Leadership Effectiveness & Integrity - IMD business school

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



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


0.825

0.822

0.820


0.927

0.929

0.931


0.932

0.931

0.930

Broker X4: Influences decisions made at higher levels

0.807

0.808

0.806


0.806

0.804

0.799


0.998

0.934

0.934


0.707

0.713

0.717


0.771

0.775

0.774 0.930


0.938

0.933


0.916

0.913

0.912


0.764

0.771

0.774


0.740

0.745

0.747


0.855

0.855

0.855


0.702

0.699

0.699


0.846

0.849

0.848

Facilitator X16: Facilitates consensus building in the work unit

0.869

0.867

0.866


0.863

0.865

0.864


0.820

0.821

0.822


0.920

0.929

0.930


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


0.886

0.888

0.886

X29: Merit

0.805

0.800

0.800


0.611

0.565

0.571

X31: Hierarchy

0.680

0.631

0.637

X32: Conformity

0.923

0.998

0.992


0.914


0.844


0.858


0.940


0.936


1343.09

Degrees of freedom

584


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




0.800

0.802

0.801


0.909

0.912

0.909


0.920

0.916

0.921


0.664

0.664

0.663


0.821

0.822

0.818


0.998

0.879

0.879


0.756

0.755

0.757


0.892

0.891

0.891 0.795


0.798

0.794


0.801

0.802

0.802


0.719

0.720

0.719


0.750

0.754

0.752


0.721

0.728

0.730


0.774

0.765

0.765


0.819

0.820

0.818


0.777

0.775

0.778


0.818

0.823

0.825


0.840

0.837

0.832


0.964

0.962

0.962


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


0.857

0.858

0.856

X27: Cooperation

0.696

0.711

0.714

X28: Adaptability

0.702

0.865

0.682


0.808

0.815

0.818


0.769

0.791

0.792

X31: Hierarchy

0.721

0.706

0.706

X32: Conformity

0.875

0.862

0.861


0.888


0.847


0.816


0.884


0.912


1201.52

Degrees of freedom

584


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




0.894

0.893

0.848


0.830

0.830

0.798


0.895

0.896

0.850


0.863

0.856

0.822


0.728

0.722

0.685


0.998

0.900

0.900


0.761

0.766

0.726


0.849

0.852

0.815 0.740


0.775

0.772


0.863

0.861

0.821


0.790

0.788

0.754


0.811

0.811

0.769


0.752

0.752

0.716


0.863

0.855

0.814


0.707

0.715

0.679


0.809

0.826

0.781


0.813

0.806

0.783


0.860

0.855

0.805


0.901

0.961

0.921


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


0.872

0.845

0.799

X27: Cooperation

0.830

0.842

0.800

X28: Adaptability

0.785

0.788

0.755


0.846

0.870

0.838


0.566

0.573

0.553

X31: Hierarchy

0.745

0.754

0.728

X32: Conformity

0.958

0.945

0.886


0.868


0.825


0.849


0.909


0.889


946.27

Degrees of freedom

584


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


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


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


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*


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


Correlations for Bosses Effectiveness Innovator Broker

Goal Orientation

Monitor Facilitator


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*


0.647 0.594 0.157*

0.390 0.511 0.452 0.430 0.032* 0.215

0.606 0.472 0.232


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