore, it might be possible that top
managers in organizations care little about integrity as long as the work gets done. Research by
Hooijberg and Choi (2000), for example, shows that bosses of managers in both the public and
private sectors primarily associate goal achievement oriented behaviors with effectiveness, but
not mentoring, group facilitation, innovation, or monitoring behaviors. Direct reports, by
contrast, might be more concerned about integrity than the bosses because of their need for
consistency (e.g., Staw and Ross, 1980) and we believe that consistent behavior can be seen as
an indicator of integrity.
In fact, most leadership researchers have emphasized exclusively behavioral approaches
to leadership, rather than emphasizing integrity. A wide variety of theories emphasize behavioral
approaches to leadership, ranging from Fiedler’s LPC Theory (1967) to House’s Path-Goal
Theory to Quinn’s Competing Values Framework (1988) to Bass’ Transformational Leadership
Theory (1985) to Hooijberg and Quinn’s (1992) call for behavioral complexity. The notion of
behavioral complexity refers to the need for managers to perform a large repertoire of leadership
roles in the organizational arena in order to satisfy the demands of a wide variety of constituents.
Although this notion makes sense from a requisite variety perspective (Ashby, 1952), leaders run
the risk of being seen as spineless (Weick, 1978). They run that risk if people believe they vary
their behavior for political rather than for business reasons. This led Hooijberg, Hunt and Dodge
7
(1997) to call for more attention to be paid to values in leadership research, especially to the role
of integrity.
No empirical studies, however, have been conducted to analyze the relationship between
leadership behaviors, integrity, and effectiveness. In this paper we will test to what extent
performing multiple leadership roles (i.e., behavioral complexity) is associated with
effectiveness, as well as to what extent integrity is important for various stakeholders.
From previous research it is clear that various task-oriented and people-oriented
behaviors have significant positive associations with perceptions of leadership effectiveness.
Although research on 360-degree feedback shows that the strength of these associations depends
on who assesses the behavior and the effectiveness, overall a strong link between these behaviors
and effectiveness exists. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1:
All raters – self, direct reports, peers, and bosses – will strongly
associate performing multiple leadership roles with effectiveness.
As discussed before, a preponderance of the theoretical and managerial-practical research
seems to suggest a positive relationship between integrity and leadership effectiveness.
Therefore:
Hypothesis 2:
Integrity has a positive association with effectiveness for all raters.
Direct reports will be especially sensitive to consistency in the behavior of their
managers (Staw and Ross, 1980). In many theories (e.g. Kerr, 1988; Srivastva et. al., 1988)
consistency between words and actions is seen as a key component of integrity, therefore:
Hypothesis 3:
Direct reports will see an especially strong association between
integrity and leadership effectiveness.
Based on research by Hooijberg and Choi (2001) we know that bosses associate goaloriented behaviors far more strongly with effectiveness than any other behavior. In addition,
8
research by Hooijberg (1993) shows that bosses see managers who vary their behavior according
to who they are interacting with as more effective than those who do not vary their behavior.
Varying one’s behavior depending on the situation can easily be seen as lacking in integrity.
Jackall’s (1988) research, furthermore, seems to suggest that what matters is whether one can
associate oneself with success, not whether one was instrumental in actually creating success.
Given the emphasis on goal-oriented behaviors, an appreciation of variations in behavior,
and an emphasis on outcomes rather than means, we expect that:
H4:
Bosses associate goal-oriented behaviors in their managers, but not integrity, with
effectiveness.
METHODS
Sample
We collected information on the leadership styles, values and effectiveness of 175 bureau
chiefs and directors of a state government agency in the northeastern United States who
participated in a leadership-training program. The participants from the state government
department are the highest-level leaders who are not politically appointed. They work directly
under the commissioner and assistant commissioners appointed by the governor. The leaders in
this department must obey the laws, rules, and regulations that come down from their federal
counterpart and from the state legislature. They execute federal and state laws by reviewing and
granting permits and enforcing compliance with these laws. These bureau chiefs and directors
form an especially relevant sample for our study because they have to deal, almost daily, with
federal regulations, state regulations, members of the state legislature, the commissioner and
assistant commissioners, special interest groups, business representatives, and the general public.
One can see that they will need a large behavioral repertoire to deal with all of these
constituents. One can also see that, because these constituents pose widely different demands on
9
the bureau chiefs and directors, integrity may be hard to maintain and, at the same time, may be a
key ingredient for being effective.
The public sector organization strongly encouraged attendance at the leadership training
and participation of managers was close to 85%. Questionnaire data from the managers’ direct
reports, peers, and bosses were used to test the relationship between leadership behaviors,
integrity, and managerial effectiveness. On average four direct reports, two and a half peers, and
one and a half bosses provided feedback for each manager.
The 175 managers from the state government department represent 80% of all directors
and bureau chiefs (i.e., the top civil service level of management) in that department (overall size
is about 4,000 people). They are predominantly white (93%), male (70%), and on average 44
years old; they have been in their current position for an average of 5.9 years; and 45% of them
have a BA, 31% a Masters degree, and 4% a Ph.D.
Leadership Roles
We used the leadership roles from Quinn’s (1988) Competing Values Framework (CVF)
to examine the impact of leadership behaviors on effectiveness. The CVF addresses internal and
external organizational demands on leadership; it also recognizes the paradoxical demands of
flexibility and control. These dimensions define four distinct leadership quadrants that address
seemingly contradictory demands in the organizational arena (see Figure 1).
--------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------------The Task Leadership quadrant is characterized by a control orientation and a focus on the
environment outside the unit; it emphasizes setting and attaining goals. This quadrant contains
10
the Producer and Director roles. As a Producer, a manager is expected to motivate members to
increase production and accomplish stated goals. As a Director, a manager is expected to clarify
expectations, define problems, establish objectives, generate rules and policies, and give
instructions. The Stability Leadership quadrant is characterized by a control orientation and a
focus on the internal functioning of the unit; it emphasizes monitoring and coordinating the work
of the unit. This quadrant contains the Coordinator and Monitor roles. As a Coordinator, a
manager is expected to maintain the structure and flow of the system, coordinate staff efforts,
handle crises, and attend to technical and logistical issues. As a Monitor, a manager is expected
to know what is going on in the unit, to see if people are complying with rules and regulations,
and to check whether the unit is meeting its quotas.
The People Leadership quadrant is characterized by a flexible orientation and a focus on
the internal functioning of the unit; it emphasizes mentoring direct reports and facilitating group
process in the unit. This quadrant contains the Facilitator and Mentor roles. As a Facilitator, a
manager is expected to foster collective effort, build cohesion and teamwork, and manage
interpersonal conflict. As a Mentor, a manager is expected to develop people through a caring,
empathetic orientation. In this role the manager is helpful, considerate, sensitive, open,
approachable, and fair. The Adaptive Leadership quadrant is characterized by a flexible
orientation and a focus on the environment outside the unit; it emphasizes developing
innovations and obtaining resources for the unit. This quadrant contains the Innovator and
Broker roles. As an Innovator, a manager is expected to pay attention to changes in the
environment and to identify how to adapt to those changes and facilitate the process. As a
Broker, a manager is expected to meet with people from outside his/her unit to represent the unit
11
and to negotiate and acquire resources for the unit. These eight leadership roles will be used to
test our four hypotheses.
We used the 20-item survey Quinn (1988) developed to assess the frequency with which
managers perform the eight leadership roles of the CVF. The response scale ranged from “almost
never” (a score of 1) to “almost always” (a score of 7). We assessed the “frequency with which”
rather than “how well” managers perform the leadership roles in order to avoid creating
tautologies with the effectiveness items. Although Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995) found
strong support for the quadrant structure of the CVF, but not necessarily for the individual
leadership roles within the quadrants, we tried to replicate the original eight leadership roles.
Since we want to understand leadership effectiveness expectations from four
organizational role perspectives (managers, direct reports, peers and bosses), as suggested by
Keller (1986: 719), we aggregated the leadership role items by organizational role. We then
created four indices for each leadership role: one based on the responses of the managers
themselves; another based on the responses of the managers’ direct reports; a third based on the
responses of the managers’ peers; and finally one based on the responses of the managers’
bosses.
The Value of Integrity
Given that we did not find a clear, consistent, and validated framework of integrity in the
literature, we included in our questionnaire both values that have been associated with integrity
and values that may be seen as being in conflict with integrity. Craig and Gustafson (1998: 134)
indicate that their global indicators of integrity account for 81% of the variance in perceptions of
integrity. However, as we did not want to add 43 items to our questionnaire and since we wanted
12
to look at integrity in the context of other values, we assessed the contributions of values by
asking a series of questions about the participants’ values. The questions were posed as “To what
extent do you agree that the following principles and values guide the participant in his/her
work?” The response scales ranged from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly agree.
We therefore first examined the underlying factor structure of the values items. The values we
included in the questionnaire are a subset of the values items defined by McDonald and Gandz
(1992) and are as follows: Adaptability, flexibility, open-mindedness, cooperation, respect for
the individual, cautiousness, hierarchy, conformity, fairness, integrity, honesty, and merit.
Consistent with Becker’s (1998: 159) suggestion, we believe values are in the eye of the
beholder, and we therefore asked direct reports, peers, and bosses, in addition to the managers
themselves, to assess these different values. Just as we all have an implicit model of leadership,
so we have implicit models of what integrity means and we wanted to evaluate the respondents’
true understanding of these values.
Leadership Effectiveness
The effectiveness measures in this study do not attempt to assess the performance of the
work units or departments for which the middle managers in our study are responsible. Rather,
we used separate measures of perceived effectiveness for self, direct reports, peers, and bosses.
The effectiveness of the participating managers was assessed through five items that ask about
overall performance: (1) overall managerial success; (2) overall leadership effectiveness; (3) the
extent to which the manager meets managerial performance standards; (4) how well he/she
performs compared to his/her managerial peers; and (5) how well he/she performs as a role
13
model. These five items were measured on a five-point scale, with high scores indicating higher
levels of effectiveness.
As with the leadership roles, four indices of leadership effectiveness were constructed:
one based on responses of the managers; another based on the responses of the managers’ direct
reports; a third based on the responses of the managers’ peers; and finally one based on
responses of the managers’ bosses. The measures of effectiveness thus indicate how effective
managers are perceived to be by themselves, their direct reports, peers, and bosses.
Control Variables
Because we wanted to examine the relationships between leadership roles and
perceptions of leadership effectiveness, we needed to rule out alternative explanations of
perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Past studies have demonstrated that gender (e.g.,
Dobbins and Platz, 1986; Eagley and Johnson, 1990), age, managerial experience, and level of
education affect perceptions of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Bass, 1990). Therefore, we
included those four variables as control variables in this study.
RESULTS
For the values items we conducted Exploratory Factor Analyses using the Maximum
Likelihood method, as we did not find an existing, validated framework of values in the
literature. This exploratory work showed that for the four rating groups – the managers
themselves, their direct reports, peers, and bosses – the 12 values items could be represented by
three factors, which we labeled Integrity, Flexibility and Conformity. The factor structure that
emerged is shown in Table 1.
--------------------------------------------14
Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------------------While a three-factor structure was found for all four rating groups, there were small, but
significant differences. Table 1 shows that for all four rating groups, integrity is associated with
honesty. While that association is constant, the four rating groups differ in the other values they
associate with integrity. The managers themselves, in addition to honesty, also associate merit
and fairness with integrity. While the bosses and peers also associate merit with integrity, they
see fairness as more strongly associated with the Flexibility factor. The direct reports, by
contrast, see fairness as closely associated with integrity and honesty, but not merit. They see
merit as more closely associated with the Flexibility factor.
If we think of the exploratory factors as indicative of the respondents’ implicit values
frameworks, then we see that Integrity does not mean the same thing to all respondents and
neither does Flexibility. The Conformity factor, however, does hold the same meaning for all
four groups as the values conformity, hierarchy, and cautiousness emerge as a single factor each
time.
Rather than forcing a one-factor structure on all four groups, we decided to treat the
results as reflecting real differences in the value constructs of the respondent groups. These items
and factor clusterings were therefore taken forward into the Confirmatory Factor Analyses
(CFA).
15
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
We used LISREL 8.53 to conduct CFAs of the data because it takes measurement errors
into consideration, gives parameter estimates based on the maximum likelihood method, and
provides various indices of the extent to which the proposed covariance structural model fits the
data. In this study, we used five indices to assess the goodness of fit of the covariance structural
model: (1) chi-square value and its p-value; (2) chi-square divided by degrees of freedom; (3)
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); (4) Incremental Fit Index (IFI); and (5)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI).
The most common goodness-of-fit index is the chi-square value. The rule of thumb is that
if the p-value of the chi-square statistic is greater than 0.05 (i.e., the chi-square value is nonsignificant), then the proposed model is acceptable (Hayduk, 1987). However, because the
traditional chi-square test is sensitive to sample size, a variety of indices that take sample size
into consideration have been developed. Marsh and Hocevar (1985) suggest using chi-square
divided by degrees of freedom, where values of less than 5.0 indicate good fit between model
and data. Browne and Cudek (1993) suggest using the RMSEA as the principal goodness-of-fit
index. They suggest that a value of RMSEA of less than 0.05 indicates a close fit and that values
up to 0.08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population. In addition, because
Bollen (1986, 1989a, 1989b) and Bentler (1990) have shown that IFI and CFI are much less
dependent on sample size, we also used IFI and CFI to assess the fit between the data and the
model. The values of IFI and CFI can vary between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 indicating a
good fit between data and model.
16
Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the Leadership Variables
We first performed four CFAs on the leadership roles, namely, one each for the managers
themselves, their direct reports, peers, and bosses. The eight-role leadership model, however, did
not generate a good fit with the data. The modification indices indicated that the fit between
model and data could be substantially improved by allowing the Producer, Director, and
Coordinator items to load on the same factor. These leadership roles lie close to each other in the
CVF and we labeled this factor the Goal Orientation factor in the subsequent LISREL analyses.
The results of this second CFA improved the overall fit and limited extremely high correlations
among the latent factors.
The goodness-of-fit indices for the CFAs for the four groups demonstrated good fit
between model and data and showed that the data confirmed the proposed six-factor structure.
Examination of the latent construct correlations supported the discriminant validity of the
constructs, because individual tests of the correlations indicated that they were significantly
lower than 1.0 (Bagozzi, 1980). The six-factor solution was also consistent with the factor
structure found by Hooijberg and Choi (2000, 2001). We then added the values and effectiveness
variables to the four CFAs with the six-factor structure described above to confirm the overall
factor structure of the independent and dependent variables in our study.
Tables 2 to 5 show the factor loadings for all leadership, values, and effectiveness factors
for the four groups, as well as the goodness-of-fit indices for the complete model.
--------------------------------------------Insert Tables 2-5 about here
---------------------------------------------
17
Correlations and Reliabilities
The tables with the correlations for the managers themselves, and their direct reports, peers, and
bosses are presented in Appendix A. Table 6 shows the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the
leadership roles, values, and effectiveness indices for all four of the samples. All Cronbach
alphas exceed the recommended 0.70 level (Nunnally, 1978).
--------------------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here
---------------------------------------------
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
To test the impact of integrity and the other values on effectiveness, we conducted a
three-step hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, the control variables were entered; in
the second step, the six leadership roles of Innovator, Broker, Goal Orientation, Monitor,
Facilitator and Mentor were added; and finally, in the third step, the three values of Integrity,
Flexibility and Conformity were added. Table 7 shows the regression coefficients from the final
regression run as well as the R2 and delta-R2 for each step of the hierarchical regression analyses
for all four groups.
--------------------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here
--------------------------------------------None of the control variables have statistically significant associations with leader
effectiveness. Hypothesis 1, all groups – self, direct reports, peers, and bosses – will strongly
associate performing multiple leadership roles with effectiveness, is confirmed for all groups.
Three out six leadership roles have a significant association with self’s perceptions of
18
effectiveness. Two roles have significant associations with direct reports’, peers’, and bosses’
perceptions of effectiveness. Interestingly, no single leadership role is associated with
effectiveness in all four groups. The Innovator role is positively associated with effectiveness for
direct reports, and peers. The Broker role is only positively associated with effectiveness for
bosses. The Goal Orientation role is positively associated with effectiveness for self, direct
reports and bosses but not for peers. The Monitor role is positively associated with effectiveness
only for self. The Facilitator role is positively associated with effectiveness for self and peers.
Finally, the Mentor role is not associated with effectiveness for any of the raters.
Hypothesis 2, which states that Integrity has a positive association with effectiveness for
all raters, is partially confirmed. Integrity has a positive association with effectiveness for
managers and their peers; however, there is no positive association between Integrity and direct
reports’ or bosses’ perceptions of effectiveness. The changes in R2 are also significant for all
four groups when the three values factors are entered into the regression.
Hypothesis 3, which states that direct reports will see an especially strong association
between integrity and effectiveness, does not receive any support. In fact, contrary to our
expectations, we do not find a significant association between integrity and effectiveness, but
what we do find is a statistically significant association between flexibility and effectiveness.
Hypothesis 4, which states that bosses associate goal-oriented behaviors but not integrity
with leadership effectiveness, is confirmed. Indeed, bosses associate broker and goal-oriented
behaviors with effectiveness but none of the three values.
DISCUSSION
19
The results provide support for hypothesis 1; partial support for hypothesis 2; no support
for hypothesis 3; and full support for hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 1 stated that all groups would
associate performing multiple leadership roles with effectiveness. This hypothesis is confirmed
as the managers themselves associate three roles with effectiveness; and the direct reports, peers,
and bosses each associate two with effectiveness. The roles associated with effectiveness vary
depending on the respondents. Goal-orientation has both the strongest and most frequent (3 out
of 4) associations with effectiveness. The Mentor role is the only leadership role that does not
show a significant association with effectiveness, not even for the direct reports.
Hypothesis 2 stated that Integrity would have a positive association with effectiveness for
all raters. Based on the literature we certainly expected this hypothesis to be true. The results,
however, show a statistically significant association for the managers themselves and their peers,
but not for the direct reports and bosses. In light of hypothesis 3, we found especially surprising
the lack of a statistically significant association between Integrity and effectiveness for the direct
reports. Nevertheless, we did find a statistically significant positive association between
Flexibility and effectiveness in the results of the direct reports. Considering the elements of the
factor Flexibility outlined in Table 1, this indicates that direct reports see managers who value
flexibility, open-mindedness, cooperation, adaptability, respect for the individual and merit as
more effective than those who do not. The results indicate that Flexibility contributes more to
perceptions of effectiveness for direct reports than Integrity.
We found the lack of a statistically significant association between Integrity and
effectiveness for the bosses less surprising. As we stated in hypothesis 4, we expected the bosses
to focus primarily on goal-oriented behaviors and not integrity. The results support hypothesis 4
because the goal-orientation leadership role had the strongest association with effectiveness, but
20
there was no association with Integrity. The only other variable to have a statistically significant
association with effectiveness for bosses was the Broker role. It seems that the bosses in this
study are primarily concerned about getting the job done.
What Does It Mean?
Despite the increased attention given to integrity and its stated importance for leadership,
this study indicates that its relevance for leadership effectiveness is, at best, small. The largest
variation in perceptions of effectiveness is explained by leadership roles. The values, as a group,
add between 3% and 6% explained variance. In addition to the small percentage of explained
variance, Integrity does not have a statistically significant association with effectiveness for
direct reports and bosses.
We find the results related to integrity especially sobering. When authors like Covey
(1992) and Badaracco and Ellsworth (1990) write about the importance of integrity for
leadership, their arguments make sense. However, Jackall (1988) suggests that success is about
being associated with, rather than having caused, high performance.
The results of the factor analyses on the values items also indicate that integrity and
flexibility hold slightly different meanings for the different respondent groups. While integrity
and honesty are associated with each other for all four groups, merit and fairness are not.
Although Becker (1998) conceptually distinguishes integrity from honesty and fairness, our
research shows that managers and their direct reports, peers, and bosses do not.
Furthermore, the results from the direct reports also support some of Kerr’s (1988)
examples about the difference between the conceptual work on integrity and the realities
managers face in daily life. That is, if integrity means always stating what one really thinks (i.e.
21
honesty) or applying certain (un)written rules without exception, then one runs the risk of
hurting feelings and relationships and even getting the company in trouble. As Kerr (1988: 138)
states so eloquently, “the more confident were the prescriptions about how to behave with ethics
and integrity, the further removed was the author from the life of the everyday manager.” Adler
and Bird (1988: 248), for instance, cite as one example of executives lacking in integrity those
who “provide workers in one country with generous wages and pension programs while
providing neither in a neighboring country.” As they further point out, for an executive,
maximizing shareholder value is part of having integrity. They go on to state that as we expand
our thinking about integrity into the international realm, the issues become even more
complicated. Honesty may be appreciated in the U.S., but in Japan more emphasis is placed on
saving face.
How, then, can we follow Levinson’s (1988: 268) dictum: “To thine own self be true?”
His answer seems to come close to what our results show empirically when he says that
“executive integrity is promoted when members feel acknowledged for their responsiveness to
one another, their receptivity and creative efforts to understand others’ perspectives as well as
articulating their own” (Levinson, 1988: 318).
Integrity for Managers and their Peers
Integrity does not affect perceptions of effectiveness of direct reports and bosses; but it
does affect those of the managers themselves and their peers. While managers also see strong
associations between being goal-oriented, monitoring and facilitation, integrity has an effect over
and above those leadership behaviors. For peers, integrity has a positive effect over and above
generating new ideas and facilitation.
22
As the direct reports and bosses see no association between integrity and effectiveness,
do these results mean that managers are unnecessarily concerned with integrity? We would still
like to answer that question with a “no.” In terms of being seen as effective by direct reports and
bosses, executing one’s leadership roles is clearly most important. However, the reason one acts
with integrity is not only to be seen as effective by other parties: Acting with integrity is a way
for managers to stay true to themselves, as described by Levinson (1988: 268). While some
managers may do anything to reap ever greater financial rewards and/or power we would still
like to believe that the majority of managers want to be able to look at themselves in the mirror
and know they see someone who has integrity, and is fair and honest.
In terms of being seen as effective by one’s direct reports and bosses, these results
indicate that managers had better focus on delivering stated goals, influencing ideas, and
generating new ideas.
Implications for Practice
Our results do not support the notion, expressed by many authors, that integrity is
essential for leadership. Perhaps the question of why integrity should matter for effectiveness has
not received sufficient attention. If integrity is to a greater or lesser extent (depending on who
you ask) about honesty, fairness, and merit then why would being honest, fair, and focused on
merit result in your being perceived as more effective than someone who does not have these
qualities?
Telling your boss honestly that her plan for the introduction of a new product X in market
Y is a terrible idea, especially when you know how proud she is of this plan, may be good for
your sense of integrity, but perhaps not for improving her view of your effectiveness.
23
Emphasizing merit over length of service to the firm may sit well with the up-and-coming young
men and women, but not so well with the men and women who have invested 15 years or more
of their lives in the company.
In other words, while you may have – and may indeed act according to – clear guiding
principles, this does not automatically mean that those with whom you interact will appreciate it
when you exercise said guiding principles. We find the results of the direct reports especially
interesting in this regard. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find a statistically significant
association between integrity and effectiveness, but we did find a statistically significant positive
association between flexibility and effectiveness. Thus, being flexible, adaptable, cooperative,
open-minded, respectful of the individual, and valuing merit reflect not only positive values to
the direct reports but also values that make managers more effective. As such, these values have
a stronger association with effectiveness in the eyes of direct reports than integrity, honesty, and
fairness do.
The peer results for the values factors also have an interesting message for managers.
Peers want their colleagues to show both integrity and flexibility. Paradoxically, these results
represent both the toughest challenge and a solution for practicing managers. To us these results
say, “Yes, show us that you have integrity, that you are honest and that you value merit but do
not become rigid in the application of these values.”
Thus the authors believe that if you can balance integrity and flexibility, you can achieve
great results. Your integrity will keep you at peace with yourself and give your peers trust in
you. Your flexibility will make your direct reports and peers see that you are open to new ideas
and are willing to change your behavior when necessary. Expressing these values in your
24
interactions with your direct reports and peers will lead them to work harder and smarter for and
with you. This then should result in your being someone who delivers results.
As we stated before, the leadership role that bosses most strongly associate with
effectiveness is Goal-Orientation. This means that they want to see their managers meet their
stated goals, making sure that the unit’s goals are clearly identified and coordinated. Bosses also
care that their managers are able to influence events outside their unit, as they also associate the
Broker role with effectiveness. The implications for dealing with your boss are both sobering
and clear – get results and present great ideas.
Limitations of the Study
We see three important limitations in this study. First, we left the interpretation of
integrity up to the respondents. We neither tried to provide them with a shared definition of
integrity nor did we attempt to determine the extent to which people see the concepts of integrity
and honesty and fairness as distinct. The results indicate that differences exist in the
conceptualization of integrity and flexibility. Future research could perhaps conduct a more
anthropological study of how these concepts are distinct in people’s minds, and, what that means
for theory building. Not in the sense of providing a large pool of items à la Craig and Gustafson
(1998), but more in line with Kerr’s (1988) truly exploring what integrity means for real
executives.
Second, and in line with the previous point, we did not gather information to gain a more
in-depth understanding of the principles that guide these bureau chiefs and directors. It would be
helpful if future research on the role of integrity in leadership collected not only quantitative
25
assessments but also qualitative assessments. This would be research more along the lines of
what Jackall (1988) did.
Third, we used same-source data to examine the associations between values, leadership
roles, and effectiveness. We did this on purpose to better understand the implicit leadership
values frameworks people use to view the world of management. As the added variance
explained already is small, multi-method approaches would probably not dramatically alter the
overall results.
As Fritzche and Becker (1984: 166) said, “Little effort has been made to try to link
ethical theory to management behavior.” We hope that our study pushes further toward an
understanding of the role of integrity – and other values – in real-life organizations.
26
REFERENCES
Ashby, W. R.
1952 Design for a brain. New York: Wiley.
Adler, N.J., and F.B. Bird
1988 “International dimensions of executive integrity: Who is responsible for the world?” In S.
Srivastva et al. (eds.), Executive Integrity: The Search for High Human Values in Organizational
Life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Badaracco, J. L., and R. R Ellsworth
1990 “Quest for integrity.” Executive Excellence, 7: 3-4.
Bagozzi, R. P.
1980 Causal Models in Marketing. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bass, B. M.
1985 Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M.
1990 Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory in Research. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Becker, T.
1998 “Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness.” Academy of
Management Review, 23: 154-161.
Bentler, P.M.
1990 “Comparative fit indexes in structural models.” Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246.
Bollen, K. A.
1986 “Sample size and Bentler and Bonnet’s nonnormed fit index.” Psychometrika, 51: 375-377.
Bollen, K. A.
1989a Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: Wiley. 1989b “A new
incremental fit index for general structural equation models.” Sociological Methods and
Research, 17: 303-316.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck
1993 “Alternative ways of assessing model fit.” In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds.), Testing
Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Covey, S. R.
1992 Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Craig, S. B., and S. B. Gustafson
27
1998 “Assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity.” Leadership Quarterly, 9: 127-146.
Davis, J.H., F.D. Schoorman, R.C. Mayer, and H.T. Tan
2000 “The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a
competitive advantage.” Strategic Management Journal, 21: 563-576.
Denison, D. R., R. Hooijberg, and R. E. Quinn
1995 “Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial
leadership.” Organization Science, 6: 524-540.
Dobbins, G. H., and S. J. Platz
1986 “Sex differences in leadership: How real are they?” Academy of Management Review,
11: 118-127.
Eagley, A. H., and B. T. Johnson
1990 “Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 108: 233-256.
Fiedler, F. E.
1967 A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fritzche, D. J., and H. Becker
1984 “Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy: An empirical investigation.”
Academy of Management Journal, 27: 166-175.
Gardner, J. W.
1993 On Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hayduk, L. A.
1987 Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Hooijberg, R.
1996 “A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral
complexity.” Human Relations, 49: 917-946.
Hooijberg, R., and J. Choi
2000 “Which leadership roles matter to whom?: An examination of rater effects on perceptions
of effectiveness.” Leadership Quarterly, 11 (3): 341-364.
Hooijberg, R., and J. Choi
2001 “The impact of organizational characteristics on leadership effectiveness models: An
examination of leadership in a private and a public sector organization.” Administration &
Society, 33 (4): 403-431.
Hooijberg, R., J. G. Hunt, and G.E. Dodge
28
1997 “Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model.” Journal of
Management, 23: 375-408.
Hooijberg, R., and R. E. Quinn
1992 “Behavioral complexity and the development of effective managerial leaders.” In R. L.
Phillips and J. G. Hunt, (eds.), Strategic Management: A Multiorganizational-Level Perspective.
New York, NY: Quorum.
House, R. J.
1971 “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321-338.
Jackall, Robert
1988 Moral Mazes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Kaptein, M.
2003 “The diamond of managerial integrity.” European Management Journal, 21: 98-108.
Keller, R. T.
1986 “Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations.” Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 715-726.
Kerr, S.
1988 “Integrity in effective leadership.” In S. Srivastva et al. (eds.), Executive Integrity: The
search for high human values in organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levinson, H.
1988 “To thine own self be true: Coping with the dilemmas of integrity.” In S. Srivastva et al.
(eds.), Executive Integrity: The Search for High Human Values in Organizational Life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Machiavelli, N.
1981 The Prince. Translated by George Bull. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Marsh, H. W., and D. Hocevar
1985 “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher
order factor models and their invariance across groups.” Psychological Bulletin, 97: 562-582.
McDonald, P., and J. Gandz
1992 “Getting value from shared values.” Organizational Dynamics, 20: 64-77.
Morgan, R. B.
1989 “Reliability and validity of a factor analytically derived measure of leadership behavior and
characteristics.” Educational Psychological Measurement, 49: 911-919.
Morrison, A.
2001 “Integrity and global leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics, 31: 65-76.
29
Nunnally, J.
1978 Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Parry, K. W., and S. B. Proctor-Thomson
2002 “Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings.” Journal of
Business Ethics, 35: 75-96.
Quinn, R. E.
1988 Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High
Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schumm, W., P. Gade, and D.B. Bell
2003 “Dimensionality of military professional values items: An exploratory factor analysis of data
from the spring 1996 sample survey of military personnel.” Psychological Reports, 23: 831-841.
Simons, Tony L.
1999 “Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership.” Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12: 89-104.
Srivastva, S. and Associates
1988 Executive Integrity: The Search for High Human Values in Organizational Life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Staw, B. M., and J. Ross
1980 “Commitment in an experimenting society: A study of the attribution of leadership from
administrative scenarios.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 249-260.
Treviño, L. K., M. Brown, and L. P. Hartman
2003 “A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from
inside and outside the executive suite.” Human Relations, 56: 5-37.
Weick, K.
1978 “Spines of Leaders.” In M. W. McCall and M. M. Lombard (eds.), Leadership: Where Else
Can We Go?: 37-61. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Yukl, G., and D. D. Van Fleet
1990 “Theory and research on leadership in organizations.” In M. D. Dunette and L. M. Hough
(eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
30
TABLE 1
Values Factor Structure
Integrity
Integrity
Honesty
Merit
Fairness
Integrity
Integrity
Honesty
Fairness
Integrity
Integrity
Honesty
Merit
Self
Flexibility
Adaptability
Open-mindedness
Flexibility
Respect for the individual
Cooperation
Direct Reports
Flexibility
Adaptability
Open-mindedness
Flexibility
Respect for the individual
Cooperation
Merit
Peers and Bosses
Flexibility
Adaptability
Open-mindedness
Flexibility
Respect for the individual
Cooperation
Fairness
31
Conformity
Conformity
Hierarchy
Cautiousness
Conformity
Conformity
Hierarchy
Cautiousness
Conformity
Conformity
Hierarchy
Cautiousness
TABLE 2
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Self and Fit Indices
Self
Values
Leadership Roles Leadership
Leadership Roles,
Roles & Values Values &
Effectiveness
Innovator
X1: Experiments with new concepts and procedures
0.742
0.741
0.741
X2: Does problem solving in creative, clever ways
0.884
0.895
0.895
X3: Comes up with inventive ideas
0.934
0.924
0.924
X4: Influences decisions made at higher levels
0.702
0.669
0.702
X5: Gets access to people at higher levels
0.613
0.611
0.613
X6: Exerts upward influence in the organization
0.998
0.998
0.998
Broker
Goal Orientation
X7: Gets the unit to meet expected goals
0.664
0.672
0.655
X8: Sees that the unit delivers on stated goals
0.708
0.708
0.690
0.837
X9: Clarifies the unit’s priorities and direction
0.828
0.825
X10: Makes the unit’s role very clear
0.803
0.799
0.803
X11: Anticipates workflow problems, avoids crisis
0.742
0.738
0.753
X12: Keeps track of what goes on inside the unit
0.668
0.674
0.666
Monitor
X13: Maintains tight logistical control
0.629
0.683
0.693
X14: Compares records, reports, and so on to detect discrepancies
0.757
0.727
0.725
X15: Monitors compliance with the rules
0.816
0.786
0.775
X16: Facilitates consensus building in the work unit
0.660
0.671
0.698
X17: Surfaces key differences among group members, then works
participatively to resolve them
0.796
0.781
0.762
X18: Develops consensual resolution to openly expressed differences
0.708
0.717
0.714
Facilitator
Mentor
X19: Shows empathy and concern in dealing with subordinates
0.915
0.914
0.912
X20: Treats each individual in a sensitive, caring way
0.879
0.880
0.882
Integrity
X21: Fairness
0.695
0.693
0.694
X22: Integrity
0.866
0.870
0.871
X23: Honesty
0.864
0.853
0.850
X24: Merit
0.644
0.658
0.660
0.731
0.699
0.699
Flexibility
X25: Flexibility
X26: Open-mindedness
0.809
0.748
0.749
X27: Cooperation
0.716
0.745
0.743
X28: Adaptability
0.693
0.663
0.666
X29: Respect for the individual
0.745
0.802
0.803
Conformity
X30: Cautiousness
0.551
0.624
0.636
X31: Hierarchy
0.853
0.796
0.791
X32: Conformity
0.776
0.783
0.775
Table 2 (continued)
Effectiveness
Y1: Meeting of managerial performance standards
0.883
Y2: Overall managerial success
0.770
Y3: Comparisons to the person's managerial peers
0.620
Y4: Performance as a role model
0.867
Y5: Overall effectiveness as a manager
0.883
Goodness-of-fit indices for Complete Model
Chi-square
1484.480
Degrees of freedom
584
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
2.542
RMSEA
0.103
90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA
(0.0963 , 0.109)
CFI
0.862
IFI
0.863
33
TABLE 3
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Direct Reports and Fit Indices
Direct Reports
Values
Leadership
Roles
Leadership
Roles &
Values
Leadership
Roles,
Values &
Effectiveness
Innovator
X1: Experiments with new concepts and procedures
0.825
0.822
0.820
X2: Does problem solving in creative, clever ways
0.927
0.929
0.931
X3: Comes up with inventive ideas
0.932
0.931
0.930
Broker
X4: Influences decisions made at higher levels
0.807
0.808
0.806
X5: Gets access to people at higher levels
0.806
0.804
0.799
X6: Exerts upward influence in the organization
0.998
0.934
0.934
Goal Orientation
X7: Gets the unit to meet expected goals
0.707
0.713
0.717
X8: Sees that the unit delivers on stated goals
0.771
0.775
0.774
0.930
X9: Clarifies the unit’s priorities and direction
0.938
0.933
X10: Makes the unit’s role very clear
0.916
0.913
0.912
X11: Anticipates workflow problems, avoids crisis
0.764
0.771
0.774
X12: Keeps track of what goes on inside the unit
0.740
0.745
0.747
Monitor
X13: Maintains tight logistical control
0.855
0.855
0.855
X14: Compares records, reports, and so on to detect discrepancies
0.702
0.699
0.699
X15: Monitors compliance with the rules
0.846
0.849
0.848
Facilitator
X16: Facilitates consensus building in the work unit
0.869
0.867
0.866
X17: Surfaces key differences among group members, then works participatively to resolve
them
0.863
0.865
0.864
X18: Develops consensual resolution to openly expressed differences
0.820
0.821
0.822
Mentor
X19: Shows empathy and concern in dealing with subordinates
0.920
0.929
0.930
X20: Treats each individual in a sensitive, caring way
0.979
0.969
0.968
Integrity
X21: Fairness
0.810
0.812
0.813
X22: Integrity
0.911
0.911
0.914
X23: Honesty
0.912
0.910
0.907
X24: Flexibility
0.810
0.800
0.802
X25: Open-mindedness
0.852
0.860
0.861
Flexibility
X26: Cooperation
0.850
0.846
0.847
X27: Adaptability
0.799
0.805
0.806
X28: Respect for the individual
0.886
0.888
0.886
X29: Merit
0.805
0.800
0.800
Conformity
X30: Cautiousness
0.611
0.565
0.571
X31: Hierarchy
0.680
0.631
0.637
X32: Conformity
0.923
0.998
0.992
Table 3 (continued)
Effectiveness
Y1: Meeting of managerial performance standards
0.914
Y2: Overall managerial success
0.844
Y3: Comparisons to the person's managerial peers
0.858
Y4: Performance as a role model
0.940
Y5: Overall effectiveness as a manager
0.936
Goodness-of-fit indices for Complete Model
Chi-square
1343.09
Degrees of freedom
584
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
2.30
RMSEA
0.086
(0.0804 , 0.0925)
90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA
CFI
0.972
IFI
0.972
35
TABLE 4
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Peers and Fit Indices
Peers
Values
Leadership
Roles
Leadership
Roles &
Values
Leadership
Roles,
Values &
Effectiveness
Innovator
X1: Experiments with new concepts and procedures
0.800
0.802
0.801
X2: Does problem solving in creative, clever ways
0.909
0.912
0.909
X3: Comes up with inventive ideas
0.920
0.916
0.921
Broker
X4: Influences decisions made at higher levels
0.664
0.664
0.663
X5: Gets access to people at higher levels
0.821
0.822
0.818
X6: Exerts upward influence in the organization
0.998
0.879
0.879
Goal Orientation
X7: Gets the unit to meet expected goals
0.756
0.755
0.757
X8: Sees that the unit delivers on stated goals
0.892
0.891
0.891
0.795
X9: Clarifies the unit’s priorities and direction
0.798
0.794
X10: Makes the unit’s role very clear
0.801
0.802
0.802
X11: Anticipates workflow problems, avoids crisis
0.719
0.720
0.719
X12: Keeps track of what goes on inside the unit
0.750
0.754
0.752
Monitor
X13: Maintains tight logistical control
0.721
0.728
0.730
X14: Compares records, reports, and so on to detect discrepancies
0.774
0.765
0.765
X15: Monitors compliance with the rules
0.819
0.820
0.818
Facilitator
X16: Facilitates consensus building in the work unit
0.777
0.775
0.778
X17: Surfaces key differences among group members, then works participatively to resolve
them
0.818
0.823
0.825
X18: Develops consensual resolution to openly expressed differences
0.840
0.837
0.832
Mentor
X19: Shows empathy and concern in dealing with subordinates
0.964
0.962
0.962
X20: Treats each individual in a sensitive, caring way
0.928
0.930
0.929
Integrity
X21: Integrity
0.795
0.785
0.787
X22: Honesty
0.998
0.998
0.998
X23: Merit
0.479
0.463
0.465
Flexibility
X24: Fairness
0.719
0.731
0.734
X25: Flexibility
0.790
0.783
0.779
X26: Open-mindedness
0.857
0.858
0.856
X27: Cooperation
0.696
0.711
0.714
X28: Adaptability
0.702
0.865
0.682
X29: Respect for the individual
0.808
0.815
0.818
Conformity
X30: Cautiousness
0.769
0.791
0.792
X31: Hierarchy
0.721
0.706
0.706
X32: Conformity
0.875
0.862
0.861
Table 4 (continued)
Effectiveness
Y1: Meeting of managerial performance standards
0.888
Y2: Overall managerial success
0.847
Y3: Comparisons to the person's managerial peers
0.816
Y4: Performance as a role model
0.884
Y5: Overall effectiveness as a manager
0.912
Goodness-of-fit indices for Complete Model
Chi-square
1201.52
Degrees of freedom
584
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
2.06
RMSEA
0.081
90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA
(0.0745 , 0.0875)
CFI
0.959
IFI
0.959
37
TABLE 5
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Bosses and Fit Indices
Bosses
Values
Leadership
Roles
Leadership
Roles &
Values
Leadership
Roles,
Values &
Effectiveness
Innovator
X1: Experiments with new concepts and procedures
0.894
0.893
0.848
X2: Does problem solving in creative, clever ways
0.830
0.830
0.798
X3: Comes up with inventive ideas
0.895
0.896
0.850
Broker
X4: Influences decisions made at higher levels
0.863
0.856
0.822
X5: Gets access to people at higher levels
0.728
0.722
0.685
X6: Exerts upward influence in the organization
0.998
0.900
0.900
Goal Orientation
X7: Gets the unit to meet expected goals
0.761
0.766
0.726
X8: Sees that the unit delivers on stated goals
0.849
0.852
0.815
0.740
X9: Clarifies the unit’s priorities and direction
0.775
0.772
X10: Makes the unit’s role very clear
0.863
0.861
0.821
X11: Anticipates workflow problems, avoids crisis
0.790
0.788
0.754
X12: Keeps track of what goes on inside the unit
0.811
0.811
0.769
Monitor
X13: Maintains tight logistical control
0.752
0.752
0.716
X14: Compares records, reports, and so on to detect discrepancies
0.863
0.855
0.814
X15: Monitors compliance with the rules
0.707
0.715
0.679
Facilitator
X16: Facilitates consensus building in the work unit
0.809
0.826
0.781
X17: Surfaces key differences among group members, then works participatively to resolve
them
0.813
0.806
0.783
X18: Develops consensual resolution to openly expressed differences
0.860
0.855
0.805
Mentor
X19: Shows empathy and concern in dealing with subordinates
0.901
0.961
0.921
X20: Treats each individual in a sensitive, caring way
0.975
0.914
0.867
0.941
Integrity
X21: Integrity
0.998
0.998
X22: Honesty
0.930
0.926
0.884
X23: Merit
0.725
0.719
0.716
Flexibility
X24: Fairness
0.730
0.717
0.685
X25: Flexibility
0.831
0.818
0.773
X26: Open-mindedness
0.872
0.845
0.799
X27: Cooperation
0.830
0.842
0.800
X28: Adaptability
0.785
0.788
0.755
X29: Respect for the individual
0.846
0.870
0.838
Conformity
X30: Cautiousness
0.566
0.573
0.553
X31: Hierarchy
0.745
0.754
0.728
X32: Conformity
0.958
0.945
0.886
Table 5 (continued)
Effectiveness
Y1: Meeting of managerial performance standards
0.868
Y2: Overall managerial success
0.825
Y3: Comparisons to the person's managerial peers
0.849
Y4: Performance as a role model
0.909
Y5: Overall effectiveness as a manager
0.889
Goodness-of-fit indices for Complete Model
Chi-square
946.27
Degrees of freedom
584
Chi-square/degrees of freedom
1.62
RMSEA
0.670
(0.0589 , 0.0745)
90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA
CFI
0.975
IFI
0.975
39
TABLE 6
Cronbach Alpha Coefficients with Deleted Variables
Leadership Behaviors, Values, and Effectiveness
Leadership Roles
Innovator
Broker
Goal Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
Values
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
Effectiveness
Self
Direct Reports
Peers
Bosses
0.837
0.771
0.850
0.723
0.734
0.844
0.923
0.873
0.925
0.846
0.891
0.946
0.897
0.827
0.905
0.801
0.866
0.934
0.898
0.833
0.905
0.792
0.853
0.920
0.793
0.812
0.737
0.844
0.903
0.926
0.762
0.952
0.834
0.892
0.827
0.937
0.870
0.908
0.769
0.939
TABLE 7.
Final Regression Coefficients*
Step
Step 1
Step 2
Variable
Manager’s age
Manager’s gender
Manager’s education
Manager’s years in position
Manager’s years in government
R2
Innovator
Broker
Goal Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
R2
Delta R
Step 3
2
Self
Direct
Reports
Peers
Bosses
0.035
0.011
0.037
0.011
0.323
0.218
0.205
0.328
0.270
0.228
0.243
0.275
0.462
0.688
0.554
0.634
0.427
0.677
0.517
0.623
0.321
0.196
0.208
0.267
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
0.187
R2
0.491
0.743
0.597
0.661
0.029
0.056
0.042
0.027
Delta R
2
*Only the statistically significant paths at p ≤ 0.05 are shown.
Appendix A
Correlations for Self
Effectiveness Innovator
Broker
Goal Monitor Facilitator Mentor Integrity Flexibility Conformity
Orientation
Effectiveness
Innovator
Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
1.000
0.383
0.333
0.610
1.000
0.360
0.448
1.000
0.385
1.000
0.463
0.513
0.222
0.278
0.463
0.170
0.310
0.383
0.224
0.613
0.556
0.317
1.000
0.323
0.190
1.000
0.529 1.000
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
0.464
0.351
0.059*
0.243 0.230
0.282 0.314
-0.196 0.071*
0.510
0.507
0.186
0.429
0.435
0.443
0.369 0.311
0.554 0.571
0.062* 0.228
1.000
0.486
0.230
1.000
0.250
1.000
Note: Correlations not significant at 0.05 are marked *.
Correlations for Direct Reports
Effectiveness Innovator
Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor Facilitator
Mentor Integrity Flexibility Conformity
Effectiveness
Innovator
Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
1.000
0.694
0.634
0.730
1.000
0.691 1.000
0.669 0.623
1.000
0.520
0.688
0.508
0.556 0.466
0.742 0.657
0.353 0.190
0.752 1.000
0.701 0.505
0.414 0.139*
1.000
0.526
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
0.620
0.694
0.173
0.392 0.342
0.574 0.426
0.151 0.139*
0.542
0.607
0.312
0.449 0.642
0.659 0.746
0.163 0.109*
Note: Correlations not significant at 0.05 are marked *.
0.303
0.323
0.377
1.000
1.000
0.784
0.275
1.000
0.254
1.000
Correlations for Peers
Effectiveness Innovator
Effectiveness
Innovator
Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
Broker
Goal Monitor Facilitator Mentor Integrity Flexibility Conformity
Orientation
1.000
0.608
0.542
0.589
1.000
0.537
0.519
1.000
0.533
1.000
0.438
0.621
0.459
0.339
0.580
0.383
0.389
0.570
0.293
0.737
0.506
0.258
1.000
0.328
0.160
1.000
0.613 1.000
0.473
0.279 0.279
0.597
0.426 0.412
0.105* -0.058* 0.037*
0.477
0.483
0.187
0.404
0.275
0.376
0.393 0.384
0.657 0.699
0.143* 0.170
1.000
0.599
0.386
1.000
0.249
1.000
Note: Correlations not significant at 0.05 are marked *.
Correlations for Bosses
Effectiveness Innovator Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor Facilitator
Effectiveness
Innovator
Broker
Goal
Orientation
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
1.000
0.549
0.628
0.692
1.000
0.605 1.000
0.579 0.612
1.000
0.509
0.597
0.363
0.374 0.481
0.646 0.616
0.334 0.312
0.744 1.000
0.528 0.279
0.322 0.087*
Integrity
Flexibility
Conformity
0.647
0.594
0.157*
0.390 0.511
0.452 0.430
0.032* 0.215
0.606
0.472
0.232
Note: Correlations not significant at 0.05 are marked *.
42
0.517
0.224
0.278
1.000
0.605
Mentor Integrity Flexibility Conformity
1.000
0.479 0.377
0.689 0.704
0.075* 0.143*
1.000
0.652
0.193
1.000
0.188
1.000
Figure 1
The Competing Values Framework of Leadership Roles
FLEXIBILITY
People
Leadership
Mentor: Shows concern
for the individual needs
of subordinates.
Facilitator: Fosters
cohesion and teamwork.
Broker: Exerts upward
influence.
INTERNAL
FOCUS
EXTERNAL
FOCUS
Producer: Sees that the unit
meets stated goals.
Monitor: Monitors
compliance with rules.
Stability
Leadership
Adaptive
Leadership
Innovator: Searches for and
experiments with new ideas.
Coordinator: Coordinates
the workflow of the unit.
Director: Clarifies the unit’s goals
and directions.
CONTROL
Task
Leadership
Download