3-Data Analysis SPSS® Familiarity Practice

Davidk25m

quantitative_study_women_leaders_2_1.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >3-Data Analysis SPSS® Familiarity Practice

A CHANGING OF THE GUARD: WOMEN AS LEADERS IN TODAY’S MILITARY ENVIRONMENT

Dissertation

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

in the Carter and Moyers School of Education at Lincoln Memorial University

Lisa A. Godsey

July 2012

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon 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.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

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

UMI 3544479 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3544479

Lisa A. Godsey

iii

Dedication

I am dedicating this dissertation to my amazing parents, Joseph and Janet Budnar.

My father Joseph taught me the meaning of dedication, loyalty, and hard work. My

mother Janet has always been my inspiration and role model. I love and thank you both

for all your love, wisdom, and support!

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Drs. Gary Peevely, Karen

Carter, and Patricia Clark. Your sage advice, insightful criticisms, and patient

encouragement aided the writing of this dissertation. My love and deepest appreciation is

extended to family and friends for always encouraging and believing in me.

Abstract

The purpose of this causal-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a

significant difference existed between male and female senior leadership within today’s

ever changing military organization. Male and female officers and noncommissioned

officers in the Air National Guard (n=20) were surveyed. This study provided insight

into various leadership styles of senior male and female Air National Guard leaders. The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) served as the research

instrument with the transformational leadership category being the primary focal point

for the data collected. The study provided evidence that participants displayed some if not

all the key characteristics of a transformational leader. The study determined there was

no statistically significant difference in the transformational leadership style between

males and females regardless of rank or gender. The study confirmed mentoring future

leaders regardless of rank or gender as the most important role of a transformational

leader in today’s military.

Table of Contents

Chapter ....................................................................................................................... Page

Chapter I: Introduction .........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 3

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 3

Description of Terms ....................................................................................................... 4

Significance of the Project .............................................................................................. 9

Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 14

Chapter II: Literature Review ............................................................................................15

Equal Opportunities....................................................................................................... 17

Servant Leadership ........................................................................................................ 22

Transformational Leader Characteristics ...................................................................... 24

Air Force Mentoring Program ....................................................................................... 27

Chapter III: Methodology ..................................................................................................31

Research Design ............................................................................................................ 31

Population...................................................................................................................... 32

Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 33

Analytical Methods ....................................................................................................... 34

Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................. 35

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter IV: Analyses and Results .....................................................................................38

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 38

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 39

Summary of the Results ................................................................................................ 41

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................44

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 44

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 45

Implications ................................................................................................................... 51

References ..........................................................................................................................55

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................64

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................66

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................68

Appendix D ........................................................................................................................70

Appendix E ........................................................................................................................72

Appendix F.........................................................................................................................76

Chapter I: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

“In 2011, women comprised 51.4% of management, professional and related

positions” (Catalyst, 2012, p. 1) in the U. S. labor force, yet only represented “16.1% of

Fortune 500 board seats” (Catalyst, 2012, p. 2). Women in the military ranks were also

represented with 286,888 serving on Active Duty, the Reserve and the National Guard

(U.S. Department of Defense, 2011). Despite the growing number of women serving in

the military, Rutgers Institute for Women’s Leadership (2010) reported “only one woman

out of 41 was serving at the very highest rank of General-Admiral” (para. 1).

Challenging economic times, wars on two fronts, and growing unrest in the country

created an atmosphere indicative of leadership transformation.

Supporting the benefits of increasing the diversity of a workforce, Cox (2001)

believed “well-managed diversity can add value to an organization by (1) improving

problem solving, (2) increasing creativity and innovation, (3) increasing organizational

flexibility, (4) improving the quality of personnel through better recruitment and

retention, and (5) improving marketing strategies” (p. 6). Increasing the recruitment and

retention of women into upper echelons of both the business world and the military

provided organizations with options to achieving the goal of sustainable long-term

economic growth and well-being through leadership diversity at the top (DiSilverio,

2003).

The transformational movement of women entering the workforce signified a

major societal change. Podesta (2009) stated “workplaces are no longer the domain of

men…women now comprise half the workers on employers’ payrolls” (p. iii).

Harrington and Ladge (2009) concluded women were becoming exceedingly more

successful with “38% of working women holding managerial and other professional”

(p. 201) positions in the workforce. Companies led by women reported healthier bottom

lines (Harrington & Ladge, 2009) as women continued to seek and find a place in the

business world. Just as the number of women has increased in the workplace, the number

of women now serving in the military mirrored this increase. Women currently comprise

14.6% of the active-duty military (Terkel, 2012). More specifically, women represented

“18% of the Air Force of which 17% were officers and 20% were serving in the enlisted

force” (Air Force Personnel Center, 2012, p. 5).

Not only were more women entering the workforce and the military, more women

were also seeking higher education opportunities. Mason (2011) reported that women

earned 62 percent of college associate’s degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60

percent of all master’s degrees, half of all professional degrees, and just under half of all

Ph.D.’s. These statistics were indicative of the advances women were making in today’s

society when compared to the percentage of women who received degrees in the 1970s.

Mason (2011) added “in 1970, women received fewer than half of undergraduate degrees,

fewer than 40 percent of all graduate degrees, and fewer than 10 percent of all

professional degrees and doctoral degrees” (p. 161). Despite the reported statistics of

more women entering the workforce and the military and more women seeking and

obtaining higher education, there was still a disparity in the number of leadership

opportunities for women compared to male counterparts.

Background

Men have traditionally dominated leadership roles. For example, the Great Man

Theory focused on characteristics such as charisma, intelligence, and influence of great

men or heroes (Denmark, 1993). During this time in history, women were not viewed as

possible leaders, with most leadership research focusing solely on males. Bass (1985)

ultimately provided what would later prove to be the foundation for a new school of

thought in relation to women as leaders with his transformational leadership theory.

To date, the United States had several high-ranking leadership positions in

political, business, and military arenas that were filled by women: Secretaries of State

Madeline Albright, Hilary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, The Army’s first Four Star

General Ann Dunwoody and CEOs Xerox Corporation Ursula Burns and IBM

Corporation Virginia Rometty. However, although impressive accomplishments, such

high ranking leadership positions hardly represented a celebration of equality for women

in today’s work environment. Leahey (2012) reported “Yahoo's new chief Marissa

Mayer is the youngest CEO in the Fortune 500” (para. 1). Leahey (2012) added

“Mayer's appointment means that the Fortune 500 now has 20 female CEOs” (para. 1).

Mayer’s addition to the Fortune 500 set a record high for women appointed to leadership

positions, however, although progress had been made a transformational change had not

occurred.

Research Questions

This casual-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a disparity existed

between how males and females led in a military organization, specifically the U.S. Air

Force. The following research questions guided the study:

Research question 1. Are female officers more transformational in leadership

style than their male counterparts?

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership

style of female officers and their male counterparts.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and their male counterparts.

Research question 2. Are female noncommissioned officers more

transformational in leadership style than their male counterparts?

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership

style of female noncommissioned officers and their male counterparts.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female noncommissioned officers and their male counterparts.

Research question 3. Are female officers more transformational in leadership

style than female noncommissioned officers?

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership

style of female officers and female noncommissioned officers.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and female noncommissioned officer.

Description of Terms

Autocratic leadership style. Jogula and Wood (2006) defined autocratic leaders

“as leaders who used their power to force, or their ability to persuade in leading their

followers” (p. 4). Autocratic leaders often used position power rather than personal

power to influence followers.

Behavioral styles of leadership. Behavioral style leadership focused on two

types of behavior: task behavior and relationship behavior. Northouse (2007) believed

“task behaviors facilitate goal accomplishment…help group members achieve their

objectives” (p. 69). Northouse (2007) added “relationship behaviors help subordinates

feel comfortable with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they

find themselves” (p. 69). Blake and Mouton (1964) developed a managerial grid “to

explain how leaders help organizations to reach their purposes through two factors:

concern for production and concern for people” (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 72).

Stanford, Oates, and Flores (2005) found an “insignificant amount of empirical research

into the behavioral leadership-gender debate” (p. 11) despite the projected impact of

women entering the workforce and the military.

Democratic leadership style. The democratic leadership style enabled the leader

to develop an “open, trusting, and follower-oriented relationship” (Bass, 1990, p. 45)

with subordinates. Democratic leaders “encouraged followers to establish independent

policies, provided a unique perspective by explaining in advance the procedures for

accomplishing the goals, and granted the followers independence to commence

individual tasks” (Jogula & Wood, 2006, p. 6).

Great Man Theory of leadership. The Great Man Theory of leadership founded

in the early 20th century focused on characteristics and actions of male leaders who were

perceived to possess great power over people, cultures, and nations. Northouse (2007)

stated “it was believed people were born with these traits and only “great” people

possessed them” (p. 15). Denmark (1993) believed “very few people were thought to

have such abilities which were believed to be innate and inherently abilities found only in

men” (p. 345). Bass (1990) stated “some men are leaders who are endowed with unique

qualities that capture the imagination of the masses” (p. 37). Due to the timeframe in

which the Great Man Theory was constructed, the theory did not impact the women

serving in the military.

Idealized Attributes (IA): Transformational leaders who demonstrated idealized

attributes “instill pride in others, go beyond self-interest for the good of the group, act in

ways that build other’s respect, and display a sense of power and confidence” (Bass and

Avolio, 1995, p. 94).

Idealized Behavior (IB): Transformational leaders who demonstrated idealized

behavior “talk about my most important values and beliefs, specify the importance of

having a strong sense of purpose, consider the moral and ethical consequences of

decisions, and emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission” (Bass

and Avolio, 1995, p. 94). Idealized attributes and idealized behavior were two key

characteristics of idealized influence.

Idealized Influence: One of four key components of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) the researcher used to collect data for this study.

Bass and Avolio (1995) believed “transformational leaders have associates who view

them in an idealized way, and as such, these leaders wield much power and influence

over their followers” (p. 26).

Individual Consideration: One of four key components of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) the researcher used to collect data for

this study. Transformational leaders “pay attention to each individual’s need for

achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor” (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 95).

Transformational leaders who exhibit individual consideration “spend time teaching and

coaching, treat others as individuals rather than just a member of the group, and help

others to develop their strengths (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 95).

Inspirational Motivation: One of four key components of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) the researcher used to collect data for

this study. “Inspirational leaders articulate, in simple ways, shared goals and mutual

understanding of what is right and important. They provide visions of what is possible

and how to attain them (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 27). Transformational leaders

exhibited the following inspirational motivation characteristics: “talk optimistically about

the future, articulate a compelling vision of the future, and express confidence that goals

will be achieved” (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 94).

Intellectual Stimulation: One of four key components of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) the researcher used to collect data for

this study. In addition to idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individual

consideration, transformational leaders “help others to think about old problems in new

ways” (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 27). Transformational leaders exhibited the following

intellectual stimulation characteristics: “seek differing perspectives when solving

problems, get others to look at problems from many different angles, and suggest new

ways of looking at how to complete assignments” (Bass and Avolio, 1995, p. 95).

Laissez-faire leadership style. A laissez-faire leadership style referred to the

extent that leadership was either “avoided or attempted” (Bass, 1990, p. 94) by the leader.

Northouse (2007) added laissez-faire leaders “abdicate responsibility, delays decisions,

gives no feedback, and makes little effort to help followers satisfy their needs” (p. 186).

Leader. Gardner (1995) defined a leader as “an individual (or, rarely, a set of

individuals) who significantly affects the thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors of a

significant number of individuals” (p. ix).

Trait theory of leadership. The Trait Theory expanded on the Great Man

concept by focusing “on the unique and exceptional abilities and traits of certain

individuals” (Spotts, 1976, p. 36). Stogdill (1974) conducted a study identifying 10 key

trait characteristics which included the “ability to influence other people’s behavior and

capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand” (as cited in

Northouse, 2007, p. 17). Jogula and Wood (2006) believed “these traits were thought to

be inborn and unique to male leaders” (p. 2).

Transactional leadership theory. One of the first to address transactional

leadership was James McGregor Burns. Jogulu and Wood (2006) stated “in the late

1970s, Burns developed a comprehensive theory to explain the differences between the

behavior of political leaders by using the terms ‘transactional’ and ‘transformational’

leadership” (p. 7). Burns (1978) described transactional leaders as people who

“emphasized work standards and assignments and had task-oriented aims” (p. 128).

Northouse (2007) added “the transactional leader does not individualize the needs of

subordinates or focus on their personal development” (p. 185).

Transformational leadership theory. The transformational leadership theory

focused on “improving the performance of followers and developing followers to their

fullest potential” (Avolio, Walderman, & Yammarino, 1991, p. 9). Transformational

leaders achieved organizational change by creating an awareness of the goals and mission

of the organization. Hay (2007) compared and contrasted transactional and

transformational leadership theories and proposed in today’s evolving organizations

leaders needed to employ both leadership styles to achieve the visionary goals of the

organization and its people. Concluding a blend of both transactional and

transformational leadership if balanced correctly and used in the proper situation was

more beneficial to the organization and its people than one style. Hay (2007) believed

that both styles used succinctly did not only satisfy “the organization’s higher level

needs,” but also the “follower’s higher level needs” (p. 10).

United States military commissioned officer. An officer is the title used for the

senior portion of the military rank structure. An officer is an individual serving in one of

the five branches of the armed forces who has taken an oath to hold a position of

authority enabling them to act as a commanding officer. For the purpose of this study,

officers will be limited to the ranks of 04 – 06 (e.g. major, lieutenant colonel, and

colonel).

United States military noncommissioned officer. A noncommissioned officer

is the title used for the senior portion of the enlisted rank structure. For the purpose of

this study, noncommissioned officers will be limited to the ranks of E7–E9 (e.g. master

sergeants, senior master sergeants and, chief master sergeants).

Significance of the Project

Diversity in today’s workplace was essential to “exploring new ideas, making

good decisions and recruiting and retaining quality personnel” (Cox, 2001, p. 490).

Decision-making based on the experience of predominately men led to “narrow

decisions, arrogance, and short-term gains” at the expense of long-term goals and larger

values (Betances, 1999, p. 4). Senge (1990) believed organizations needed a view that

moved away from the “traditional role of leadership being the focal point of the

organizational decision making to that of establishing vision and setting a direction”

(p. 340). Additionally, Senge (1990) believed “in a learning organization leaders are

designers, stewards, and teachers” (p. 340). Senge (1990) added leaders were

“responsible for building organizations” (p. 340) where a diverse group of people were

encouraged and inspired to work toward a collaborative and shared vision of the

organization as a whole.

Diversity provided inclusion of a wide range of voices, opinions, life experiences,

and situational perspectives. This perception began not only with racial and ethnic

diversity but also included gender diversity as well. In 2009, the United States Supreme

Court found that diversity “promotes learning outcomes, better prepares students for an

increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals”

(Peterson, 2011, para. 4). Peterson (2011) added "a highly qualified, diverse officer

corps," was essential to national security (para. 5).

Davidson and Cooper (1992) summarized the “ubiquitous glass ceiling” (p. 9) as

a perceived invisible obstacle hindering the opportunity for women to advance. A

Cornell University report stated “the term ‘glass ceiling’ first came into use in 1986,

when two Wall Street Journal reporters coined the phrase to describe the invisible barrier

that blocks women from advancing to senior leadership positions in organizations” (p.1).

Diamond (2007) added the “term was coined to describe the corporate traditions,

practices and prejudices that blocked women in organizations” (p. 8). Sczesny (2003)

believed “this phenomenon is called the glass ceiling to describe a barrier so subtle that it

is transparent yet so strong that it prevents women and minorities from moving up in the

management hierarchy” (p. 1).

Frankel (2007) believed that women were not in key leadership positions due to

the misnomer women had yet to learn how to play the proverbial game of leadership.

The leadership concept being that the game of business was played on a field where

males have been comfortable since they were very young. It is a game where “winning

was the only objective and where aggression, self-promotion, and a tough skin are clear

signs of a winner” (Frankel, 2007, pp. 6-7). Book (2000) added women in corporate

America were at a disadvantage being forced to “compete in a world they never made”

(p. 27).

Twenty-first century leadership required thinking that transcended the status quo

allowing collaboration to achieve positive results for everyone not a select group. Ernst

and Young (2012) believed “globalization and underlying demographic trends meant that

competition to employ outstanding people evolved rapidly…successful companies were

adapting to these rapid changes by equipping people with the skills to lead in the diverse

21st-century workforce” (para. 1). Tarr-Whelan (2009) concluded “leaders of the future

need to think over the horizon, work collaboratively, and achieve results that are good for

everyone, not just a few” (p. 78). Additionally, believed these leadership skills were

inherent in women that included collaborative partnerships, teambuilding and collective

networks which not only improved productivity but also lead to a healthier return on

investments.

Demographics in 21st century workplaces have changed. Women were now

recognized as a critical part of the workforce mix. Burke and Cooper (2004) believed

“today’s organizations required more talented employees and these were increasingly

found to be women” (p. 102). However, Barsh and Yee (2011) believed despite the fact

that more women were entering the workforce “the full potential of women in the

workforce has yet to be tapped” (para. 1). In addition, Omar and Davidson (2001) found

the styles of leadership required in today’s organizations were those that were more

‘‘relational-oriented, nurturing and caring’’ (p. 40). Leadership style characteristics

typically associated with women and closely aligned with transformational leadership, a

markedly different style of leadership than the historically “aggressive, competitive and

task-oriented” (Omar & Davidson, 2001, p. 40) styles readily associated with male

managers, coined the “feminization of management” (Omar & Davidson, 2001, p. 40).

However, despite these views and findings, women were still not advancing into

senior leadership positions. For example, women in the Fortune 500 companies held only

16.1% of board seats (Catalyst, 2012, p. 2) at a time when women held 50.3% of

management, professional, and related occupations (Podesta, 2009). These figures were

indicative to the fact women were advancing into management roles and also appeared to

give the impression women possessed the leadership skill sets needed to be effective

leaders. However, despite “a 2010 World Economic Forum report on corporate practices

for gender diversity in 20 countries, 59% of the companies surveyed say they offer

internally led mentoring and networking programs, and 28% say they have women-

specific programs,” (Ibarra, Carter, & Silva, 2010, para. 4), women were still not

advancing into the more senior positions of leadership at the same rate as male

counterparts.

Contemporary theories such as transformational and servant leadership

recognized the contribution women brought to a leadership role. These contemporary

theories included the behaviors, attitudes, and skills attributed to women in leadership

roles. There was a widely held recognition that women had the leadership skills to lead

in organizations effectively today and were much more likely to have these

characteristics than male colleagues in management (Barsh & Cranston, 2009). For

centuries, women had:

unwittingly honed the quintessential qualities necessary for successful leadership.

Whether acquired through nature or nurture, women’s adeptness at building

relationships, encouraging others to succeed, carefully crafting their

communications and creating environments of trust and safety…qualify them as

outstanding transformational leaders. (Frankel, 2007, p. xiv)

Therefore, although the leadership literature played a significant role in raising the

profile of women in leadership, further developments were required to advance the

careers of women as leaders. Betances (1999) believed that for real organizational

change, such as raising the profile of women in leadership, to occur three conditions must

be met. First and foremost, “there must be dissatisfaction with the way things are”

(Betances, 1999, p. 137). Second, Betances (1999) stated “there must be a vision of

where the organization wants to go and a process by which to get there” (p. 137).

Finally, transformational leaders who embraced “the challenge of change while seeking a

more prosperous future” (Betances, 1999, p. 137) were needed to influence and develop

the current and future generations within the organization in the hope that the change did

not only occur but also remained viable. With more women now entering the workforce,

it was imperative to understand what attributes were essential to mentor and prepare

women to take advantage of leadership opportunities (Podesta, 2009).

The purpose of this casual-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a

significant difference existed between how males and females led in a military

organization. The researcher surveyed male and female officers as well as male and

female noncommissioned officers in one Air National Guard unit to determine if gender

and rank were significant factors within a transformational leadership style. The primary

purpose was not to debate whether women or men made better leaders, rather to centered

upon the concept of whether women possessed the transformational leadership skill sets

needed to succeed in today’s organizations. Understanding what worked from others,

whether men or women, provided the opportunity to build upon strengths, reduced the

liability of weaknesses, and improved chances to succeed. The information gathered was

beneficial to stakeholders within the military and the political arena who were concerned

with capitalizing on diversity and enhancing the military’s ability to accomplish its

mission in today’s dynamic and diverse environment.

Assumptions

The researcher assumed all participants had completed the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) survey and did so in the allotted time provided as

directed by the researcher. The researcher also assumed all participants answered each

question thoughtfully and honestly. The researcher made the assumption that the

population was representative of Air National Guard Bases with similar demographics.

The researcher assumed all participants possessed a high school diploma, which

established a minimum level of understanding, while answering the 45-question survey.

Chapter II: Literature Review

The United States military has not been a career path women have traditionally

chosen to pursue, however women have voluntarily chosen to enlist and serve in all

branches of the military and actively participated and fought in all of the wars the United

States has been involved in throughout history. Monahan and Greenlee (2010) added:

The entrance of American women into the U. S. military was not an easy one. Its

conception was analogous to parthenogenesis, and few men in the military,

Congress, or the street saw the product of that conception as anything that would

affect mankind, America or the American culture in a positive manner. The

population as a whole and particularly those in power saw the very idea as a threat

to America and an abomination to the “natural order” that was the foundation of

American society. (p. 5)

However, despite tumultuous beginnings significant changes have occurred over the last

50 years significantly impacting the evolution of the role of women serving in the

military.

Technological advances in the nation’s weapon systems, the diminishing number

of men enlisting in the military, and a significant increase in the number of women

entering the workforce all emerged as pivotal components driving change. For example,

today, women comprised about “14% of the active force and roughly 17% of the Guard

and Reserve components” (Wong, 2011, para. 1). Solaro (2006) concluded in recent

decades, changes in both law and policy altered women’s roles and military positions

women were allowed to perform.

The military mirrored the civilian sector with women serving in support rather

than leadership roles during the early 1900s. Breuer (1997) stated “allowing women to

serve in the military during wartime has been the subject of controversy since World War

I, when, for the first time in history, thousands of American women volunteered” (p. 1).

Breuer (1997) added “unlike the men, these pioneers were targets of gossip and branded

as camp followers and women with loose morals” (p. 1). Faced with a war in Europe and

the fear the Navy would not be able to fill its clerical and secretarial support roles, in

March 1917, the Secretary of the Navy authorized the enrollment of women in the

Reserves (Breuer, 1997). De Pauw (1998) reinforced the belief that women served in

support roles rather than leadership roles during World War I stating “the greatest

number of women who went to the front were primarily caring for the wounded”

(p. 218). Iskra (2008) added women “served as temporary or auxiliary workers, or in a

separate but unequal corps, such as the Army and Navy nurse corps” (p. 1). Despite the

fact that there were several restrictions, the Army-Navy Nurse Act of 1947 and the

Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 legally provided women with the

opportunity to enlist in the United States military establishing a permanent place for those

that chose to serve in military history. Doll (2008) added:

The act made women (other than nurses) eligible to serve in the active duty

military in times of peace as permanent regular and reserve members of the Army,

Navy, Marines, and the then recently formed Air Force. (2) It also set limits on

the number of women who could serve in the Armed Forces. Enlisted women

could total no more than 2 percent of the total force in each branch of the service,

while women officers (excluding nurses) could not exceed 10 percent of the

enlisted women strength. The act also limited career opportunities. (3) It did not

allow women to have command authority over men. (para. 5)

However, despite the restrictions, Iskra (2008) described women receiving equal pay as

male counterparts of the same rank as “one of the most enlightening aspects” of the post

World War II acts.

Book (2000) believed that women leaders assumed “traditionally masculine traits

becoming domineering, authoritative, and tough” (p. xii). Frankel (2007) added “women

who seek positions of leadership in the workplace need to abandon feminine behaviors

that make them seem unauthoritative” (p. 141) in order to be effective. Allsep (2010)

rejected Frankel’s belief that women could shed their femininity and successfully lead in

a military environment. Allsep (2010) summarized that women did not have the

autocratic leadership style nor the position power needed to “provide men with combat

leadership” (p. 300).

Frankel (2007) described democratic leaders as “caring, considerate, and easy to

compromise with a strong sense of responsibility and attachment to followers” (p. 122).

Disler (2010) added a woman’s leadership style was more relationship oriented rather

than task or systems focused. According to Powell and Graves (2003) “women

implement a more democratic style of leadership” (p. 86) which was a direct contrast to

both men who tended to lead with a more autocratic approach and the military

environment.

Equal Opportunities

Throughout most of recorded history, combat fighting held the official

consideration of a males-only activity. However, according to Pentagon statistics, more

than 140 women have lost their lives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than

860 have been wounded (Starr, 2012). The United States Department of Defense

announced February 9, 2012, that it planned “to open more than 14,000 jobs for women

after a potential policy change allowing women to serve in positions closer to combat”

(Caiola, 2012, para. 1). The policy change had the “biggest effect on the Army, where

only 66 percent of jobs are currently open to women, but will have a smaller effect on the

Navy and the Air Force due to the fact that more positions in these branches are already

open to women” (Caiola, 2012, para. 2). Despite the fact that women were not allowed in

combat jobs until recently, women were frequently exposed to enemy fire. It was not

until 1994 that the Department of Defense rescinded the risk rule, allowing military

women to accept position in the direct line of fire. Burrelli (2012) stated this change

established “260,000 new positions for U.S. military females” (p. 3). However,

McGregor (2012) added 250,000 combat jobs remain officially closed to women.

Women also hoped the risk rule change and the potential new policy initiative

would provide greater promotion opportunities, traditionally reserved for the male

counterparts for combat experience. Terkel (2012) believed the risk rule policies

constituted a barrier keeping women from entering the tactical career fields associated

with promotion and serving in career enhancing assignments. This invisible barrier

although similar to the glass ceiling is coined the brass ceiling in the military

environment. An example of the military’s brass ceiling was best described by

McGregor’s (2012) statement “if women remain restricted to combat service and combat

service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine

Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” (para. 3).

Martinez (2008) reported 57 women held the rank of general or admiral. One of which

held a four-star ranking with three women earning the rank of three-stars. However,

women in high-ranking positions remain low. Among the Army's 391 generals, only 21

or 5 percent, were women, with only four having served above the one-star rank of

brigadier general Martinez (2008).

Sagalyn (2011) stated “the demographic composition of the officer corps is far

from representative of the American population and…officers are much less

demographically diverse than the enlisted troops they lead” (para. 2). Sagalyn added:

…fifty-one percent of Americans are women, but they account for 16 percent of

uniformed officers” (para. 5)…at the general officer rank, the commission found

very few females…only 4 percent of Army’s generals, 3 percent of Marine Corps’

generals, 7 percent of Navy’s admirals, and 9 percent of Air Force’s generals

(para. 6).

Two major changes potentially hindering women from advancing through the

ranks to the position of general or admiral occurred following the first Gulf War with the

repeal of the ban on women serving aboard combat aircraft (Title 10 USC 8549) and

combat ships (Title 10 USC 6015). The dramatic changes were immediately followed by

the Department of Defense rescinding the risk rule in 1994, directing the Army and the

Marine Corps to study opening more specialties and assignments to women (Solaro,

2006), with the result being the opening of previously closed military positions to

women.

The Department of Defense (DoD) Report to the White House Council on

Women and Girls (2009) stated “the DoD policy guiding the assignment of women

prohibits the assignment of women to any unit below brigade level when the unit’s

primary mission is direct combat on the ground. Currently, over 92% of specialties are

open to women”

(p. 50). The DoD Report (2009) added “this presents no limitation as measured by

promotion and retention rates. Females elect to remain in the Service and are promoted

to the higher enlisted (E7–E9) and officer grades (O5–O6) on par with their male

counterpart” (p. 50). Iskra (2008) cited “combat experience and combat awards are also

highly rated and important for selection to general/flag officer rank” (p. 4). Doll (2007)

added “only combat arms officers have been selected to the highest levels of Army

leadership with the majority of Army General Officer positions being held by combat

arms officers” (p. 3).

Women were fighting in combat situations on a daily basis and for over a decade

since the events of 9/11 led America to wars on two combat arenas. However, the topic

that received most attention concerning women and combat participation involved direct

ground combat (Solaro, 2006). Since 1994, the Department of Defense defined direct

ground combat as “engaging the enemy on the ground with individual or crew served

weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical

contact with the hostile force’s personnel” (p. 130).

The Global War on Terrorism created a number of challenges the United States

military had to consider. One specific challenge was the debate over the assignment of

American women to combat positions. According to Tyson (2005), the Global War on

Terrorism revealed regulations governing the role of women in combat to be “vague, ill

defined, and based on outmoded concepts of wars with clear front lines that rarely exist in

today’s counterinsurgencies” (p. 111).

The events of 9/11 created a challenging operations tempo. First, the Middle East

in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Middle Eastern protesters challenged their current

government on a daily basis in an attempt to initiate reform and change. Second, the War

on Drugs, initiated to prevent drugs entering along the United States border, included not

only crossing of boarder states (e.g., Texas), but water entry (e.g., Florida) as well. The

United States military faced an operations tempo leaving little time for anything except

mission requirements and operational commitments. Military leaders remained in a

constant state of readiness, while continually assessing the efficiency of the military’s

ability to meet or exceed mission objectives.

According to Anderson (2010), individual interventions, such as mentoring and

coaching, were intended to “promote personal growth, development and change,

historically making the foundation of organizational change” (p. 24). Another strategy to

achieve sustainable long-term growth and well-being as a nation, leadership needed to

become more diverse—which meant leadership had to recruit and include more women

into its upper echelons. Disler (2010) believed the only avenue available to women in the

military when competing for upper echelon positions was the ability to gain experience

and creditability by serving in combat roles. Without combat experience and the

creditability that came with serving in a war zone, women were not able to compete

against male counterparts for high level military positions despite the fact that female

leadership characteristics were a sought after commodity. Disler (2010) added if the

United States wants to maintain the world’s best military, it should not focus on the

feminine as a weakness—it should instead focus on the possibilities of the feminine as a

force multiplier. Further contributing to the belief that by not allowing women to serve in

combat positions women were not on a level playing field with male counterparts,

possibly contributing to only 7% of military female officers at the level of brigadier

general and rear admiral or higher (U. S. Department of Defense, 2012).

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership, like transformational leadership played a significant role in

raising the profile of women in leadership roles. Greenleaf (1977) believed a leader was

first and foremost a servant to the people he or she leads. Historically, women were

viewed as selfless, nurturing and caring, ultimately putting the needs of others before first

and foremost. Greenleaf applied the concept of service to others to the relationship

between leaders and followers in today’s modern and ever changing organization in the

hope of using personal power, trust, and interpersonal relationships to influence followers

to reach the goals of the organization. Personal power, trust and interpersonal

relationships were key strengths of women. DiSilverio (2003) added “women’s

socialization revolves around helping others to achieve their goals, celebrating others’

achievements, and mentoring successors” (p. 16).

Senge (1990) built on Greenleaf’s premise adding “one of the important tasks of

leaders in learning organizations is to be the servant of the vision within the organization”

(p. 352). Embracing Greenleaf’s theory, the expectation was to build valuable

interpersonal relationships that enabled leaders to get to know subordinates’ strengths and

weaknesses. By building stronger interpersonal relationships, leaders created more

opportunities to mentor and develop individuals, which ultimately led to stronger teams,

higher job satisfaction, and productivity. Supportive of Bass’s (1997) servant leadership

theory took into consideration the transformational leadership components of inspiration

and individualized consideration.

Farling, Stone, and Winston (2004) were key supporters of the servant leadership

model and suggested leaders who supported and empowered followers to achieve goals

helped to make “dreams reality” (p. 82). Achievement of an individual’s dreams reality

provided greater personal and job satisfaction. Servant leaders achieved power on the

basis of values and ideals and led from a personal rather than position power perspective.

In a society driven by the bottom line and maintaining a competitive edge “people

practicing servant leadership found themselves left behind by leaders using other

leadership styles” (VectorStudy, 2012, para. 14) that focused on money and end results

rather than the development of people.

Spears (1995) believed the skills of leadership required in today’s organizations

were those that were more relationship-oriented such as “listening, empathy, and self and

follower awareness” (p. 8) and closely aligned with the skill sets of women.

Additionally, Spears (1995; 1998) reinforced Greenleaf’s (1977) assumption that a

nurturing and caring environment enabled followers to grow and develop into more

productive individuals and more effective team members. Servant leadership had a

markedly different style of leadership from transformational. Transformational

leadership’s focus on the organization differed from servant leadership’s premise of

putting people first approach (Farling, et al., 2004).

Irving and Longbotham (2007) continued with LaFasto and Larson’s (2001) study

of over 6,000 team members and leaders to explore the effectiveness of teams in relation

to six essential leadership variables. Irving and Longbotham (2007) identified the

variables: (1) providing accountability, (2) supporting and resourcing, (3) engaging in

honest self-evaluation, (4)fostering collaboration, (5) communicating with clarity and

valuing and (6) appreciating in order to gain a better understanding of the effect of

leadership on team effectiveness. The authors focused on the following primary research

question: “Which leadership themes will have the greatest impact on team effectiveness

and to what degree?” (p. 99), ultimately concluding communication and fostering

collaboration had the greatest impact on effectiveness.

To date, contemporary leadership theories such as servant leadership and

transformational leadership appeared to have had little success in changing the attitudes

of decision makers in organizations to appoint women more readily to leadership

positions. After all, more than a decade ago Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed women

possibly made better leaders. Despite Bass and Avolio’s prediction, the increases of

women in senior or executive roles in business and the upper echelons of the military

over the past decade were less than impressive.

Transformational Leader Characteristics

Transformational leaders understood that communication was an essential key to

success. In a military environment, communication was the vital link to the ability to

accomplish the mission. Effective leaders had to be able to communicate but also needed

a vision for the future and a plan on how to get there. Effective leaders had to have a

strategic and inspiring vision and be able to communicate effectively and to move

followers to understand and buy into the vision.

Transformational leaders had a vision of the future. They realized the present was

important and knew they must learn from the past, but the future provided a target not yet

attained. A shared vision was also a common characteristic of transformational leaders

(Burns, 1978). Leadership experts, such as Covey, Blanchard, and Senge agreed having a

vision and effective communication skills were the primary characteristics that separated

exceptional transformational leaders from everyone else.

Building relationships was another essential characteristic of transformational

leadership. Greenleaf (1977) believed a simple strategy to build relationships was the

basic golden rule. Everyone deserved respect and to gain respect one had to know how to

give respect. Trust, like respect was also a truly essential characteristic a

transformational leader had to possess. Effective leaders needed to be able to maintain

the trust of their followers. Bass (1990) established trust to be a major component of

transformational leadership style. Transformational leaders were able to gain but also to

maintain the respect and trust of their employees. Cooper (1997) noted trust as the

essential component for any system’s optimization.

Another vital transformational leadership characteristic was motivation. Goleman

(1995) believed motivation was a primary characteristic that defined and separated

transformational leaders from transactional and servant leaders. Transformational leaders

are driven to achieve beyond expectations. Bass (1990) explained that transformational

leaders use “motivation to set and communicate high expectations for themselves and

their employees” (p. 89). Transformational leaders relied upon their charismatic abilities

as a personal catalyst to spark and inspire their employees to achieve the high

expectations and goals they have set. Bass (1960) identified charisma as a form of

personal power. Instead of focusing on service as a means to motivation,

transformational leaders rely more on their charismatic, enthusiastic nature to garner

influence and motivate followers. Bass (1990) said:

Attaining charisma in the eyes of one’s employees is central to succeeding as a

transformational leader. Charismatic leaders have great power and

influence…[they] inspire and excite employees with the idea that they may be

able to accomplish great things. (p. 21)

Transformational leaders develop a type of influence derived from their expertise,

strength of relationships, personal power and charismatic abilities.

Goleman (1998) believed the ability to convey an emotion convincingly was what

separated a transformational leader from an ordinary leader. A transformational leader

exhibited qualities including self-awareness and self-confidence (Bass, 1985; Burns,

1978). Johnson, Aiken, and Steggerda (2005) believed emotional intelligence and

emotional literacy were a “set of abilities that involve the adaptive processing of

emotions and the relevant information that one can apply toward solving personal and

organizational problems” (p. 236). Johnson, et al. (2005) added emotions needed to be

understood as “individual, private and autonomous psychological traits and states” (p.

237).

Johnson, et al. (2005) conducted a qualitative study describing self-reported data

on human activity and behavior. The researchers concluded storytelling was the best

means to understanding how emotional intelligence influenced leadership ability. The

first step was a preliminary self-study to make sure each researcher was clear about their

“own cognition about emotionality and create a language around which we could better

shape our interview questions and engage with our participants” (Johnson, et al., 2005,

p. 238). The researchers selected six leaders working in the field of education. The

selection of the six candidates provided a representative sample of gender, ethnic

diversity, and leadership positions. Interviewed participants served in a leadership role

for at least five years and came from several different leadership positions within the

school. The interviews were recorded and then analyzed by the researchers to identify

patterns that surfaced from personal stories.

Johnson, et al. (2005) concluded the article by summarizing findings and offering

recommendations for leadership preparation and development programs:

strategies for managing emotions – writing, getting quiet with oneself, talking

with trusted confidants – allowed participants in the study to find some kind of

emotional release, and allowed some participants to arrive at some sense of

rational understanding about their own emotions. (p. 248)

Leaders in all fields had to have an outlet for their emotions. Johnson, et al.’s

(2005) primary recommendation for addressing emotional preparedness was that leaders

be responsible for knowing their emotional selves. Bass (1990) concluded

transformational leadership was directly related to leaders’ self-awareness, self-

confidence, conviction, self-control, and an ability to handle conflict.

Air Force Mentoring Program

Arguments affirming leaders are neither born nor made, but rather developed

through training, education, and experience continue to ensue. Mentoring provides a

framework to both encourage and develop competent people while also bringing about

cultural change within the organization. However, a Catalyst (2009) study revealed

women still perceived significant challenges within the work place. Only one in four (23

percent) were noted as being satisfied with the availability of organizational mentors.

Barsh and Yee (2011) found that structural obstacles, such as the lack of access to

informal networks, which provided employment, social and occupational connections,

were absent or lacking for females holding senior level administrative positions within an

organization; however, appeared commonplace for male counterparts. These represented

major concerns preventing women from advancing into senior leadership positions.

Despite the fact that the United States military was one of the first organizations

to allow women equal status, equal pay and an inclusive mentoring program, women

were still not advancing into senior levels of leadership at the rate of their male

counterparts. However, with more women entering and staying in the military, Segal

(2010) believed the significant increase in more senior women in both the officer corps

and enlisted ranks provides many more role models and mentors to share important social

and cultural experiences. Additionally, “despite persistent challenges, young female

service members today have a more supportive and positive environment in the military

than at any time in our nation's history” (p. 2).

Swerdlik and Bardon (1989) believed mentoring was a relationship that existed

when professionals became resources, sponsors, and transitional figures for an

inexperienced person entering the professional world. Stone (2004) believed “mentoring

programs can shorten learning tracks, speed up career advancement and help build the

next generation of leaders” (p. ix).

The Air Force formally established a mentoring program and provided guidance

for its implementation. The current directive applied to all Air Force personnel including

males and females at all levels within the organization to include officers, enlisted

members, and civilians. The goal of the mentoring directive was to help military

members reach their full potential, thereby, enhancing the overall professionalism of the

Air Force. The intent was to infuse all levels of leadership with mentoring to affect a

culture change. The directive emphasized mentoring was a “fundamental responsibility

of all Air Force supervisors” (AFPD 36-34, 2000, p. 1). Kram (1988) believed mentoring

directives and their intent sounded promising on paper; however, leaders finding the time

to implement the intent became a daunting task due to the lack of time and manpower to

carry it out formally. A mentor has best been defined as “a trusted counselor or guide”

(AFPD 36-34, 2000, p. 1). Therefore, mentoring can be summarized as “a relationship in

which a person with greater experience and wisdom guides another person to develop

both personally and professionally” (AFPD 36-34, 2000, p. 1). Air Force mentoring not

only focused on “career guidance, professional development, Air Force history and

heritage, and knowledge of air and space power”, it also included knowledge of the

“ethos of profession, and understanding the Air Force’s core values of integrity, service,

and excellence” (AFPD 36-34, 2000, p. 1).

Urtso (2011) believed the Air Force had changed dramatically since its inception

in 1947 considering that 30 years ago the Air Force had more than 565,000 officer and

enlisted members. By the end of fiscal year 2010, there were fewer than 330,000. Urtso

(2011) added 42% reduction in work force coupled with military budget cuts and the

need to prepare for more complex, varied operations in the future resulted in an

environment indicative of change.

Burke and Litwin (1992) believed the most significant performance factor

influencing transformational change within an organization was leadership. According to

Urtso (2011), “to be effective, formal mentoring programs should adapt to this ever-

changing environment” (para. 3) by ensuring leadership involvement. Urtso (2011)

concluded “in times of stability, traditional coaching, counseling and facilitating skills are

sufficient, but the dynamic environment we live in today requires mentors to become

more than just experts but also co-learners” (para. 3). Kram (1988) concluded that for

organizations to be successful senior leaders needed to take the opportunity to learn about

the younger, more diverse generation, instead of following the more conventional role as

the all-knowing authority figure and the protégé as the learner.

Urtso (2011) found the Air Force had adapted a mindset of the constantly

changing environment by implementing innovative changes. An example of developing

and change awareness appeared as My Development Plan located on the Air Force Portal.

Although My Development Plan was an attempt to mentor and develop a computer savvy

generation, missing was the lack of personal touch. Kram (1988) firmly believed

meaningful mentoring opportunities came from “direct face-to-face interaction between

individuals” (p. 3).

Ibarra, Carter, and Silva (2010) believed all mentoring is not created equal, rather

a relationship, in which the mentor goes beyond the giving feedback. One in which the

mentor advises his or her protégé providing influence when and where needed as well as

serving as a continual advocate. Without such mentoring leadership, Ibarra el al (2010)

found that women were not only are less likely than men to be appointed to top roles but

may also be more reluctant to challenge the process of achieving leadership positional

goals.

Chapter III: Methodology

Research Design

The purpose of this casual-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a

significant difference existed between male and female senior leadership styles within

21st century United States military organization. An additional research goal determined

if a dominant style of leadership emerged. The study surveyed a convenient population

of male and female officers (n=10) and noncommissioned officers (n=10) in the Air

National Guard located at one base. Lincoln Memorial University’s Institutional Review

Board (IRB) approved the study (Appendix A). The Group Commander of the selected

Air National Guard Base (Appendix B) granted permission to survey the convenience

sample. Mind Garden granted the researcher permission (Appendix C) to utilize the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995)

(Appendix D).

The researcher used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-

Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to determine and track leadership styles separated into the

following categories: transformational leadership styles, transactional leadership styles

and passive/avoidant leadership styles. Participants answered 45 descriptive statements

with answers ranging from 0-4 on a Likert rating scale. The answers enabled leaders to

describe their own leadership style based on self-perceptions. The 45 descriptive

statements identified and measured key leadership and effectiveness behaviors strongly

linked to both individual and organizational success (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) (Bass &

Avolio, 1995) (see Appendix D) assessed four components of transformational

leadership, three components of transactional leadership, one non-transactional leadership

component, and three outcome components. The four key components of

transformational leadership the researcher used to collect and interpret the data were

(1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4)

individualized consideration” (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Idealized influence was divided

into two additional component variables: (1) idealized influence (behavior) and (2)

idealized influence (attributed) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). The three components of

transactional leadership were categorized under constructive transactions or corrective

transactions. The first category was based on contingent reward, and the second on

management by-exception (active), and the third was management-by exception (passive)

(Bass & Avolio, 1995). The non-transactional component was laissez-faire, and the three

outcome components were satisfaction with the leader, individual, group, and

organizational effectiveness, and extra effort by associates (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Population

The population comprised a quota sampling of (n=20) active duty military

members currently serving in the Air National Guard at one Air National Guard Base.

The researcher divided the population into categories based on gender, military rank, and

position in the military organization, more specifically, male and female officers and

noncommissioned officers. The population was further stratified into the following four

categories: five male officers, five female officers, five male noncommissioned officers

and five female noncommissioned officers from one select convenience sample located at

one Air National Guard Base. Quota and convenience sampling were necessary due to

time constraints, the researcher’s access to the participants, and a limited number of

female officers and female noncommissioned officers at the selected Air National Guard

Base. The researcher’s intent was to ensure the convenience sample was proportional to

the population in terms of both gender and military rank allowing for a proportional

stratified sampling.

Data Collection

The researcher selected participants, based on rank and gender. The researcher

provided written consent in the form of a cover letter (Appendix E) to each participant

who volunteered to participate in the study during off duty time. The consent letter

explained the purpose of the study, its potential benefit to the military, and the

importance of the participant’s response to the success of the study. Each questionnaire

received a numerical code to facilitate tracking the questionnaire and to insure participant

confidentiality. After duty hours, the researcher personally distributed a cover letter and

a paper and pencil copy of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-

Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to each of the participants who agreed to participate. The

researcher administered the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-

Short) to five male officers, five female officers, five male noncommissioned officers,

and five female noncommissioned officers currently serving in the Air National Guard at

the selected Air National Guard Base. Each participant received 15 minutes to complete

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short).

All questionnaires were administered at 1700 military time and concluded at or

before 1715 military time. The researcher collected the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) as the participants completed the instrument.

Each participant received a debriefing letter from the researcher (Appendix F)

readdressing the purpose of the study and the secure handling of all data. The debriefing

letter emphasized participant’s options such as having data withdrawn and any questions

or concerns addressed by the researcher.

The researcher identified data by military rank and gender only. The researcher

collected the data ensuring confidentiality and anonymity by locking data in a drawer in

the secured personal, home office space of the researcher. The researcher removed and

destroyed all identifiers after analysis. The researcher based access to research data on a

need to know and minimum necessary standard.

Analytical Methods

After transcribing the data from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader

Form (5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) the researcher analyzed and evaluated the

information to address the null and alternative hypotheses. The frequency distributions

of the final count of participants were five female officers, five female enlisted members,

five male officers, and five male enlisted members resulting in 10 female participants and

10 male participants. The total frequency distribution results for rank were 10 officers

and 10 noncommissioned officers. The researcher calculated the means and standard

deviations for male officers and female officers, for male and female noncommissioned

officers, and for female officers and female noncommissioned officers.

A t-test for independent samples determined if a significant difference existed in

the transformational leadership style of female officers versus their male counterparts. A

second t-test for independent samples determined if a significant difference existed in the

transformational leadership style of female noncommissioned officers versus their male

counterparts. The researcher used a third t-test for independent samples to determine if a

significant difference existed in the transformational leadership style of female officers

versus female noncommissioned. The researcher followed ethical guidelines as

prescribed by the Lincoln Memorial University IRB authorization during the evaluation

of the data with an open mind, without drawing conclusions on any preconceived notion

or biases.

Reliability and Validity

Burns and Grove (2005) identified three sources of content validity: literature,

representativeness of the relevant population, and experts. Ultimately, the determination

of whether or not an instrument contained content validity was subjectively based on the

opinions of experts (Nunnally, 1978). An instrument’s effectiveness was also affected by

factors such as wording of questions, the ordering of questions, and the number of

questions. The researcher used brief and concise questions to ensure the instrument’s

intended data were captured properly and reduced the likelihood of any ambiguity being

interpreted from the question (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Mangione (1995) suggested

the use of clearly understood terminology. Schuman and Pressor (1981) raised awareness

that the ordering of questions was a consideration factor in the effectiveness of a

questionnaire. The questionnaire utilized a Likert scale to increase the reliability and

validity of the instrument (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).

The researcher scored the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form

(5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) by summing the factors to provide a transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire score for each participant. For the purpose of this study,

the researcher only used the transformational leadership scores. Bass and Avolio (1995)

reported the alpha reliability coefficients for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Leader Form (5x-Short) rater form scales for 2080 cases. The Spearman Brown

estimated reliabilities ranged from .81 to .96. The alpha reliabilities coefficients for the

leader’s self rating form were slightly lower with test-retest reliabilities ranging from .44

to .74. A confirmatory factor analysis established the construct validity the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) based on data

generated by raters who evaluated leaders within a broad range of organizations and at

varying levels within those organizations. Bass and Avolio (1995) also computed

reliability coefficients for each leadership factor. The coefficients ranged from .73 to .94

(Bass & Avolio, 1995). The researcher based the selection of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Leader Form (5x-Short) on the fact that for the last 25 years it has been the

principal means for reliably differentiating highly effective leaders from ineffective

leaders in military organizations (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

Limitations

The current military operations tempo proved to be the greatest limitation for the

researcher. With a high operations tempo due to ongoing deployments, the population

size and scope of the study was impacted due to the number of personnel deployed and

time constraints due to mission requirements. Military leadership supported the

researcher’s plan to survey military members with the understanding that it would take

place during off-duty hours and would have no impact on mission requirements. The

limited number of female officers and female noncommissioned officers was also a

limiting factor greatly contributing to the size of the quota and convenience sample

selected to participate in the study voluntarily.

Another limitation the researcher encountered was the use of government

computers for personal use. Surveys needed to be conducted after duty hours and

without the use of military computers; therefore, paper and pencil surveys were used

instead of a more efficient and less time consuming computer program such as Survey

Monkey®. The researcher’s senior leadership also presented a challenge to the study.

Although very supportive of the researcher pursuing greater educational opportunities,

mission requirements and an increasing Operations tempo proved to be major concerns as

to whether the study would impact the researcher’s ability to complete mission

requirements and if participants in the study would be tasked with yet another

requirement when they were already task saturated.

As a female officer and leader in the military, the perception that the researcher

had or was pushing an agenda also posed to be a limitation the researcher did not

anticipate. While researching the topic for the literature review, the researcher

discovered the majority of information and previous studies on women in leadership or

the perception that women were underrepresented in key leadership positions were

written by women. The fact that the majority of literature available added to the possible

perception of a feminist agenda or bias ultimately, questioning the researcher’s

motivation for conducting the study on the given topic selected. The research results

were not conducted with the purpose of creating generalizable knowledge.

Chapter IV: Analyses and Results

Data Analysis

The purpose of this casual-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a

significant difference existed between how males and females lead in a military

organization. The researcher surveyed male and female officers as well as male and

female noncommissioned officers in one Air National Guard unit to determine if gender

was a significant factor within a transformational leadership style. The researcher used

SPSS Version 18 to analyze all data. The researcher assumed statistical significance at

an alpha level of ρ < .05 level. The researcher entered the independent variables of

gender and rank and the dependent variable of the participant’s transformational

leadership style score into the statistical model and a series of frequency and cross-

tabulation statistics examined the nature of the sample. The researcher used an

independent samples t-test to answer the three research questions. The researcher

calculated the means and standard deviations for male officers and female officers, for

male noncommissioned officers and female noncommissioned officers, and for female

officers and female noncommissioned officers.

After the data were collected and the means and standard deviations for each

group calculated, a t-test for independent samples determined if a significant difference

existed in the transformational leadership style of female officers versus their male

counterparts. A second t-test for independent samples determined if a significant

difference existed in the transformational leadership style of female noncommissioned

officers versus their male counterparts. A third t-test for independent samples determined

if a significant difference existed in the transformational leadership style of female officers

versus female noncommissioned officers.

The researcher utilized the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form

(5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to determine and track leadership styles separated into

the following categories: transformational leadership styles, transactional leadership styles

and passive/avoidant leadership styles. The emphasis and data analysis focused

specifically on transformational leadership. The sampling size consisted of (n=20) active

duty military members currently serving in the Air National Guard at one Air National

Guard Base. There were five female officers, five female enlisted members, five male

officers, and five male enlisted members.

Research Questions

Research question 1: Are female officers more transformational in leadership

style than their male counterparts?

The researcher utilized an independent samples t-test to answer this research

question with the gender of officers being the independent variable and the participants’

rating of transformational leadership style as the dependent variable.

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and their male counterparts.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and their male counterparts.

There was not a statistically significant difference in transformational leadership

style between female commissioned officers (M = 3.22, SD = .37) and male commissioned

officers (M = 3.10, SD = .48), t(7) = -.427, ρ = .682. Results indicated a non-significant

trending in the predicted direction indicating both female and male commissioned officers

had a preference for transformational leadership. Therefore, the researcher accepted the

null hypothesis.

Research question 2: Are female noncommissioned officers more

transformational in leadership style than their male counterparts?

The researcher utilized an independent samples t-test to answer this research

question with gender of noncommissioned officers being the independent variable and the

participants’ rating of transformational leadership style as the dependent variable.

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female noncommissioned officers and their male counterparts.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female noncommissioned officers and their male counterparts.

There was not a statistically significant difference in transformational leadership

style between female noncommissioned officers (M = 3.32, SD = .27) and male

noncommissioned officers (M = 2.86, SD = .47), t(8) = -1.89, ρ = .095. Therefore, the

researcher accepted the null hypothesis.

Research question 3: Are female officers more transformational in leadership

style than female noncommissioned officers?

The researcher utilized an independent samples t-test to answer this research

question with type of officer (commissioned or noncommissioned) being the independent

variable and the participants’ rating of transformational leadership style as the dependent

variable.

H0: There is no significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and female noncommissioned officers.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the transformational leadership style

of female officers and female noncommissioned officer.

There was not a statistically significant difference in transformational leadership

style between female commissioned officers (M = 3.22, SD = .37) and female

noncommissioned officers (M = 3.32, SD = .27), t(8) = -.489, p = .638. (Table 1). Results

indicated a non-significant trending in the predicted direction indicating both female

commissioned officers and female noncommissioned officers had a preference for

transformational leadership. Therefore, the researcher accepted the null hypothesis.

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Transformational Leadership Styles

Type of Officer M SD

Female Noncommissioned Officer 3.32 0.27

Female Commissioned Officer 3.22 0.37

Male Noncommissioned Officer 2.86 0.27

Male Commissioned Officer 3.10 0.48

Summary of the Results

Female noncommissioned officers and female commissioned officers scored higher

in transformational leadership styles than male noncommissioned officers and male

commissioned officers who participated in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Leader Form (5x-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Female noncommissioned officers scored

an average of 0.46 points higher in transformational leadership styles than male

noncommissioned officers, but only an average of 0.10 points higher than female

commissioned officers in transformational leadership styles. Female commissioned

officers scored an average of 0.12 points higher than male commissioned officers in

transformational leadership styles. However, there were no statistically significant

differences found between female and male officers' transformational leadership styles,

female and male noncommissioned officers' transformational leadership styles, or female

commissioned and noncommissioned officers' transformational leadership styles. Despite

the fact that no statistically significant difference existed between female and male senior

leadership in a military organization based on the data analysis conducted, one major

finding was made. The data analysis determined both women and men regardless of rank

exhibited some if not all of the traits and skill sets of a transformational leader.

Transformational leaders had the innate ability to motivate, inspire, and support

creativity in the people they lead. The transformational leader’s achieved this innate

ability through what Judge and Piccolo (2004) described as “exhibiting a high degree of

individualized consideration’’ (p. 755). The research concluded that both women and men

and noncommissioned officers and commissioned officers exhibited a high degree of

individualized consideration for their followers. This conclusion was a direct

contradiction of Barsh and Cranston’s (2009) conclusion that women were more likely to

possess transformational leadership skills than their male counterparts.

Individual consideration and Greenleaf’s servant leadership philosophy were

closely based on the premise being on the individual and follower’s needs being met

before the leader’s needs are met. Transformational leaders “realign the values and

norms” (Avolio, et al., 1991, p. 9) of an organization to promote change. The research

concluded that both males and females regardless of rank were visionary leaders who were

frequently, if not always willing to heighten follower’s desire to succeed in meeting the

organization’s requirements. These values and norms were particularly valuable when an

organization encountered severe crises such as the high Operations tempo, manpower and

budget cuts, and the need for more time—all challenging factors facing today’s ever

changing military.

This casual comparative quantitative study provided evidence that military

personnel displayed some, if not all, the key characteristics of a transformational leader.

This study determined there was no statistical significant difference between the

transformational leadership style of males and females regardless of rank.

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The purpose of this casual-comparative quantitative study was to determine if a

significant difference existed between male and female senior leadership within today’s

ever changing military organization. The overall outcome of the study differed from the

foundation set forth by the literature review with the perception based on the literature

that women were more transformational in leadership style than men.

Based on the research sample, this study yielded a key conclusion: The military

needed to ensure it recruits, mentors and develops transformational leaders regardless of

rank or gender. The military needed to utilize the information found in this study to

recruit and retain females and males by making more productive use of the talents of its

members. Another key conclusion that can be drawn from this study can be summed up

with the statement leadership was both an honor and a privilege, which also brought a

tremendous amount of responsibility. Leadership was best summarized as the art of

influencing and directing people in such a way as to obtain their willing cooperation,

confidence, and more importantly, their respect. The key factor was influencing people

to obtain their willing cooperation. Transformational leaders, regardless of rank or

gender, influenced individuals to want to be part of their team. They achieve this through

their actions, enthusiasm, and willingness to complete tasks traditionally performed by

subordinates.

Recommendations

In light of the challenging global economic times, it was apparent society was

accustomed to the phrase; do more with less. With downsizing and decentralized work

environments becoming the norm in today’s 21st century, leaders had to explore new

strategies of leading, mentoring, and developing future leaders. For military leaders, this

included ensuring mission success as well. With time being a scarce resource, leaders

needed to develop creative initiatives designed to influence individuals to accomplish

day-to-day mission requirements. One way to ensure these missions were accomplished

was for leaders to focus on mentoring and developing both men and women at all levels

within the organization to be the best they could be and to become future leaders of the

military. Military leaders also had to ensure mentoring opportunities were fair and

equitable to all regardless of gender.

With the events of 9/11 leading to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Middle Eastern

unrest in Syria and Iran, and significant budget and personnel cuts, the military has been

confronted with an operations tempo, mission requirements, and challenges providing

marginal awareness for the moral and welfare of the individual. Military leadership had

to assess the quality of leadership development programs. Transformational leaders were

challenged to develop new and innovative techniques and programs designed to introduce

leadership development to men and women within the military’s traditional, male

dominated military organization. Transformational leaders, regardless of rank or gender

were challenged to focus upon developing and implementing change not only for the sake

of change but also for long-term mission impacting change that set both the people they

lead and our Nation up for success.

A senior leader’s duty in the military, regardless of rank or gender, was to ensure

the next generation of leaders were mentored and developed. Based on the data collected

from the study, developing a mentoring program designed to better prepare the future,

next-generation of military leaders was the primary recommendation. To be effective,

mentoring programs had to adapt to this ever-changing environment. The research

findings reinforced Urtso (2011) belief that “in times of stability, traditional coaching,

counseling and facilitating skills are sufficient, but the dynamic environment we live in

today requires mentors to become more than just experts but also co-learners” (para. 3).

Now more than ever it was imperative that senior leaders took the opportunity to learn

from this younger more diverse generation instead of following what Kram (1988)

described as the more “conventional role as the all-knowing authority figure and the

protégé as the learner” (p. 10). Creating such an environment reinforced Senge’s (1990)

belief that leaders were designers, teachers, and stewards but changed the mindset to

include the younger generation of potential leaders also serving in these crucial roles. By

changing senior leadership roles to include being an active co-learner inspired both

groups to work toward a collaborative and shared vision of the organization.

Collaboration, networking, and face to face interaction designed to acknowledge military

custom and courtesies in respect to rank structure but also to provide an arena for open

and thought provoking communication were keys to the success of establishing an

environment conducive to co-learning and enabling a mentoring initiative to succeed.

In a military environment, company grade officers, noncommissioned officers,

and airmen often found it difficult to learn and understand what was required of them to

succeed. One key recommendation based on the study’s findings was establishing a set

time and developing a training program designed to better prepare this up-and-coming

generation of the military’s future leaders. Based on the data analysis, a training

initiative focusing on mentoring and developing these future leaders also appeared to be

the catalyst needed for senior leaders to impact the greatest number of people effectively

and efficiently.

Due to time constraints and ongoing mission requirements the training initiative

needed to be deliberate and value added with the ultimate goal being to prepare program

participants for promotion opportunities, joint military assignments, and future missions

in various Air National Guard units, the United States Air Force, and Department of

Defense Joint Operations. Training initiatives activities could include but not be limited

to briefings by subject matter experts from the various units and sections, group guided

discussions with senior leadership and future leaders, and an opportunity to learn about

the various Unified Commands and missions of the United States Air Force. Feedback

needed to be solicited from the participants to continue to shape and develop the program

ensuring the participant’s needs were met. After implementation of the program, future

research is needed to determine if a training initiative focused on mentoring and

developing future leaders proves to be beneficial to the participants and provides equal

opportunities for promotion for women. A pilot program should be initiated and

researched before implementing such a program throughout the Department of Defense.

If the pilot program proved to be successful, the data collected from the ongoing research

would serve as the benchmark for other military organizations.

Successful mentoring of our future leaders had to become a strategic imperative

for all current leaders of the military. Senior leaders, regardless of rank or gender, need

to continue efforts to be leading competitors in the search for talent to ensure the military

remained adept at solving the increasingly complicated problems in a complex world.

Urtso (2011) concluded “once these talented individuals join our all-volunteer force,

developing and mentoring them must become our top priority” (para. 5). This priority

needed to take the form of face-to-face interaction rather than computer based programs

such as the Air Force’s My Development Plan, which proved to be ineffective due to its

impersonal approach to mentoring.

Time, manpower, and budget cuts were the greatest obstacles facing the

initiative’s ability to gather the momentum and buy-in needed for it to be successful.

Another challenge was ever changing leadership at the Group and Wing level. In the last

six months, the selected Air National Guard Base had a major shift in senior leadership

resulting in a new Wing Commander, Vice Commander, and three of our four Group

Commanders being replaced due to retirements, promotions, and attrition. With each

new leader came a change in focus due to what they viewed as the organization’s top

priority. Currently, all senior leadership supported a mentoring initiative as long as the

initiative did not interfere with mission requirements.

Greenleaf (1977) applied the concept of service to others to the relationship

between leaders and followers in today’s modern and ever-changing organization in the

hope of using personal power, trust, and interpersonal relationships to influence followers

to reach the goals of the organization. This study provided the catalyst needed to spark

the mentoring initiative with the hope of building valuable interpersonal relationships that

enabled leaders to get to know their subordinates’ strengths and weaknesses. By building

stronger interpersonal relationships, senior leaders were able to have opportunities to

mentor and develop individuals ultimately leading to stronger teams and higher job

satisfaction and productivity. Higher job satisfaction led to higher retention rates.

When contemplating future, feasible research, a replication of the study at other

Air National Guard Bases throughout the state of Tennessee and in other sections of the

country interested the researcher. For example, a study utilizing the same instrument and

sample size with participants in Nashville could be of interest to determine if there was a

significant difference in the transformational leadership style between female officers

serving in the Knoxville Air National Guard compared to those female officers serving in

the Nashville Air National Guard.

Another example of future, feasible research was a replication of the study at Air

Force Bases and Air National Guard Bases. The researcher could use the same

instrument but a larger sample size to determine if there was a significant difference in

the transformational leadership style between male and female officers serving in the Air

Force compared to male and female officers serving in the Air National Guard. This type

of study could easily be expanded to include a comparison of transformational leadership

styles of men and women in the Marine Corps versus men and women in the Army or

men and women in the Navy versus men and women women in the Air Force. This type

of research would be relevant to determine if certain leadership styles were more

prevalent in the different Department of Defense military branch based on the specific

mission of the military organization. For example, are women in the Air Force more

transformational than women in the Army due to the Air Force’s more technical mission?

The sole use of one questionnaire limited participant responses to the 45 questions

provided. A mixed method extension of the study comprised of the quantitative data

being collected from the questionnaire coupled with the qualitative portion would provide

specific follow-up questions asked of the participants to explore key factors and trends as

to why participants believed they exhibited transformational leadership. Additionally,

perceived obstacles to becoming transformational leaders could be explored. Adding

interviews, observations and focus groups would allow for a wider range of responses

regarding participant as well as follower perceptions regarding leadership styles helping

to further explore if women were more transformational than their male counterparts

through the collection of quantitative data.

Other interesting points for future research would be to conduct an ethnography or

autoethnography form of qualitative research that would provide a detailed and in-depth

description of everyday life and practice. In the case of the ethnography, the researcher

could conduct research while at a deployed location through detailed daily observations

of transformational leader behaviors. Autoethnography allows an individual to write in a

personalized style, describing personal perceptions, which draw upon the researcher’s

experiences (Ellis, 2004). The intent of autoethnography for future research would be for

the researcher to reflect upon and write about his/her own life, which would take the form

of an autobiographical personal narrative that explored the individual’s day-to-day

transformational leadership experience while serving in a military deployed location.

Autoethnography differs from ethnography in which a researcher uses participant

observation and interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding while

autoethnography focuses on the “writer's own personal experiences” (Creswell, 2007,

p. 123).

The purpose of these types of study was to determine if there are any common

themes that emerged from the data collected during a given period of time. Strauss and

Corbin’s (1990) open coding method could be used to determine themes from the data

collected. Lewins, Taylor and Gibbs (2005) research was another option to help

determine how the potential data collected through ethnography or autoethnography were

coded.

Additional research is necessitated based on the military’s recent risk rule changes

and the potential this new policy initiative provided greater promotion opportunities for

women who were now be able to gain valuable combat experience traditionally reserved

for male counterparts. Women have been afforded equal opportunities to attend both

officer and enlisted professional military education schools. Providing women with

greater promotion opportunities has the potential for recruitment of highly educated

females in to the military as fewer males were participating in higher education. A fact

confirmed by Mason’s (2011) report that women earned 62 percent of college associate’s

degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60 percent of all master’s degrees, half of all

professional degrees, and just under half of all Ph.Ds. These statistics reflected the

advances women are making in today’s society and call for additional policy research.

The additional research could determine if there is a direct correlation between the

attendance of women at service academies such as the Air Force Academy and the

Citadel and the attendance at specific schools or training such as professional military

education and if that attendance impacted promotion opportunities.

Implications

After analyzing the data and reflecting on the process involved in accomplishing

the study, several unforeseen problems became evident posing challenges to the

researcher and future researchers who may be interested in replicating or conducting a

similar study. First and foremost, the military environment provided the greatest

obstacles to the researcher’s ability to initiate and conduct the study. The fact that the

researcher was an officer in the military, currently serving at the Air National Guard Base

selected for the study was a major limiting factor. As an officer and a leader in the

organization, the perception that participants may feel forced to participate in the study

was a factor that was discovered during the IRB process.

Another limiting factor was that those participants who chose to participate during

off-duty time may perceive that they would receive special favors or treatment for their

time and efforts. For example, quid pro quo, if an individual participated in the study he

or she had an opportunity at a promotion, a better work assignment, or special treatment

over someone who did not volunteer to participate due to the researcher’s rank and

position in chain of command within the military organization. Due to the military’s

chain of command structure, future researchers need to be cognizant of the fact that the

relationship between a senior member and a junior member of the military may have an

impact on the researcher’s ability to collect objective data.

As indicated throughout the study, time constraints, the limited number of females

at the selected location and the current military operations tempo proved to be major

unforeseen problem areas encountered by the researcher. However, by training and

mentoring the 20 male and female officers and noncommissioned officers that

participated in the study, the hope is that the training will have a snowball effect. More

specifically, the 20 participants would in turn mentor and develop other future

transformational leaders who in turn would mentor and develop another generation of

transformational leaders. Ultimately, the hope is that the 20 participants make an

effective and long term change within not only the Tennessee Air National Guard, but

also the United States Air Force and other joint branches of service they come in contact

with through frequent deployments.

Military leaders were members of an uncommon profession that called for people

with an enduring commitment and dedication to the mission and a strong belief in the

virtue of service before self. This belief required a sense of service to the mission, the

country, and the people they led. The role of a leader was easily summed up with the

statement that there are no office hours for leaders. Military leadership was summarized

as a 24-hour-a-day and seven day a week commitment and one that requires many

personal sacrifices. Personal goals were important and often coincided with Air Force

goals. However, there was no room for personal agendas that interfered with the needs of

the United States Air Force or the interests of our government. Service before self

reminded one that service was a calling. The key conclusion derived from this study

based on the data was that leaders needed to mentor and develop not only males, but also

women as leaders and future leaders in military organizations. Women and men both

displayed some if not all the key characteristics of a transformational leader. Therefore,

if women are expected to do the same work as men, the military had, as Plato wrote, to

“teach them the same things” (Blair, 2011, p. 26).

One must look to the words of President Kennedy for leadership inspiration when

he stated, “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present

are certain to miss the future” (1963, June 25, Address in the Assembly Hall at

Paulskirche, Frankfurt, GE). The most important role as a transformational leader was

not letting the opportunity to mentor and mold our future leaders, regardless of rank or

gender, pass by as the military went forward in these ever changing times. Professional

military education curriculum had to be developed at all levels to include a focus on the

importance of ensuring equal opportunities for advancement are granted to both men and

women who possess the transformational leadership skills needed to lead the military in

the future.

If not addressed, diversity can weave an entangled web of misinterpretations and

decreased communication that could threaten the daily Operations of the military. The

military’s number one priority was successfully completing the mission; however,

leadership needed to realize doing so took a diverse group of people. With the imminent

transfer of leadership in the country over the next decade, it was imperative that leaders

understood what attributes were essential to filling these positions and women are

prepared to take advantage of the opportunities and assume these roles. Learning what

worked from others, whether men or women, gave one the opportunity to build upon

strengths, to reduce the liability of weaknesses, and to improve the chances for business

success. It appeared that transformational change occurred when one clearly understood

the characteristics of effective leaders and developed a process that was the catalyst for

executing the vision of the organization. Marsh (2010) believed “the single most lethal

weapon system of the United States military is its personnel” (p. 406); therefore, it was

imperative every effort was made to recruit, mentor, and retain the nation’s best and

brightest. The military needed to utilize this study to encourage all its personnel to value

the benefits of diversity and to develop its leaders, regardless of rank or gender, to be

transformational.

References

AFPD 36-34. (2000). Air Force Mentoring Program. Retrieved from www.e-

publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFPD36-34.pdf

Air Force Personnel Center. (2012). Personnel statistics: Latest Air Force demographics.

Retrieved from http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil

Allsep, M. (2010). The odyssey of James Webb: An adaptive gender perspective.

Maxwell Air Force Base: AL: Air University Press.

Anderson, D. L. (2010). Organization development: The process of leading

organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.

Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.

Avolio, B., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four

I’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training,

15(4), 9-16.

Barsh, J., & Cranston, S. (2009). How remarkable women lead. New York, NY: Crown.

Barsh, J., & Yee, L. (2011). Unlocking the full potential of women in the US economy.

Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization

Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior. New York, NY:

Harper.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory research and

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries. American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better

managers. Human Resource Management, 33(4), 549-560.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). Manual: The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Betances, S. (1999). Communicating diversity: Powerful, practical, persuasive pointers to

get the job done. Chicago, IL: New Century Forum.

Blair, J. (2011). Hesitation kills: A female marine officer’s combat experience in Iraq.

New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Book, E. W. (2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman. New York, NY: Harper.

Breuer, W. B. (1997). War and American women: Heroism, deeds, and controversy.

London: Praeger.

Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Leading in turbulent times: Managing in the new

world of work. New York, NY: Blackwell.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and

change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper.

Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and

generation of evidence. New York, NY: Saunders.

Burrelli, D. F. (2012, April 5). Women in combat: Issues for congress. Retrieved from

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf

Catalyst. (2009). What keeps women from reaching the top? Retrieved from

http://www.womensmedia.com/lead/89-what-keeps-women-from-reaching-the-top

Catalyst. (2012). Catalyst census of women CEOs of Fortune 1000. Retrieved from

www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000

Caiola, S. (2012, February 15). New policy brings Army women closer to combat. The

Washington Post, p. A7.

Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in workplace. Training &

Development, 51, 31-38.

Cornell University ILR School. (1993, Dec 1). Successful initiatives for breaking the glass

ceiling to upward mobility for minorities and women. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi.

Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: The challenges of managing

diversity. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling. London, England:

Paul Chapman Publishing.

Denmark, F. L. (1993). Women, leadership and empowerment. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 17, 343-56.

Department of Defense. (2009). Report to the White House Council on Women and Girls.

Retrieved from www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DoD_WHC_on_Women_and_Girls

DePauw, L. G. (1998). Battle cries and lullabies: Women in war from prehistory to the

present. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Diamond, A. (2007). The career development and identity of victorian local government

chief. Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1505/1/Diamond.pdf.

DiSilverio, L. (2003). Winning the retention wars. Maxwell Air Force Base: AL: Air

University Press.

Disler, E. A. (2010). The feminine as a force multiplier. Maxwell Air Force Base: AL: Air

University Press.

Doll, Y. (2008). Leadership success strategies of U. S. Army women general officers.

Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_0PBZ

Doll, Y. (2007). U.S. army women general officers and their strategies for ascension.

International Journal of Business Strategy, VII(3), 1-10.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic it: A methodological novel about autoethnography.

Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Ernst, & Young. (2012). Quality in everything we do. Retrieved from

http://www.ey.com/EM/en/About-us/Our-people-and-culture

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (2004). Servant leadership: Setting the stage

for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72.

Frankel, L. (2007). See Jane lead. New York, NY: Business Plus.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leadership minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 1, 93-104.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power

and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Harrington, B., & Ladge, J. J. (2009). Got talent? It isn’t hard to find, The Shriver Report:

A woman’s nation changes everything. Center for American Progress.

Hay, I. (2007). Leadership of stability and leadership of volatility: Transactional and

transformational leadership compared. E-Journal of Academic Leadership, 4, 2-10.

Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than

women. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-get-more-

promotions-than-women/ar/1

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant

leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational

leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98-113.

Iskra, D. M. (2008). Who are the women who have broken through the military’s “brass”

ceiling? Retrieved from http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer08papers

Johnson, R. G., Aiken, J. A., & Steggerda, R. (2005). Emotions and educational

leadership: Narratives from the inside. Planning and Changing 36(3/4), 235-252.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A

meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),

755-768.

Jogulu U. D., & Wood, G. J. (2006). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of

women in management. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 236-250.

Kennedy, J. F. (1963, June 25). Address in the Assembly Hall at Paulskirche in Frankfurt,

GE.

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work. Maryland: University Press of America.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and leaders

tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leahey, C. (2012). Update: Fortune 500 women CEOs hits a record 20. Retrieved from

http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/fortune-500-women-ceos-2/.

Lewins, A., Taylor, C., & Gibbs, G. (2005). What is qualitative data analysis? United

Kingdom: University of Hudderfield.

Mangione, T. W. (1995). Mail surveys: Improving the quality. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Marsh, A. G. (2010). The tanning of the military. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air

University Press.

Martinez, L. (2008). Female general breaks ‘brass ceiling.’ Retrieved from

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6256087&page=1.

Mason, M. A. (2011). Better educating our new breadwinners: Creating opportunities for

all women to succeed in the workforce, The Shriver Report: A woman’s nation

changes everything. Center for American Progress.

McGregor, D. (1976). An analysis of leadership (2nd ed.). La Jolla, CA: University

Associates.

McGregor, J. (2012). Military women in combat: Why making it official matters.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-

leadership/post/military-women-in-combat-why-making-it-official-

matters/2012/05/25/gJQAOsRvpU_blog.html.

Monahan, E., & Greenlee, R. (2010). A few good women: America’s military women from

World War I to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York, NY: Random House.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Omar, A., & Davidson, M. J. (2001). Women in management: A comparative cross-

cultural overview. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3/4),

35-67.

Peterson, J. (2011). U.S. Supreme Court rules on University of Michigan cases. Retrieved

from www.ns.umich.edu/

Podesta, J. D. (2009). The Shiver Report: A woman’s nation changes everything. New

York, NY: Center for American Progress.

Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2003). Leading people, women and men in management

(3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rutgers Institute for Women’s Leadership. (2010). Women in the U.S. military services.

Retrieved from http://iwl.rutgers.edu/documents/njwomencount/Women

Sagalyn, D. (2011). Report: U.S. military leadership lacks diversity at top. Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/200/03/military-report.html

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex roles stereotypes and requisite

management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95-100.

Schuman, H., & Pressor, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys:

Experiments on question form, wording and context. New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-

manager-think male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49(7/8), 353-363.

Segal, D. R. (2010). The military and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children.

20(1). Retrieved from http://future of children.org/publications/journals/article

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Solaro, E. (2006). Women in the line of fire: What you should know about women in the

military. Emerysville, CA: Seal Press.

Spears, L. (1995). Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L. Spears (Ed.),

Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership

influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spears, L. (1998). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 17, 33-35.

Spotts, J. B. (1976). The problem of leadership: A look at some recent findings of

behavioral science research (2nd ed.). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Stanford, J. H., Oates, B. R., & Flores, D. (2005). Women's leadership styles: a heuristic

analysis. Women in Management Review, 10(2), 9-16.

Starr, B. (2012, February 8). Defense official: women in combat changes expected. The

New York Times, p. 5.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

Stone, F. M. (2004). The mentoring advantage. Chicago, IL: Dearborn.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. London, England: Sage.

Swerdlik, M., & Bardon, J. (1989). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for

the practice of mentoring. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Tarr-Whelan, L. (2009). Women lead the way. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Terkel, A. (2012, January 14). Ban on women in combat is discriminatory, high level

military panel states. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Tyson, A. (2005, May 26). Bid to limit women in combat withdrawn. The Washington

Post, p. A6.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011). Active duty military personnel by service by

rank/grade (for September 30, 2011). Retrieved from

http://www.web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.html.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Military personnel by service by rank/gender.

Retrieved from http://www.web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.html.

Urtso, G. (2011). The mentoring challenge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

VectorStudy. (2012). Types of leadership. Retrieved from

www.vectorstudy.com/management_topics/types_of_leadership.html

Wong, K. (2011). Women fighting and dying in war, despite combat exclusion policy.

Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/women-fight-iraq-afghanistan-

preclusion-ground-combat/story

Appendix A

IRB Approval

Appendix B

Group Commander Approval Letter

TENNESSEE AIR NATIONAL GUARD 420 POST AVENUE

MCGHEE TYSON AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

6 January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY

FROM: 134MDG/CC

SUBJECT: Permission to conduct Doctoral dissertation survey

Major Lisa Godsey is granted permission to conduct a leadership survey at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base as part of her Doctoral research.

//SIGNED// CORY T. STROBEL, Col, TNANG Commander

Appendix C

Mind Garden Consent

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:42 PM To: L GODSEY Subject: Response from Mind Garden - Invoice 25187 - Permission Hello Lisa, As we discussed on Friday, November 18, 2011 via telecon, the following is a confirmation of permission for you to present a copy of the MLQ in your proposal to your Internal Review Board. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual (MLQ) includes a complete "non-reproducible" copy of the MLQ. Based on your purchase of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual via Invoice 25187, you have Mind Garden's permission to include the MLQ instrument copy from the MLQ Manual for presenting in your dissertation proposal to your Internal Review Board. Best regards, Chris Mind Garden, Inc. ===========================

From: Mind Garden, Inc. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 3:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Paid Invoice 25367 from Mind Garden, Inc. (attachment) Dear Lisa Godsey: Please find attached a copy of your paid Invoice 25367. You will receive a separate email regarding access to the pdf for the paper/pencil method and the use of our online survey system. Thank you for your business - we appreciate it very much. Sincerely, Chris 650-322-6300

Appendix D

MLQ Leader Form (5x) Short

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form (5x) Short

My Name: ___________________________________________ Date: ______________

Organization ID #: _____________________________Leader ____________________

This questionnaire is to describe your leadership style as you perceive it. Please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer blank.

Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each

statement fits you. The word “others” may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these individuals.

Use the following rating scale:

Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if not

always 0 1 2 3 4

1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts 0 1 2 3 4 2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate 0 1 2 3 4 3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious 0 1 2 3 4 4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards 0 1 2 3 4 5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise 0 1 2 3 4 6. I talk about my most important values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4 7. I am absent when needed 0 1 2 3 4 8. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems 0 1 2 3 4 9. I talk optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4 10. I instill pride in others for being associated with me 0 1 2 3 4 11. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets 0 1 2 3 4 12. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action 0 1 2 3 4 13. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0 1 2 3 4 14. I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0 1 2 3 4 15. I spend time teaching and coaching 0 1 2 3 4 16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved 0 1 2 3 4 17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” 0 1 2 3 4 18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group 0 1 2 3 4 19. Treats me as an indivudal reather than just as a member of a group 0 1 2 3 4 20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action 0 1 2 3 4 21. Acts in ways that builds my respect 0 1 2 3 4 22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures 0 1 2 3 4 23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 0 1 2 3 4 24. Keeps track of all mistakes 0 1 2 3 4 25. Displays a sense of power and confidence 0 1 2 3 4 26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future 0 1 2 3 4 27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 0 1 2 3 4 28. Avoids making decisions 0 1 2 3 4 29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others 0 1 2 3 4 30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 0 1 2 3 4 31. Helps me to develop my strengths 0 1 2 3 4 32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0 1 2 3 4 33. Delays responding to urgent questions 0 1 2 3 4 34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 0 1 2 3 4 35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 0 1 2 3 4 36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 0 1 2 3 4 37. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs 0 1 2 3 4 38. Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying 0 1 2 3 4 39. Gets me to do more than I expected to do 0 1 2 3 4 40. Is effective in representing me to higher authority 0 1 2 3 4 41. Works with me in a satisfactory way 0 1 2 3 4 42. Heightens my desire to succeed 0 1 2 3 4 43. Is effective in meeting organizational requirements 0 1 2 3 4 44. Increases my willingness to try harder 0 1 2 3 4 45. Leads a group that is effective 0 1 2 3 4 For use by Lisa Godsey only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on February 10, 2012. © 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All rights reserved. Published by MindGarden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

Appendix E

Participant Consent Form

LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD 09- 10

A Changing of the Guard: Women as Leaders in Today’s Military Environment

You are being asked to participate in a research study. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Please read the information below and ask questions about

anything you do not understand before deciding if you want to participate. A researcher listed below will be available to answer your questions.

RESEARCH TEAM Lead Researcher: Lisa A. Godsey

EdD, Executive Leadership 865-300-7732

Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Gary Peevely

Executive Leadership

Study Location(s): McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base

PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this research study is determine if there is a significant difference between how male and female senior leaders lead in today’s ever changing military organization. SUBJECTS Inclusion Requirements You are eligible to participate in this study if you are a male or female officer and a male or female senior enlisted noncommissioned officer currently serving in the Tennessee Air National Guard at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base, Tennessee. Number of Participants and Time Commitment This study will include approximately twenty subjects and will involve approximately 15 minutes of your time. PROCEDURES The following procedures will occur: You will complete a survey about your leadership style. Since the validity of the results depend on obtaining a high response rate, your participation is crucial to the success of this study. Please mark the first choice that comes to your mind when you face a question. All the information that you provide will be strictly confidential, so answer all the questions honestly and to the best of your knowledge.

If you feel you are not able to answer a question, just leave that aside and answer the rest. Please give fair and honest opinions. Thank you for spending your effort in making this survey effective. After completing the survey your questionnaire will be collected by the researcher and the data will be analyzed. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS This study involves no more than minimal risk. There are no known harms or discomforts associated with this study beyond those encountered in normal daily life. BENEFITS Subject Benefits As a participant, you may or may not benefit from participation in this study. The possible benefits you may experience from participation in this study may be useful to policy makers and senior military leaders concerned with capitalizing on diversity and enhancing the military’s ability to accomplish the mission. ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION The only alternative to participation in this study is not to participate. Your participation is voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not to participate and you are free to withdraw at any time. COMPENSATION, COSTS AND REIMBURSEMENT Compensation for Participation You will not be paid for your participation in this research study. CONFIDENTIALITY Subject Identifiable Data All identifiable information that will be collected about you will be removed and replaced with a code. A list linking the code and your identifiable information will be kept separate from the research data. Data Storage The audio recordings will also be stored in a secure location; then transcribed and erased at the end of the study. Data Access The research team and authorized LMU personnel are guided by all HHS and FDA regulations concerning confidentiality and may have access to your study records to protect your safety and welfare. No information derived from this research project that personally identifies will be used for any purposes and will not be voluntarily released or disclosed by these entities without your separate consent, except as specifically required by law. Research records provided to authorized, non-LMU entities will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not include identifiable information about you. Data Retention

The researchers intend to keep the research data until analysis of the information is completed. RETURN INSTRUCTIONS After completing the survey, please return it to the researcher. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS If you have any comments, concerns, or questions regarding the conduct of this research please contact the research team listed at the top of this form. If you are unable to reach a member of the research team listed at the top of this form and have general questions, or you have concerns or complaints about the research study, research team, or questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Chair of the LMU IRB, Dr. Howard Teitelbaum at (423) 489-7129, or by email [email protected], or in person at 129 DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway, Harrogate, TN 37752. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION STATEMENT You should not sign this form unless you have read it and have been given a copy of it to keep. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any question or discontinue your involvement at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you might otherwise be entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with LMU or your quality of education provided to you by LMU. Your signature below indicates that you have read the information in this consent form and have had a chance to ask questions that you have about the study. I agree to participate in the study. Subject Signature Date Printed Name of Subject Researcher Signature Date Printed Name of Researcher

Appendix F

Participant Debrief Form

LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD 09-10 A Changing of the Guard:

Women as Leaders in Today’s Military Environment

Dear Participant; During this study, you were asked to complete a leadership survey. You were told that the purpose of the study was to determine if there is a significant difference between how male and female senior leaders lead in today’s ever changing military organization. All data will be secured in a locked cabinet and will be destroyed NLT December 2012. If you have any concerns about your participation or the data you provided in light of this disclosure, please discuss this with us. We will be happy to provide any information we can to help answer questions you have about this study. If your concerns are such that you would now like to have your data withdrawn, and the data is identifiable, we will do so. If you have questions about your participation in the study, please contact me at 865-300-7732 or my faculty advisor, Dr. Gary Peevely at 865-253-7518. Sincerely, Lisa A. Godsey