Transformational and transactional leadership questionnaire free download

Participants

Counselors with direct client contact were surveyed from outpatient substance use treatment programs currently involved in the Treatment Costs and Organizational Monitoring (TCOM; see Broome, Flynn, Knight, &#x; Simpson, ) project. Programs were located in four geographic regions of the United States including the Northwest, the Gulf Coast, the Southeast, and the Great Lakes.

Eighty-seven programs were contacted and asked to participate. Sixteen (18%) chose not to participate due to previous commitments or recent staffing changes. Of the 71 remaining programs, data from four were consolidated with sibling programs within their same parent organization, due to an overlap in staff and leadership responsibilities between sites. An additional 10 programs (11%), although agreeing to participate initially, were unable to allocate time for staff to complete surveys. Therefore, a total of 57 programs participated in the current study, accounting for 70% of the eligible programs.

In total, staff and 57 leaders were represented in the current study, representing a 62% and 86% response rate for staff and leaders respectively. Of the participating staff most were female, Caucasian, college educated, and served a minimum of 3 years within the field and at least one year in their current position. Staff and leaders averaged 39 and 48 years of age, respectively. A majority of the staff perceived themselves to be at a lower rank than their leader and their leader to be upper management (see Table 1). A majority (53%) of the leaders were rated by staff employed in treatment settings that offered a mixture of regular and intensive outpatient services. Eighty-seven percent operated as part of a larger parent organization (e.g., a central administrative unit maintaining several facilities in the community) and had an average staff size of approximately 7 counselors. A typical program served on average 53% (SD =%) criminal justice-referred clients, 22% (SD = 25%) comorbid or dual diagnosis clients and 38% (SD = 20%) female clients.

Procedure

Program primary contacts were reached via email and given information regarding the study aims, data collection procedures, and incentives (described below). Once an organization agreed to participate and the number of staff members with direct client contact was determined, the corresponding number of survey packets was mailed to the facility. The packet contained a consent form, a program-specific cover letter, the leadership questionnaire (average completion time of 30 minutes), and a postage-paid envelope to return the completed survey. Owing to variation in job titles between organizations and based on focus group feedback, instead of asking participants to rate their clinical director, program contacts were asked to identify by title, the position that has direct supervision of clinicians/counselors. This program-specific job title was printed on the staff questionnaire cover letter. Clinical directors were also asked to complete the packet, but only their background information was used in the present study. Each participant who completed the packet was entered into a raffle for a chance to win one of four $25 or one of two $50 gift certificates awarded by region.

Measures

An assessment battery consisting of the Survey of Transformational Leadership (STL), as well as selected items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Attributes of Leader Behavior Questionnaire (ALBQ), and Survey of Organizational Functioning (SOF) were used to develop and validate the new transformational leadership tool. In completing the STL, MLQ, and ALBQ, staff members responded to a 5-point rating scale with the stem stating, The person I am rating performs a certain leadership practice ranging from not at all (0) to frequently, if not always (4). Items phrased in the negative were reverse coded for analysis. Following factor analyses, composite measures for each theme were created by taking the average score for the items within each theme. Scale scores were then multiplied by 10, and ranged from 0 to 40 to allow for ease in clinical feedback or interpretation of leadership ratings. A list of instruments and scales is provided in Table 2.

The STL included 84 items representing five core components that were further subdivided into 16 conceptual themes (see Figure 1 for proposed conceptual themes). The current assessment battery also included four scales from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; Bass &#x; Avolio, ) that corresponded with measures of transformational leadership. Reliability coefficients with this sample ranged from to and were consistent with Avolio, Bass, and Jung (). Two scales from the Attributes of Leader Behavior Questionnaire (ALBQ; Behling &#x; McFillen, ) were also included. Reliability coefficients with this sample were and , and were consistent with Behling and McFillen ().

Clinical staff completed the job satisfaction scale from the Survey of Organizational Functioning (SOF; Broome, Knight, Edwards, &#x; Flynn, in press). Ratings for these six items (e.g., you like the people you work with and you are satisfied with your present job ) were made using a 1 to 5 response scale; 1 indicated strongly disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree. Scale scores were multiplied by 10, and ranged from 10 to A dichotomous variable based on the median-split was developed for job satisfaction, in order to examine the mean difference of leadership ratings on high or low job satisfaction. The Cronbach alpha for this sample was

Statistical Analysis

The STL was evaluated in two stages: first-order analysis on the STL core components and second-order analysis on transformational leadership, as a whole. The factor structure of each first-order and second-order factor was determined in two phases: (1) principal components analysis (PCA) to help establish the number of components extracted from the data and (2) maximum likelihood (ML) factor analysis procedures to provide a better estimate of the parameters. In the PCA, the most suitable solution for number of components extracted was based on (1) the Kaiser Criterion: requiring an eigenvalue greater than and (2) interpretability with regard to transformational leadership theory. In the ML procedures, the resulting factor matrices were rotated, which helped make the factors as distinctive as possible. Because the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size (especially over ; Jöreskog &#x; Sörbom, ; Marsh, Balla, &#x; McDonald, ), the current study relied upon the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker &#x; Lewis, ) as the primary index of model fit. TLI values close to one support that the factor structure accounts for the sample variance and covariance. An item was retained in the factor when (1) the confidence interval for the item covered a region of values larger than the specified criterion value (i.e., .4; SAS Institute Inc. ) and (2) the item was consistent with the conceptual meaning of the high loading items on the specified factor.

The second-order factor loadings were estimated based on composite scores corresponding to each of the first-order factors. Following the factor analyses, tests of reliability (i.e., coefficient alpha), convergent validity (i.e., correlations with matching scales), and criterion-related validity (i.e., t-tests on relationship to job satisfaction) were examined for each of the measures developed.

Table 3

Dimensionality

The overall pattern of results for each core component is illustrated in Figure 1 with a listing of observed empirical themes accounted for by proposed conceptual themes. The PCA identified two factors within idealized influence (eigenvalues = and ; TLI = ): Integrity (13 items; 23% of the variance) and Sensible Risk (6 items; 15% of the variance); two factors within intellectual stimulation (eigenvalues = and ; TLI = ): Encourages Innovation (8 items; 16% of the variance) and Demonstrates Innovation (7 items; 12% of variance); one factor within inspirational motivation (eigenvalue = ; TLI = ; 24 items, 45% of the variance); two factors within individualized consideration (eigenvalues = and ; TLI = ): Develops Others (5 items; 10% of the variance) and Supports Others (3 items; 7% of the variance); and two factors within empowerment (eigenvalue = and ; TLI = ): Task Delegation (14 items; 20% of the variance) and Expects Excellence (3 items; 10% of the variance). One item was removed from the intellectual stimulation core component due to similar item loadings on both factors. Additionally, one item within the empowerment component (i.e., conveys confidence in staff members&#x; ability to accomplish tasks ) was initially conceptualized as part of Expects Excellence, however following factor analysis it was subsequently considered and accepted for inclusion in Task Delegation.

Scale Scoring and Validation

Table 4 displays the factor loadings, means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for the nine first-order leadership factors. The possible range of scores on the STL is 0 to Expects Excellence represented the highest mean score of (SD = ) and Demonstrates Innovation had the lowest mean score of (SD = ).