U9A1-28 - Final Paper Submission - final project proposal. "YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS AS OUTLINED" DO NOT DEIVATE FROM THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN...READ EVERYTHING.

Effect_of_leadership_developme.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >U9A1-28 - Final Paper Submission - final project proposal. "YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS AS OUTLINED" DO NOT DEIVATE FROM THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN...READ EVERYTHING.

EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: ASSESSING BEHAVIOR CHANGES IN

LEADERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FOLLOWER.

David D. Wanless

MARIAN UNIVERSITY

A Dissertation

Submitted in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Leadership Studies

Under the supervision of

Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, Ph.D., Chairperson

Randall Koetting, Ph. D.

Pravin Kamdar, Ph.D.

Fond du Lac, Wisconsin

April 2010

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3468992

UMI Number: 3468992

David D. Wanless

iii

ABSTRACT

EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: ASSESSING BEHAVIOR

CHANGES IN LEADERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FOLLOWER.

David D. Wanless

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect a leader development

intervention has on the participant. Traditional methods of program evaluation only

consider the participants perspective when evaluating program effectiveness. This study

uses leader-member exchange theory to quantify the quality of exchange between leader

and follower. Leader-Member Exchange theory explains that as the quality of exchange

improves, the effectiveness of the leader improves as well. By surveying followers of the

participant we will be able to determine if the followers perceive that the lessons of the

leader development intervention had any lasting effect on the participants over time.

Data was collected from 45 individuals who participated in a leader development

intervention within the past two years. This study was longitudinal in that data was

collected in four time periods, one month, six months, twelve months, and twenty-four

months post presentation. Each participant was asked to nominate 5 individuals they

considered to be followers of their leadership. 49 followers agreed to participate in the

study and were surveyed using leader-member exchange 7 to quantify the relationship

they have with their leader after the leader had participated in the leader development

intervention.

Aggregate scores demonstrated that followers perceive improvement in leader-

member exchange from one month (23.10) to six months (25.00) post participation. Data

take from twelve month (23.33) and twenty-four month (22.23) samples indicate a

gradual decrease in follower perceived leader-member exchange over time. These

findings indicate leader development increases over the short term, six months, and

progressively decreases over time. In spite of the diminishing returns on the investment

in leader development organizations presenting leader development interventions

continue to use methods of program assessment that return false positives to the

participant and make little attempt to provide reinforcement of curriculum. This study

provides a recommendation for a more critical approach of program assessment and

emphasizes the need for follow up to leader development.

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family.

My wife Linda and my daughter Brook

who made the sacrifices that allowed me to take this journey.

vii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the people who have touched me throughout my life,

far too many to name. I am equally graciously to all of you, thank you. The primary

influence in this journey comes from my family, who never once failed me. My

wonderful wife Linda graciously stood by my side helping me believe in myself even

when I did not. Without her support this dissertation would never have become a reality.

My daughter Brook has never known a time when Daddy did not have work to do. This

dissertation is for you and is proof that hard work and due diligence will be rewarded in

the end, believe.

I would also like to thank my immediate family who provided me with a life filled

with challenge, spirit, and faith. At a young age my father taught me the value of work

and that the worth of education cannot be represented terms of dollars and cents. My

mother instilled the value of never quitting, even when it makes perfect sense. To my

brothers whose presence obligated me to provide an example for them to follow, because

of them the bar kept rising.

I would like to thank the faculty and staff at Marian University for establishing

this program, through your doors the best in class shall pass. To Dr. Marilyn J.

Bugenhagen for graciously giving her time and heart to ensure that I never lost sight of

the goal. Her dedication to her students has been a blessing to me personally and will not

be forgotten. I would like to thank my fellow classmates; especially Yung-Pin Lu

“Malcolm”, Mindy Hildebrandt, and Chris Jensema who have helped make learning fun.

I deeply appreciate you friendship, kindness and support and I hope I can return the

favor.

viii

Last but, certainly not least, I need to thank the Lord. His presence and guiding

hand were felt every step of the way. This has been a journey full of treachery, faith

pulled me through. Through Him all great things are possible.

AFFECT OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: ASSESSING BEHAVIOR

CHANGES IN LEADERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FOLLOWER.

David D. Wanless

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

Approved Date

__________________________________________ _____________

Signature

Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, Ph.D.

Committee Chairperson

__________________________________________ _____________

Signature

Randall Koetting, Ph.D.

Committee Member

__________________________________________ _____________

Signature

Pravin Kamdar, Ph.D.

Committee Member

__________________________________________ _____________

Signature

Randall Koetting, Ph.D.

Dean of Graduate Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1

Purpose Statement.…………………………..……..…………………….. 2 Context ……..…………………………………………………………..... 3

Rationale for this Study .............................................................................. 4

Theoretical Base.…………..………………………………….……….…. 7 Social Exchange Theory …………………………………………. 8

Leader-Member Exchange Theory ……………………………... 8

Research Questions .……..………….………………………….….……. 9 Method…………………..……………….……………………….……… 12

Data Collection …………………………………………………. 12

Assumptions ……………………………………………………. 13 Limitations ……………………………………………………... 14

Delimitations …………………………………………………… 14 Significance ………………………………....………………………….. 15 Conclusion ..……………..…………………..……………………….…. 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .…………….…………….……….…………. 19 Followership ……..…………………......………………….…………... 19 Behavioral Sciences Perspective .………….…………….……….…….. 25 Leader-Member Exchange ……………………….….………………..... 30 Leader Development …………......………………………..……......…... 35 Leader Development Evaluation …………………….....………. 40

CHAPTER 3

METHOD ............................................................................…….……… 45 Data Collection ……...………………………………........………..…… 46 Sample Design …………………………………………....…….…...…. 48 Research Instrument ……………………………………...……………... 49 Data Analysis ………………………………………...…..……..………. 50 Post-hoc Data Analysis …………………………………………. 52

Summary ……………………………………………......…….....………. 52

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ......................…………………..………... 54 Participant Demographics ……………………………………...………. 54

Sample …………………………………………………….……. 56 Data Collection Process………………………..………………………… 56

Instrument……………………………..………………………………..... 60

Hypotheses Tests ……………………..………..………………….….... 60 Hypotheses Six Through Twelve ………………………………. 69

Post-hoc Assessment …………………...……………..........………..…. 78

Summary…………………………………..………………………..…… 87

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ………………………………… 89

Discussion ……………………….......…………….………................... 89 Follower Perspective…………………………………..………… 90 Leader Perspective …......……………………………..……….... 93 Leader LMX …………….....……………........………………... 94 Pre-intervention Assessment……………………………...…..... 95 Post-intervention Assessment……………………………….….. 96 Leadership Development Evaluation ….………………..……... 97 Implications of Results . ……………………………………….…….... 99 Contribution of this Study …………………………………….………. 100

Limitations……………………………………………………….……. 102 Recommendations for Future Research……………………….……….. 104 Summary……………………………………………………….………. 105

REFERENCES ……...….………………………………………………...…… 107

APPENDICES

A: Definition of Terms...................................................................... 113

B: LeaderShape Published Expected Outcomes............................... 115

C: Informed Consent………………………………………..…...… 116

D: Leader/Participant Survey .......................................................... 119

E: Constituent/Follower Survey........................................................ 123

F: Leader-Member Exchange 7........................................................ 125

G: Invitation Letter to Leader/Participants........................................ 126

H: Invitation Letter to Constituent/Follower..................................... 127

I: LeaderShape Pre- and Post-Institute Survey and Data ……....... 129

J: LeaderShape Background...........................………………..…… 130

K: Sponsors LeaderShape Application.............................................. 131

xii

L: Testimonials from LeaderShape Participants……………..…… 132

M: Director of Research Integrity Letter of Permission.................... 133

N: Author of LMX-7 Letter of Permission for Use.......................... 134

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Research Design Visualization………………………………………………… 18

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Demographics By Year Class Of Leader Participation …..…………………..… 55

2 Leader and Follower Survey Response Rates Per Time Period………………… 59

3 Cronbach’s Alpha by Question …………………………………………..……. 60

4 Follower Rated Leader Member Exchange Scores One Month After

Participation…….…………………………………………………………..…... 62

5 Follower Rated Leader Member Exchange Scores Six Months After

Participation…………………………………….………………………………. 63

6 Follower Rated Leader-Member Exchange Scores One Year After

Participation……………………………………………………………...……... 65

7 Follower Rated Leader-Member Exchange Scores Two Years After

Participation…………………….………………………………………………. 66

8 Follower Rated Aggregate Leader-Member Exchange

Across Time ……………………………………………..…………………….. 68

9 LMX 7 Question One Over Time ……………………………….……..………. 69

10 LMX 7 Question Two Over Time ………………………………..….………… 71

11 LMX 7 Question Three Over Time ……………………………..……..……… 72

12 LMX 7 Question Four Over Time …………………………...………..…..…… 73

13 LMX 7 Question Five Over Time ……………………………………..….…… 75

14 LMX 7 Question Six Over Time ………………….………………..………..… 76

15 LMX 7 Question Seven Over Time ……………………………..….………..... 77

16 H1 to H4 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis…………………………….…………. 80

17 H6 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis …………………………….……….……..…. 81

18 H7 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis……………………………………………….. 82

19 H8 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis ……….……………………………………... 83

20 H9 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis …………………………..……..……………. 84

21 H10 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis ……………………………..…………..….. 85

22 H11 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis ………………………….………….………. 86

23 H12 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis ……………………………….……..…….... 87

24 Leader Rated Leader-Member Exchange Across Time ………………………. 94

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

To say the world is in need of leaders is an understatement in terms of scale and in terms

of desperation. As baby boomers reach retirement and young executives find financial stability

through stock options and investments, making early retirement viable, a void has been created

in the pool of available leaders (Price, 2006). The inability of organizations to predict and plan

for this mass exodus only makes matters worse. From a statistical perspective not only are there

more leadership positions available now there are comparatively fewer leaders to assume these

positions (Price, 2006). The media provides ample proof of the risks organizations take when

acquiring new leadership. In his seminal text, Leadership, James MacGregor Burns (1978)

defines effective leadership as the ability to “arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of the

followers” (p. 8). Following this definition, examples of the failing leader can be found on every

shelf of the news stand. The Enron scandal for example, paints a picture where executive

leaders, through deceit and manipulation destroyed the lives of their greatest assets, their people

(Swartz & Watkins, 2003). Even within the United States government, America’s largest

organization, perceptions of failing leaders can be found in some of our most poignant leaders.

The George W. Bush administration’s handling of the “war on terror” has left only 16 % of the

American public who believe they can trust the government (AP-lpsos Poll, 2008).

One solution to this crisis is to develop leaders from within the organization in

conjunction with a documented succession plan. The unique properties associated with an

organizational culture make finding the right person even more complicated. Simply put, all

leaders will not find success in all organizational cultures. Organization members, even the ones

that are only moderately successful, understand the culture of the organization and have pre-

existing loyalty to the organization (Schein, 1997). Additionally, they have been given the

opportunity to reveal any ethical short comings, and have a clearer sense of the vision of the

organization (Schein, 1997).

The decline in the number of potential leaders coupled with the risk that organizations

face when looking for a candidate to fit their respective organization has created a situation

where developing leaders from within an organization is necessary and in high demand. This

demand has spawned hundreds of organizations whose sole purpose is to help develop leaders.

The leadership industry has experienced considerable growth over the past forty years

(McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). The American Society for Training and Development

estimated US companies invested over $134 billion dollars on training and development in 2008,

an average of $1068 per employee. These statistics suggests that executives have realized the

importance of leader development and are willing to make the investment (The American

Society for Training and Development, 2009).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a leader development program

from the perspective of the follower. Organizations that deliver leader development programs

use a variety of methods to evaluate program effectiveness and most compare expectations with

actual program outcomes (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). Many leader development

programs rely on questionnaires administered immediately after leader development training

(Dixon, 1990). This method of program evaluation does not consider the nature of development

and only considers the perspective of the participants (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006).

This results in a snap shot of customer satisfaction rather than true program effectiveness (Dixon,

1990; Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006).

Context

The location of this study was a Midwest post-secondary institution in a rural location

which has offered an annual six day leadership development program over the previous thirteen

years. The study participants were followers of leaders who participated in a leader development

program. The data was collected from followers of participants who attended this institute from

2007-2009.

This leader development program is the product of a non-profit organization that has

been focused on developing leaders in the 18-25 years of age range, typically college students,

for more than 25 years. The behavior based curriculum teaches participants to achieve their

vision through passion, and a commitment to integrity. The organization publishes expected

program outcomes the participant should be able to achieve after completion of the program, see

Appendix B. One of the published program outcomes suggests that participants should be able

to “develop relationships where dignity and contributions of all people are acknowledged and

respected” (LeaderShape, 2007). The organization is recognized nationally as a quality program

and reached international audiences in Qatar and South Africa. The programs positive history

includes over 30,000 participants as of 2010. For the purpose of this study, this leader

development intervention will represent a behavior based leader development program from a

nominal perspective.

The expansion of leadership industry has spawned organizations that focus exclusively

on the development of leaders (Kellerman, 2008). Each of these organizations has targeted

clientele and have developed curriculum to meet the needs of their respective clients. There are

many similarities and differences between these organizations. One similarity most behavior

based leader development program share is allowing the participant the opportunity to self

evaluate and change their behaviors to become better leaders (Day & Harrison, 2000). This

study departed from this practice of participant self evaluation and attends to the followers

perception of leader behavior.

Rationale for This Study

This type of study is worthy of consideration because effective leaders are in high

demand and organizations throughout the world are investing billions of dollars on leader

development. Throughout human history leaders have been idolized and put on a pedestal

(Stogdill, 1974). Man’s obsession with leadership is found in the ancient journals of our earliest

recorded history (Stogdill, 1974). This obsession has driven scholars to attempt to understand

the phenomenon of leadership. This seemingly unattainable goal has transcended generations of

scholars as it still continues to mystify contemporary researchers (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999;

Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1970; Burns, 1978; Goethals, & Sorrenson, 2006; Rost, 1991; Sorenson,

Riggio, & Orr, 2004). Traditional leadership studies have focused, almost exclusively on the

actions, traits and behaviors of the leader, giving little thought to the follower (Gardner, 1987;

Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1988). Progressive trends spanning the last forty years of leadership

studies suggest researchers were cognizant of this disconnect and now pay more attention to

followers and the role they play in the relationship between leaders and followers (Bennis, 1970;

Chaleff, 1995; Gardner, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1988; Riggio,

Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Vecchio, 1997). When researchers make the paradigm shift

and examine leadership from the perspective of the follower they have the opportunity to see an

entirely different side of leadership (Kellerman, 2008).

By contemporary standards, successful leadership is an essential element of

organizational success (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Johnson, 2008;

Kouzes, Posner, Hesselbein, & Goldsmith, 2006; Schein, 1997; Senge, 1990). Many

organizations are realizing the value of leadership capacities in their human capital. This trend

has resulted in an increase in demand for leaders and for methods of developing leaders (Kincaid

& Gordick, 2003). Global market pressures in a fast paced marketplace have greatly increased

the need for strong leadership skills. Within the context of an organization, leaders are

considered the upper echelon of human capital, capable of achieving organizational goals and

delivering a competitive advantage (Michaels & Handfield-Jones, 2001). The demand for

effective leaders has resulted in an increased interest in methods of developing great leaders. As

a result many organizations are investing in the future of their organizations by spending on

leadership development programs intended to increase the capacities of their leaders (Day &

Harrison, 2000).

This investment is an indication of organizations commitment to exceptional leadership

skills. The question is they getting the return on their investment? The Center for Creative

Leadership, has been working with leaders and leader development since 1970, and recommends

several methods of quantifying the effectiveness of leadership development programs (Hannum,

Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). Commonly, leadership development programs rely on post training

surveys as a method of program evaluation. Dixon (1990) contends that these surveys frequently

reveal no more than participant satisfaction on the last day of training rather than show any level

of competencies with the material covered in the program. Gentry and Leslie (2007) found

several leadership development programs use comparative analysis between pre- and post-

intervention surveys to determine the effectiveness of the leadership development intervention.

The result of this method of deriving program effectiveness has the potential to be skewed as

responses to post intervention surveys could be biased by the experience rather than the

curriculum. Unfortunately this value of program effectiveness often becomes marketing fodder

and is spread as means of program promotion (Gentry & Leslie, 2007).

Assessing the effectiveness of leadership development programs requires the careful

consideration of the expectations of the stake holders, many of whom expect immediate return

on their investment (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). For the purpose of this study the

term stakeholder is defined as any party that has a vested interest in the development of potential

leaders (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Without the

lure of profit or return, initial investment is not likely to occur. A common error made by stake

holders is to evaluate the leaders progress immediately following training (Hannum, Martineau,

& Reinelt, 2006). Evaluating program effectiveness immediately following training is necessary

but, conducting midrange and long term assessment is essential. Evaluating only short term

results will only reveal lessons learned in the course of the training and will forgo the

opportunity to assess the lessons learned in practice (Martineau & Hannum, 2004).

The Center for Creative Leadership recommends that leader development programs

conduct short-term, mid-term, and long-term evaluations of the programs outcomes (Martineau

& Hannum, 2004). Organizations that conduct leader development use a variety of methods of

assessing program effectiveness; often these methods consist exclusively of surveys conducted

on the last day of training (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). This method of evaluation only

focuses on the short-term effectiveness and produces results that are more of an indication of

customer satisfaction rather than the effectiveness of the leader or the leader development

program (Dixon, 1990). This has resulted in some contemporary leadership authors to question

the validity of leader development all together (Moore, 2008; Ready & Conger, 2003).

Theoretical Base

The word theory is defined as “Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide

variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, principles, and rules of procedure used to

analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of specified phenomena” (The

American Heritage College Dictionary, 2000, p. 1406). Following this definition, this study

examined two such perspectives that are not entitled “theory” but do represent a knowledge

based understanding. Many contemporary leadership authors have recently decided to pay

diligence to followers (Collinson, 2006; Dixon & Westbrook, 2003; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans,

May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Kellerman, 2008; Riggio et al., 2008). Despite the fact that there is

not a theory of followership these perspectives are valid and essential in understanding the

behaviors of followers and how their perceptions shape leader effectiveness.

The role of language is critical leadership studies, this study is no exception. For this

reason key terms and concepts have been defined to provide working definitions for the purpose

of this study. The definitions can be referenced in Appendix A. The behavioral sciences help to

explain the relationships between leader and follower from an exchange perspective. The

follower concedes to follow based on an informally bartered exchange (Homans 1961). Leader-

Member Exchange theory explains there is not only an exchange, but that the quality of

exchange can determine the effectiveness of the leader (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The

behavioral sciences perspective explains leadership and followership as an exchange, a

transaction. Freud (1921) explains the natural tendencies for the emergence of leadership and

the exchange between leaders and followers. This transaction, traditionally based on a tangible

reward (money) is exchanged for followership and obedience. Freud (1921) suggested that this

exchange is not exclusive to tangible objects and could include an exchange of emotions and

emotional support in exchange for followership (Freud, 1921; Goethals et al., 2005).

vSocial Exchange Theory.

Behavioral science researchers built on the work of Freud while developing social-

exchange theory. Homans (1961) model notes the exchange process, but considers influence

and dialogue as markers for exchange. Homans (1961) concept of influence as a marker for

exchange expands on Freud’s (1921) version of social exchange by allowing dialogue between

both the leaders and follower. Thibaut and Kelly (1959) offered a version of social exchange

theory by suggesting a balance exists in any relationship between leaders and followers.

Thibaut and Kelly (1959) describe the leader follower relationship to be in balance when the

reward for both the leader and follower mutually offset the costs. If the state of balance is

neglected the oppressed member will become dissatisfied and dissolve the relationship (Thibaut

& Kelley, 1959). The works of Homans (1961, 1973) and Hollander (1955, 1992) suggest

followers determine the degree of followership including the lengths followers will go to support

a leader. Because the follower makes the decision to concede to followership and the follower

determines the degree of followership, the role of the follower is paramount to the success of the

leader. The collective work of these behavioral scientists suggests that leader effectiveness

must come from the perspective of the follower.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory.

Leader-member exchange, originally a product of social sciences, examines the dyadic

relationship between leader and follower. The theory, originally presented by Dansereau et al.

(1975), has undergone several revisions since its inception (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser,

1999). Uhl-Bien and Graen (1993) continued the work of Dansereau et al. And presented a

model that suggests that leader effectiveness can be predicted and assessed based solely from the

relationship between the leader and follower (Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1993). This theory is a critical

piece in making the argument that leader effectiveness and the effectiveness of leader

development needs to come from the perspective of the follower. Initial studies by Dansereau, et

al. (1975) labeled the relationship between leader and follower as vertical dyad linkages. The

strength of these vertical dyad linkages determined whether a member (follower) was considered

to be in the in-group or the out-group. Members of the in-group had an increased level of

influence on the organization while the out-group had little to none (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga,

1975). Studies that followed the work of Dansereau et al. focused on the quality of exchanges

between leader and follower and their impact on organizational effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1993)

Research Questions

The central research question and hypotheses focus on the perceptions of followers of

participants who participated in a behavioral based leader development program. Changes in

leader’s behavior change the follower’s perception of the leader and the quality of leader-

member exchanges. As a result, the leader behaviors were independent variables and the

follower’s perceptions were the dependant variables. This central question provides an overview

of the perceptions of the followers.

Research Question: Do leader development programs effect participant’s behaviors,

promoting changes that positively contribute to leader-member exchange?

A series of hypotheses were formulated to test the central research question. The

realization that time plays a central role in development has spawned the following hypotheses

which support the central research question.

H1: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders one month after the leader attended a leader development

intervention as compared to pre-intervention survey data.

H2: Followers perceive an increased level of leader- member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders six months after the leader attended a leader development

intervention.

H3: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders one year after the leader attended a leader development

intervention.

H4: Followers perceive an increased level of leader- member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders two years after the leader attended a leader development

intervention.

H 5: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders after they have attended a leader development

intervention.

The instrument used in this study, leader-member exchange 7, provides the means of exploring

the followers’ perception of a leader’s behavior. These seven questions have prompted an

additional set of sub-questions with respect for the time element.

H6: Followers completing the LMX-7 assessment give a progressive increase rating in

their ability to know how satisfied their leader is with what they do, one month, six months, one

year, and two years after the leader participated in a leader development intervention.

H7: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their leader’s ability to know their job

problems and needs one month, six months, one year, and two years after the leader participated

in a leader development intervention.

H8: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their leader’s ability to recognize their

potential one month, six months, one year, and two years after the leader has participated in a

leader development intervention.

H9: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the probability that their leader would

use their power, regardless of formal authority, to help the follower solve problems within the

organization one month, six months, one year, and two years after participating in a leader

development intervention.

H10: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the probability that their leader would

use their power, regardless of formal authority, to “bail you out” at the leaders expense one

month, six months, one year, and two years after participating in a leader development

intervention.

H11: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their confidence with their leader and

the likelihood that they would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present

one month, six months, one year, and two years after participating in a leader development

intervention.

H12: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the effectiveness of their working

relationship with their leader one months, six months, one year, and two years after participating

in a leader development intervention.

Method

The methodology used in study in this study captured the perspectives of the follower

after a leader attended a leader development intervention. Leader development intervention

participants were asked to take a survey and then nominate five individuals they considered to be

followers. The primary component of this survey was Leader-Member Exchange 7 instrument.

This instrument is a derivative of the original leader member exchange instrument originally

constructed by Dansereau, et al. (1975). The instrument is as equally valid and reliable as the

original instrument and is considered to be the “most appropriate and recommended measure of

leader member exchange” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 236). Gerstner and Day (1997) surveyed

28 studies using Leader-Member Exchange 7 and found the average weighted mean of

Cronbach’s alpha to be .89 (Gerstner & Day, 1997). In the 34 years since the inception, the

original Leader-Member Exchange theory and Leader-Member Exchange 7 have long histories

of use in the field of leadership studies. A search of the science direct database identified over

24,000 articles that were produced using the leader-member exchange instrument.

Leader-Member Exchange 7 consists of seven questions that capture the three levels of

leader-member exchange: respect, trust, and obligation. Review of the extensive body of

research related to LMX suggests that positive leader follower relationships provide a positive

correlation to leader effectiveness, organizational commitment, distributive justice, job climate,

and other organizational variables (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999).

Data Collection

The data collected for this longitudinal study was collected over four time periods. The

first phase, one month, was taken from a sample of followers whose leader participated in the

2009 leader development intervention. This data provided a baseline that described the quality

of the leader-member exchanges prior to attending leader development intervention. The second

phase of data collection took place six months after the leader’s participation in the leader

development program with the same respondents. In order to understand the follower’s

perception from a longitudinal perspective a third and fourth data collection phases were

required. The third data collection phase captured data from followers whose leader participated

in the 2008 leader development intervention, twelve months after their participation. The fourth

data collection phase sampled followers whose leader participated in 2007 leadership

development intervention, 24 months after participation.

Assumptions

It was anticipated that all data collected through the course of this study was free of bias.

It was assumed that the subjects, identified by leader development participants as followers,

answered the questionnaires accurately and honestly. It was assumed that the questionnaires

were administered objectively. The instrument used in this study, Leader-Member Exchange 7,

has been used extensively in leadership studies and has high recorded reliability and validity. It

was assumed that this instrument would retain reliability and validity throughout the context of

this study.

The researcher had several fundamental beliefs that can be considered assumptions. The

researcher believes that all people have the potential to lead. Effective leader development

requires a certain degree of behavior modification, with positive reinforcement and practice to

allow behaviors to change. Finally, the researcher believes that leader development is a

continuum; it has a start point and a destination. Time plays a crucial role in the development.

Experiences through leader development programs can enlighten participants and experience can

be a fantastic teacher. Both scenarios require time to reflect, process, adapt, and grow.

Limitations

Future researchers hoping to replicate this study need to be aware of limits of the study,

defined by the methodology. This study used leader-member exchange theory as a foundation.

Results, findings, and observations were all based off this work. In addition, the Leader-

Member Exchange 7 instrument was used extensively. Although leader-member exchange

continues to be researched and leader-member exchange 7 has undergone minor revisions, the

core of this research and instrument will remain constant over time. Time played a role in this

study as it was a longitudinal. Set time periods of one month, six months, twelve months, and

twenty four months should be observed n future research endeavors. The method of nomination

of leader-member relationship identification used in this study followed a process that is unique

to this study. Following any other method of relationship identification would likely offer

varying results. The method of survey and data collection was somewhat unique to this study,

although other studies used similar methods. Any change to this method would potentially

create an entirely different study.

Delimitations

Future researchers need to be aware of the following delimiting factors as they made this

study a unique body of work. This study was an evaluation of a set of leaders who participated

in one specific leader development program. The curriculums of other leader development

programs could be substantially different in context. It cannot be assumed that all leader

development programs are identical despite some similarities. The participants of the leader

development program used in this study were students that attend a mid-western post secondary

college, 18-25 years of age. The curriculum used by the leader development program examined

in this study was tailored to this audience. Curriculum of leader development programs that

focus on different set of demographics could vary considerably. The data collected in this study

came from followers, leader selected, of the leader development participants over varying

periods of time. This study used one month, six months, twelve months, and twenty four months

as time markers. Continuation of this research may use a different set of time frames. This

research paid no consideration to either the sex of the leaders or the respondents. The final

limitation to this study was the process of identifying the leader-follower relationships. In this

study the followers were identified by the leaders. Results of a study where participants

nominated leaders may produce different results.

Significance

The significance of this study lies in the fact that a $56 billion dollar industry is left

largely unchecked. Sponsoring organization such as corporations, churches, and schools, spend

large sums of money hoping the participants develop as leaders. In an attempt to prove fiscal

viability, some leader development programs take the responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness

of their program. Unfortunately, many leader development programs rely exclusively on

immediate feedback from the participants. These results seldom provide any insight into the

effectiveness of the program and deliver only participant satisfaction (Dixon, 1990).

There are two fundamental problems with this approach. By surveying participant

immediately after the leader development program you only get the perception of the leader.

The ego of a newly trained leader can bias the most scrutinizing measures. The relationship

between leader and follower defines leader effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), as a result

leader effectiveness should be considered from the perspective of the follower. Leader

development represents changing leader behaviors. If leader development is effective, that is

leaders truly change behaviors, then the followers perspectives will verify that the leader’s

behaviors have changed actually change as indicated by higher quality leader-member

exchanges.

The second fundamental problem with this approach is the disregard for time. Leader

development programs that evaluate program effectiveness at the end of the program only learn

what the participant learned about leadership. In order to accurately evaluate the effectiveness

of a leadership development program it is essential that the developmental state of the leader be

assessed (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). The ability to actually change behaviors takes

practice and practice takes time (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). It is for this reason that

the effectiveness of leader development be measured after a period of time.

Any organization that delivers a product or service to the marketplace has the

responsibility to assess the effectiveness of that product or service (Juran, 1998). Based on the

researchers industrial experience, the manufacturing sector subjects products to a litany of tests

that determine the reliability, functionality, and liability associated with the product.

Organizations that conduct leader development training should be no different. Many of these

firms do in fact assess the effectiveness of their training but, the method of evaluation may leave

unanswered questions. The evolution of the leadership industry (Kellerman, 2008) is a response

to the demand for leaders. This demand transcends to all sectors of organizational life and as a

result organizations are making huge investments into their employees. There has never been a

more critical time to examine the effect leader development has on its participants.

This study adds to the existing body of knowledge in two distinct ways. First, existing

research in leader development focuses primarily on effectiveness of the program rather than the

effectiveness of the participants (Day & Harrison, 2000). By examining how leader

development effects the participants, a new perspective of program effectiveness becomes

possible. The second contribution this study makes is that it considers time factors for

development and evaluation of the development. The most significant contribution made by this

study is the inclusion of the follower’s perspective. The role of the follower in the leader-

follower relationship is being paid more consideration by researchers in the field of leadership

studies (Bennis, 1970; Chaleff, 1995; Chaleff, Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008;

Gardner, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1988; Riggio et al., 2008;

Vecchio, 1997). This study followed that trend and paid careful consideration to leader

behaviors and development from the follower’s perspective.

Conclusion

Leader development is dependent on behavioral change (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004)

and positive relational behaviors can equate to higher quality exchanges between leader and

follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leader-Member Exchange theory relates higher quality

leader-member exchanges to higher level of leader effectiveness and in turn higher level of group

effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This does not necessarily mean that leader

development will instantly change behaviors causing increased levels of leader-member

exchanges. This study presented a necessary first step in logically making that statement by

paying consideration to development over time. A visual model to clarify the design of the

study is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research Design Visualization

Short term

(6 months)

Mid-term

(1 year)

Long-Term

(two years)

Results will indicate weather

participation in leader development

had any affect on leaders behavior

over the short-term when compared

with data from one month

Results will indicate weather

participation in leader development

had any affect on leaders behavior

over the mid-term when compared

with data from one month

Results will indicate weather

participation in leader development

had any affect on leaders behavior

over the long-term when compared

with one month.

Short vs. Mid-term

Mid vs.

Long-term

Short vs. Mid

vs. Long-term

One Month vs. Short-term

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The focus of this study was to examine the effect leader development has on the

behaviors of the participants as perceived by the followers. By examining the follower

perspective there was the opportunity to examine leader development from a different vantage

point. The primary voice in this study was that of the follower. It was for that reason that the

review of relevant literature for this research began with an overview of followership. Among

the first to consider the significance of followers and followership were researchers in the

behavioral and social sciences. The contributions of Freud, Thibaut, Kelley, Homan, and

Hollander allowed examination of the leadership dynamic from a relational perspective. The

EGO and ID model paralleled with social exchange theory was significant to this study because

it provided the foundation for Leader-Member Exchange theory which is included in this

literature review. The work of the Center for Creative Leadership has been foundational in the

area of leader development and leader development evaluation literature.

Followership

Leadership studies researchers made great contributions to our understanding of what

leadership is and conversely, our understanding of followership. Each researcher brings forth

their own unique perspective and offers suggestions that further the collective understanding of

the dynamic called leadership. Early research from the schools of behavioral sciences and

scientific management era created direction for studying followers (Barnard, 1938; Carlyle,

1849; Galton, 1869; Maslow, 1943; Stogdill, 1948; Taylor, 1911). One side effect of

researcher’s continual efforts to understand leadership is the complexity issue. In his seminal

text Leadership, James McGregor Burns (1978) declared that “leadership is one of the most

observed and least understood phenomenons on earth” (Burns, 1978) (p.2).

Contemporary research has struggled with defining leadership. Despite the efforts of

Goethals and Sorenson (2006), who edited The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership, a

universally accepted definition still has not migrated into the language of the common man. The

absence of definition had opened the floodgate for many authors who have set forth to pen their

own unique definition, furthering the complexity and confusion. This promoted stereotyping as

a means of definition where the word leader was the equivalent of ruler, chief, and king (Bass,

1990). The avoidance of the perils of stereotypical understanding that focuses on what a leader is

rather that what is leadership. This stands true of the word follower as well as leader. This

study used Homans (1961) definition for the word as it is foundational and because it embraces

the philosophy that followers make decisions in the leader follower relationship. The definition

used in the study was: people who make the choice to consent to followership, meaning they

agree to the social exchange that exists between leader and follower (Homans, 1961). Using

similar logic followership was defined using Kelley’s definition as it continues builds from

Homans model and continues to acknowledge the dynamic between leader and follower. The

definition used in this study was: the degree or extent the follower was willing to contribute to

the leader-follower relationship (Kelley, 1992).

There is a negative stereotype of the word follower that is deeply imbedded in our

culture. Following the stereotypical western perspective, a follower is seen as one that does not

lead, the lesser, the weak (Chaleff, 1995; Colangelo, 2000; Kelley, 1992). Kelley believes the

source of this negative connotation of followership is rooted in our understanding of the natural

selection process, first suggested by Charles Darwin (Kelley, 1992). The mentality of survival

of the fittest creates a paradigm where only the strong and adaptive survive (Darwin, 1859).

Traditional hierarchical models have the leaders atop the hypothetical food chain while the

followers flounder below (Kelley, 1992).

Fortunately, contemporary researchers have presented a different view of the follower.

The relationship of followership to leadership began to be understood as an interdependent

process (Chaleff et al., 2008; Colangelo, 2000; Collinson, 2006; Kelley, 1992; Rost, Riggio,

Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Tanoff & Barlow, 2002; Vecchio, 1997). This is partially

due to a shift in the direction of leadership research. Initial leadership studies focused on the

characteristic of the “great man” (Carlyle, 1849; Galton, 1869). Contemporary research has

shifted toward a focus of behaviors and inter-relational values of both the leader and the follower

(Avolio, 2007; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Chaleff, 1995; Gardner, 1987; Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, Kilmann,

& Kilmann, 1991; Riggio & Reichard, 2008; Rost, 1993; Scandura, 1999; Sorenson et al., 2004;

Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Vecchio, 1982).

This shift in research direction has greatly benefited the understanding of the follower.

By modern standards, the followers have shed the negative connotation of not being “the leader”

and are being recognized for their contribution to the leadership paradigm. Scientific

management era researchers commonly referred to followers as subordinates (Barnard, 1938;

Fayol, 1930; Taylor, 1911). In a response to the language of the scientific era John Gardner

(1961) published Excellence, aimed at recognizing the contribution and worth of the common

man. Though some disregarded his work as a deliberate continuation of the Marxist ideology,

his central message was mutual appreciation of leader and follower rather than communistic

economic structure (Trucker, 1969).

Gardner (1986a) furthered efforts to recognize the value of non-leaders by referring to

them as constituents. Gardner’s belief was that the term follower suggested excessive passivity

that does not recognize the contribution made to the leader member relationship (Gardner,

1986a). Gardner suggests that leaders do not always lead and constituents (followers) do not

always follow. Gardner (1986b) notes “most leaders are followers in other contexts and

followers often perform leader-like acts” (p. 5). This suggests leaders not only lead but, follow

and followers are not confined to only follow but to lead as well. Donnithore (1994) had similar

findings at West Point Military Academy. At West point every leader is ultimately a follower.

The first step of leadership is reducing oneself to nothing and building up yourself without all of

the baggage of entitlement and power (Donnithorne, 1994).

Lord, Brown and Freiberg (1999) suggest that followership equates to membership within

the organization. As individuals acclimate to the culture and norms of an organization they

choose to submit to followership, with the organization and with the individual leaders

themselves (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). The self-concept of assuming the role of

followership can be a humbling proposition. Adding the scope and scale of the role of

organizational follower can affect the self-perspective of the individual.

Rost (1991) shares the same appreciation for humble leadership and uses more

complimentary language to identify followers. In his text, Leadership for the Twenty-first

Century, the word follower has been replaced by collaborators. The use of this language serves

as an indication of partnership between leader and follower. Rost (1991) identifies several skills

both leader and “collaborators” need to achieve excellence. These skills include the use of

influence in multidirectional relationships and the building of non-coercive relationships. This

suggests that both leader and follower must be able to openly communicate without fear of

retaliation. Rost (1991) continues by embracing the power of diversity in culture, knowledge,

and skill. The realization that all leaders and followers have the ability to make a contribution is

essential in establishing a healthy leader collaborator relationship. Rost (1991) advocates that

risks need to be taken by collaborators, risks can lead to conflict, and healthy conflict between

group members is necessary in the relational growing process.

Risks need to be taken by the leader as well. Empowerment is necessary for a leader to

be successful, this represents a risk that only courage will ease. Rost (1991) cites excessive use

of power as a potential risk as well. Leaders who rely exclusively on power risk losing

followership, coercive power is destructive to all parties and is at best a short-term solution

(Rost, 1991). Burns (1978) accurately describes leaders that rely on coercive tactics to maintain

followership as “power wielders” and notes the short term effectiveness of this approach (p. 6).

Having the courage to let go of the notion that to lead is to rule is an essential step in the

development of a leader Rost (1991).

According to Chaleff (1995), followership and leadership are two parts of a single

dynamic relationship. In healthy organizations, both are necessary and serve a common purpose.

The power in this dynamic comes from the purpose of the organization rather than the

individuals. Fostering an environment in which people have the freedom and courage to openly

say what they think presents a challenge to a leader. Followers need courage too, the challenge

to followers to honestly give feedback to the leader and other followers can be overwhelming.

The ideal leader-`follower dynamic is a healthy relationship between peers where one has the

power (followers) and the other has the authority (leader). The key to effective leadership is to

build mutually supportive relationships (Chaleff, 1995).

Kelley (1992) divides followership fits into five categories or archetypes: exemplary

type, sheep, yes-people, survivors who sit on the fence, and the alienated. Exemplary followers

are actively engaged, critical thinkers who take the initiative independently from the leader or

other followers (Colangelo, 2000). They have focus and are committed to getting the job done,

regardless of office politics or other superficial distractions. They do not see themselves as being

inferior to the leader, only playing a different role. Lee (1991) identified four characteristics of

an effective or exemplar follower: personal integrity that demands loyalty to the organization and

willingness to act on one’s own beliefs, an understanding of the organization and their

contribution to it, versatility, and responsibility (Lee, 1991). While these points made by Lee are

well taken, consideration must be made for attributes that contribute to bi-partisan relation

building. Warren Bennis (2000) notes that willingness to tell the truth is the single most

important characteristic of an exceptional follower. Relationship based on truth, above all else,

provides an exchange that is balanced from the start (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

Social exchange theorists claim that leadership implies a dyad or a relationship based on

equal exchange between leader and follower. Rost (1991) describes leadership as an interactive

relationship in which the leader must interact with collaborators (followers). Effective

leadership is not possible when the leader is perched in an ivory tower. Rost (1991) is not

suggesting equality on all parts, but the leaders should relate to the followers and the followers

should know the leader. Rost (1991) argues for the continuation of the paradigm where leaders

and collaborators represent unique archetypes. According to Rost (1991), “they do not do the

same things in the relationship, just as a composer and musicians do not do the same things in

making music, but they are both essential to leadership” ( p. 109).

Behavioral Science Perspective

Leadership has been studied in a wide variety of perspectives and contexts. This study

examines the behaviors of leader through the eyes of the followers. The dynamic that exists

between leader and follower consists of a series of interactions. These interactions take place

between human individuals and are behavior driven, as the behaviors from one individual may

affect the behaviors exhibited by the second individual (Homans, 1961). Because leader

behavior and follower perception play key roles in this study and because the work of behavioral

sciences paves the way for the transition from social exchange theory to leader-member

exchange, this work needed to be considered.

Psycho-analyst Sigmund Freud, spent the majority of his life contributing to the

understanding of human behavior. His work with ego is essentially the first place leadership is

considered in conjunction with followership and it is the bases for social exchange theory. In his

model, exchanges are made initially within a person, this then leads to external exchanges with

other individuals. Freud goes to great lengths to dissect human behavior from a psychological

perspective. Freud identified the ego as a series of excitations an individual brings to life, the

approach a person takes to life itself (1921).

The id then is the core of an individual. The truer sense of what a person is rather than

who. The id represents the cognitive abilities, skill set and experiential memories whereas the

ego depicts the reaction to cognition, skills, and memory. In his work, The Ego and Id, Freud

(1923) uses the analogy of a horse and rider to equate the function of each of these entities. In

this analogy the horse represent the rider, the worker of the two and the rider provides the vision

and guidance. The horse has the skills to carry the rider, it has the ability to listen to the rider,

and it understands that if it follows the rider’s directions it will be rewarded. The reward for the

horse would come in the form of pleasure principles suited for a horse: food, shelter,

compassion, and safety. The want for these pleasure principles defines the drive in human

behavior to do and be more. The horse wants the pleasures only the ego can provide.

A parallel to this analogy can be seen in human behavior. Individuals want more and

want to be more. The following example from the business sector builds off of Freud’s analogy

and provides a more contemporary, human example. Traditionally, in the business sector, young

business men and women start out on the lower end of the organizational hierarchy. Their initial

reaction is contentment, glad to have a position within an organization. This provides them with

the pleasure principles of income that in turn become food and shelter. Presumably the

organization is healthy and they receive some level of compassion for their work and can feel

safe with respect to job security. All is well until the individual notices what others have, more

pay, better shelter, more tangible compassion (in the form of money or other perks), and an

increased level of job security. The id, as presented by Freud (1921), desires more and depends

on the direction of the ego to derive satisfaction. The character of the id may well provide for

the ego but, there are no guarantees. The id can depend on the experiential memories and can be

adaptive in the approach to a solution but, the ego needs to give the direction.

Freud (1921) proposed the concept of “ego-ideal” where the ego guides the id to find

resolution by working in conjunction with other individuals, with their own ego and id (p. 18).

In this model the leader represents the “ego-ideal” where the id, as a function of adaption,

chooses the incorporation of other people (p. 67). The id of the ego-ideal has needs that need to

be met and a job that requires completion. Through soliciting support from other individuals, the

leader now has the resources of other ids and egos to draw from. The incorporation of other

individuals is not likely to occur without a level compensation. The ids and egos of the solicited

new individuals need to believe they will be compensated for their efforts and their commitment

to following. Thus, a high level business executive will be able to gain acceptance and receive

the benefit of excellence in his or her followers if their success will be perceived by the followers

as potential improvement for the needs of the followers.

When considering the solicitation of followers, it is important to recognize the

contributions made by all parties, both leaders and followers. The contribution of the followers

is fairly simple, deciding to consent to followership. The concept of consenting to followership

would be incomplete without considering the amplitude of followership. Followership can and

will vary by degree, the higher the degree of presumed compensation the higher degree of

followership (Hollander, 1992; Homans, 1973).

Following Freud’s model of the ego-ideal, the contribution of the leader is to bring group

members together in identity. This action creates vision and mutual identification, this is who

we are and this is where we are headed. This sharing of vision and directing of the group

essentially patterns the horse and rider analogy. Again the horse, id, represents the cognitive

abilities, skill sets, and experiential memories of the group in cumulative fashion and the ego of

the group are derived from the leader. It is the leaders charge to share the vision and provide the

inspiration for following based on tangible compensation or a contribution for the greater good.

This depicts a very different view of the leader-follower relationship than was present in Freud’s

era. His work marks a separation from traditional models of leadership that centered on

dominance and coercive behaviors. Freud explained at lengths his understanding of the

exchange that takes place between leaders and followers during the leadership phenomenon. He

pays close attention to all contributing factors to the leader-follower relationship. These factors

give us the understanding that leader-follower relationships can and do exist at all levels and are

not strictly bound to organizational life or traditional modalities of leadership. Freud’s

explanation shows these relationships are present nearly every time at least two people interact.

Freud uses only two examples in his writings on ego and id, the church and the military.

The central message is that exchanges happen in all sectors of life. It was disappointing to see

Freud use examples that are not only the most commonly studied but also the most hierarchal in

structure. The era in which Freud conducted his research coupled with the structure of the

organizational, followership could be dictated solely on positional power and potentially

coercion. It was also a disappointment that much of Freud’s research comes from the

perspective of the leader as he made no attempt at considering the behavior of the follower.

Regardless of these short comings, Freud’s depiction and explanation of the exchange

that exists between leaders and followers has stood the test of time. Homans (1961) builds off

Freud’s work as he attempted to further the understanding of social exchange theory. Although

there are many similarities between the concepts first introduced by Freud there are some major

differences. Hollander (1955) visions of leader-follower relations are bi-lateral, they work from

the vantage point of the leader to the followers and then are reflected back to the leader. This

depicts a model where something of value is given on both sides.

In Freud’s model, the exchange is based on the follower consenting to follow in exchange

for an increase in tangible reward (food, shelter, and money), compassion in the form of praise,

and safety (relative to the boundaries of the relationship). The very nature of Freud’s model is

reflective of transactional leadership (Goethals et al., 2005). According to Bass (2008), a leader

is transactional when they reward followers to meeting responsibilities and punished when they

fail (p.618). In this type of leadership behavior, the follower has chosen to follow because they

know there will be something to gain. They follow for reward and nothing more. Homans

(1961) model gives a little more latitude in that it allows for mutual exchange and in the end

mutual dependence (Homans, 1961). Leaders and followers have the ability to mutually benefit

from each other in terms of influence. As Homans (1961) states, “Influence over others is

purchased at the price of allowing one’s self to be influenced by others.” (p.286). By

considering the effects of influence Homans is setting the stage for transformational leadership.

Burns (1978) defined a transformational leader as one who shares a vision and influences

followers to forgo their own self interest in pursuit of this vision. In transformational leadership,

followers consent to follow because they understand that achievement on behalf of the

organization will equate to success on a personal level (Bass, 2008).

Homans (1961) concept of influence as a marker for exchange is interesting in that it

expands the application of Freud’s version of social exchange by allowing dialogue between

both the leaders and follower. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) offered their version of social

exchange theory by suggesting a balance exists in any relationship between leaders and

followers. Their model also provides for open dialogue between leaders and followers but is

more of a transactional approach as in Freud’s (1921) model in that the exchanges are based

praise or punishment for performance. Costs and benefits are essentially balanced in a healthy

leader follower relationship. In Thibaut and Kelley’s model there is balance when the reward for

both the leader and follower mutually offset the costs. When the relationship is no longer in

balance, either the leader or the follower is deriving more benefit than they paying in. Terms of

cost and then compensation needs to be made to restore the relationship to balance. If the state

of balance is neglected, the oppressed member will become dissatisfied and dissolve the

relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This concept promotes our understanding in a couple of

ways. First, this model stresses the importance of equality on the part of all participants. The

model demonstrates that it is not acceptable for a follower to simply be rewarded; their

compensation must be in line with the costs associated with their followership. This does not

mean they get the same level of compensation as the leader, though they may dependant on

circumstances. It simply means what they reap will be at least equal to what they sow. The

second important function of this model is that it emphasizes that followership is a choice. They

can enter into an agreement of social exchange or refuse based on the in-equality of the

exchange.

The concept of social exchange theory helps our understanding of the relationships

between individuals. The work of Hollander and Webb (1955), Thibaut and Kelley (1959), and

Homans (1961) offered discourse on applying social exchange theory to the context of

leadership. Their work is important as it is the first place where social exchange theory meets

the leader and the follower. This bridge opened the doors to a series of research that focused

exclusively on the exchanges between leader and follower.

Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-member exchange theory was developed in response to Average Leadership

Style, a bi-product of both The Ohio State Studies and The University of Michigan Studies

(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The average leader style approach focuses on the traits of the leader

and typical or average behaviors leader’s exhibit toward their subordinates (Stogdill, 1974). This

approach assumes that leaders use the same styles and behaviors with all subordinates and the

subordinates all have the same perception of the leader as well as the same reaction to the

motivational stimulus provided by the leader (Stogdill, 1974). Dansereau et al. (1975) argued

that leaders do not use an average leadership style but develop a different relationship with each

follower (Dansereau et al. 1975).

In an attempt to express this concept, Dansereau et al. (1975) defined each relationship as

a dyad of differing intensity. Bass (1990) explains, “The vertical dyad of boss and subordinate is

an interaction linkage of mutual influence. It emphasizes the relationship between the leader and

each individual follower, rather than the group as a whole” (p.48). The vertical dyad linkage

approach segregates these relationships, dyads, into two distinct categories, in-group and out-

group. In a later study, Graen et al. (1982) suggests that members of the in-group had high

negotiating latitude while out-group members had low negotiating latitude. Graen’s (1982)

intention was to explain in-group members had more input and influence over their role within

the organization than out-group members. As research efforts in vertical dyad linkage continued,

the terminology of in-group and out-group shifted to high quality exchanges and low quality

exchanges respectively. As with in-group from vertical dyads, high quality exchanges are defied

by high levels of trust, respect, and mutual obligations. Similarly, low quality exchanges are

defined by low levels of trust, respect, and mutual obligation. Vertical dyad linkage evolved into

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory to capture that element of exchange (Graen et al., 1982).

Since 1975, leader-member exchange has evolved in substance and application. While

the language used within the initial study has changed as well as the instrumentation, the central

concept remains. Leader-member exchange has been utilized extensively and applied to several

aspects of leadership studies. Schriesheim et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of research

that utilized leader-member exchange. This body of work detailed 147 studies that used

variations of LMX to quantify the leader-member exchanges in various settings and scenarios

(Schriesheim et al., 1999).

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) suggest that LMX theory falls into four distinct stages of

theory development. These stages act as a timeline of the evolving Leader-Member Exchange

theory. The first stage of theory development focused on the relationship between leader and

member as differentiated dyads. Graen (1976) used vertical linkage dyad theory to compare the

leader’s perception of exchanges between in-group and out-group members. This study found

members of the in-group were perceived to be more competent, had a higher level of

interpersonal skills, and were more trustworthy than members of the out-group. Schriesheim

(1980) found that leaders organized tasks and responsibilities, and paid consideration based on

in-group and out-group membership. Novak (1984) found that members of the in-group received

more job assistance, performance latitude, and loyalty from the leader based on in-group

membership. Findings from these studies suggest that each leader had their own subjective

perception of individuals. Previous research suggested that a leader treated all followers

identically; these researchers proved that this was not the case. In-group verses out-group status

provides a division between similarities within the responses, for example in-group responses

had similarities. The underlying concept at this stage was that in-group relationships, high-

quality exchanges, took time to develop and as a result few in-group relationships were formed

with one leader (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

The second stage of development is marked by the changes in language. Vertical Dyad

Linkage (VDL) came to be known as Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) because it more

accurately depicted the nature of the theory. The studies at this stage sought to take LMX

beyond the fact that different relationships exist in the workplace and attempted to explain how

these relationships were formed and the cause and effect nature of these relationships (Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995). This included work on dyadic role-making (Graen & Scandura, 1987), leader-

follower communication patterns (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989), and commitment to the

organization (Nystrom, 1990). These studies found high quality relationships to be influenced

by the behaviors of both the leader and the follower. Additionally, studies at this stage suggested

that high quality exchanges occur through a role making process. The common ground among

all of the research at this stage of theory development was the attention they paid to the outcome

of these relationships. The finding suggested that leaders who create and maintain high quality

exchanges have very positive outcomes, in a wide variety of contexts, for the followers, leaders,

and organization (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Following this vein, the third stage of development explores the frequency of high-

quality exchanges initiated and maintained by a leader. This marks the inception of Graen and

Uhl-Bien’s (1991) model of leader making which offers stages of development within the LMX

construct (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1993). According to this model leader-

member exchanges pass through three distinct levels in the leader-member developmental

process; stranger, acquaintance, and mature partnership. The process begins with the stranger

stage where leaders and followers hedge for roles within the relationship. Exchanges in this

stage are purely contractual or transactional in nature. The second level is that of acquaintance,

the relationship has an increased number of social exchanges not all of which are contractual.

The third level, mature partnership, exchanges are highly developed and practiced. The

exchanges in this level are not only behavioral but emotional. Mutual respect, trust, obligation,

and loyalty on both sides are indicators of a mature partnership (Duchon et al., 1986; Crouch &

Yetton, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991, 1995; Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1993). Studies on LMX in

this third stage of development found that not only did the quality of exchange greatly affect the

performance of the leader, follower, and organization but, the number of high-quality exchanges

a leader maintained greatly impacted the overall unit performance. These studies further suggest

that followers had begun to emulate the leader example and had begun to build high-quality

relationships amongst themselves, a precursor to the fourth stage of theory development, which

takes leader-member exchange theory beyond the confines of in-group and out-group and

provides the latitude to consider each relationship on an individualized basis (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995).

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) suggest the fourth and final stage of theory development is an

expansion of LMX that allows the consideration of the collaborative sum of leaders within an

organization. Research at this stage of development used LMX attempt to capture the whole of

an organization by viewing the exchanges not as independent dyads but rather as systems of

interdependent dyadic relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Research at this stage examined

relationships from a cross functional perspective, assessing relationships throughout the

organization and outside organizational boundaries such as customer, vendors, and stakeholders.

In 1984, Scandura and Graen (1984) developed Leader-Member Exchange 7. This

instrument was developed because it was much shorter in lengths, 22 questions versus 7, and

equally reliable as the original Leader-Member Exchange instrument (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

This instrument was selected for this study because it is a reliable means of examining the

exchanges between leader and follower. This study examines the perspective of the follower, in

addition to the follower’s perspective this researcher was interested in the leader perspective.

Leader-Member Exchange 7 is the only instrument measuring leader-member exchange that is

reliable for examining the leader’s perspective as well as the followers. This instrument has been

used extensively in leader-member exchange research and has a positive history of use.

According to Scandura (personal communication, June 13, 2010), author of Leader-Member

Exchange 7, the instrument is available for public use in basic research without copyright

infringement concerns.

This study examined the effect of a leader development intervention by asking leader

identified followers to assess leader behavior. Leader-member exchange had not previously

been used to assess the effect of leader development interventions. As leader development

interventions are intended to promote behavioral changes which equate to a higher degree of

leader effectiveness (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2003). Graen and Uhl-Bien suggested that high

quality leader-member exchanges are a determinant of leader effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995). Using leader-member exchange 7 to assess the effect of leader development intervention

is a logical application of this theory and instrument because it examines the exchanges that

derive leader effectiveness from a behavioral perspective.

Leader Development

Leadership development has been defined (see Appendix A) as expanding the collective

capacity of organizational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and processes

(McCauley et al., 1998). This definition considers the whole of the organization. Collective

capacity indicates that the grand sum of all capacities have developed or are perceived as being

able to be developed. The focus of this study was leader development, which has a similar but

different definition. Leader development is defined as the expansion of a person’s capacity to be

effective in leadership roles and processes (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). What separates

these two definitions are the scope of the development and the impact on the individual. The

leader development program that provides the context for this study focuses purely on the

individual participants.

As it is necessary to separate leader development from leadership development, it is also

necessary to separate leader development from manager development. Yukl and Lepsinger

(2005) explains that although there distinct similarities to between the two concepts and even

considerable redundancy between authors of leadership and management texts, the goals and

objectives of a leader and a manager are completely separate. Day and Harrison (2000) explain

that management development focuses acquiring knowledge, skills and abilities to improve task

performance. Day and Harrison (2000) points out that management development uses proven

solutions to known problems, which is why it is often called management training rather than

development (Day & Harrison, 2000). It is important to separate these two concepts because

they are not the same thing. An organization that hopes to improve their managers by sending

them to a leader development program might be disappointed, as well would an organization that

needs leader development and invests in manger training. Graen (2010) suggests that the biggest

problem organizations face in terms of leader development is the belief that all interventions are

the same and the idea that everyone in the organization needs to participate. High quality leader

development should correspond to the needs of both the individual and the organization itself

(Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). Money spent on leader development that does not match

the organizations strategic plan or are outside of the individuals interests are wasteful from an

economic standpoint (Graen, 2010).

Few things in life are possible without expense. Investment is assuredly a requirement

before any leader development program. Investment can take many forms, be it time or capital

expenditures. As a result, stakeholders are necessary in most leader development venture. Each

stake holder has a need they expect met or a role they must fill before, during, or after a leader

development intervention (Martineau & Hannum, 2004). For a program to truly be effective all

stakeholder must be identified and their needs must be acknowledged and satisfied (Martineau &

Hannum, 2004).

Martineau and Hannum (2004) identified stake holders as four distinct archetypes. The

first to be considered stake holders are those who have a vested interest in the leader

development program. This could include sponsors, executive management teams, or even the

organization that conducts and coordinates the program. The second category of stakeholder as

identified by Martineau and Hannum (2004) is anyone who has a vested interest in the

evaluation. Examples of these categories are program designers, program marketers, and

program staff who facilitate the programs. The third categories of stakeholders are the additional

people whose support is necessary for the success of the program. A supervisor that allows his

subordinates time to attend the program or a parent that grants permission to attend leader

development intervention, in the case of a minor, would fall into this category. The final category

of stake holder are those with decision make power with regard to the program. In an

organization this may be human resources or operations managers. In a school these may be

principals, chancellors, or president (Martineau & Hannum, 2004).

Each of these stakeholders has needs that should be considered before conducting the

intervention. Parties who have a vested interest in the program may expect participants to have

an enhanced leader skill set, or have fully developed emotionally intelligent behaviors (Day &

Harrison, 2000). These stakeholders need to know not only that there will be a return on their

investment, but when they can expect the return. It is for this reason that a thorough needs

assessment must be performed before the intervention starts (Martineau & Hannum, 2004).

Martineau and Hannum (2004) identifies for critical components for a needs assessment.

According to Martineau and Hannum (2004) it is essential that the needs assessment identifies

critical organizational challenges that are the root cause for the intervention. For example, a

leader with poor people skills may be asked to participate in a leader development program that

focuses on behaviors and teaches emotional intelligent communications. For a program to be

effective these needs must be communicated to the program designers (Martineau & Hannum,

2004). In a similar vein, if there are business challenges that have prompted the leader

development intervention they must be communicated as well. For example, if a participant is

going to be working on a new account in Asia, this needs to be forwarded to the program

designer as well. If these needs are communicated then the program designers can respond by

tailoring the program to fit these needs (Martineau & Hannum, 2004).

By communicating the needs the stakeholder is explaining what they expect for an

outcome. Expectation should be clearly defined by all parties. Martineau and Hannum (2004)

stress the importance of considering measureable outcomes of a program, desired level of

mastery and a timeline for development. By having a clearly defined set of measurable and

deliverables the program designers are given the chance to respond to the needs of the

stakeholders. This greatly improves the chances for a positive return on investment (Martineau

& Hannum, 2007)

Allen and Hartman (2008) contend effective leadership development is contingent on the

individual. Learning about leadership is very different from learning to lead and is the reason

many leader development programs are devoid of traditional leadership theories (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005). Part of the reason for this is that many of the popular, self-help style leadership

books, many of which are best sellers are written by experienced leaders and not researchers

(Riggio & Reichard, 2008). These authors have experienced leader development first hand and

their perceptions, represented in text, work their way into curriculum (Riggio & Reichard, 2008).

As Riggio and Reichard(2008) points out, the reason for this is that the people who buy these

self-help leadership books are not interested in the theory but, rather in the practitioners view.

According to Allen and Hartman (2008), effective leadership development is dependent

on individual learning styles, organizational roles and experiences, and self-efficacy. Van

Velsor, Moxley, and Bunker (2004) believe that effective leader development is only possible

when participants step out of their comfort zones. People like things they can count on; trying

new things requires accepting the possibility of a negative outcome. Significant learning is

unlikely to occur with only positive outcomes, activities with negative outcomes are usually the

best teachers (Van Velsor, Moxley, & Bunker, 2004).

Attitude of the participant prior to and during an intervention plays heavily on the

outcome of the program (Pernick, 2001). Pernick (2001) contends that participants with a

positive state of mind, who are willing to be open to new concepts, and who willing to see

weaknesses in their own current practices will receive a higher positive impact from the

intervention. Pernick (2001) recommends investing in leaders who have the potential to develop

by assessing learning potential. Participants who are goal driven and have the desire to

participate will be successful participants. On the contrary, participants that feel forced to

participate or have a closed mind will struggle and could potentially have a negative effect on

other participants (Pernick, 2001). Riggio and Reichard (2008) suggest that some individuals are

good students and make an earnest attempt at learning, while others believe leadership is

something you either have or do not have. This perception causes individuals to fall off the

leadership bandwagon (Riggio & Reichard, 2008). Van Velsor, Moxley, and Bunker (2004)

note, people learn in different ways at different stages of their lives. It then becomes challenging

to develop a program to suit the learning styles and mind-sets of all of the participants.

One challenge that faces the leader development field is there is no theory or model of

leadership development (Day & Harrison, 2007). This results in a multitude of organizations

attempting to meet the expectation of their clientele without a standard. Some leadership

development programs focus on homogenized lists of traits, styles, and skills and deliver

programs that are of some value to some of the participants, while other programs attempt to

tailor the curriculum to the needs of the individual (Riggio, 2008). The leader development

program at the center of the study uses personal values and vision, coupled with the continually

stressing the importance of integrity as behavioral change stimulus.

The very existence of the leadership industry is proof positive that leader and the

organizations they lead believe in leadership and the development of human capital (Riggio,

2008). These individuals and the organizations they represent are the stakeholders, they make

the investment and they expect return. In this context, the organization itself has needs, one of

which is the development of organizational member’s leadership potential. Behavioral leader

development programs effectiveness hinge on changes in behavior (McCauley & Van Velsor,

2004). Again, there is not a set method of producing this desired result nor is there an agreed

upon method for evaluation.

Leader Development Evaluation

The desired result of any leader development program is to do just that, develop leaders.

To what extent of development and for what purpose will define whether a program is effective.

These confines can only be determined by stakeholders (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006).

The Center for Creative Leadership identifies basic steps of program evaluation. At the top of

their list is the identification of stakeholders. As the previous section stakeholder play a major

role in determining not only how or what should be measured, also what defines effectiveness.

The reality, no matter the strength of the program, unless the stakeholders buy into the program

itself, expected outcomes, and method of evaluation the stakeholders will not fully realize the

return on their investment (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006).

The Center for Creative Leadership identifies the need to clearly articulate the program,

the methods, and the evaluation. This includes the expected level of impact and the projected

timeline (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). The reasoning for this is simple, once the data

has been collected and analyzed it will be shared with the stakeholders who are expecting some

initial return on their investment. By clearly stating what changes to expect and when they

would be expected to be fully actualized, the stakeholders not only know what to expect but

when to expect it (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). The methods being used to evaluate

the program need to be clearly defined. This includes a full disclosure of the questions being

asked, the instruments being used, and the methods being used to analyze the collected data

(Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). These simple steps act as guidelines for evaluation

planning, but they also provide some good advice. The more open and honest you are with the

stakeholders the fewer negative reaction there will be.

The instruments used in evaluating a leadership development program play a key role in

the actual value of the evaluation. Poorly constructed tools can only provide poor information

even if the results are positive. Creswell (2003) stresses the importance of using instruments that

are reliable with regard to internal consistency and test-retest correlation. Creswell (2003) also

stresses the importance of choosing or constructing instruments that are actually providing the

information required for the evaluation (Creswell, 2003). Craig (2006) recommends using

existing instruments with established, well researched psychometric characteristics for evaluation

of behavioral components. Craig (2006) suggests using instruments that have high level of

internal consistency, Cronbach’s alphas of .70 or higher. Both Creswell (2003) and Craig (2006)

emphasize the importance of choosing an instrument that is valid, is intended to measure

behaviors in the context of the evaluation.

The essence of leader development focuses on the individual leader and increasing their

capacity to lead (Day & Harrison, 2000). Organizations have a vested interest in the growth and

potential of these individuals (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). Few organizations are

willing to make this investment without understanding what to expect in return (Hannum,

Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). It is in the best interest of the organizations that prepare and

deliver leader development interventions to use instrumentation that is valid and reliable as poor

quality instrumentation is likely to provide poor quality feedback, even if it is positive (Hannum,

Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). This information needs to be shared with the organizations that

make the investment (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006).

Followers take center stage in this study as it is their perception of the leader behavior

that determines the effectiveness of their leadership. The role of the follower in the leader

follower relationship is not a new development (Carsten et al., 2010). Researchers in the

behavioral sciences were the first to consider followership as a derivative of social exchange

theory (Freud, 1921, 1923; Hollander, 1955; Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley 1959). These

researchers found the follower defines the leader follower relationship and the extent of

followership. Social exchange theory paved a path for Leader-Member Exchange theory. This

theory explains that followers not only determine the extent of followership, but the effectiveness

of the leader as well (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leader behaviors and conversely, follower

response are determining factors in determining the quality of exchanges and in the end the

effectiveness of the leader (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Behavior based leader development interventions are designed to help participants

recognize when change is necessary (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). Programs that

focus improving interpersonal skills, emotional skill, and general communication skills are

intended to persuade participant to change behaviors (Riggio & Lee, 2007). Despite the

popularity of these programs there is no model to draw from (Day & Harrison, 2000). This has

resulted in multiple approaches to training and evaluation.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of leader development from the

perspective of the follower over time. The construct of this review of literature follow a logical

process. This study is as much about followers as it is about leaders and leadership. The data

collected as part of this study consists wholly of the perceptions of the followers. In order to

understand followers and followership it is critical to attend to the dynamic that exists between

individuals, both leaders and followers. This dynamic is rooted in the behavioral sciences.

Researchers from the behavioral sciences indicate the relationship between leaders and followers

can be distilled to individual exchanges (Hollander & Webb, 1955; Hollander, 1992, Homans

1961, 1973; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This concept provides the groundwork for Leader-

Member exchange theory which further refines and quantifies these exchanges. Behavioral

science researchers concluded that followers determine the extent of the followership (Homans,

1961). Researchers exploring leader-member exchange furthered this statement by asserting that

followers define the effectiveness of the leader (Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995).

As this study contends with leader development intervention and the evaluation of an

intervention literature pertaining to leader development and leader development intervention

evaluation was included in the review of literature. In this study leader-member exchange was

used to assess the perspective of followers whose representative leader participated in a leader

development intervention. The actual method of study used in this study can be found in the

chapter 3, the following chapter.

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

This study was conducted to understand the effect a leader development intervention had

on participants as measured through the follower’s perspective over time. The central research

question was; do leader development programs effect participant behaviors promoting changes

that positively contribute to leader-member exchange? Thirty-eight leaders were studied from

the follower’s perspective in four time periods over a two year period. Leader-Member

Exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) was used to evaluate the follower’s view of the leader.

This instrument was chosen because has a high degree of reliability (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell,

1993) and because it is the most appropriate and recommended measure of leader-member

exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and because it is widely used instrument in the field of

leader-member exchange research (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Leader-member exchange theory suggests that high quality leader-member exchanges

relates to higher levels of leader effectiveness and can result in improved organizational

effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As leader behavior improves so does the quality of

exchanges between the leader and follower. Positive behavioral changes leading to increased

leader-member exchanges as noted by the follower serve as an indication that the leader

development intervention has had a positive effect on the leadership of the participants.

This study paid consideration to time by assessing the effect of a leader development

program in four time periods. The first time period represents follower responses within one

month of the leader participating in a leader development intervention. This data will act as a

baseline for comparison to the remaining three time periods. The second time period represents

follower responses taken six months after the leader has participated in a leader development

intervention. The third time period take into consideration follower responses taken one year

after participation and the fourth time period will be collected two years after the leader’s

participation.

The first five hypotheses examine how time effects leader-member exchanges over time.

The data needed to support this question will come from all four individual time periods of data

collection, results from hypothesis one through four. Leader-Member Exchange 7 had seven

questions; the aggregate score provided an insight to the overall quality of exchanges. By

comparing the average overall score with the average score from each time period a

determination of whether followers do or do not perceive leader development interventions effect

participant behaviors over time. Hypotheses six through twelve examined the responses to each

of the seven LMX- 7 questions with respect for time. The average score for each question from

the instrument was compared from each of the representative time periods. This method was

used to identify any correlation between individual questions and time.

Data Collection

The data collected as part of this study follows process that is similar to a chain letter.

Participant of a leader development intervention were sent an e-mail message inviting them to

participate in the study. This message contained a link to Surveymonkey.com, the internet based

survey collection site used in this study. Following the link took the participant to a page that

offered full disclosure of the details and risks associated with this study (see Appendix C). This

page included check box that asked if the potential participant was 19 years old, a survey

question indicating when the participant attended the leadership intervention and a text box for

the participants name. As the informed consent section of the survey explains, individuals who

enter their name in the text box in the text box they are granting informed consent and agreeing

to participate in this study. The following pages of the survey contain sections that pertained to

their perspective on the leader development intervention they had participated and a copy of

Leader-Member Exchange 7. After completing the survey they were instructed to forward a

letter of invitation, with surveymonkey link embedded, to five individuals they considered to be

a follower or constituent of theirs.

Collecting the follower’s response used a very similar process. Initially they received an

e-mail message that introduced them to the study. This message had a link imbedded that would

direct the follower’s to the surveymonkey site where the survey was administered. The first page

of the survey, like the leaders survey, contained full disclosure of the details of the study. This

page also had a check box indicating that the participants were 19 years of age and had a text box

for the participant’s name. By entering their name the followers indicated that informed consent

had been granted. The second section contained a brief questionnaire that asked questions

pertaining to their relationship with the leader who provided the survey link. The final section of

the follower survey only contained a copy of leader-member-exchange 7. Examples of the

leader and follower survey can be reviewed in Appendices D and E.

Asking participant of the leader development intervention to participant in the study and

then to forward an e-mail to individuals they consider followers has the potential for negative

ramifications. The subordinate tone of the word follower could have potentially caused insult.

This risk was carefully considered by the researcher. This process was reviewed in depth by

institutional review boards from Marian University and the university sponsoring the

intervention as well as the site coordinator for the leader development intervention. All parties

involved recognized this risk and decided the labeling of follower would have no long term

effect on the participants or followers.

Sample Design

The participant, leader, populations for this study were students at a mid-west post

secondary university, who voluntarily participated in a leader development intervention. The

organization that designed and delivered the leader development intervention is a non-profit

organization with 25 years experience in delivering behavior based leader development

interventions with leaders in the traditional college age group. The majority of the participants

were engineering and technology majors. The population of leader development intervention

participants will be derived from three different institutes. Participants who responded within

one month after participation and six months after participation attended the institute in 2009.

While participant from the 2008 institute will respond on year after participation and participant

from the 2007 institute responded two years after participation.

The subjects of this study were followers as identified by participants. The sample size

was determined by the participants and their respective follower’s consent to participate in the

study. All available participants were asked to participate in this study and nominate five

followers. It is expected that the number of available participants will grow increasingly smaller

from the 2009 institute to the 2007 institute. The explanation for this is attrition, many

participants graduate within six months after participation. As student e-mail accounts remain

current a full two years after graduation it is unknown if the all of the potential leader

development intervention participants received the original letter of invitation.

Research Instrument

Leader-member exchange has been defined as the process of how leaders develop

different exchanges with followers over time with different followers (Graen & Cashman, 1975;

Yukl, 2002). Scandura & Graen (1984) originally created Leader-Member Exchange 7 as an

instrument to measure the quality of exchanges between middle managers and subordinates

within the department. A considerable amount of work has been done to develop and refine

LMX 7 (Gerstner & Day, 1997). This instrument has been used extensively in a variety of

applications and is considered to be reliable and valid (Schriesheim et al., 1999). While there are

many variations of LMX instruments available (Schriesheim et al., 1999), Graen and Uhl-Bien

(1995) endorse LMX 7 as the standard measure of leader-member exchange. Additionally,

Gerstner and Day (1997) acknowledge LMX-7 as the most widely used instrument used by

researchers to determine the quality of leader-member exchanges.

Scandura & Graen (1984) initially tested Leader-Member Exchange 7 in comparison with

a multitude of variables including, hours of work, social comparison, leader-follow attention

behaviors, and job performance evaluation. For each of these comparisons Cronbach’s alphas

were found to range between .79 and .94. The authors did not report alphas for each individual

question or for the entire instrument (Scandura & Graen, 1984). Dienesch and Liden (1986)

have suggested that LMX is comprised of three dimensions independent dimensions; respect,

trust, and obligation. As a result of the independent nature of each of these dimensions

independent instruments need to be developed to adequately quantify LMX (Dienesch & Liden,

1986). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that the dimensions of LMX are highly interrelated and

as a result a single factor instrument is still preferable. Gerstner and Day (1997) tested this

suggestion and found the hypothesized dimensions of LMX collapsed into a single dimension,

with Cronbach alpha consistently in the .80 - .90. Across 28 studies using LMX 7 Gerstner and

Day (1997) found the average weighted mean of Cronbach’s alphas to be .89. However,

Gerstner and Day (1997) do point out that LMX 7 is not as reliable for leader-self assessment

and suggest the instrument be used from the followers perspective until further refinements are

made to the instrument (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

The construct of LMX 7 is seven questions which are designed to be responded to using a

five point Likert scale. The procedure for analysis of LMX-7 is to add the scores for each

question find the total sum of all questions. Scandura & Graen (1984) suggest using the

following scale for assessment of Leader-Member Exchange 7:

• A total sum of 30-35 indicates a very high level of exchange

• 25-29 indicates a high level of exchange

• 20-24 indicates a moderate level of exchange

• 15-19 signifies a low level of exchange

• 7-14 reveals a very low level of exchange

To avoid complete alienation of the work of Dansereau et al. (1975), scores in the

higher range indicate stronger, higher levels of exchanges that would exist with in-group

members. While lower score would be indicative of weak, low quality exchanges that would be

typically found with out-group members (Northouse, 2004). A copy of Leader-Member

Exchange 7 is found in Appendix F.

Data Analysis

After data collection with surveymonkey, data was exported in excel format and saved on

the local hard drive in the office of the researcher. At this point all names were removed from

the data as per IRB requirement. From this location the data was sorted by time period and

entered into SPSS version 16.0 for analysis. All raw data, analysis and reports were stored in

this location.

The data procured in this study was analyzed following two separate methods.

Hypothesis one through five offers a comparison of descriptive statistics. Hypothesis one

examines the aggregate Leader-Member Exchange 7 scores after a period of one month. This

sample will act as a baseline for comparison with the data collected for hypothesis two through

four, six months, one year, and two year age classes respectively. The central research question

from these first five hypotheses is; Do leader development programs affect participants

behaviors, promoting positive change that positively contribute to leader-member exchange.

Leader-Member Exchange 7 uses the responses from seven questions to determine the

quality of exchanges between leader’s and follower’s. Hypotheses six through twelve will

examine the responses to each individual question from each representative time period.

Descriptive Statistical analysis allowed samples to be examined and provide holistic view of the

distribution. This included measures of central tendencies, mean, median and mode. Modal

analysis, analysis by scoring overall leader-member was based on the most frequent response,

was used because it offers a different perspective of the data set. Due to the fact that the sample

sizes were small, variation could have an even more pronounced effect on mean values. For this

reason both standard deviation and variance was included in the analysis. Additionally,

distribution skewness and kurtosis was be paid due diligence as these conditions could indicate

abnormal distribution with assignable cause.

Through the course of analysis it became apparent that some of the responses may have

had the possibility of being biased due to the relationship between leader and follower. There is

the potential that good friends may have an obscured view of leader-member exchange. A

correlation analysis was performed indicating there was a relationship between potency of

relationship and the level of leader-member exchange. Also, in one case one of the respondents

indicated he did not even know his leader. This data depicts a relationship that is non-existent;

as a result a post-hoc assessment was conducted to understand the effect of the potential bias.

Post-hoc Data Analysis

Post-hoc filtering of the data to exclude “good friend” and “stranger” removes any

potential bias based on pre-existing relationship that could be considered to be outside of the

realm of leader-follower relationship. This was necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the data

represented in this study, but it does come at a cost. The largest limitation of this study was the

sample size. From the 164 individuals who participated in the leader development intervention

from 2007 to 2009 only 45 agree to participate in the study (27.4%). While this is an acceptable

response rate what follows is troubling. Each of the 164 individuals who participated in the

intervention were asked to nominate five individuals who they considered to be a follower. It is

assumed that this actually took place, which would mean the total possible number of

respondents would have been 820. From this population only 49 agreed to participate in the

study (5.9%). After post-hoc filtering of the data this number was reduced to 30 (4.8%).

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to provide the reader with an explanation of the methods

of research used in this study. Individuals who participated in a leader development intervention

in 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively were asked to consent to participate in this study. Upon

consenting to participate in this study, these individuals were asked to complete Leader-Member

Exchange 7 survey, the standard research instrument used to quantify the quality of exchanges

between leader and follower. The participant were then asked to identify five individuals the

considered to be followers or constituents and forward and e-mail inviting the followers to

participate in this study. These followers or constituents were also asked to consent to

participation in this study and complete Leader-Member Exchange 7 as well. The responses to

these questionnaires were grouped by age class, defined by the date of the leader participation,

for comparison of aggregate leader-member exchange score for each time period. Comparison

of each aggregate score determined if there was a correlation between participation and time.

Data was collected through the use of the surveymonkey internet site and then exported

into an excel spreadsheet. SPSS version 16.0 was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics

were utilized to determine the aggregate leader-member scores for each representative time

period. Post-hoc assessment was performed to remove followers responses who indicated they

were “good friends” with their leader and one the response from one individual who indicated he

was a “stranger” to the leader and did not even know the leader.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This chapter analyzes data collected to answer the question, do leader development

programs effect participant’s behaviors, promoting changes that positively contribute to leader-

member exchanges? The data collected as part of this study were survey responses collected

from both individuals who participated in a leader development intervention and individuals

identified as followers or constituents of the intervention participants. This study was comprised

to responses from two different types of individuals, leaders and followers. The leaders, leader

development intervention participants, had attended an intensive 6 day leader development

intervention in 2007, 2008, or 2009. The followers identified by intervention participants were

asked to rate their leadership behaviors in this longitudinal study.

Participant Demographics

The leaders, leader development intervention participants, were all students at post-

secondary institution, located in rural upper Michigan. This university is a research based

university with a strong reputation of engineering and technology students, 81% of the subjects

who participated in this study are engineering or technology majors. According to the site

coordinator for this leader development intervention, this university has been a sponsor of

LeaderShape since 1996 and offers the program to 50 to 55 students each year (Bergeron,

personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009). Each year approximately ninety students complete

applications to participate in LeaderShape. Applications are reviewed by site coordinators and

selection is based on criteria such as grade point, organizational involvement, and world vision

(Bergeron, personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009). Despite campus wide male to female

ratios being predominately male (78%), an attempt is made to find balance between men and

women in the selection process (Bergeron, personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009). The

participants in the 2008 institute were comprised of 24 females and 28 males with 52 of 54 being

undergraduate students between 18-23 years of age and 2 were graduate students 37 and 43 years

of age. The demographics from each institute vary slightly, but the essential construct remains

consistent.

Table 1

Demographics By Year Class Of Leader Participation

Year Class Male Female Engineering or

Technology Majors

Undergraduate (18-23 years of age)

2007 29 24 79.2%

2008 28 24 82.6%

2009 31 22 81.5%

Graduate (23 years of age & older)

2007 3 0 100%

2008 2 0 100%

2009 0 1 100%

Total 93 71 81.7%

Sample

The determination of sample size used in this study was determined following a

methodology not found in traditional models of research statistics. What separated this study

from traditional models is that the sample size was first dependant on the participant consent to

participate in the study and then on the follower’s consent. Because participation of the subject,

follower’s, was contingent on the consent to participate in the study by the leader, individual

who actually participated in the leader development intervention, a sample size based on

statistical models following confidence levels did not apply to this study.

Individuals who participated in the leader development intervention are college students

who attended this program at varying points of their academic career. The result is that it is

expected that fewer participants would be available to participate in this study based on attrition

caused by graduation or changes in enrollment. As the researcher had no contact with potential

study participant it is unknown the effect this had on the sample size. As the data from

participant of the 2009 intervention was collected during 2009 it is expected that all participant

from the one month and six months time period would be able to consider participating in this

study.

Data Collection Process

The original plan for this study was simple, straight forward, but unfortunately generated

very low response rates. Additionally, the sponsor of the institute had a change of heart

regarding data collection and pre intervention could not be collected. The plan was to provide

each participant with an envelope that contained a letter explaining the study with full disclosure

of all aspects of the study. Each envelope contained five additional letters, to be forwarded to

five individuals the participants considered to be followers or constituents. The letter to the

followers also contained the aforementioned disclosure items and a link to the follower survey on

surveymonkey site. Examples of letters of invitation to both leaders and follower’s can be

referenced in Appendices G and H respectively. This took place on the last day of the 2009

LeaderShape institute, where LeaderShape faculty and staff were kind enough to provide time

for the researcher to personally explain the study and present the participants with the envelopes.

At the time it appeared the study was well received by the participants that appearance changed

as time passed. One month after delivering the envelopes there was a very low response rate as

only 3.7% (10/270) of the followers had responded. Fortunately, ten followers responded within

a month after LeaderShape, ten responses from only four participants (4/54).

The low response rate served as a message, something in the study was dissuading

participation. Two root causes were identified as possible causes for this; excessive disclosure

and informed consent may have caused some initial fear and a lengthy URL that needed to be

typed in to a web browser. Hindsight had also disclosed a missed opportunity on the part of the

researcher. The initial methodology had disregarded the perception of the participants

themselves. The study was redesigned and modified substantially. Surveys were distributed via

e-mail invitation sent to potential participants (See Appendix G). The e-mail contained a letter

of invitation and a link to be forwarded to five individuals they considered followers or

constituent. The survey itself was reformatted to include an opening page that offered full

disclosure and a text box to obtain informed consent (see Appendix H). Additionally, the URL

to the survey was reformatted and shortened using tinyurl.com. This proved to be much cleaner,

less intimidating, and provided fewer opportunities for typing errors while entering the URL.

After taking the survey the leaders simply forwarded a letter of invitation to five individual they

identified as followers or constituents. Additionally, all participants were eligible for a $100.00

cash prize that was to be drawn after data collection was complete. The response rate for the

leaders increased to 25.9% (14/54) and 8.8% (24/270) for followers. In the researchers opinion,

the improvement in response rate was an indication that college students today handle very little

actual paper and this method was more to their liking because it required much less time and

commitment on their part. This method also negated face to face interaction, which could

provided grounds for conflict due to the fact that the participants were labeling the potential

subjects as followers. It is very plausible that a young leader would be less willing to meet face

to face with someone and hand them an envelope that identified them as a follower rather than a

simply forwarding an email.

Table 2

Leader and Follower Response Rates Per Time Period

Leader response rate Follower response rate

Time Period n/N % n/N %

1 month 4/54 7.4 % 10/270 3.7 %

6 months 14/54 25.9 % 24/270 8.8 %

12 months 16/55 29.1 % 10/275 3.6 %

24 months 11/55 20.0 % 5/275 1.8 %

Sample 45/164 27.4 % 49/820 5.9 %

Realizing the relative success of this method the same method was used for leaders who

attended LeaderShape in January of 2007 and 2008, 12 month and 24 month time periods. This

method provided similar response rates, leader from the 2008 institute showed a 29.1% (16/55)

response rate with 3.6% (10/275) response rate from followers. The participants from 2007

responded at a rate of 20% (11/55) with a 1.8% (5/275) response rate from the followers. The

lower response rate from 2007 is expected as some of these participants had graduated or are no

longer enrolled at sponsoring university. Total population response rates, across all three year

classes were 27.4% (45/164) for leaders and 5.9% (49/820) for followers, provided that all

participants forwarded the email to five followers.

Instrument

Gerstner and Day (1997) tested this suggestion and found the hypothesized dimensions of

LMX collapsed into a single dimension, with Cronbach alpha consistently in the .80 - .90.

Across 28 studies using LMX 7 Gerstner and Day (1997) found the average weighted mean of

Cronbach’s alphas to be .89. As part of this data analysis Cronbach’s alphas were derived for

each individual question as well as cumulatively.

Table 3

Cronbach’s Alpha by Question

LMX-7

Question Follower Alpha Leader Alpha

Q1 .79 .68

Q2 .87 .89

Q3 .91 .82

Q4 .92 .84

Q5 .87 .79

Q6 .84 .86

Q7 .91 .87

Q1-7 .89 .82

Hypotheses Tests

The following section details the result from each hypothesis test preformed as part of

this study. The method of analysis is straight forward; descriptive statistical analysis was

conducted for each hypothesis. The criterion for hypothesis support was a progressively

increasing trend in aggregate mean leader-member exchange scores. Populations that exhibit

this trend were deemed supported as the hypothesis was supported by the data collected.

Hypotheses which did not exhibit this trend were not validated because the data could not

support the hypothesis.

H1: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as

measured by LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders a month after the leader

attended a leader development intervention as compared to pre-intervention survey

data.

The research design for testing hypothesis one was to collect survey data prior to the

intervention and one month after the leader’s participation. Comparison between these two data

sets would provide an indication if the follows did perceive an increased level of leader-member

exchange one month after the leader participated in the intervention as measured by Leader-

Member Exchange 7. The analysis of H1 evaluated if follower’s perceived a positive change in

leader-member exchange one month after participation. This comparison required pre-

assessment data to be collected. Through verbal agreement the sponsor of the leader

development intervention had allowed this data to be collected. Days before this data was to be

collected, the researcher was informed that actually collecting this data would not be allowed for

two reasons. First, a defined list of participants could not be determined until the beginning of

the institute. The second reason this data was not collected was that the sponsor felt that data

collection would interfere with the institute itself. As a result of this denial of access pre-

intervention data could not be collected. This had a drastic effect on this study because

hypothesis one could not be tested. While this did significantly alter the research design, it did

provide an opportunity for future research. For the purpose of this study data collected after one

month will serve as a baseline for the remainder of this study.

Table 4

Follower Rated Leader Member Exchange One Month After Participation n=10

Instrument

Question M Mdn Mode SD v skewness kurtosis min max

Q1 3.80 4.00 3.00 0.79 0.62 0.41 -1.07 3.00 5.00

Q2 3.30 3.00 3.00 0.48 0.23 1.04 -1.22 3.00 4.00

Q3 3.50 3.00 3.00 0.71 0.50 1.18 0.57 3.00 5.00

Q4 3.20 3.00 2.00 1.03 1.07 0.27 -0.90 2.00 5.00

Q5 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.05 1.11 0.71 -0.45 2.00 5.00

Q6 3.40 3.50 4.00 0.70 0.49 -0.78 -0.15 2.00 4.00

Q7 2.90 3.00 3.00 0.57 0.32 -0.09 1.50 2.00 4.00

Total 23.10 23.00 20.00 3.18 10.10 0.04 -0.83 18.00 28.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

This data set is normal distributed with a high value of 28 and a low of 18. The mean

response is at 23.10 while the mode sits at 23 based on frequency of response. The sample has

little variation with standard deviation values less than one with the exception of questions four

and five whose values are 1.03 and 1.05 respectively. This hypothesis was not tested due to data

being unavailable to the researcher.

H2: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured

by LMX-7 aggregated score with leaders six months after the leader attended a

leader development intervention.

The data was comprised of responses from followers whose leader participated in a

leadership development intervention six months prior to their response. This data will be

analyzed using descriptive statistics to valuate data by itself, additionally a comparative analysis

will conducted to see if there is any correlation between the one month class and the six month

class.

Table 5

Follower Rated Leader Member Exchange at Six Months After Participation n=24

Instrument

Question M Mdn mode SD v skewness kurtosis min max

Q1 4.14 4.00 4.00 0.77 0.59 -0.26 -1.12 3.00 5.00

Q2 3.14 3.00 3.00 0.66 0.44 1.70 5.12 2.00 5.00

Q3 3.93 4.00 3.00 0.83 0.68 0.15 -1.51 3.00 5.00

Q4 3.50 3.00 3.00 0.85 0.73 0.43 -0.20 2.00 5.00

Q5 2.71 3.00 3.00 1.20 1.45 0.03 -0.40 1.00 5.00

Q6 3.86 4.00 4.00 0.66 0.44 0.15 -0.31 3.00 5.00

Q7 3.71 4.00 4.00 0.83 0.68 -0.33 0.16 2.00 5.00

Total 25.00 24.50 2 4.00 4.49 20.15 0.81 0.87 7.00 335.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

This data set for H2 shows fairly normal distribution with the exception of question 2

which has a high kurtosis value. The cause of this condition is that 78% (11/14) of the

respondents gave the same response to this question causing the distribution to peak rather than

resemble a normal curve. The total leader-member exchange score ranged from 18 to 35 with an

average of 25. This analysis shows a considerable increase in leader-member exchanges as

compared to the one month data, from an average of 23.10 to 25.0. This does provide a

confirmation of H2 because the followers do in fact perceive an increase in the level of leader-

member exchanges six months after the leader has participated in a leader development

intervention. Additionally, modal analysis indicates that the average leader-member exchange,

based off the most frequently given response, is 24. The presence of a 35, maximum possible

leader-member exchange score, and a high variance value for the data set raises questions about

the pre-existing relationship between the leader and the follower. This potential bias is

considered in detail in the post hoc analysis section of this chapter. Hypothesis two is supported

by data because leader-member exchange values did increase from the one month to the six

month populations, accept H2.

H3: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured

by LMX-7 aggregate score with leaders one year after the leader attended a leader

development intervention.

Hypothesis three was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis followed by a

comparison between six month and twelve month data sets. The data for this hypothesis comes

from followers whose leader participated in a leader development intervention twelve months

prior to survey response.

Table 6

Follower Rated Leader-Member Exchange at Twelve Months n=10

Instrument

Questions M Mdn mode SD v skewness kurtosis min max

Q1 3.44 3.00 3.00 0.73 0.53 1.50 1.47 3.00 5.00

Q2 3.22 3.00 4.00 0.83 0.69 -0.50 -1.28 2.00 4.00

Q3 3.33 3.00 3.00 1.22 1.50 -0.29 0.83 1.00 5.00

Q4 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.12 1.25 0.69 -0.80 2.00 5.00

Q5 2.78 3.00 3.00 0.67 0.44 0.25 -0.40 2.00 4.00

Q6 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 4.00 3.00 5.00

Q7 3.56 3.00 3.00 0.73 0.53 1.01 0.19 3.00 5.00

Total 23.3 23.3 22.00 5.8 5.19 1.24 2.02 16.0 32.0

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

Analysis of the descriptive data shows a high of 32 and a low of 18 leader-member

exchange value and 23.3 for the mean value. This clearly does not support this hypothesis as it

indicates the quality of relationship between leaders and followers has decreased over time.

Modal analysis was used to examine the value of leader-member exchange based on the most

frequent responses. The modal leader-member exchange for this hypothesis was 22, an even

lower score than the mean value. The results from H3 do not indicate any increase in the quality

of leader-member exchange; in fact these results show the opposite trend. The average quality of

leader-member exchanges actually are diminished from six months to one year time period. H3

is not supported by the data as it indicates a decrease in aggregate lead-member exchange value

from the six month time period versus the 12 month sample population. H3 is rejected.

H4: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured

by LMX-7 aggregate score with leaders two years after the leader attended a leader

development intervention

Hypothesis four paid consideration to follower responses a full two years after their

respective leader attended a leader development intervention. As with the three previous

hypotheses, H4 was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Table 7

Follower Rated leader-member exchange score Two Years After Participation n=5

Instrument

Questions M Mdn mode SD v skewness kurtosis min max

Q1 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.58 2.50 0.00 -1.20 1.00 5.00

Q2 2.60 3.00 3.00 1.14 1.3 -.41 -0.18 1.00 4.00

Q3 2.60 2.00 2.00 1.34 1.80 .16 -2.40 1.00 4.00

Q4 2.80 3.00 4.00 1.30 1.70 -0.54 -1.48 1.00 4.00

Q5 2.60 3.00 3.00 0.89 0.80 -2.24 5.00 1.00 3.00

Q6 2.80 3.00 3.00 1.09 1.20 -1.29 2.91 1.00 4.00

Q7 3.20 3.00 3.00 0.44 0.20 2.23 5.00 3.00 4.00

Total 19.6 20.00 19.00 7.78 9.5 -2.09 7.65 9.00 28.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

This sample had a high of 27 and a low of 9 with a mean leader-member exchange value

of 19.6. A leader-member exchange value of nine is extremely low as 7 is the lowest possible

score. This response was given by an individual who indicated they did not even know the

leader. This prompted a post-hoc analysis; findings from this analysis are detailed in the post-

hoc section. Modal average was 20.0 and the distribution was fairly normal and not severely

skewed. High kurtosis was found in question five caused by binomial distribution, two

respondents selected 2 and three respondents selected 4. H4 is not supported as it indicates a

decrease in aggregate lead-member exchange value from the twelve month time period versus

the twenty four month sample population. This data does not provide any indication the leader-

member exchange increased over a two year period of time. As a result, H4 was not supported

by the data and was rejected.

H5: Followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured

by aggregate leader-member exchange scores with leaders after they have attended

a leader development intervention.

The purpose of this hypothesis was to determine if the data collected from each

representative time periods show any apparent trends that indicate that followers do in fact

perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as time passes. As a point of clarity,

time in months as it appears in Table 7 represents the number of months between the leader’s

participation in a leader development intervention and the followers responded to the survey.

Table 8

Follower Rated Aggregate Leader-Member Exchange Across Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v skewness kurtosis min max

1 23.10 23.00 20.00 3.18 10.10 0.04 -0.83 18.00 28.0

6 25.00 24.50 24.00 4.49 20.15 0.81 0.87 17.00 35.0

12 23.33 23.33 22.00 4.06 16.50 1.24 2.02 18.00 32.0

24 22.23 21.50 20.00 3.40 11.58 1.20 1.98 19.00 27.0

Averages 23.42 23.08 21.50 3.78 14.58 .82 1.01 17.00 35.0

Note: Summary of data reported in Tables 3 through 7

The aggregate summary of the data collected in H1 through H5 were expected to show

positive growth in leader-member exchange over time from the perception of the follower. As

seen in the analysis of each hypothesis this was clearly not the case, with the exception the trend

between 1 months and six months data points, trends exhibited show quite the opposite trend.

Tables 3 through 6 show the data falls within 22.23 to 25.00 range regardless of time. The only

trend present in this data is the drastic increase between the one month and six month data sets

and the following consecutive decrease. With the exception of data collected from one month

and six month time periods, the data across all four time periods does not indicate the follower’s

perceive an increased level leader-member exchange over time. As a result this H5 is not

supported by the data, H5 is rejected.

Hypotheses Six Through Twelve.

The remaining seven hypotheses all correspond to individual Leader-Member Exchange

7 questions analyzed by question over time. The purpose of this analysis was to further examine

the relationship between leader and follower and see how the aggregate score changes on a

question by question basis. Each time period was compared to the descriptive statistics from the

entire population.

H6: Followers completing the LMX-7 assessment give a progressive increase rating

in their ability to know how satisfied their leader is with what they do, one month,

six months, one year, and two years after the leader participated in a leader

development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #1: Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you know

how usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? (Scandura & Graen,

1984)

Table 9

LMX- 7 Question One Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.80 4.00 3.00 0.79 0.62 3.00 5.00

6 months 4.19 4.00 4.00 0.77 0.55 3.00 5.00

12 months 3.44 3.00 3.00 0.72 0.17 3.00 5.00

24 months 3.00 3.50 NA 1.58 1.67 2.00 5.00

Total 3.71 3.5 3.00 1.01 1.00 2.00 5.00 Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

The analysis of H6 compared the responses given in each time period by the participant

sample. Mean values fluctuate around the 3 to 4 range, but no trend is apparent. The finding

from this hypothesis is that followers do not give a progressively increased rating for their

leader’s ability to communicate how satisfied they are with what they do. One observation worth

mentioning is that all measures of central tendency range between 3.0 and 4.0. Throughout the

entire sample very few extremes exist. This is an indicator in itself. Despite the absence of

improvement the values indicate at least an average level of leader-member exchange as opposed

to a degrading trend. It should be noted that the mode for the 2 year population is not available

because several modes were present in the data, selection of 3, 4, and 5 were equally represented

in the distribution.

H7: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their leader’s ability to know their

job problems and needs a month, six months, one year, and two years after the

leader participated in a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #2: How well does your leader understand your job problems and

needs? (Scandura & Graen, 1984)

This analysis asks followers to assess the level of empathy a leader has toward them.

Descriptive statistics were analyzed to determine if followers do in fact perceive a progressive

increase in their leader’s ability to know their job problems and needs as time passes.

Table 10

LMX 7 Question Two Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.30 3.00 3.00 0.48 0.23 3.00 4.00

6 months 3.14 3.00 3.00 .66 0.08 2.00 3.00

12 months 3.22 3.50 4.00 .83 0.67 2.00 4.00

24 months 2.60 3.00 3.00 1.14 0.67 2.00 4.00

Total 3.07 3.13 3.000 .78 .88 2.00 4.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

The analysis of responses to question two of Leader-Member Exchange 7 did not indicate

that any trend was present and as a result H7 was unsupported. Responses for this question

predominately centered around 3.0 with little variation. This indicates only an average leader-

member exchange for this question. A copy of the descriptive statistics that correspond to this

question is available for review in table 9.

H8: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their leader’s ability to recognize

their potential a month, six months, one year, and two years after the leader has

participated in a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #3: How well does your leader recognize your potential? (Scandura &

Graen, 1984)

The data collected in response to H8 considers the follower’s perception of their

respective leader’s ability to recognize their potential over time.

Table 11

LMX 7 Question Three Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.50 3.00 3.00 0.71 0.50 3.00 5.00

6 months 3.93 4.00 3.00 .83 0.57 3.00 5.00

1 year 3.33 3.00 3.00 1.22 0.97 1.00 5.00

2 years 2.60 3.00 2.00 1.34 1.33 2.00 4.00

Total 3.34 3.25 3.000 0.78 0.88 1.00 5.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

The analysis of H8 does not show any significant signs of a progressively increased

leader-member exchange score. There is a substantial increase from 1 month to six month

followed by an even more substantial decrease from 6 months to 1 year. Larger sample sizes

may have revealed a short term trend with this survey question. The mean leader-member

exchange value for LMX-7 question 3 was 3.5, which is an indicator of slightly above average

leader-member exchange value for this question. Modal analysis for all four time periods show

the most frequent response to this question to be 3.00 with the exception at two years. This

could potentially show that two years after a leader has attended a leader development

intervention they exhibit less recognition of the follower’s potential.

H9: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the probability that their leader

would use their power, regardless of formal authority, to help the follower solve

problems within the organization a month, six months, one year, and two years after

participating in a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #4: Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built

into their position, what are the chances that your leader would use their power to help

you solve problems in your work? (Scandura & Graen, 1984)

This hypothesis considered follower responses to question four from Leader-Member

Exchange 7. This question asks followers to consider the probability that their leader would use

their power, regardless of formal authority, to help the follower solve problems within the

organization. As with H6 through H8, this hypothesis uses descriptive statistics to examine these

responses over time.

Table 12

LMX 7 Question Four Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.20 3.00 2.00 1.03 1.07 2.00 5.00

6 months 3.50 3.00 3.00 0.86 0.39 2.00 4.00

1 year 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.11 0.67 2.00 5.00

2 years 2.80 3.50 4.00 1.30 0.92 2.00 4.00

Total 3.13 3.00 3.00 1.08 1.04 2.00 5.00 Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

The analysis of H9 does not show any significant trends. One observation worth

mentioning is that the responses from the one year population are lower on average. This

indicates that followers have perceived a moderate chance that their leader would use their power

to help them solve problems. Modes exhibit more variation between age classes, while the high

and low values remained fairly constant.

H10: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the probability that their leader

would use their power, regardless of formal authority, to “bail you out” at the

leaders expense a month, six months, one year, and two years after participating in

a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #5: Again regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader

has, what are the chances that your leader would “bail you out” at their expense?

(Scandura & Graen, 1984)

This hypothesis tests the perceived probability that a leader would bail out a follower at

the leader’s expense. Descriptive statistics were used in this analysis. This question drives at the

trust factor in the relationship between leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Table 13

LMX 7 Question Five Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.05 1.11 2.00 5.00

6 months 2.72 3.00 3.00 1.20 1.18 1.00 4.00

1 year 2.78 2.50 2.00 0.67 0.67 2.00 4.00

2 years 2.60 3.00 3.00 0.89 0.00 3.00 3.00

Total 2.78 2.88 3.000 0.95 0.98 1.00 5.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

This analysis shows no trends that would indicate the increase in the follower perception

that their leader would use their power to “bail” out the follower at the leader’s expense. As a

result H10 cannot be supported. The mean leader-member exchange value for this question

ranged between 2.5 and 3.0, 2.71 mean for total population, indicating a slightly less than

average perception of the leaders potential actions. This marks the lowest average values give by

the student participants.

H11: Followers perceive a progressive increase in their confidence with their leader

and the likelihood that they would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she

were not present a month, six months, one year, and two years after participating in

a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #6: I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and

justify the leader’s decision if the leader were not present to do so? (Scandura & Graen,

1984)

Question six targets the follower’s willingness to defend the position of the leader

without the leader being present. As Homans identified, the social exchange between leader and

follower comes at a cost (Homans, 1973). The costs in this example could hinder the exchanges

between the audience of this defense and the follower in question. Higher score on this question

indicate the follower’s willingness to risk their own social contract with other based on their

relationship with their leader.

Table 14

LMX 7 Question Six Over Time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 3.40 3.50 4.00 0.69 0.49 2.00 4.00

6 months 3.86 4.00 4.00 0.66 0.24 3.00 4.00

1 year 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.50 0.17 3.00 5.00

2 years 2.80 3.00 3.00 1.09 0.25 3.00 4.00

Total 3.52 3.63 4.000 0.74 0.86 2.00 5.00

Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

Responses across all four time periods created an overall average response of 3.52 for

LMX-7 question #6. This indicates the possibility the followers would defend their leader

followers decisions are only slightly above neutral. Responses ranged from a low of 2.80 after

24 months to a high of 4.00 12 months after leader participated in a leader development

intervention. Data trend for this question do progressively increase from 1 month through 12

months. This is followed by a pronounced decrease from the 24 month sample. As a result, H11

is rejected.

H12: Followers perceive a progressive increase in the effectiveness of their working

relationship with their leader a months, six months, one year, and two years after

participating in a leader development intervention.

LMX-7 Question #7: How would you characterize your working relationship with your

leader? (Scandura,& Graen, 1984)

H12 considers follower response to the seventh and final leader-member 7 question. This

question ask follower to evaluate the effectiveness of their working relationship with their

respective leader.

Table 15

LMX 7 Question 7 over time n=49

Time in

Months M Mdn mode SD v min max

1 month 2.90 3.000 3.000 0.57 0.322 2.00 4.00

6 months 3.71 4.000 4.000 0.83 0.455 2.00 4.00

12 months 3.56 3.000 3.000 0.73 0.167 3.00 5.00

24 months 3.20 3.000 3.000 0.45 0.250 3.00 4.00

Total 3.34 3.25 3.000 0.65 0.81 2.00 5.00 Note: Questions from leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984) are found in Appendix F

The analysis of this hypothesis does not indicate a progressive improvement in working

relationship between leader and follower over time. H12 is not supported by the data and is

rejected. The average response across all four time periods is 3.34, .34 above neutral.

Follower’s from the six month time period average response was 2.9, below average. Within six

months the average response increases to 3.5, above average. From six month through 24

months the trend gradually reduces over time.

Post-hoc Analysis

In the assumptions presented in chapter one, the researcher considered the nature and

quality of pre-existing relationships between leader and follower. This study was designed with

the assumption that all respondents would accurately represent themselves regardless of the

nature of these relations. After the initial data analysis, this assumption required further testing.

Boyd & Taylor (1998) suggested that undue bias of measuring leader-member exchange

when either friendships exist within the sample. Likewise, Boyd and Taylor (1998) noted the

possibility for non-existent relationship to bias the results as well. They noted that it is

impossible to discern between strong friendships and high leader-member relationships as well

as non-existent relationships and low leader-member exchanges (Boyd & Taylor, 1998).

Hollander & Webb (1955) found similar findings in peer selection. Their research found that

friends were likely to provide artificially enhanced responses if they thought it would help an

individual they considered to be a close friend (Hollander &Webb, 1955). This research also

suggested that individual who were not in a relationship or were in a dysfunctional relationship

would provide negative responses based on how they perceived an individual rather than the

merit of the individuals contributions (Hollander &Webb, 1955). These two bodies of research

suggest that caution must be taken when asking followers to respond on the leader’s behavior or

leader effectiveness.

A correlation analysis was conducted to see if there was in fact a relationship that existed

between strength of relationship and leader-member exchange score. This analysis provided a

Pearson’s correlation value of .387, which indicates that there was a moderate positive

relationship between strength of relationship and level of leader-member exchange. This

correlation is substantial in that strength in relationship as determined by survey responses did

have a direct correlation to the leader-member exchange scores.

The data collected for each tested hypothesis was analyzed a second time by removing

any study participants who identified themselves as either “good friends” or “strangers” in the

follower survey (see Appendix E for follower survey). Filtering this data was important to the

analysis of this study because it diminished the potential for participants to inflate the response

based on their informal relationships rather than the formal. This also prevented individuals who

admittedly were strangers to the leader from responding to the assessment regarding leader-

member exchanges when no such relationship exists. In the end the research is more valid

because of this filtration. A summary of the post-hoc analysis of H1 through H4 is provided in

table 16 for review.

Table 16

H1 to H4 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends without “friends

and strangers” and strangers” Difference

Hypothesis n M SD n M SD M SD

H1 10 23.10 3.18 8 22.00 2.14 - 1.10 - 1.04

H2 24 25.00 4.49 22 23.58 2.84 - 1.42 - 1.65

H3 10 23.33 4.06 6 21.67 2.07 - 1.66 - 1.99

H4 5 19.6 7.78 4 22.23 3.40 2.63 - 4.38

Total 23.42 4.88 22.37 2.61 -1.05 - 2.26

Note: response to question 1 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

After adjusting the data for post-hoc analysis a difference was found between the six

month and twelve months while is still apparent, post-hoc is not as pronounced. This post-hoc

discussion of H1 to H4 provided evidence that there are some improvements in leader-member

exchange score over these time periods. This data demonstrates an improvement between the

twelve month and twenty four months assessment. This makes an argument that leader-member

exchange scores improve between twelve and twenty four months, which would appear to

support H4, followers perceive an increased level of leader-member exchange as measured by

LMX-7 aggregate score with leaders two years after the leader attended a leader development

intervention.

It should be noted that the standard deviation was improved through the revaluation of

the data, to a 2.61 standard deviation value as opposed to 4.88 standard deviation value. This

occurred because a significant number of responses scored on the extreme high and extreme low

end of the five point Likert scale were removed as a result of post-hoc analysis. This did reduce

the sample size dramatically as 9 of the 49 followers participating in this study were identified as

either a “good friend” or as a “stranger”.

Table 17

H6 Initial and Post-hoc analysis

with “friends” without “friends”

and “strangers” and “strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.80 0.79 8 3.75 0.71 - 0.05 - 0.08

6 months 24 4.19 0.77 22 4.00 0.74 - 0.19 - 0.03

12 months 10 3.44 0.72 6 3.16 0.41 - 0.28 - 0.31

24 months 5 3.00 1.58 4 3.50 1.29 0.50 - 0.29

Total 23.42 4.88 22.37 2.61 -1.05 - 2.26

Note: response to question 1 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

This data was originally analyzed in response to H6 and was post-hoc evaluated to

remove “good friends” and “stranger” responses. This examines follower responses from

question one of Leader-Member Exchange 7. Which queries if the follower knows where they

stand with their respective leader, do the followers usually know how satisfied the leader is with

what they do. The results of post-hoc analysis of this data had an effect on the trend line,

although it did not provide a progressively increased level of leader-member exchange over time.

The largest negative aggregate responses were found in 12 month participant sample. This was

caused by three of the nine respondents identified as “good friends”. The largest positive change

in aggregate response was found in the twenty-four month population resulted from removing

responses from an individual who identified themselves as a “stranger”. This condition

increased the average leader-member exchange score from 3.00 to 3.50.

Table 18

H7 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends without “friends

and strangers” and strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.30 0.48 8 3.25 0.46 - 0.05 - 0.02

6 months 24 3.14 0 .66 12 2.92 0.29 - 0.22 - 0.37

12 months 10 3.22 0.83 22 3.33 0.82 0 .11 - 0.01

24 months 5 2.60 1.14 4 3.00 0 .82 0 .40 - 0.32

Total 21.46 3.11 21.88 2.39 - 0.41 - 0.72

Note: responses to question 2 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

H7 examined responses to question two of leader-member 7 over time. This queries how

well their leader understands the follower’s job problems. Data was analyzed for H7 and found

no indication of a progressive positive trend of leader-member scores over time. This data was

revaluated to minimize any concerns that respondents provided inflated responses based on pre-

existing relationship. As a result of revaluation the data both one and six month average leader-

member exchange dropped. What was surprising was the respondents from the 12 month

assessment actually scored higher on average without “good friends”, a positive change of 0.11.

As expected, removing the response of the “stranger” from had a positive effect on the

aggregate score, an increase from 2.60 to 3.00.

Table 19

H8 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends” without “friends

and “strangers” and strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.50 0.71 8 3.38 0 .52 - 0.12 - 0.19

6 months 24 3.93 0.83 22 3.75 0.75 - 0.18 - 0.08

12 months 10 3.33 1.22 6 2.83 0.98 - 0.50 - 0.24

24 months 5 2.60 1.34 4 3.00 1.16 0.40 - 0.18

Total 23.38 4.10 22.68 3.41 - 1.05 - 0.69

Note: response to question 3 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

Question eight of the Leader-Member Exchange 7 instrument queries how well a leader

recognizes the follower’s potential. Filtering out “good friends” and “strangers” had a

predictable outcome on the data analysis as the mean was reduced by one full point on average.

This indicates that the response on average was moderate as opposed to mostly following the

language of the instrument. It was not surprising that the aggregate standard deviation was

decreased. This was expected because the direct relationship between quality of the relationship

and the respondent’s leader-member exchange score. The respondents that would have been

expected to score at the extremes, either high or low, were removed from the study sample. This

post-hoc analysis had little effect on the trends exhibited in H8. The slight increase from one

month to six month was followed by a gradual decrease from six months through twenty-four

months. This trend was consistent with the original data analysis and only shows an increase

from one month to six-months.

Table 20

H9 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends” without “friends”

and “strangers” and “strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.20 1.03 8 2.88 0.84 - 0.32 - 0.19

6 months 24 3.50 0.86 22 3.25 0.62 - 0.25 - 0.24

12 months 10 3.00 1.11 6 2.67 0 .82 - 0.33 - 0.29

24 months 5 2.80 1.30 4 3.25 0.96 0.45 - 0.34

Total 21.88 4.30 21.09 3.24 - 0.79 - 1.06

Note: response to question 4 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

H9 addresses question four from Leader-Member Exchange 7 which asks the extent the

followers perceived a leaders ability to use their power and authority to help them solve

problems in their organization. Aggregate responses ranged from 3.50 to 2.80 for the

corresponding initial data analysis and from 3.25 to 2.67 post-hoc. Removing “good friends”

and “strangers” from this data did have some effect on the post-hoc trend line. The

corresponding initial data analysis set exhibits a slight positive trend from one two six months

followed by a moderate decrease through twenty four months. The post-hoc demonstrates a

positive trend that existed between one month and six months. Additionally, the regressive trend

between twelve and twenty four months was replaced by a positive trend in post-hoc analysis.

Further study would be necessary to provide further support of this hypothesis. Despite the

positive increase in these time periods, the overall trend in the host-hoc analysis, across all time

periods, did not progressively increase.

Table 21

H10 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends” without “friends”

and “strangers” and “strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.00 1.05 8 2.75 0.89 - 0.25 - 0.16

6 months 24 2.72 1.20 22 2.50 1.08 - 0.22 - 0.12

12 months 10 2.78 0.67 6 2.67 0.82 - 0.11 0.15

24 months 5 2.60 0.89 4 3.00 0.00 0.40 - 0.89

Total 19.43 3.81 19.10 2.79 - 0.33 - 1.02

Note: response to question 5 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

Responses to question five on Leader-Member Exchange 7 were considered in the

assessment of H10. Question five queries the followers for their perception of their leader’s

willingness to bail them out at the leader’s expense. Aggregate responses ranged from 3.00 to

2.60 in initial analysis and from 3.00 to 2.50 post-hoc. Ranges from both initial and post-hoc

analysis were very tight. As a result trends were slight. Trends moderately decreased from one

month to six months time periods, followed by a slight increase from six to twelve months. The

initial analysis exhibited a regressive trend from twelve to twenty four months. This trend

became positive with post-hoc analysis. Further research would be necessary for this to be

considered conclusive evidence.

Table 22

H11 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends” without “friends”

and “strangers” and “strangers” Difference

Time in

Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 3.40 0.69 8 3.25 0.71 - 0.32 - 0.19

6 months 24 3.50 0.86 22 3.25 0.62 - 0.25 - 0.24

12 months 10 3.00 1.11 6 2.67 0.82 - 0.33 - 0.29

24 months 5 2.80 1.30 4 3.25 0.96 0.45 - 0.34

Total 21.88 4.30 21.09 3.24 - 0.79 - 1.06

Note: response to question 6 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

H11 assessed responses to question six of Leader-Member Exchange 7 over four time

periods and queried if the follower has enough confidence in their leader to defend the leader’s

position if they were not present. Aggregate mean scores after post-hoc analysis demonstrated

no change from one month to six months, 3.25 across both time periods. This was followed by a

decrease to 2.67 at the twelve month time period. The data from the twenty four month

population showed an increase from the twelve month with the aggregate mean score of 3.25.

Table 23

H12 Initial and Post-hoc Analysis

with “friends” without “friends”

and “strangers” and “strangers” Difference

Time

in Months n M SD n M SD M SD

1 month 10 2.90 0.57 8 2.75 0.46 - 0.15 - 0.11

6 months 24 3.71 0.83 22 3.50 0.67 - 0.21 - 0.16

12 months 10 3.56 0.73 6 3.17 0.41 - 0.39 - 0.32

24 months 5 3.20 0.45 4 3.25 0.50 0.05 0.05

Total 23.40 2.58 22.17 2.04 - 2.04 -1.23

Note: response to question 12 of leader-member exchange 7 (Scandura &Graen, 1984). See Appendix F for review

H12 addressed responses to question seven of Leader-Member Exchange 7 across four

time periods which asked followers to characterize the working relationship between themselves

and their respective leader. Post-hoc analysis found the aggregate leader-member exchange

values decreased yet follow a similar trend. An increase from one month to six months followed

by a decrease from six months to twelve months. One difference the post-hoc analysis exhibited

was a slight increase from twelve to twenty four months.

Summary

Filtering out “good friends” and “stranger” did not have a significant impact on the

results of the hypothesis testing. It should be noted that removal of the stranger did have a

significant effect on the twenty four month population in that it raised the aggregate scores .038

on average. In many cases as stated earlier this caused a downward trend that existed as

compared to the twelve months population to stabilize and in some case increase slightly.

One significant contribution the post-hoc assessment made was to the legitimacy of this

study. Hollander and Webb (1955) suggested pre-existing relationships have the potential to bias

feedback if the respondent believes this will help, in the case of a friend, or hinder, in the case of

an adversary. As participant of a leader development intervention selected the followers in this

study it is highly unlikely that an adversary would be selected, in fact the presence of a

“stranger” in the data was unexpected. Boyd & Taylor (1998) mention the potential for research

bias based on pre-existing relationship using Leader-Member exchange. They assert that

followers can potentially inflate responses based on friendship rather than on leader-member

exchange. By conducting the post-hoc assessment these concerns were resolved.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of leader development from the

perspective of the follower over time. The initial analysis and post-hoc analysis provided the

assessment necessary to examine leader development from this perspective.

Despite the number of rejected hypotheses and few findings in the post-hoc analysis there were a

number of conclusions that can be made. Chapter five offers discussion of these conclusions,

observations from the study, and implications of this research.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study was designed around the question of the follower’s perception of the levels of

leader-member exchange between leader and follower and how time affects these exchanges.

The method utilized in this study asked participants from a leader development intervention to

select the leader member relationships to be measured using Leader-Member Exchange 7. The

leader development participants forwarded a letter of invitation to five individual they considered

followers of their own leadership. The hypotheses tested the prediction of positive growth across

all four time periods as criteria for hypothesis support.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that the leader-member exchange between leader and follower

may not progressively increase over a twenty four month period. The analysis of the hypotheses

in this study resulted in the acceptance of one prediction out of the twelve hypotheses. Positive

increase in leader-member exchange was evident from one month to six month time periods

followed by a decrease through twenty four months. Aggregate leader-member exchange of

23.10 for one month does increase to 25.00 after six months and then decreases to 23.33 after

twelve months and 22.23 after twenty-four months. This may well represent the nature of leader

development or learning in general.

Throughout the duration of the leader development intervention participants receive

constant reinforcement of the ideology of leadership and the spirit of the leader is apparent in

their actions and behaviors (Bergeron, personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009). The question

is what happens after the intervention? MacDonald, et al. (2006) researched the retention of

cognitive skills and abilities learned by adults and found these skills begin to diminish within the

first few hours. Further study would be required to substantiate this claim, but it does seem

plausible that the lessons of an intensive leader development intervention could continue to

develop for six months and then begin to regress. The work of MacDonald et al. (2006) suggests

if these learning from the leadership development intervention are not reinforced the lessons will

be lost.

Follower Perspective

This study focused on the leader-member exchange scores and asked leaders to nominate

followers to participate in the study and rate the leader’s relationship with the follower. It was

assumed that the leaders nominated individuals they actually considered followers. It was

interesting to note the actual leader-member scores as reported by the follower’s. The aggregate

mean scores ranged between 19.60 and 25.00 with “good friends” and “strangers” in the initial

analysis and 21.00 to 23.58 with these responses removed from the participant sample.

Scandura & Graen (1984) offered the following interpretation of Leader-Member Exchange 7

scores:

• A total sum of 30-35 indicates a very high level of exchange.

• 25-29 indicates a high level of exchange.

• 20-24 indicates a moderate level of exchange.

• 15-19 signifies a low level of exchange.

• 7-14 reveals a very low level of exchange.

The grand average, average of the averages from each time period, from the entire

population is 22.37, 23.42 with “good friend” included. This is significant in that across the

entire population even with the inclusion of potential bias based on friendship the grand average

indicates only moderate levels of leader-member exchanges.

The first potential issue that may have contributed to low scores was the demographics of

sample used in this study. College students adhere to informal hierarchy, few have been exposed

to formalized hierarchy (Bergeron, personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009). The significance

is the negative connotations attached to the word follower may have different implications in an

environment without a formal hierarchy and this could affect the respondent’s response to survey

questions. For example, in a traditional occupational environment, everyone has a superior, even

the CEO answers to a board of directors who answer to each other. There is always

subordination in this model. As a result a superior by title assumes the label of leader based on

title. The purpose behind measuring the quality of exchange that exist between leader and

follower is to help us understand if a working relationship exhibits high levels of exchanges

which is an indication of healthy leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

The concept of hierarchy helps navigate the stickiness of the negative aspect of the label

“follower” because it is documented and serves as a given indication of rank and file. Without

the ideology of an official working relationship and hierarchy, we are left with an informal and

imaginary chain of command where self imagery and ego play a larger role in establishing the

leader follower dyads. In the follower LMX-7 assessment, (Appendix E) followers identified

their relationships with the leader. Responses included classmates, fraternal brothers and

sorority sisters, roommates, family, student organizational members and coworkers. The

followers identified classmates as the predominant source of relationship while only one

indicated the leader and follower were coworkers. It is speculation and outside the boundaries of

this study, but the question remains, are the leader-member exchanges the same quantifiable

measures of leadership in a classroom, or any other context, as they would be in an organization

that reflects the model of traditional hierarchy?

Another possible reason followers on average reported only a moderate level of leader-

member exchange was the age of the study participants, all respondents were age 19-25. This

speculation points to the need for further research in order to confirm a difference based on age.

The ideology about leaders and leadership may be very different between a person in this age

bracket as opposed to someone older and potentially more experienced. Our reality is formed by

our perception based on a comparison of what we have seen before (Wheatley, 1992). Following

this reasoning, it is plausible that the only leaders a person in the 19-25 years of age has person

to person interaction are educators and family. Barring the extremes, it would seem likely that

leader-member exchange scores from classmates would pale when compared to the relationship

between young adult and parent or teacher.

All followers in the sample population were college students. Followers who responded

in the first month after the leader’s participation were in their third week of the second semester.

This time frame represent a less stressful period in a student’s academic year. The researcher

suspects that responses provided during this time frame would be without bias induced by

academic stress. Followers who responded six, twelve, and twenty four months after their

respective leader participated in a leader development intervention responded later in the

semester, some during exam week. The researcher believes this time frame could potentially

dissuade some individuals from participating in the study and could potentially bias some

responses. This is speculation, but date of actual response has the potential to produce varying

results.

Leader Perspective

This data was collected as part of the survey administered to the leader participants from

the leader development intervention. One very interesting aspect of Leader-Member Exchange-7

is that it is valid for use in gaining the followers perspective of the quality of exchanges between

leader and follower as well as the leader perspective of these same exchanges (Graen & Uhl-

Bien, 1995). This is not to be confused with a leader’s self perception. Leader member-exchange

is not reliable in this application, because by definition leader-member exchanges are external

entities that can only exist between individuals (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

It is assumed that the responses from each time period in this research did not necessarily

represent direct exchanges between the exact leader and the exact follower across the time

frames represented in this study. There are several examples in this data where a leader chose to

participate and their followers did not. Likewise, there are examples where followers

participated and the leader did not. As a result, no direct correlation between individualized

responses between individual leaders and their respective followers were intended in the design

of this study. The method of data collection used introduced a great deal of variability based on

participation. By changing the method of data collection with actual leaders paired with actual

follower responses over time may well capture a clearer picture of the effect leader development

has on the participants.

The potential bias induced by academic stress and the actual date of response as

mentioned in the follower perspective section may also have had an effect on the leaders as well.

Early in the semester college life and associated workload are traditionally lighter than later in

the semester. As academic work increases it is likely that some student participant may have

chosen not to participate in the study because of time constrains. It is conceivable that some

individual may have perceived the assessment in a negative light due to time of the semester

rather leader-member exchanges. It also is conceivable that actual leader-member exchanges on

the part of the leader and follower are negatively affected later in the semester.

Leader LMX

During data collection leaders were asked to nominate followers who were asked to

complete an assessment very similar to the one forwarded to the followers. Minor rephrasing

was required to align the respondent with their respective role in the leader-member exchange.

The adjustments made to the assessment instrument follow the intent of the authors as the

leader’s version appear in parentheses in the original document (Scandura & Graen, 1984).

(Appendix D)

Table 24

Leader self-rated Leader-Member Exchange Across Time

Time in

Months n= Leader-Member Exchange

Mean

1 month 4 21.25

6 months 14 25.21

12 months 16 25.88

24 months 11 24.82

25.00

The leader self-ratings had several points of interest. The leaders themselves reported a

grand average, average of the aggregate mean value from each time period, was a leader-member

exchange score of 25.00. This was important because according to Scandura & Graen (1984)

this would indicate leader-member exchange at the lower threshold of high levels of exchange.

Although these scores were on average higher than the average scores posted by the followers, it

was surprising that the leader’s themselves only perceived this level of leader-member exchange.

Comparison of aggregate means reported by both leaders and followers revealed the responses

from leaders to be higher than those reported by followers. The self-rated leader aggregate mean

was 25.00 as opposed to 23.42 reported by the followers.

Although the aggregate mean from the leaders were higher than those of the follower,

the leaders rated LMX lower in the one month time period and considerably higher across each

of the subsequent time periods. This was surprising because the leader’s perception of their

leadership was high based on the post intervention assessment administered by the leader

development program organizers. The trend does show progressive continual increases from the

one month sample through the twelve month sample. This is followed by a decrease of one full

point in leader-member exchange score by the twenty four months sample population. Further

research needs to be undertaken to find the root cause of this downward trend.

Pre-Intervention Assessment

As part of the leadership development intervention experience, the leader participants

were asked to complete a survey on their pre-existing perspective of leadership. The survey

contained twenty questions where participants assessed their leadership prior to the intervention

(Appendix I). The pre-intervention assessment has not been evaluated for reliability or validity

and does not measure leader-member exchange. This intent of program designers was to simply

compare pre-intervention perceptions with post-intervention perceptions as a marker of

effectiveness. This data was provided by the site coordinator of the 2008 leader development

intervention, the researcher was granted permission to review this data as part of this study.

The review of this data was not intended to challenge existing research or attempt to

provide support to any hypotheses that were part of this study. This data review was conducted

to add potential clarity to this study outcomes and to examine how an organization that conducts

leadership development interventions measures program effectiveness. The following review of

responses offers an evaluation of the method of program effectiveness and not the program itself.

It must be stated that the researcher holds this particular organization in the highest regard and

the review of this method of evaluation is simply to make observation on the value of this

practice.

The survey format contained twenty questions utilizing a five point Likert scale. Five

possible points for each twenty questions resulted in a maximum overall score of one hundred

points. The participants from the 2008 institute posted a 76.58 average response rate.

Post-Intervention Assessment

After the six day leader development intervention, the participants are asked to complete

the post-intervention survey. The six day curriculum consisted of self- assessment, team

building, vision formation project, bonding, and individual reflection. The participants complete

the survey after a formalized graduation full of emotion and excitement. The post intervention

participant response was 86.30. This is a significant response considering the questions on the

survey weigh self evaluation of leadership potential coupled with the fact that the institute is only

six days in duration. According to the site coordinator, the difference between pre- and post-

intervention parallels the data gathered from the last five institutes sponsored by the organization

(Bergeron, personal communication, April 18 th

, 2009).

There appears to be a disconnect between the methods used by the leader development

intervention sponsors to evaluate program effectiveness and the results gathered as part of this

study. Each method uses different instruments for different purposes, however it would be

expected that the results would parallel each other. It is speculated, that the timelines between

these two different methods maybe the root cause of these differing results. The method used in

this study starts to measure leader-member exchange after one month. The leader development

intervention sponsor survey is administered at the completion of an intensive six day

intervention. The time periods used in this study were designed to examine the longevity of the

learning aspect of leader development intervention. Circumstances beyond the control of the

researcher prevented gathering Leader-Member Exchange 7 assessment data prior to or

immediately following the intervention. This data could have allowed for a much clearer picture

of emergent learning and growth on the part of the participants if pre-institute and post institute

assessment to bracket the six days was allowed.

Leadership Development Evaluation

This study uses a very different method of assessing the effect of leader development.

The intent was not to measure program effectiveness, although the method could lend itself to

that opportunity. The concept of measuring a leader’s ability through the eyes of the follower is

not a unique proposition; the very base of leader-member exchange theory is rooted here.

Thibaut and Kelley(1959) explain that the followers choose to follow based on the their

relationship with a leader. This puts the onus of the relationship on the shoulders of the follower

and not the leader. The vertical dyad linkage, which later came to be known as leader-member

exchange theory explains that not only do the followers decide to be in the relationship with the

leader, they determine the extent of this relationship (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Dienesch

& Liden, 1986). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) continued the work of earlier researchers in

relation-based leadership studies and found not only do the followers dictate the extent of the

relationship they determine the effectiveness of the leader. With the contributions the follower

makes in the leader-follower relationship, consideration must be paid to the follower’s

perception.

The Center for Creative Leadership recommends using leader-member exchange as part

of 360 loop where leaders get a clear view of their leadership based on feedback

from their followers (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). The application of leader-member

exchange theory in this fashion provides leaders a glimpse at the perceptions of the follower and

in turn their own leadership effectiveness. This would provide the leader a better understanding

of their relationship with their followers and an opportunity to make necessary adjustments to

maximize their effectiveness.

Leader development is the individual capacity to become more effective in leadership

roles and processes (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). This is the definition organizations who

conduct leader development intervention need to align to so their respective clients or other

sponsoring parties are making an investment in the leader and their development. These stake

holders expect a return. As the results of this study demonstrated, the perception of the

participant may be indicative of leader growth and development. Leader-member exchange

outcomes collected as early as six months after leader participation in an intervention seems to

show this development continues only to be followed by a steady decline over the following

months.

This does not mean that leader development is not possible. The fact that the data from

this study tends to show consistent growth from the point of participation through a year may be

considered proof that development is taking place. However, it may also serve an indication that

reinforcement is necessary across time. Organizations that conduct leader development

interventions should consider the time it takes for leader development to be implemented. The

very language of development insinuates the passing of time. It is the belief of the researcher

that reinforcement of leadership skills promotes practice of skills and practice will lead to more

permanent individual development. More research is needed to provide support for this

statement.

Implications of Results

This study examined leader development from the perspective of the follower over time.

The data analysis demonstrated a trend line that, on average, increased steadily from one to six

months and declined from six months to twenty four months. One implication of this study is

that the nature of development and the nature of decline when skills idle. Leadership skills, like

all skills will diminish over time if not practiced and reinforced (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt,

2006; Mac Donald, 2006). Leader development interventions filled with slogans and

emotionally laced discussions about leadership ideology provide the participant the opportunity

to learn and emulate leader behaviors, without practice true retention is questionable (Hannum,

Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). The data analysis in this study demonstrated this as the aggregate

leader-member exchange scores did improve over the one to six month time periods. This

provides evidence that reinforcement is necessary for lifelong learning to occur.

The effect of time played a role in this study. The effect of time on learning has been

well documented in the field of education (MacDonald, 2006). This study showed that the

learning incurred as part of a leader development intervention is effected by time as well. This

has been recognized by some organizations that conduct leader development interventions as

some programs are designed with refresher modules and short course seminars to combat the

effect of time (Hannum, Martineau, & Reinelt, 2006). The leader development program from

100

this study has a monthly newsletter circulated to all intervention participants. As all of the leader

participants receive this monthly newsletter but the effectiveness of this practice is questionable.

The sample of both leader and follower were, with the exception of one, college students.

Leader-member exchanges from both leader and follower were moderate across both populations

and throughout all time periods. Leadership research across this demographic has been limited.

More needs to be done in this area as students could be potentially considered incumbent leaders.

Contribution of this Study

The data presented in this study makes a compelling argument regarding method of

assessment used by organizations that deliver leader development interventions. A comparison

between the participant responses to the leader-member exchange 7 survey and the responses to

the assessment conducted by the leader development intervention provide very different

perspective of the effectiveness of the intervention. The leader-member exchange 7 survey

indicated that participants perceived only moderate levels of LMX after participation, indicative

of moderate levels of leader effectiveness (Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995). The survey used by the

leader development intervention notes high levels of leader skills and abilities. These are not the

same instruments and as a result direct line by line comparisons cannot be made.

The leadership industry is a multibillion dollar industry that remains largely unchecked.

These dollars represent investment organizations have made in their leaders. Not only do they

deserve to know what sort of return they should expect, but they should be able understand this

in clear language and with numbers that have meaning. It is the recommendation that

organizations providing leader development interventions use standardized research instruments

rather than a piece meal instrument. First, research instruments are tested for validity and

reliability, as a result they garnish results that are legitimate and comparable. There is a danger

101

in using instruments that return false positives. Participants need to understand that leader

development takes time. If after a weeklong intervention they receive feedback that they are

proficient leaders and then reality proves to them otherwise this could potentially derail their

development. Participant’s need to have something to reach for, by telling participants they are

now leaders the goals are removed.

It is in the best inertest of the organizations that provide leader development interventions

to use tested research instruments as well. These instruments may not always provide flattery,

but rather real genuine responses. This stark perception of program effectiveness is necessary to

improve the curriculum. If these organizations continue bask if a false sense of curricular

success these program will not improve.

By asking the leader to nominate, label, follower’s came with some interesting side

effects, both positive and negative. This method asked the participants to consider who follows

their leadership after an intervention forces the participant to consider their leadership. The body

of research does not examine the selection process and only asked the participant to select

individual they considered to be follower. Despite the occurrence of the “stranger” in the

follower population, it is the researcher’s belief that the remaining follower participants were

earnestly considered before nomination. By examining the follower’s perspective discernment

was made between the self-perspective of the leader participants and that of the followers. In

the researcher’s opinion, the perception of the follower is a truer vision of leader behavior

because it is not biased by the leader self-imagery.

Leader-member exchanges are defined by behaviors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Followers determine the existence of the relationship (Homans, 1961), the extent of followership

(Hollander, 1955; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and in the end the effectiveness of the leader and the

102

organization in which both leader and follower function (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991, 1995). Three

hundred sixty degree (360°) feedback loops are commonly used as a means of leadership

assessment in leader development. This practice consists of asking followers to provide

feedback to the leader anonymously, using a variety of standardized leadership instrumentation.

Leader-member exchange is often used as part of the instrumentation (McCaully & Van Velsor,

2004). As no examples could be found of leader development programs using leader-member

exchange as a tool for program assessment from the followers perspective this study design may

suggest new avenues for understanding the relationship between leader and follower.

Limitations

Post-hoc filtering of the data to exclude “good friend” and “stranger” removes any

potential bias based on pre-existing relationship that could be considered to be outside of the

realm of leader-follower relationship. This was necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the data

represented in this study, but it does come at a cost.

The largest limitation of this study was the sample size. From the 164 individuals who

participated in the LeaderShape program from 2007 to 2009 only 41 agree to participate in the

study (25%). While this is an acceptable response rate what follows is troubling. Each of the

164 individuals who participated in the leader development intervention were asked to nominate

five individuals who they considered to be a follower. It is assumed that this actually took place,

which would mean the total possible number of respondents would have been 820. From this

population only 38 agreed to participate in the study (4.6%). After post-hoc filtering of the data

this number was reduced to 30 (3.6%).

The fact that all leader development intervention participants were college students

served as limitation to this study. The age, maturity and experience level of the participants in

103

this study could potentially had an impact on this study. College students are influence by

several factors beyond the control of the researcher. Individuals in this age bracket are adjusting

to the newly acquired responsibility of adulthood and are wrestling with the separation from

family and friends. This coupled with the social emersion into a new social environment has the

potential to bias responses pertaining leader-follower relationships. Data collected as part of the

follower/constituent survey show that none of the relationships with the leader development

intervention participants were longer than three years and most were less than one year. The

result is a informal hierarchy based on friendship rather than entitlement or leadership. Although

this particular demographic presents a challenge to the researcher it does present one strong

positive as it represents the worst case scenario.

The methods used in this study were effective with in this context. It is speculator at this

point, but this researcher believes that these methods would be even more effective in the

business sector. Our modern world is laced with confusion as business live in a world of

constant questions regarding sustainability. This does create emotional upheaval even for the

most seasoned of professionals, but at least adult professional can cope with these stresses.

These individuals have witnessed leadership first and are accustomed to a formalized hierarchy.

It is presumptive, but this researcher would expect a more emotionally stable response from

these individuals as well.

Based on the meta-analysis conducted by Schriesheim et al. (1999) Leader-member

exchange is more frequently used in the business sector. While this study used this theory and

instrument it is the exception and not the rule. As a result, no changes or modifications to the

methodology would be needed for researchers hoping to replicate this study in the business

sector.

104

Recommendations for Future Research

Altering the culture of the participants used in this study could provide for an interesting

variation of this study. The demographics from this study were unique for a number of reasons.

The age of the leader participants and their followers were primarily 19-25 year old students who

attend a technology based research university in a very remote part of the United States. The

vast majority of the participants were from the Midwest United States and Caucasian. Repeating

this study with different study participants using the same leadership development intervention

curriculum would produce an interesting comparison. Cultural norms exist in all organization

and educational institutions each have their own cultural identity. A change in the demographics

could potentially return different results. The leader development intervention curriculum used

in this study is offered throughout the United States and internationally and it would make an

interesting comparison to examine the follower responses from a foreign country.

This study was longitudinal as the data was collected from followers whose leader

participated in a leader development intervention over a two year span. Pre-institute assessment

and immediate post-institute assessment were part of the original design; this data was not able

to be collected due to circumstances beyond the control of the researcher. This data would have

provided a much clearer picture of the effects of the leader development intervention in the short

term. Future research should be considered that examines the follower’s perspectives before and

immediately following the intervention.

In this study leaders selected individuals they considered followers. Future research

should be considered that alters the method of participant selection. A study designed where the

participants of a leader development intervention forward surveys to those they consider leaders

rather than follower would offer an entirely new perspective. Because the participants are

105

labeling individuals as leader the word follower and negative connotation it carries could be

negated. It would be very interesting to examine the effects on participants, would be followers,

perception and how this would affect leader-member exchanges.

There are many variations to leader development interventions. Curriculum designed to

meet the need of the participants and the stockholders. The tailoring of this curriculum offers

possibly the greatest possibility for future research. This study dealt with one individual

curriculum aimed at specific demographic. It is recommended that future research be conducted

following the method used in this study to comparatively assess the effectiveness of like

demographics with varied curriculums.

Summary

This study used leader-member exchange as a marker for leadership behaviors.

Hypotheses examined follower perspective of the leader-follower relationship over a two year

period. The data clearly demonstrated that continual development did not occur with this small

sample. The organization that conducted the leadership development intervention studied uses

monthly newsletters, mailed to the participants, to further reinforce the lessons taught. The

effectiveness of this course of action comes into question because all of the participants that took

part in this study were receiving this newsletter.

This study was about leader development and the perception of followers on a leader

relationship following participation in a leader development intervention. One peril of leader

development is the nature of learning. It is very assumptive to presume that all people can be

taught or are willing to be taught. Participants who choose not to accept the leadership

curriculum or who are not willing to make behavior changes will unfairly bias research

106

evaluation of a leadership development program. The method used as part of this study asked

for participation. It is doubtful that individuals not drawn to the concept of leader development

would agree to participate. What makes this matter even more complex in the fact that after six

days of intervention these individual might choose to emulate a potential leader, even so much as

to positively report on their participation.

This researcher is certain that organizations that conduct leader development

interventions are aware of this potential and are diligent in their pursuit of developing

curriculums that meets the needs of all participants. This raises the question, what really works

in leader development and why does it work? This study did not attempt to address program

effectiveness based on curriculum. Future research that provides this type of understanding of

the curriculums and program effectiveness is needed as it could greatly improve our collective

understanding of leader development and provide a path for developing excellence in

curriculum.

107

REFERENCES

The American Heritage College Dictionary (2000) p. 680, 1406. (3rd ed.) New York: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

American Society for Training and Development (2009, November 13). ASTD Releases state of

the industry report. Retrieved June 1,2010, from http://www.hr.com/SITEFORUM

Allen, S. J., & Hartman, N. S. (2008). Leadership development: An exploration of sources of

learning. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 73(1), 10-62.

AP-lpsos Poll. (2008).): Associated Press.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.

American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of

positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding followers. The

Leadership Quarterly, 11(3), 365-387.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,

research, and applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial

applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. New York:

Pegasus.

Bennis, W. G. (1970). A funny thing happened on the way to the future. American Psychologist,

25(7), 595-608.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship

in leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 1-25

Carlyle, T. (1841). Heroes and hero-worshiping. Boston: Adams.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien M., West, B. J, Patera, J. L., Mc Gregor, R. (2010). Exploring social

constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3),

543-562

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders.

San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers

Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-

Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and

organizations. (pp. 67-87). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Colangelo, A. J. (2000). Followership: Leaderships styles. University of Oklahoma.

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower

identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179-189.

http://www.hr.com/SITEFORUM

108

Craig, S., & Hannum, K. (2006). Experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations. In K.

Hannum, J. W. Martineau & C. Reinelt (Eds.), The handbook of leadership development

evaluation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and

social contract, manager friendliness, subordinate performance in management groups.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 41, 65-82.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership

in formal organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of

favored races in the struggle of life, The origin of species. London: John Murray

Publishers.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360-373.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development:: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,

11(4), 581-613.

Della Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A

critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.

Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal,

15(1), 19-25.

Dixon, N. M. (1990). The relationship between trainee responses on participation reaction forms

and post test scores. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1, 129-137.

Donnithorne, L. (1994). Expect the best: The West Point way of leadership. Success, 41(1), 82-

84.

Duchon, D., Green, S., & Taber, T. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of

attributes, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interactions.

Communications Monographs, 56, 215-239.

Fayol, H. (1949). Industrial and general management (C. Storr, Trans.). London: Sir Isaac

Pitman and Sons. (Original work published 1930)

Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2007). Move over management: We are all leaders now. Management

Learning, 38(5), 475-493.

Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of ego. New York: Bantam Books.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id (J. Strachey, Trans.)London: The Hogarth Press.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.

Gardner, J. W. (1961). Excellence:Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: Harper &

Brothers Publishers.

Gardner, J. W. (1986a). The nature of leadership (Vol. 1). Washington: Independent Sector.

Gardner, J. W. (1986b). The tasks of leadership (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Gardner, J. W. (1986). The heart of the matter: Leader- constituent interaction (Vol. 3).

Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Gardner, J. W. (1987). Leaders and followers. Liberal Education, 73(2).

109

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). "Can you see

the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.

Gentry, W. A., & Leslie, J. B. (2007). Competencies for leadership development: What's hot and

what's not: When assessing leadership-implications for organization development.

Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 37-46.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Goethals, G. R. & Sorenson, G. L. J. (Eds.). (2006). The quest of a general theory of leadership.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Goethals, G. R. (2005). The Psychodynamics of Leadership: Freud's Insights and Their

Vicissitudes. In D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership:

New perspectives and research. (pp. 97-112). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Publishers.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (Eds.). (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organization: A developmental approach. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making process within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange

and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395-420.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research

in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing

and partially self-designing contribution: Toward a theory of leader-making. Journal of

Management Systems, 3(3), 33-48.

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Graen, G. B. (2010, April 14). Misguided leadership training. Retrieved April 14 th

, 2010, from http://www.ila-net.org/members/directory/downloads/webinars/2010-Graen-April.wmv

Hannum, K., Martineau, J. W., & Reinelt, C. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of leadership

development evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hollander, E. P. & Webb W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: an analysis of

peer nominations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(2), 163-167.

Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 71-75.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt.

Homans, G. C. (1973). Fundamental social process (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member

exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting

follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 680-694.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:

Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

110

Juran, J. M. (1998). Juran’s quality control handbook (4 th

ed). New York: McGraw-Hill

Professional.

Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and effect at work

on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 1-19.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership:how to create leaders people want to follow and

followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday.

Kelley, R. E., Kilmann, R. H., & Kilmann, I. (1991). Combining followership and leadership

into partnership. In J. D. Blair (Ed.), Making organizations competitive: Enhancing

networks and relationships across traditional boundaries. (pp. 195-220). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Kincaid, S. B., & Gordick, D. (2003). The return on investment of leadership development:

Differentiating our discipline. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,

55(1), 47-57.

Kouzes, J., Posner, B. (2006). It's not just the leader's vision. In F. Hesselbein & M. Goldsmith

(Eds.) The leader of the future 2: Visions, strategies, and practices for the new era. (pp.

207-212). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Leadershape (2007). Institute faculty manual. Champaign, IL: Leadershape, Inc.

Lee, C. (1991). Followership: The essence of leadership. Training, 28(1), 27-39.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early

development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4),

662-674.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership:

The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203

Martineau, J. W., & Hannum, K. (2004). Evaluating the impact of leadership development: a

professional guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). The theory of human motivation. Psychology review, 50, 370-396.

MacDonald, W. S., Stigsdotter-Neely, A., Derwinger, A., & Buchman, L. (2006). Rate of

acquisition, adult age, and basic cognitive abilities predict forgetting: New views on a

classic problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 135 (3), 368-390.

McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (1998). The Center for Creative

Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2003). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook

of leadership development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & B., A. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Moore, K. (2008). Leadership development: Is it all just a whole lot of hooey? Leadership

Excellence, 20, 58-63.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Novak, M. A. (1984). A study of leader resource as determinants of leader-member exchange.

Dissertation Abstracts International, Doctoral dissertation, Michigan, 1984). (UMI No.

8509493).

111

Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American

business managers. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 296-312

Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public

Personnel Management, 30(4), 429.

Price, A. (2006). The leading edge: Developing leaders in volatile times. Employment Relations

Today, 33(1), 33-41.

Ready, D. A., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Why leadership-development efforts fail. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 44(3), 83-88.

Riggio, R., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective

leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 169-185.

Riggio, R. E., & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional and interpersonal competencies and leader

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 418-426.

Rost, J. (2008). Followership: An outmoded concept. In J. Rost, R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J.

Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great

leaders and organizations. (pp. 53-64). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing

Group.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange

status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3),

428-436.

Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice

perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 25-40.

Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social contract of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of

the effect of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-194.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)

research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.

The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday.

Sorenson, G., Riggio, R. E., & Orr, S. S. (2004). Succession and its discontents: The perils and

promise of change. In R.E. Riggio, S.S. Orr, & J. Shackley (Eds.), Improving leadership

in nonprofit organizations. (pp. 102-116). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.

Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership (1st ed.). New York: Free Press.

Swartz, M., & Watkins, S. (2003). Power failure: The inside story of the collapse of Enron. New

York: Doubleday.

Tanoff, G. F., & Barlow, C. B. (2002). Leadership and followership: Same animal, different

spots? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54(3), 157-165.

Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.

112

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Trucker, R. (1969). The Marxian evolutionary idea. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1993). Leadership-Making in self-managing professional work

teams: An empirical investigation. In K. E. Clark, D. P. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.),

The impact of leadership (pp. 379-387). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of

America.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership Theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4),

298-318.

Van Velsor, E., Moxley, R. S., & Bunker, K. A. (2004). The leader development process. In C.

D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), Handbook of leadership development (2nd ed.).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vecchio, R. P. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and

within-group variation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 200-208.

Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in

organizations. (pp. 114-123). Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing role is essential

for organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 34(4), 361-375

113

APPENDIX A

Definitions

Part of the reason for the mystification of leadership is captured within the language. As

Bass noted, “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons

who have attempted to define the concept” (Bass, 1990). Ford and Harding (2007) suggest that

the language problem with leadership is the result of personal perspectives. To an individual, the

meaning of the word leadership becomes a derivative of the memories of experiences and

observations of leaders (Ford & Harding, 2007). The result is an understanding of leadership

that is based on who is a leader rather than what a leader does (Ford & Harding, 2007). Rost

(1991) notes the problematic nature of the word leader is rooted in compartmentalization. Rost

(1991) asserts that the paradigm is flawed because all leaders follow and all followers have the

potential to lead (Rost, 1991). Gardner (1986) suggests in the traditional leadership paradigm

labeling someone as a leader they cannot be a follower, conversely, it is assumed that followers

can never lead (Gardner, 1986b). For the purpose of this study, the key terms are defined as

follows:

Follower (n)- People that make the choice to consent to followership, that is they agree

to the social exchange that exists between leader and follower (Homans, 1961).

Followership (n)- The degree or extent the follower is willing to contribute to the

leader-follower relationship (Kelley, 1988).

114

Impact (n)- The degree to which the impression left on others communicates that

behaviors have change in positive or useful ways. ("The American Heritage College

Dictionary", 2000, p. 680; Martineau & Hannum, 2004; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004).

Integrity (n)- The state of being committed to relationships without manipulation or

avoidance of truth (Della Costa, 1998).

Leader (n)- People who inspire followers to work toward both personal and

organizational goals by sharing a vision, sharing power, and providing an example of

integrity for followers to emulate (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978;

Kouzes et al., 2006).

Leader effectiveness (n) – ability to accomplish the goals set forth by leader and

follower in a manner that facilitates setting direction, creating alignment, and maintaining

commitment in groups of people who share common work (Burns, 1978; McCauley &

Van Velsor, 2004).

Leader Development (v)- To develop an individual’s capacity to be effective in

leadership roles and processes (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004).

Leadership (v)- To exchange the triggering of stimulus, inducting followers to work

toward mutual goals of both the leader and follower, for followership (Barbuto, 2000;

Burns, 1978; Hollander, 1992; Homans, 1961, 1973).

Leadership Development (n) – Expansion of an organization’s capacity to enact the

basic leadership tasks needed for collective work (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004).

115

APPENDIX B

LeaderShape published expected outcomes

The purpose of the LeaderShape Institute is to produce a breakthrough in the leadership capacity

of participants and facilitators which is demonstrated on their campus, in their community, or

within their organization.

At the end of The LeaderShape Institute, participants and facilitators will:

1. Commit to identifying their core ethical and personal values and then commit to act on

them.

2. Identify when behavior is not in congruence with their core ethical and personal values.

3. Develop relationships where the dignity and contributions of all people are acknowledged

and respected.

4. Create a vision for the greater good of a community which includes a “healthy disregard

for the impossible”.

5. Develop skills to be able to successfully work in groups and teams to accomplish a

collective vision.

6. Articulate action steps necessary to implement a vision.

7. Increase their capability to produce extraordinary results.

(The LeaderShape Inc., 2007).

116

APPENDIX C

Informed consent

(page 1 of both leader/participant and follower/constituent surveys)

Identification of project/ Purpose of research

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. The study is entitled “Effect of leader

development”, the purpose is to determine if leader development effects the behaviors of

participants over time. The methodology used in this study consists of surveys administered at

differing periods of time after participation in a leader development program. Before taking the

actual survey you will be asked to consent to participating in this study. You will do this

by entering your name and e-mail address at the bottom of this page. Your e-mail address is

being collected to provide a means of communication. This information will not appear in the

text of the dissertation, research publication, proceeding of an academic conference, or be

forwarded or distributed in anyway. The entire process should take between 10 to 30 minutes.

Risk and/or benefits

The data collected in this study are survey responses collected online. No person to person

contact will be required and individual confidentiality will be maintained at all times. As a result,

there are no known risks to participants. By choosing to participate in this study you will be

entered into a drawing for a $100.00 cash prize.

117

Confidentiality

Data will be collected through the surveymonkey site. This site uses SSL encryption to protect

all data while it is being gathered and transferred. Data will be recorded on a security protected

hard drive or stored in a locked file cabinet maintained by the principle investigator. Your name

will not appear in any of the data, text of the dissertation, research publications, or proceeding of

an academic conference. Your evaluation of the leader and your participation in this study will

only be known to the primary investigator.

Opportunity to ask questions

You have the right to ask any question about this research project and have those questions

answered. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact

the primary investigator at XXXXXXX or email XXXXXXX.

Freedom to withdraw

Participation in this study is purely voluntary; you are free to decide not to participate in this

study or to withdraw at anytime without adversely affecting your relationship with the

researcher, XXXXXXX or XXXXXXX. Your decision will not result in any loss of benefits to

which you are otherwise entitled.

Consent, right to receive a copy

As a participant you have a right to review the dissertation before it is submitted. If you are

interested in reviewing the dissertation, send an e-mail to XXXXX and a copy will be provided

to you for review when finished. You have the right to ask any question about this research

118

project and have those questions answered. If you have any questions about this study or the

information in this letter, please feel free to contact the researcher, David

Wanless at XXXXXXXX, or email XXXXXXXXXX. My faculty research advisor, Dr. Marilyn

Bugenhagen, is also available to answer any questions you might have. She can be reached at

XXXXXXXXX or email XXXXXXXX. If you have any questions

about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a concern or complaint about

this study, please contact the Marian University IRB administrator at XXX-XXXX, or e-mail

XXX@XXXX, or regular mail to Marian University, XXXXXXXXXXXX

The XXXXXX Institutional Review Board has reviewed my request to conduct this project. If

you have any concerns about your rights in this study, please contact XXXX of the XXXXXX-

IRB at XXXXXX or e mail XXXXXX.

119

APPENDIX D

Leader/Participant Survey

Page 2 of survey

1. You must be 19 years old to participate in this study. Are you at least 19 years

old?

¤ Yes ¤ No

1. When did you attend the LeaderShape institute? ¤ January 2009 ¤ January 2008 ¤ January 2007

2. Please enter your name in the textbox below. By entering your name you are indicating that you have read the informed consent information, preceding section, and are willing

to participate in this study.

3. Please enter your XXXXX e-mail address. This is being collected as a means of

communication between you and the researcher. By entering your e-mail address you

will be entered into a drawing for a $100.00 cash prize.

Page 3

4. Have you continued to work on the vision you identified during LeaderShape? ¤ Yes, I am focused on this vision

¤ Yes, I spend some time on this vision

¤ Yes, but only a little time

¤ No, I spend no time on this vision

5. How committed to this vision are you? ¤ Fully committed

¤ Committed, but not fully

¤ Committed, but have taken no action

¤ No longer committed

6. Have you used the tools you learned in LeaderShape to identify a new vision you are passionate about?

¤ Yes ¤ Somewhat ¤ No

120

7. How committed to this new vision are you? ¤ Fully committed

¤ Committed, but not fully

¤ Committed, but have taken no action

¤ Not committed

8. Pre-/Post- institute survey. Answer the following questions as honestly as you can. Choose the response the most closely represents you.

I view conflict as something to be avoided….

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

I view change in organizations as vital for growth…

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

I have a deep self-awareness of who I am and how others see me…

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

My peers express confidence in me and my abilities…

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

Leadership is more positional than individual…

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

The LeaderShape Institute greatly impacted me in a positive way….

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

I view the ability to develop inclusive relationships fundamentally important to the role

of the leader…

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

9. Please respond to the following questions based on your own experience with LeaderShape.

In your opinion, did the lessons learned at LeaderShape help you become leaders?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

In your opinion, did the lessons learned at LeaderShape stand the test of time

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

121

Do you still practice the lessons learned at LeaderShape?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

Have/would you recommend the LeaderShape Institute to fellow students?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

Would you attend leaderShape again if it were possible?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

Page 4

10. Do you know where you stand with your followers…do you usually know how satisfied your followers are with what you do?

¤ Rarely ¤ Occasionally ¤ Sometimes ¤ Fairly Often ¤ Very Often

11. How well does your follower understand your job problems and needs?

¤ Not a bit ¤ A little ¤ A fair amount ¤ Quite a bit ¤ A great deal

12. How well do your followers recognize your potential?

¤ Not at all ¤ A little ¤ Moderately ¤ Mostly ¤ Fully

13. Regardless of how much formal authority your follower has, what are the chances that he/she would use their power to help you solve problems?

¤ None ¤ Small ¤ Moderate ¤ High ¤ Very High

14. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your follower has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out” at their expense?

¤ None ¤ Small ¤ Moderate ¤ High ¤ Very High

122

15. I have enough confidence in my followers that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he/she were not present to do so?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

16. How would you characterize your working relationship with your follower?

¤ Extremely Ineffective ¤ Worse than average ¤ Average

¤ Better than average ¤ Extremely Effective

123

APPENDIX E

Constituent/Follower survey

Page 2 of survey

1. You must be 19 years old to participate in this study. Are you at least 19 years old? ¤ Yes ¤ No

2. How long have you known the LeaderShape participant?

¤ 6 months ¤ 1 year ¤ 2 years ¤ 3 years ¤ 4 years ¤ longer

3. How would you define your relationship with the LeaderShape participant?

¤ Good Friend ¤ Friend ¤ Casual Friend ¤Acquaintance ¤ Stranger

4. What is the context of your relationship? For example, are you classmates,

organizational members, or team mates? What is the common ground between you and

the LeaderShape participant?

5. Is the LeaderShape participant male or female (optional)?

¤ Male ¤ Female

6. Are you male or female? (Optional)?

¤ Male ¤ Female

124

7. Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?

¤ Rarely ¤ Occasionally ¤ Sometimes ¤ Fairly Often ¤ Very Often

8. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?

¤ Not a bit ¤ A little ¤ A fair amount ¤ Quite a bit ¤ A great deal

9. How well does your leader recognize your potential?

¤ Not at all ¤ A little ¤ Moderately ¤ Mostly ¤ Fully

10. Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he/she would use their power to help you solve problems?

¤ None ¤ Small ¤ Moderate ¤ High ¤ Very High

11. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out” at their expense?

¤ None ¤ Small ¤ Moderate ¤ High ¤ Very High

12. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he/she were not present to do so?

¤ Strongly Disagree ¤ Disagree ¤ Neutral ¤ Agree ¤ Strongly Agree

13. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?

¤ Extremely Ineffective ¤ Worse than average ¤ Average

¤ Better than average ¤ Extremely Effective

125

APPENDIX F

Leader-Member Exchange 7 (LMX7)

1. Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do? (does your member usually know)

Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often

2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs? (how well do you understand)

Not a bit A little A fair amount Quite a bit A great deal

3. How well does your leader recognize your potential? (how well do you recognize)

Not at all A little Moderately Mostly Fully

4. Regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he/she would use his/her power to help you solve problems? (what are the chances that

you would)

None Small Moderate High Very High

5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he/she would “bail you out” at their expense? (what are the chances that you would)

None Small Moderate High Very High

6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he/she were not present to do so? (your member would)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader? (your member)

Extremely Worse than Better than Extremely

Ineffective Average Average Average Effective

Notes: Continious scale of sum of 5-point items (1 left to 5 right). Leader’s form consists of same seven items

asked about member of (leader in parentheses). Expected agreement between leader and member reports is positive

and strong and used as an index of quality of data. (Scandura & Graen, 1984)

126

APPENDIX G

Invitation Letter to Leader/Participants

Dear LeaderShape participants,

My name is David Wanless; I am a faculty member at XXXXXXXX and a doctoral

student at XXXXXXX. Last year, I had the opportunity to participate in the 2008 LeaderShape

Institute as a cluster facilitator and as a result, I know how moving this experience has been for

you. My experience with LeaderShape sparked an interest in better understanding leadership

and I am in the process of researching leader development. The purpose of this study is to

evaluate the effectiveness of leader development from the perspective of the follower. I need

your help.

Attached you will find two documents. The first is entitled leader-invitation; it provides

the details of the research. The second letter entitled constituent-invitation is intended for your

constituents (followers). To participate in this study you need to do two things. First, read the

invitation letter and follow this link, http://tinyurl.com/Leadershape-participant. This will take you

to a survey site, and then take the survey. The whole process should take about 10 minutes. The

second thing you need to do is to forward this message and attachment to five individuals you

consider to be constituent or follower.

Your willingness to participate is completely confidential. Your name and the names of

your followers will not be used at any point in the data collection process, nor in the text of the

dissertation. Understand your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you have

the right to choose not to participate or withdraw from the study at anytime. Attached you find a

file named "leader-invitation to participate", this letter provides details study and provides

resources if you have any questions. By agreeing to participate in this study you will be eligible

to win a $100.00 cash prize to be drawn on April 1st, 2009

Thank you for your time and consideration,

David D. Wanless

XXXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXX

http://tinyurl.com/Leadershape-participant#_blank

127

APPENDIX H

Invitation Letter to Constituent/Follower

Hello,

My name is David Wanless; I am a faculty member at XXXXX and doctoral student at

XXXXXX and am in the process of researching leader development. You have been identified

as a constituent or follower of an individual who has recently attended the XXXXXXX

LeaderShape Institute. Your perception of this individual is important to understanding leader

development.

The study is entitled “Effect of leader development”. The purpose of the study is to determine if

leader development effects the behaviors of participants over time. The method is to survey

followers of leader development participants to assess behaviors. This will happen in two

distinct phases. The first phase is to capture an initial response from followers shortly after

participation in a leader development program. This initial survey will provide a baseline for

comparison. If you agree to participate, you will again be surveyed one month after initial

survey. This survey will indicate if you as a follower have noticed any growth on the part of the

participant over this time frame. The first page of the survey is entitled informed consent, please

review this document as it contains details of the study and a full disclosure of any risks you

might encounter as a participant.

Participation in this study is purely voluntary; you are free to decide not to participate in this

study or to withdraw at anytime without adversely effecting your relationship with the

researcher, XXXXX, or XXXXXXXXX. Your decision will not result in any loss of benefits to

which you are otherwise entitled. By choosing to participate in this study you will be helping

make a genuine contribution to the existing body of knowledge about leaders. Additionally, all

respondents will be entered into a drawing for a $100.00 cash prize, which will be drawn on

April 1, 2009.

Your involvement in this study is purely confidential. The individual that forwarded this

message to you will not know if you have decided to participate in this study. Your identity and

participation in this study will be confidential. You will be asked for your name and email

address, this information is being collected to authenticate informed consent and to provide

contact for the follow-up survey and as a means for informing the drawing winner of their prize.

Only the primary investigator will have access to this information, names and survey results will

not be shared with any party. This information will not appear in the text of the dissertation,

128

research publication, or proceeding of an academic conference. Additionally, this information

will not be forwarded or distributed in anyway.

You have the right to ask any question about this research project and have those questions

answered. If you have any questions about this study or the information in this letter, please feel

free to contact the researcher, David Wanless at XXXXXXX, or regular mail to

XXXXXXXXXXX, or e-mail XXXXXXXXX. My faculty research advisor, Dr. Marilyn

Bugenhagen, is also available to answer any questions you might have. She can be reached at

XXXXXXX, or regular mail to XXXXXXXXXXXX, or e-mail XXXXXXXXX If you have any

questions about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a concern or

complaint about this study, please contact the Marian University IRB administrator at

XXXXXX, or e-mail XXXXXXX, or regular mail to Marian University, XXXXXXXXX..

The XXXXXXX Institutional Review Board has reviewed my request to conduct this project. If

you have any concerns about your rights in this study, please contact XXXXXX of the

XXXXXXX-IRB at XXXXXXX or email XXXXXXXX.

To participate in this study simply hit control (Ctrl) and left click on the link posted below. You

will need your leader number, found in the subject box of the initial email message.

http://tinyurl.com/Leadershape-Constituent

Thank you for your time and consideration,

David D. Wanless

http://tinyurl.com/Leadershape-Constituent

129

APPENDIX I

LeaderShape Pre- and Post-Institute Survey and Data

Questions 15, 16, and 17 had inverted scales. Results were inverted in the analysis of this

data when used in the study.

Questions 19 and 20 used two and three point likert scales. These questions were

removed prior to analysis of this data when used in this study.

Because 18 questions were actually used in this analysis percentages were formulated for

comparison purposes.

130

APPENDIX J

LeaderShape Background

This study offers the examination of both leaders and followers, the leaders were all

participants of LeaderShape. LeaderShape is a internationally recognized Leader development

program that was originally founded by Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity with the hope of improving

campus leadership among male engineering students (The Leadershape institute faculty manual,

2007). LeaderShape, founded in 1986, has a long history of leader development among college

students (LeaderShape Inc, 2007). The scope of LeaderShape has changed, the program is now

delivered to both men and women in all areas of study. The program has grown substantially

since its inception, in 2007 fifty-six individual institutions were conducted as well as eight

national sessions (The LeaderShape Inc., 2007).

The LeaderShape institute is spread over the course of six solid days of activities and

personal refection. The LeaderShape experience is laced with positive moral messages building

off the foundations of relationships, community, vision, and integrity (The LeaderShape Inc.,

2007). The highly refined curriculum is formatted to help participants discover themselves on a

personal level (The LeaderShape Inc., 2007). This self-discovery includes the identification of

passion and values, essential ingredients for vision development which play a major role in the

experience (The LeaderShape Inc., 2007). Each participant formulates their own personal vision,

something the passionately want to pursue. On the fourth day of the institute posters of each

vision is displayed as leaders from the community are invited to give feedback to each

participant, this is a truly moving experience for all involved (Bergeron, personal

communication, April 18 th

, 2009).

131

APPENDIX K

Leader development intervention application

What is your current cumulative grade point average (A minimum of 2.50 for those with an

established GPA is strongly encouraged)?

What was your last semester GPA?

Are you participating in a co-op or internship opportunity fall semester (2008)? If yes, with

which company?

Please list all University-related areas in which you are currently involved (extracurricular

activities, associations, sports, student clubs or organizations, fraternities/sororities, academic

programs, etc.). Include any leadership positions held and for how long (Note: prior campus

involvement is not a prerequisite for LeaderShape participation).

Please list any community service and/or volunteer experiences in which you have participated.

Include any leadership positions held and length of involvement.

Please list any scholarships and honors you have received.

What are your interests and hobbies?

What talents and skills do you possess that make you unique?

What is your personal definition of leadership?

Who has been the most influential leader in your life and why?

An important part of the LeaderShape experience is the visioning process. What is an issue

plaguing our communities (university community, local community, global community, etc.) and

how would you like to see positive change happen in that community?

132

APPENDIX L

Testimonials from LeaderShape participants

LeaderShape is a place where you not only learn how to be a successful leader, but also you

learn about some important parts of yourself.

Samantha, LeaderShape 2008

LeaderShape is an amazing experience you will never forget. The program allows you to come

up with a vision in an environment with all the support and guidance you will ever need to help

make your vision become a reality in your organizations or your daily lives.

Victoria, LeaderShape 2006

LeaderShape was one of the best leadership programs I have ever been to. It was very

informative and FUN at the same time. I have used what I have learned there on several

occasions as an RA, student, and person.

Julie, LeaderShape 2006

133

APPENDIX M

Director of Research Integrity Letter of Permission

134

APPENDIX N

Author of LMX-7 Letter for Permission for Use

Dr. Scandura,

I hope this letter finds you well. As part of my doctoral work I am using LMX-7 as a measure of

leader-member exchange. I am wondering if I can get your permission to use this instrument for

my research. My advisor had thought that it was open source but, I cannot find that stated.

The nature of my research is leader development intervention effectiveness and I am measuring

leader-member exchange longitudinally, four time periods over two years, post intervention

participation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

David Wanless

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXX

Dear David,

You are welcome to use LMX-7 for general research purposes. It can be found in Scandura and

Graen, 1984.

Good luck with your research,

Dr. Scandura

University of Miami

Department of Graduate Studies

[email protected]

1. 2011-08-25T13:37:18-0400
2. Preflight Ticket Signature