Evaluating Perceived Changes in Leadership Behavior Among Middle Managers PDF

Pepperdine University
Graduate School of Education and Psychology
EVALUATING PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR

AMONG MIDDLE MANAGERS
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

o f the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Educational Technology
by
Jennifer M. Ryan
December, 2006
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3246688
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3246688
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright by Jennifer M. Ryan (2006)

All Rights Reserved
This dissertation, written by
Jennifer M. Ryan
under the guidance o f a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been
submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
April 5, 2006
Faculty Committee:
', Chairperson
Karfin-Madjidi, E d D \ j
oW F. McManus, PhD
Chester H. McCall, PhD
Associate Dean
M a^aret J. Weber, PhD

Dean
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... viii
VITA..........................................................................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM.........................................................................................1
Background.........................................................................................................................1
The Problem Statement..................................................................................................... 5
Purpose o f the Study......................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 7
Hypotheses......................................................................................................................... 8
Importance o f the Study.................................................................................................... 9
Nature of the Intervention............................................................................................... 11
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)............................................................................18
Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 20
Limitations o f the Study..................................................................................................21
Definition o f Terms......................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 26

Leadership........................................................................................................................ 26
Adult Learning and Development..................................................................................42
Corporate Leadership Development..............................................................................47
Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 58
Corporate Leadership Development Evaluation.......................................................... 61
360 Degree Instruments..................................................................................................67
Summary.......................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER THREE: REASEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS..................................... 74

Restatement of the Research Questions........................................................................ 74
Research Design...............................................................................................................75
Organization..................................................................................................................... 79
Population, Sample and Analysis U n it......................................................................... 79
Procedures........................................................................................................................ 81
Characteristics M easured................................................................................................83
Page
Instrument........................................................................................................................85
V alidity............................................................................................................................86
Reliability.........................................................................................................................87
Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................89
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS............................................................................................. 90

Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................97
Research Question 2 .....................................................................................................101
Additional Findings......................................................................................................109
Summary o f Findings....................................................................................................I l l
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications........................................... 113

Summary o f Findings....................................................................................................113
Additional Findings o f Interest.................................................................................... 115
Strengths, Weaknesses and Concessions.................................................................... 116
Utility o f Results........................................................................................................... 117
Recommendations for Future Research...................................................................... 118
Researchers Observations........................................................................................... 119
REFERENCES............................................................................................... ,.....................121
APPENDIX A: Leading from the Middle Course Description.........................................128
APPENDIX B: Leading from the Middle Course Objectives........................................... 130
APPENDIX C: Leading from the Middle Course Agenda................................................ 132
APPENDIX D: Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument Self Treatment Group
................................................................................................................................................. 134
APPENDIX E: Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument Self Comparison Group
................................................................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIX F: Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)Instrument Observer Supervisor 142
vi
Page
APPENDIX G: Permission to Reproduce Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
Instrument.............................................................................................................................. 146
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Variable Names and VariableTypes......................................................................84
Table 2. Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) Coefficients for the LPI by Respondent Category
88
Table 3. LPI Preassessment Scores and Descriptive Statistics............................................91

Table 4. LPI Preassessment Scores Levenes Test...............................................................94
Table 5. One-Way ANOVA LPI Preassessment & Postassessment Scores...................... 96
Table 6. Tukey HSD Posthoc Comparison Test...................................................................97
Table 7. Preassessment Means and Standard Deviations of Middle Managers and Their
Supervisors.....................................................................................................................I l l
Table 8. Preassessment Responses of Managers and Supervisors on the LPI (n = 208) 111
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Nonequivalent (preassessment-postassessment) comparison group design
77
ix
JENNIFER M. RYAN VITA
Education
1998
M.A.
Education
Concentration: Instructional Technology.
San Jose State University
San Jose, California
1991
B.F.A
Concentration: Computer Graphics.

University o f Massachusetts-Amherst
Amherst, Massachusetts
Professional Experience
June 2002 to
Present
Program Manager, Corporate Management & Leadership

Development Group
Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Oregon
February 2001
to June 2002
Training Development Manager, Sales & Marketing Group

Learning Solutions
January 1999
to February
2001
Training Development Manager, Communication Products

Group
November
1996 to
January 1999
Training Developer, Intel Mask Operations

Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California
February 1996
to July 1996
Teacher
Early Horizons Child Care Center, Sunnyvale, California
ABSTRACT
Many businesses and organizations lack data regarding the effectiveness of employee
training programs. Using a quasi-experimental design and the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI), this study sought to determine whether middle managers of a large
technology manufacturing organization who attended a 1 day leadership course changed
their leadership behavior. The LPI was also administered to a comparison group of
middle managers who did not complete the leadership course and to the supervisors of
both groups of middle managers. A significant difference was found only in the
preassessment scores on the LPI Enabling Scale. In this study, attending a 1 day
leadership course did not significantly change the leadership behavior of middle
managers. The author recommended using a broader range of factors for effecting
changes in leadership behavior among middle managers, including a focus on
management and leadership development, organizational development, and the award of
benefits and compensation to participants.
1
Chapter One: The Problem
Background
One does not have to look far through the business section of the newspaper to
see the increasing demand for leadership in these changing times. Ever changing
technologies, the globalization of the economy, the need for businesses to maintain a
competitive advantage in the marketplace, and the lack of effective leadership talent
development throughout the last few decades, has left a deficit o f leaders in organizations
(Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2001). Once prominent companies such as Enron, WorldCom,
Arthur Anderson, Imclone, Tyco, and Adelphia, looked upon as successes of the business
world, were discovered to have major flaws in their leadership (Lavelle, 2002; Useem,
Warner, & Dash, 2002). As organizations are seeking stability, and in some cases
rebuilding their credibility in the marketplace, they are looking towards the once ignored
power and integrity o f their middle managers as a valuable asset, as many of them have
more credibility and good will from their staffs than do their top bosses (Hymowitz,
2002, p. B l), to help pull them through these changing times.
The 2001 Conference Board report The CEO Challenge: Top Marketplace and
Management Issues listed the top three external forces that would pose the greatest
marketplace challenges from their sample of 506 CEOs in North America, Europe and
Asia. These external forces included, the type and level of competition (41%), the impact
o f the internet (38%), and industry consolidation (37%). These same CEOs reported that
the greatest management challenges for their companies are customer loyalty and
retention (37%), increasing flexibility and speed (34%), competing for talent (29%), and
reducing costs (29%) (Berman, 2001).
2
These marketplace and management challenges are all areas in which leveraging
middle managers could be a successful strategy for meeting these challenges and
succeeding in the marketplace. Unlike senior executives, middle managers are close to
daily operations, connecting with customers, suppliers, front-line managers and
employees. Concomitantly, middle managers are also just far enough away from the daily
work to have a view of the big picture, allowing them to resolve issues and encourage
growth by seeing new possibilities. Middle managers play vital roles such as innovator
and entrepreneur, by proposing new possibilities that would add value to the
organization, as communicator, by successfully leveraging their informal networks at
multiple levels o f the organization, as a barometer, for the motivational needs of the
employees, and manager, of the tenuous balance between continuity and change (Huy,
2001; Hymowitz, 2002).
Huy (2001) found in his study regarding middle managers that their ideas are
often overlooked, but when they are acknowledged and implemented they are often better
than those o f their senior managers. At a large telecommunications company involved in
the study, where a radical change program had been initiated a few years prior, of the
projects that senior executives had proposed, 80% fell short o f expectations or failed
outright. Meanwhile, 80% of the projects that middle managers had initiated succeeded,
bringing in at least $300 million in annual profits (p. 74). The reason for this success
was that influential middle managers often have stronger social networks, more
credibility and are more intimately familiar with the capacity and complexity of
organizational resources.
3
According to the report What Makes Great Leaders, the HayGroup (1999) each
year found concurring issues in Fortune Magazines annual Worlds Most Admired
Companies survey results, conducted by the HayGroup and Fortune Magazine,
regarding the differences in leadership and the quality of management between the
worlds most admired companies (companies ranked as the top 3 in their respective
industry by Fortune Magazines annual report) and their Fortune 500 peers, who were not
ranked as one o f the worlds most admired companies. The HayGroup then decided to
study these issues further and found that effective leadership separated the most admired
organizations from the rest of the pack. These organizations put a premium on the
importance o f leadership and clearly do a better job of selecting and developing their
leaders (HayGroup, 1999, p. 1).
In conducting the study, CEOs and heads of human resources in the top three of
each industry category o f the worlds most admired companies were asked to complete
a questionnaire regarding the quality of their leadership and development programs. The
same questionnaire was also sent to a sample of other Fortune 500 organizations. More
than 60 companies completed the survey. Among the most admired companies, 74% said
they were satisfied with their leadership development programs compared to 52% of their
peers, thus supporting the premise that the most admired companies demonstrated the
importance o f having and developing effective leaders to ensure success for the
organization (HayGroup, 1999).
The findings also identified the top three derailment factors of employees and
managers who were identified as high potentials for leadership development in these
Fortune 500 companies. In order of importance, the derailment factors were lack of
4
clarity, inability to work in teams, and insensitivity. These were followed by
significant change and technical ability. Regardless of what level an individual was
leading in the organization be it a workgroup, department, business unit, or global
corporation, the Hay Group (1999) found that there are things you can do to develop and
nurture effective leadership (p. 12). What the leader brings to the party in terms of
hard skills and more subtle motives, values, and traits, has a major impact on the
performance o f those he or she leads (HayGroup, 1999, p. 7), and having effective
results-based opportunities and programs in place can certainly assist in this endeavor.
In determining the results of a leadership development program or course,
whether it be at the level o f participant reaction, knowledge transfer, behavior change, or
business impact, Donald Kirkpatricks (1994) four levels of training evaluation are a
training industry standard (Harrell, 2001). The four levels of evaluation for training
programs are as follows:
1. Reaction
2. Learning
3. Behavior
4. Results
Level 1, Reaction, occurs immediately after training, and measures how people
respond to the training. Level 2, Learning, occurs after training (sometimes occurs both
before and after), and measures the extent to which people change attitudes, improve
knowledge, and/or increase skill as a result o f attending the program (p. 22).
Level 3, Behavior, typically occurs approximately three to six months after
training (Kirkpatrick, D., 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2003b; Phillips, 1997), and measures
5
the extent to which behavior change occurred due to the participant attending training.
Level 4, Results, typically occur approximately six to twelve months after training
(Kirkpatrick, D., 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2003b; Phillips, 1997), and measures the final
outcome of the training, such as increased production, improved quality, decreased costs,
reduced turnover, etc. The study performed for this dissertation utilized Level 3
evaluation, which is best measured three to six months after training has occurred, giving
participants enough time to allow for behavior change to occur.
Many o f todays executives and managers participate in leadership development
programs, but very few o f these programs are ever evaluated beyond level 1 (Reaction)
(Harrell, 2001). ASTDs 2002 (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002b) State of the Industry report
reveals that 78% o f organizations who participate in their benchmarking services measure
for level 1 (Reaction), while only 9% of these same organizations measure for level 3
(Behavior). The reason for the lack of evaluation performed beyond level 1, is usually
due to either lack o f resources within the organization or the absence of an organizational
requirement to engage in such evaluation. For organizations to remain globally
competitive, training must leverage their connection to the business by linking to
business objectives. Like business, training and those who participate in training need to
be held accountable for influencing the intended behavior changes to compete in the
global marketplace. For that level of organizational accountability to occur, training
programs will need to be evaluated beyond level 1 reaction (Harrell, 2001).
The Problem Statement
As organizations strive for success and realize that attaining success requires
investing in the education and training of their employees as part of their overall business
6
strategy, organizations are not only increasing their investments in employee education,
they are also expecting to determine how the impact of the training affects the business
strategy (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002b). Training of employees is now seen as directly
connected to the overall strategy and success of the organization. Regardless of that
investment, programs are often not evaluated beyond Kirkpatricks level 1. Lacking data
beyond participant reaction makes it nearly impossible to determine if a program is
impacting behavior changes within the organization in the way it was intended. Without
Level 3 evaluation, organizations cant know if they are continuously improving the
abilities of their often neglected middle manager audience or, even if participation in the
development programs has the same, or less, impact as does nonparticipation.
Despite some major differences in leadership approaches between the most
admired companies and their counterparts, one startling similarity stands out: the lack of
effective methods for measuring the success of development programs (HayGroup,
1999, p. 5). Their survey showed that 72% of the most admired companies and 70% of
their peers use level 1 surveys (Reaction) as a key measure of leadership development.
Less than one third o f those surveyed calculate success at level 4, (Results), and one third
of both groups lack any formal method for measurement.
Millions o f dollars, let alone hours of time from developers, human resource
professionals, and those who participate in the training and development sessions, have
been spent in developing leadership at the large technology manufacturing organization
(LTMO) where this study was conducted, yet it was unknown whether any of this
investment in time or dollars was creating intended behavior changes among participants.
Evaluation beyond Kirkpatricks level 1 (Reaction) was required to determine if the
7
current leadership development training was influencing the intended behavior change in
organizational leaders.
Purpose o f the Study

The purpose of this quasi-experimental design study was to determine if the self
and supervisor-perceived leadership behaviors of middle managers who attended a
leadership development course differed after a 3 month period from those middle
managers who did not attend the course. The study performed for this dissertation utilized
Level 3 evaluation, which is best measured 3 to 6 months after training has occurred,
giving participants enough time to allow for behavior change to occur (Kirkpatrick, D.,
1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2003b; Phillips, 1997).
Research Questions
The following question served as the principal focus of this study: What is the
relationship between the self-assessment o f the leadership behaviors of the LTMO middle
managers and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by their supervisors? In
focusing the research process, the following questions were posed:
1. Is there a significant behavior change in self-perceived leadership after a 3 month
period between those middle managers who did versus those who did not attend a
leadership development course?
2. Is there a significant difference in supervisors perceptions of middle managers
leadership behaviors after a 3 month period, when supervisors are grouped
according to whether their middle managers attended a leadership course or not?
3. Are there significant differences between the self-assessments of those middle

managers who attended a leadership development course and the assessment of
their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors after a 3 month
period?
managers who did not attend a leadership development course and the assessment
o f their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors after a 3
month period?
Hypotheses
To answer the research questions requires testing a corresponding null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis 1. After a 3 month period, there is no significant difference in
self-perceived leadership behavior change between those middle managers who did
(treatment) versus those who did not (comparison) attend a leadership development
course.
Alternate hypothesis 1. After a 3 month period, there is a significant difference in
self-perceived leadership behavior change between those middle managers who did
(treatment) versus those who did not (comparison) attend a leadership development
course.
Null hypothesis 2. After a 3 month period, there is no significant difference in the
leadership behaviors o f middle managers who attended a leadership development course
versus those who did not, as perceived by supervisors of middle managers.
9
the leadership behaviors of middle managers who attended a leadership development
course versus those who did not, as perceived by supervisors of middle managers.
leadership behaviors of middle managers as perceived by middle managers who attended
a leadership development course versus their supervisors.
the leadership behaviors o f middle managers as perceived by middle managers who
attended a leadership development course versus their supervisors.
leadership behaviors o f middle managers as perceived by middle managers who did not
attend a leadership development course versus their supervisors.
the leadership behaviors of middle managers as perceived by middle managers who did
not attend a leadership development course versus their supervisors.
Importance o f the Study

This study was important as there was an overall need to evaluate leadership
development training beyond the typical level 1 (Reaction) evaluation and determine if
the training was successful in influencing behavior change. At that point in time,
LTMOs Management & Leadership Development Group (MLDG) had approximately
$500,000.00 invested in their overall middle manager development program which
offered three courses. (The leadership course, Leading from the Middle (LFTM), was the
course used in this study). This dollar amount included costs for outside development of
10
courses, monies spent deploying those courses worldwide, as well as salaries for 4 middle
manager development employees.
At the time, there was no data beyond level 1 evaluation to justify continuation of
the course. This dollar amount did not include the salaries of the 12 to 20 middle manager
participants who spent 7 hours in each LFTM training session, or the salaries of the
senior managers who facilitated each o f the 7 hour sessions. All the while, MLDGs
Middle Manager development program continued to develop more training courses, but
had yet to measure the impact of their courses beyond participant reaction. This study
provides a replicable process as well as a tool to evaluate the perceptions of behavior
change by program participants for future MLDG Middle Manager courses. This study
also provides a quantitative measure of the impact that LFTM has on perceptions of
behavior change.
Unlike executive level managers, middle managers as a whole are often neglected
when it comes to training and development opportunities. Middle Managers are the
muscle and bone o f every sizeable organization, no matter how loose or flattened the
hierarchy, but they are largely ignored despite their immense importance to our society
and economy (Grove, 1995, p. xiii). The research from this study is a much needed
addition to the undersized sum of existing literature regarding middle manager leadership
development training and the evaluation of that training.
This study provides other corporations who are researching the possibility of
measuring the impact of leadership development courses on self-perceived behavior
change with new insight regarding quantitative measurement in this area. The data
collected in this study gives LTMO, and other corporations, data that will assist them in
11
further developing their training courses and programs to enhance, as well as sustain, the
development of their Middle managers. In comparison to the vast amount of research that
has been done regarding executive leadership development, the breadth and depth in the
Middle Manager realm pales in comparison. This study adds to that undersized body of
knowledge.
Nature o f the Intervention

Leading from the Middle is a one-day leadership course that was developed
specifically for middle managers at the LTMO. (LTMO is a global organization that has
approximately 100,000 employees with sites in Asia, Canada, Europe, Africa, Middle
East, Latin America, and the United States. The organization is comprised of 12 major
enterprise groups. Sixty-percent o f the company resides within manufacturing which is
the core o f LTMOs business). An assessment to determine the need for this and other
middle manager courses was performed in the third quarter of 2002.
In July 2002, existing data, such as employee surveys, existing internal manager
development programs, management and leadership practices surveys, management
competencies from the finance and technology architecture groups, external literature, the
Management Task Cycle (MTC), and a middle manager benchmarking study was
gathered and synthesized by the middle manager development team. Based on the data
synthesis, nine areas were found to be critical to the success of middle managers:
managing and coaching, decision making, managing complexity, delegation and control,
leadership, communication, stakeholder management, strategic thinking and planning,
and business literacy.
In August 2002, this list of critical skills was then presented to focus groups in
Hillsboro (Oregon), Chandler (Arizona), Swindon (England), and Shanghai (China)
asking participants if there were updates that should be made to the current categories
and, if so, what should they be. Participants were also asked to rank the skills in order of
importance for their business group or geography. Emerging market (India, China,
Russia) needs and one on one interview data from key middle managers were analyzed as
well in determining the rank order o f the critical skills. A survey was then conducted to
collect quantitative data to validate the middle manager critical skills and their
subsequent ranking. In September 2002, all of the data was then synthesized and a middle
manager critical skills set, as well as a curriculum roadmap, was developed. The outcome
of the assessment found eight middle manager critical skills in all. In order of rank from
highest to lowest importance the critical skills were as follows: leadership, strategy,
coaching, decision making, stakeholder management, managing complexity, delegation,
and business literacy.
Development on the Leading from the Middle instructor-led one-day course began
not long after the July 2002 phase of the needs assessment. The goal of this course was to
provide LTMO Mid-Mangers with an introduction to leadership attributes, skills, and
styles, as they relate to middle managers, and identify development steps for effectively
bridging the gap between management and leadership (see APPENDIX A). In November
2003, the course began undergoing a version update based on participant and instructor
feedback. This version two o f the course was implemented beginning June 30, 2004.
Version two o f the course, not version one, was evaluated for this study. The goal for
version two o f the course was updated to: This course is intended to strengthen new Mid-
13
Manger leadership skills and identify development steps for effectively transitioning
between management and leadership. The learning objectives for version two of the
course are as follows (also see APPENDIX B):
Define middle leadership and determine your strengths and development areas.
Assess your leadership styles and determine how best to leverage them.
Move forward as a middle manager.

-
What do you build on?
What do you leave behind?
Apply leadership concepts to current challenges facing LTMO.
Address individual areas for leadership improvement.

In aligning the LFTM course with the Senior Manager leadership course,
Leadership Engagement and Development (LEAD), frameworks from the LEAD course
such as, leadership styles by Goleman (2000) and the Leadership Pipeline by Charan et
al. (2001), were leveraged to create LFTM, but were positioned for the middle manager
audience. The middle manager LFTM course was also developed to be the same duration
as the one day senior manager leadership course, as this was the course length that was
amenable to the audience. Having a course run longer than one day was not the norm, nor
was there business group support for a course, or other solution, of greater length. The
course was developed using a course developer from MLDGs Mid-Manager
Development group and a design review team consisting of ten representatives from
various business units and geographies throughout LTMO. The design and development
of version one o f the course occurred in August and September of 2002 and the course
was then piloted at four sites, Hillsboro (Oregon), Singapore, Swindon (England), and
14
Shanghai (China). Updates were then made to the content based on participant and
instructor feedback, and version one of the course was launched in January 2003.
Version two of the course began development in November 2003, was piloted in
Hillsboro (Oregon) in April 2004, and was launched on June 30, 2004. This version of
the course was developed based on instructor and participant feedback. Instructor
feedback was gathered during two instructor forum conference calls, in which instructors
were able to freely give feedback regarding course content. Participant feedback was
gathered from Level 1 course evaluation forms. During the version two course
development process a select group of instructor volunteers reviewed the course design
and course content. Updates were then made based on their feedback. Participant and
instructor feedback for this updated content was also gathered from the April 2004 pilot
session. This feedback was used to further update the course prior to its launch in June
2004.
The primary target audience for this course was middle managers who were new
to the role (first two years), but the course is open to all levels of middle managers.
LFTM is divided into three modules, Module 1: Assessing Leadership Skills, Styles and
Attributes, Module 2: Being an Effective Middle Leader, and Module 3: Applying
Middle Leadership. The one-day course (see APPENDIX A) was facilitated by either a
Senior Middle Manager (having five or more years experience in his or her role) or a
Senior Manager. Facilitators were encouraged to share stories of their own experiences
and add their own insights to the course session.
The course began with an introduction of the course, the instructor and the
participants, as well as course ground rules, such as confidentiality, returning from breaks
15
on time, etc., and a review of course objectives. These key points of the course were also
r
reviewed (see APPENDIX C):
Effective middle leaders visualize change and influence others at all levels to help
facilitate change.
Effective middle leaders demonstrate their real value through tangible results that
further the organizations goals.
Middle leaders succeed by taking time to assess, develop, and determine how best
to leverage their leadership role & styles.
Transitions in management roles must be acknowledged and experienced to

continue strengthening the leadership pipeline.
An icebreaker activity to activate participant thinking regarding middle leadership at

LTMO was the final segment of the course introduction that led into Module One.
In the first module, Assessing Leadership Skills, Styles and Attributes,
participants defined leadership, compared their definitions to those of experts in the field
(Bennis, 1989; Kotter, 1997), and reviewed and discussed how leadership differs from
management. The instructor facilitated a discussion regarding the connection to the
Management (MTC) and Leadership (LTC) task cycles. Participants then individually
mapped out what Middle Leadership currently looked like to them (who: People and
relationships; what: state o f relationships, role expectations, leadership styles, goals,
objectives, environment; how: how your Middle Leadership operates in this environment
and impacts the business), using lines, shapes, and words, and discussed at their tables. In
part two o f this exercise, participants drew a new individual map depicting their desired
state o f Middle Leadership. They were asked to determine where they could leverage
16
strengths and to examine the gaps between their two maps and brainstorm for possible
solutions. Participants then moved into sharing their leadership styles (coercive,
authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, coaching) based on the Goleman (2000)
article Leadership that Gets Results leadership styles pre-work exercises and reading
they completed prior to the session.
The second module, Being an Effective Middle Leader, explored the challenges
of being a Middle Manager/Leader and gave an overview of the Leadership Pipeline
(Charan et al., 2001) focusing on the second and third phases of the pipeline, managing
others and managing managers. Emphasis was placed on the third phase, managing
managers, as it was most pertinent to the participants. Signs of a successful manager of
managers was reviewed and discussed (development of First-Line Managers, delegation,
coaching, business acumen, influencing, and results), as well as the five signs of a
misplaced manager of managers (difficultly delegating, poor performance management,
failure to build a strong team, a single minded focus on getting the work done, and
choosing clones over contributors). Participants engaged in a Middle Leader Challenge
scenario activity, in which each group developed a Middle Leadership challenge based on
real world issues they were experiencing in the workplace. Each group then gave their
challenge to the neighboring group to brainstorm possible solutions.
The third module, Applying Middle Leadership, provided participants with
another opportunity to apply middle leadership to current challenges facing LTMO, as
well as address individual areas for leadership development (Merriam, 2001). Participants
were presented with two current LTMO challenges that were then assigned one to each
group, in which they proposed possible solutions and describe actions they would take
17
towards resolving the issue. An overview of the newly developed LTMO Management
& Leadership Expectations, was then presented and discussed with participants. There
are five expectations, (Demonstrate Business & Strategic Acumen, Build Strong & Vital
Organizations, Set the Pace & Execute, Manage Internal & External Stakeholders, and
Lead with Integrity), which are then broken out in more detail by management level, First
Line, Middle, Senior. The LFTM course supports the expectation Lead with Integrity.
For Middle managers, this expectation requires:
Be honest, ethical, sincere, fair, and principled.
Develop cross-cultural management capabilities.
Role model business excellence and LTMO values. Insist on congruence between
LTMO values & behaviors.
Once the overview and discussion of the expectations was completed, participants engage
in a reflection and discussion forum. Participants are asked to write down one thing they
will do differently once they are back on the job. The instructor then engaged participants
in a discussion forum regarding the course discussions or any other items participants had
questions about concerning Middle Leadership. At the end of the discussion forum, key
points from the beginning o f the course were reviewed, participants were given a Call to
Action in which they were asked to: Excel as a Middle Leader, Incorporate what theyll
do back on the job into their action plan and personal development plan, and Secure
themselves a coach or mentor. Other courses and readings were also recommended. At
the completion o f the session the course was evaluated using a standardized LTMO Level
1 course evaluation form.
18
The implementation of this course in 2003 was also driven by a Human Resource
(HR) penetration goal of 75% completion for existing middle managers in emerging
markets (China, India, Russia) and 20% for non-emerging markets (U.S., Europe, Middle
East, Latin America, etc.). The emerging market goal was met. The non-emerging market
goal was not. This penetration goal was not driven by LTMO business groups beyond
HR. There was no penetration goal for 2004 or 2005.
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is a 30 question leadership assessment
survey that was used as the survey instrument for this study (see APPENDICES D-F).
The LPI measures leadership across five areas that the creators of the survey, Kouzes and
Posner (2002a), refer to as The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership. Those five
practices are: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable
Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. Model the Way refers to being viewed as
credible by those around you. When Modeling the Way a leader finds his or her voice by
clarifying personal values and setting an example by aligning their actions with shared
values (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, p. 12). While Inspiring a Shared Vision, a leader
envisions the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities and enlisting
others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations (p. 12). A leader
Challenges the Process in his or her search for opportunities by seeking innovative ways
to change, grow, and improve, as well as experiment and take risks by constantly
generating small wins and learning from mistakes (p. 12). Enabling Others to Act
requires leaders to foster collaboration through the promotion of cooperative goals and
building trust (p. 12). Encouraging the Heart necessitates that leaders recognize
19
contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence and celebrate the values
and victories by creating a spirit o f community (p. 12).
The LPI was chosen as the survey instrument for this study due to its overall
alignment to the course objectives as well as its ease of use. Kouzes and Posner (2002b)
created the LPI with the flexibility for leveraging it as a tool for developing leadership at
all levels o f an organization. The survey not only focuses on measuring leadership on a
personal level, but from a broader organizational perspective as well. The survey is
simple to fill out and takes only eight to ten minutes to complete. This was an important
requirement when working with the LTMO middle manager audience, as they were more
likely to respond if the survey instrument was quick and easy to use. A survey instrument
for measuring Golemans (2000) Leadership Styles was not chosen as it focuses on
personal leadership style, as opposed to measuring leadership from a broader
organizational perspective.
Besides meeting the requirements for use with a middle manager audience, what
is being measured by the LPI relates to what is being taught in LFTM. Module One
relates to three o f the five leadership practices measured by the LPI, Model the Way,
Inspire a Shared Vision and Challenge the Process, with the Middle Leadership mapping
o f current and desired state activity and the Leadership Styles activity. Module Two
relates to all five o f the practices measured by the LPI, Model the Way, Inspire a Shared
Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart with the
overview and discussion of the signs of a successful manager o f managers and the five
signs of a misplaced manager o f mangers, as well as the Middle Leader Challenge
scenario activity. Module Three also relates to all five practices as measured by the LPI,
20
with the LTMO Challenges activity, the overview and discussion of the Management and
Leadership Expectations, and the Reflection and Discussion Forum. The LPI survey
instrument is also currently in use by two organizations within LTMO. These
organizations have successfully incorporated the LPI as well as The Five Practices of
Exemplary Leadership into their leadership development curriculum.
Assumptions
This study embraced the following assumptions:
1. The Leading from the Middle course was instructionally sound, that is, met the
needs of the participants and sessions adhered to the course objectives.
2. Middle managers and their supervisors participated honestly in this study.
3. Observers (supervisors) had equal access to actually observing an individuals
leadership behaviors, although in many cases due to the global nature of the
LTMO organization, these observations may take place via a virtual team
environment.
4. The Leadership Practices Inventory, with its rating scale of 1 to 10, did not allow
for dont know as a response. The premise here was that supervisors who would
be selected to complete this survey would be familiar enough with the individual
to observe and rate behavior.
5. The LPI scoring for this study treated ordinal (Likert scale) data intervally. This
was done to be consistent with Kouzes and Posners treatment of their normed
data.
21
Limitations o f the Study

The study was conducted with the following limitations:
1. The middle manager population for the purpose of this study was limited to those
at the five largest LTMO sites in the United States, in descending order, Hillsboro
(Oregon), Chandler (Arizona), Folsom (California), Santa Clara (California), and
Rio Rancho (New Mexico). The reason for this was frequency of course sessions
at those sites due to the size of the middle manager populations there, control of
session forecasting, and greater accessibility to the participants.
2. There were 22 sessions of LFTM scheduled among the five largest U.S. sites for
2004 and 14 sessions scheduled for 2005. Each session had a maximum
enrollment o f 20 participants and a minimum enrollment o f 12. In 2003, the first
year the LFTM course was offered, of 1160 middle managers at the five largest
U.S. sites, with 44 sessions of LFTM being offered at those sites, only 164 middle
managers (14%) completed the LFTM course. Therefore, throughout the duration
o f this study from September 2004 to December 2005 we expected a minimum of
264 middle managers to matriculate from non-completers to completers.
3. Constant reorganizations within the organization may have caused some
participants and supervisors, to withdraw from the study. To accommodate this
possibility, the number o f comparison group participants was over sampled by
13% for each o f the 22 LFTM sessions.
4. This course was not a corporate requirement. Participants enrolled on a first come
first served voluntary basis.
22
5. There were no controls in place to prevent other members of the LTMO
population, outside of the middle manager target audience, from enrolling in this
course regardless o f their position in the organization. Non-middle managers were
identified via the Middle Manger database and excluded from the study when
found.
6. Middle manager demographic information was limited to organization unit
numbers, business group, site, and course completion. Information indicating how
long a middle manager had been in his or her position was not available prior to
surveying the population. This data was collected by some of the study
participants when the LPI survey was conducted.
7. Using a quasi-experimental design, a nonequivalent (preassessment and
postassessment) comparison group design, both the treatment and comparison
groups were assigned-non-randomly. Assignment to the treatment group was
made by reviewing the LFTM course session enrollments and comparing the
enrollee list to a pre-existing Middle Manager database. Assignment to the
comparison group was made using the existing Middle Manager database and
selecting those Middle managers who had not yet attended the LFTM course.
8. The historic participant response rate from a previous Level 3 LFTM evaluation,
which ran from December 2002 to March 2003, was 62.12%. This Level 3
evaluation was conducted using a LTMO internally designed instrument. A total
of four LFTM pilot sessions were held from September through December 2002
with 56 participants matriculating from the course, and 34 of those responding to
the Level 3 evaluation.
23
9. Leading from the Middle version 2 (data from version 1 was not collected), being
a new course, may have proved challenging to facilitators due to facilitators
having to change content and practices.
10. For the purposes of this study, there was use of inferential statistics on data that
was not from a random sample. This limited the generalization o f the data.
11. LPI scoring, for the purposes of this study, treated the ordinal Likert scale data
intervally. This was done to be consistent with Kouzes and Posners treatment of
their normed data.
Definition o f Terms
360 degree assessment. An instrument used to collect feedback from multiple sources
(e.g., supervisors, peers, direct reports, customers) regarding an individuals
behavior and performance for development or performance-related purposes
(Cacioppe & Albrecht, 2000).
Emerging markets. For purposes of this study, China, India, and Russia.
First-line manager. May be new to the management role; manages a team consisting of
the same type o f employees. A manager of individual contributors.
Large technology manufacturing organization (LTMO). A Fortune 500 technology
company with approximately 100,000 employees world-wide. Sixty-percent of
the organization is manufacturing; 40% consist of network product groups,
research and development, sales, and support groups such as human resources
and finance.
Leadership. The ability to visualize change, and influence other persons to participate
willingly in making it happen (Survey of Leadership Practices, Booth Company).
24
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). A 30-item, 360-degree leadership behavior survey
developed by James Kouzes and Barry Posner, authors of the Leadership
Challenge that measures these leadership factors: modeling, inspiring,
challenging, enabling, and encouraging.
Leadership Task Cycle (LTC). A continuous succession of six phases developed by the
Booth Company that defines the actions of a successful experienced manager.
Attributes, skills, and behaviors within the six phases are measured by the 360
Survey of Leadership Practices Assessment.
Leading front the Middle. A one-day interactive course for middle managers to leam
about the importance of leadership and how to incorporate it into everyday
practices. The MLDGs Mid-Manager Development Group created this course for
implementation worldwide throughout the LTMO.
Learning. At the individual level, the way in which people make meaning and acquire
knowledge and skill; learning at the team level as the mutual construction o f new
knowledge including the capacity for concerted, collaborative action; and
learning at the organizational level as that which is embedded in systems,
policies, procedures, work processes and information systems, organizational
mental models, schema, and knowledge embedded in products and services.
(Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 32)
Management. Coordinating people and resources to efficiently produce goods or
services in an organization (Patterson, 1993, p. 2).
Management task cycle (MTC). A continuous succession of six phases developed by the
Booth Company that define the actions of a successful manager. Attributes, skills,
25
and behaviors within the six phases are measured by the 360 Survey of
Management Practices Assessment.
Middle manager. A person who manages first-line managers and senior individual
contributors; this individual may also manage internal departments or functions
such as marketing.
Survey o f Leadership Practices. A web-based 360 assessment tool developed by the
Booth Company used by experienced managers who serve in leadership roles as a
significant part o f their job responsibilities. This survey allows managers and
leaders to gauge leadership skills and behaviors related to the Leadership Task
Cycle. Periodic reassessments are recommended every 12-18 months
Surrey o f Management Practices. A web-based 360 assessment tool developed by the
Booth Company that allows new managers to gauge their management skills
related to the Management Task Cycle . Each participant receives a confidential
assessment report that can be used to develop a workable action plan for
self-improvement in important management activities. Periodic reassessments are
recommended every 12-18 months.
26
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter summarizes the literature related to the focus of this study:
leadership, adult learning and development, corporate leadership development,
evaluation, corporate leadership development evaluation, and 360-degree instruments.
Leadership
Myths and legends of leadership go back as far as the beginnings of civilization.
From the Babylonians, Gilgamesh and Beowolf to the Greeks, Homers Iliad and the
Odyssey, and later Platos Republic and Aristotles Politics, to the Chinese, the writings
o f Confucius, urging leaders to set a moral example and to manipulate rewards and
punishments for teaching what was right and good (Bass, 1997, p. 4), and Tao
emphasizing the need for the leader to work himself out of his job by making people
believe that successes were due to their efforts (p. 4). In 1513, Machiavellis The Prince
espoused leadership as requiring steadiness, firmness, and concern in regards to
maintaining authority and it was best if a leader was able to accomplish this with the
support o f his people. If that was not possible the use of underhanded methods, such as
deceit and treachery were seen as a necessary evil to maintain leadership. In 1830,
Hegels Philosophy o f Mind argued that for a leader to be effective he or she must first be
a follower to intimately understand what is required for effective leadership (Bass, 1997).
Leadership theories such as trait theory, path-goal theory, transformational leadership,
and situational leadership emerged from these foundations.
Definitions of leadership are numerous and varied. Some examples of these
definitions are presented here. Kotter (1997) defines leadership as coping with change
(p. 25). Patterson (1993) defines leadership as the process of influencing others to
27
achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization (p. 3). Tichy (2002) defines
leadership as accomplishing goals through teaching others. Northouse (2004) describes
leadership as a phenomenon comprised of the following central components: (a)
Leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs within a
group context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. Northhouses definition of
leadership has been derived from these components: Leadership is a process whereby an
individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (p. 3).
The distinction between leaders and managers as described by Bennis (1989) is
leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right (p.
18). At LTMO, the conceptual distinction between leaders and managers is divided into
percentage breakouts, of tactical and strategic work, by management level. For instance,
the role o f a First-Line Manager is considered to consist o f 80% tactical work and 20%
strategic work. The role o f a Middle Manager is considered to consist o f 50% tactical
work and 50% strategic work, while the role of a Senior Manager is considered to consist
o f 20% tactical work and 80% strategic work. Based on this breakout, straddling the
concept o f simultaneously being a leader and a manager is not entirely new to Middle
managers.
Empowering middle managers to further their leadership abilities will prove to
benefit organizations, as Nohria, Joyce and Roberson (2003) found in their management
practices study, companies are now banking their future on that ability; winning
companies are convinced that their future rests not on the brilliance of their executives,
but on the dedication and inventiveness of their middle managers and employees (p. 50).
One of the challenges for organizations is ensuring and encouraging continuous and
28
effective leadership development among their middle managers. Kraut, Pedigo,
McKenna, and Dunnette (1989) in their study concerning the important job aspects of
different levels of management roles, recommend training middle managers to be better
prepared for their leadership role:
A number of executive training institutes and university-based programs are
geared toward providing these broadening experiences; however, we think its a
serious mistake to wait until a person becomes an executive before teaching him
or her to recognize the importance of attending to the relationship between the
business and its environment. Consider the potential advantages of having middle
and lower-level managers who understand the nature and strategic direction of
their organizations business and are constantly on the lookout for opportunities
and threats in the environment, (p. 291)
In the early 20th century, attempts to systematically study leadership began. One
of the first of these studies was investigating the trait approach to leadership. The premise
o f the trait approach was people were bom with the characteristics necessary for
leadership and that only the great people actually possessed these traits. And unlike
other approaches to leadership that will be reviewed here, the focus of the trait approach
is solely on the leader. There is no direct focus on the followers, or the situation, instead
the claim of this approach is that the leadership is dependent upon the personality traits of
the leader (Northouse, 2004).
Stogdill (1948) suggested in his research a new approach that leadership was
dependent on the situation and there was not a consistent set o f traits differentiating
leaders from non-leaders across various situations. This was a different approach to
29
investigating leadership and initiated the study of leadership behaviors and situations.
The traits Stoghill identified for leadership were: (a) intelligence, (b) alertness, (c)
insight, (d) responsibility, (e) initiative, (f) persistence, (g) self-confidence, and (h)
sociability. However, there was and has been a resurgence of interest in the original trait
approach in determining innate leadership qualities. Studies by Kirkpatrick and Locke
(1991), Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986), and Mann (1959) suggested that personality
traits can be used to differentiate leaders from non-leaders and from these studies
multiple lists of leadership traits were derived. The major leadership traits found to be a
common denominator among the various lists were intelligence, self-confidence,
determination, integrity, and sociability.
Some strengths of the trait approach are that it fulfills our societal perception and
desire to see leaders as individuals with special traits that make them different from
everyone else. This makes the trait approach more acceptable to the masses. One of the
reasons for this is the depth and breadth of the existing research on this topic. No other
leadership theory or approach has been studied for as long or in as much depth. The
leadership traits found as a result of the research can also be used a criterion reference
point to determine an individuals strengths and weaknesses in regards to leadership, and
what areas he or she should focus on for development. Some weaknesses of the trait
approach are that it has not determined a definitive list of leadership traits nor does it take
into account the leadership situation or leadership outcomes. The multitude of traits that
have been derived from the research, are subjective in nature which does not bode well
for training and development. Training individuals to acquire new traits can often prove
to be difficult as they are considered fixed psychological structures (Northouse, 2004).
30
In the 1970s path-goal theory, how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish
designated goals (Northouse, 2004, p. 123), emerged in the leadership literature and was
derived from research concerning employee motivation. Path-goal theory suggests that
each type of leader behavior has a different kind of impact on subordinates motivation.
Whether or not a particular leader behavior is motivating to subordinates is contingent on
the subordinates characteristics and the characteristics of the task (Northouse, 2004, p.
125). Path-goal theory requires the leader, based on the characteristics of the subordinates
and the tasks at hand, to select the appropriate leadership behavior for motivating his or
her subordinates, remove obstacles and meet the groups goals.
The leadership behaviors included in path-goal leadership are directive,
supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented (House & Mitchell, 1974). Directive
leadership sets clear performance criteria for subordinates as well as articulates the
necessary rules and regulations they must follow to perform their tasks. Supportive
leadership attends to the affective needs of subordinates, characteristics of which are
friendliness and approachability and treating subordinates as equals. Participative
leadership gives subordinates the opportunity to participate in decisions that will affect
the group. Achievement-oriented leadership shows a high degree of confidence that
subordinates are capable o f establishing and accomplishing challenging goals
(Northouse, 2004, p. 126) and challenges them to perform at that level.
One of the strengths of path-goal theory is the practical framework it provides for
understanding the relationship between leadership behaviors, subordinate satisfaction and
work performance. Another strength is its attempt to connect leadership to subordinate
motivation, as no other theory directly pinpoints that connection as a factor of leadership.
31
Some o f the weaknesses of path-goal theory are its complexity, lack of empirical support
regarding its validity, and lack of articulation concerning the relationship between
leadership behavior and worker motivation. Path-goal theory also proposes that
leadership is a one-way event and full responsibility for subordinate motivation is the
responsibility of the leader. This can cause subordinates and leaders to not acknowledge
and recognize subordinates strengths and abilities therefore creating an overly dependent
relationship in the long term (Northouse, 2004).
In the early 1980s transformational leadership, a process that changes and
transforms individuals (Northouse, 2004, p. 169), began to emerge. The
transformational approach to leadership is a broad-based perspective that encompasses
many facets and dimensions o f the leadership process. In general it, describes how
leaders can initiate, develop, and carry out significant changes in organizations
(Northouse, 2004, p. 182). "When exhibiting transformational leadership, the leader takes
into consideration not only their own ideals and values, but those of his or her followers
to then influence and motivate to achieve higher outcomes.
The leadership behaviors included in transformational leadership are divided into
four factors referred to as the Four Fs:, idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized influence describes
leaders who act as strong role models for followers (Northouse, 2004, p. 174). The
individuals also have strong moral and ethical standards and act in accordance to those
standards. Inspirational motivation, describes leaders who inspire and motivate by clearly
communicating high expectations and the roles that individuals play in the success of an
organization. Intellectual stimulation, describes leaders who stimulate followers to be
32
creative and innovative, and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of
the leader o f the organization (Northouse, 2004, p. 177). Individualized consideration,
describes a leader who participates in the development o f his or her followers through
coaching, advising, and delegation.
Some of the strengths of transformational leadership are: the vast amount of
research that has been done in this area o f leadership, its alignment to a traditional sense
of leadership that appeals to a majority of people due to its familiar approach; its
involvement of both leaders and followers in the leadership process, taking into account
the development, needs and values of the followers - not just the leader; and it has also
been found to be an effective form of leadership, as it is positively related to subordinate
satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Some of the weaknesses of transformational
leadership are: its lack of conceptual clarity and fully established validity of the standard
instrument for measuring transformational leadership; data used in attempts to measure
transformational leadership has only been collected from high levels of organizations as
opposed to within the ranks; instances in which transformational leadership is sometimes
interpreted as being trait based instead of consisting o f behaviors that can be learned; at
times it can be perceived as elitist or heroic, and can potentially be abused (Northouse,
2004).
Situational Leadership, was developed in the late 1960s by Hersey and Blanchard
(1969). The premise o f this leadership approach required that to be an effective leader, an
individual must adapt his or her leadership style in regards to the demands of various
tasks or situations. Situational Leadership, based on the adapted model by Blanchard
(1985), is currently offered as leadership training for First-Line Managers (FLM) at
LTMO, but is not a training requirement for FLMs. It is also highly recommended for
middle managers to complete this course prior to attending LFTM, but is not required.
The Situational Leadership approach involves four leadership styles: directing, coaching,
supporting, delegating; these styles are then reinforced by either directive or supportive
leadership behaviors. Directive behaviors clarify, often with one-way communication,
what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible for doing it...Supportive
behaviors involve two-way communication and responses that show social and emotional
support to others (Northouse, 2004, p. 89).
The directing style requires a high level of supervision on the part of the leader,
supportive behavior in this instance is low. The role of the leader in this case is to give
specifics, such as definitions, timelines, tasks, etc. as to how the group goals are to be
achieved. The coaching style requires a high level of directive and supportive behavior.
The role o f the leader in this instance is to explain and clarify the group goals, encourage,
praise and redirect when necessary. The leader is still responsible in this instance for final
decisions in regard to goals accomplishment. The supporting style requires a high level of
supportive behavior and a low level of directive behavior. In this instance, the role of the
leader is to facilitate self-reliant problem solving, collaborate, encourage feedback, ask,
listen, and reassure. In this case, the follower also has authority for decision making. The
delegating style requires both a low level of directive and supportive behavior. Leaders in
this instance empower the follower to plan and control details, as well as goal
clarification. The styles and behaviors used by the leader are determined by the
development level o f the followers. These development levels range from high (D4)
through low (Dl). The leader is required to assess the developmental levels of their
34
followers, for various situations and tasks, and then apply the appropriate combination of
leadership styles and behaviors to those situations and tasks (Blanchard, 1985;
Northouse, 2004).
One o f the strengths of the Situational Leadership approach is that it is in use in
training programs o f more than 400 of the Fortune 500 companies, and is viewed as a
practical, effective and credible model for developing leadership in organizations. Its
prescriptive nature is also appealing, as it specifically guides the leader in what they
should or shouldnt do (Northouse, 2004). The approach also emphasizes flexibility and
adaptability on the part o f the leader, requiring the leader to assess the abilities of his or
her followers. Some weaknesses of the Situational Leadership approach are the lack o f a
solid body of research on the topic, a weak link between follower commitment and
competence and the four development levels, as well as a lack of clarification as to how
these elements are weighted across the different levels, or how commitment is
conceptualized (Graeff, 1997). The validity of the prescriptive approach situational
leadership imparts has also not been proven, as studies have shown that performance of
followers with more education and experience was unrelated to the supervisors
leadership style (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Vecchio, 1987).
In the course pre-work and a segment of the first module of the LFTM course,
Assessing Leadership Skills, Styles & Attributes, participants review Golemans (2000)
six leadership styles (coercive, authoritative, affiliative, pacesetting, and coaching),
identify their preferred leadership styles, discuss when and why they use certain styles,
barriers they encounter when using various styles, possible conflict with their personal
35
values, choosing the correct style, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of changing
styles in terms of getting better results from your organization.
HayMcBer (Goleman, 2000) completed a quantitative study to determine which
leadership behaviors produce positive results. A random sample of 3,871 executives was
drawn from a worldwide database of 20,000 and six distinct leadership styles, derived
from different components o f emotional intelligence, emerged. The research also
indicated that leaders with the best results seamlessly used most of the styles and to
varying degrees, depending on the business situation. Goleman (2000) also notes that the
late David McClelland, a noted Harvard University psychologist, found that leaders with
strengths in a critical mass of six or more emotional intelligence competencies were far
more effective than peers who lacked such strengths (p. 80). In another study by
HayMcBer, a leaders strengths or weaknesses in the areas of the six leadership styles
were found to impact organizational climate, which in turn was found to impact the
financial results o f the organization, e.g. sales, revenue growth, and profitability. It was
determined that leaders who used styles that positively affected the climate had
decidedly better financial results than those who did not (Goleman, 2000, p. 81).
Six definitive leadership styles were found to be used by executives, but only four
o f these styles were found to have a consistent positive effect on climate and results
(Goleman, 2000). The first style, coercive, in which a leader demands immediate
compliance, is best used in a crisis to kick-start a turn around or with a problem
employee (p. 82), and is found to have a negative impact on climate. The second style,
authoritative, in which a leader mobilizes people toward a vision, is best used when
changes require a new vision, or when a clear direction is needed (p. 82), and is found to
36
have a most strongly positive impact on climate. The third style, affiliative, in which a
leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds, is best used to heal rifts in a team
or to motivate people during stressful circumstances (p. 83), and is found to have a
positive impact on climate.
The fourth style (Goleman, 2000), democratic, in which a leader forges
consensus through participation, is best used to build buy-in or consensus, or to get
input from valuable employees (p. 83), and is found to have a positive impact on
climate. The fifth style, pacesetting, in which a leader sets high standards for
performance, is best used to get quick results from a highly motivated and competent
team (p. 83), and is found to have a negative impact on climate. The sixth and final
style, coaching, in which a leader develops people for the future is best used to help an
employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths (p. 83), and is found to
have a positive impact on climate. Leaders who have astute self-awareness of their
impact on others are able to seamlessly adjust their styles as the situation requires while
positively impacting results.
In the second module of the LFTM course, Being an Effective Middle Manager,
participants review the Leadership Pipeline (Charan et al., 2001). The Leadership
Pipeline articulates the six passages and transitions that must be acknowledged and
experienced as a leader moves up the continuum of the pipeline. These six passages and
transitions include, Managing S elf to Managing Others (Passage One), Managing
Others to Managing Managers (Passage Two), Managing Managers to Functional
Manager (Passage Three), Functional Manager to Business Manager (Passage Four),
Business Manager to Group Manager (Passage Five), and Group Manager to
37
Enterprise Manager (Passage Six). The second module of the LFTM course focuses on
Passage Two o f the pipeline, transitioning from Managing Others to Managing
Managers. Managers o f managers are responsible for the greatest number of people in
the company who do the most hands-on work; theyre in charge of getting the work done
that is directly related to the companys products and services (Charan et al., 2001, p.
51).
Organizations often suffer when they fail to keep their leadership pipeline full of
emerging leadership talent (Charan et al., 2001). The pipeline can also become clogged at
various points with managers who are not developing their leadership skills. To avoid
clogging the pipeline in Passage Two, managers of managers must develop their skills
and excel in these areas: owning development of First-Line Managers, delegation,
coaching, business acumen, influencing, and results. The mistake that often occurs by the
individual manager and the organization is not acknowledging the passage transition, i.e.,
the individual expertise and success which brought the individual into a manager role.
Taking the time to acknowledge and experience the transition, instilling the new
skills and values needed, as well as determining what aspects of his or her previous role
need to be left behind, are what is needed for both the long term benefit o f the manager
and the organization. Signs o f a misplaced manager of managers, one who has not
acknowledged or dealt with the transition into his or her new middle manager role,
demonstrates these performance gaps: difficulty delegating, poor performance
management, failure to build a strong team, a single-minded focus on getting the work
done, and choosing clones over contributors. These performance gaps can severely
impact the ability of the organization to execute on its goals and objectives. They may
38
even result in a competitive disadvantage to the overall organization (Charan et al.,
2001 ).
The degree to which perceived Middle managers leadership behavior change

occurs in this study will be measured using the LPI survey instrument developed by
Kouzes and Posner (2003b). The LPI is a thirty question leadership assessment survey,
based on research begun more than twenty-years ago, that measures leadership across
five areas (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a), referred to as The Five Practices of Exemplary
Leadership. Those five practices are: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision,
Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart.
In determining what values are sought out and admired in a leader?, Kouzes and
Posner asked this open ended question and received more than 225 different traits, values
and characteristics from respondents. These were then analyzed by a group of
independent judges and synthesized down to a list of twenty characteristics. From this
list, a checklist questionnaire with the 20 characteristics listed was developed and has
been administered to over 75,000 respondents worldwide. The findings for this
questionnaire are also continuously updated.
From the list of 20 characteristics, respondents to the questionnaire were asked to
select the seven qualities that they most look for and admire in a leader, someone whose
direction they would willingly follow.. .What do they expect from a leader they would
follow not because they have to, but because they want toT (Kouzes & Posner, 2002a, p.
24). Worldwide it was found that only 4 of the 20 characteristics received over fifty
percent o f the votes, showing that for people to willingly follow someone the majority
must believe that the leader is honest, forward-looking, competent, and inspiring (Kouzes
39
& Posner, 2002a). These findings were also found to be consistent when compared to
written case studies by respondents regarding their personal experiences with leaders for
whom they had great admiration and respect. Overall, it was found that people want
leaders who are credible (p. 32). Building that credibility is embedded in the principles
and behaviors o f each of the five practices.
Leaders Model the Way by finding their voice and setting an example (Kouzes
& Posner, 2003a, p. 1). Model the Way, the first of the five practices, demonstrates
intense commitment to your beliefs with each and every action(Kouzes & Posner,
2002a, p. 83). In regards to finding ones voice as a leader, this entails self-reflection,
contemplation, analyzing the traits and values of a personally admired leader, credo
dialogue and assessment, continuously assessing ones abilities and developing new ones,
and clarifying ones values. In regards to setting an example as a leader, a leader must
build and affirm shared values, a core ideology, within the organization. Setting an
example for all constituents based on a shared understanding o f whats expected
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002a, p. 79) creates competitive advantage for the organization as
does ensuring that ones actions consistently align to the shared values. This includes
clearly and passionately communicating these shared values, measuring results, sharing
key learnings and giving feedback for continuous improvement o f the organization.
Leaders Inspire a Shared Vision by envisioning the future and enlisting others in
a common vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, pp. 2-3). Inspire a Shared Vision, the
second of the five practices, demonstrates enabling everyone concerned with an
enterprise to see more clearly whats ahead o f them (Kouzes & Posner, 2002a, p. 130).
In regards to envisioning the future, this requires first thinking about ones past to seek
40
out a common theme that will then assist in determining the leaders vision. Testing the
assumptions in regards to the vision by sharing it with others, collecting their reactions
and making changes as appropriate, is also necessary to ensure potential solutions and
ideas are not overlooked. In regards to enlisting others, a leader must get to know his or
her constituents, those who will need to buy into the vision, and find the common ground,
the goals, aspirations etc. that they all share. Once this occurs, a vision statement should
be drafted collectively to instill a shared sense of ownership and communicated to all
constituents. The momentum of the vision is then continued through further
communication using multiple channels, such as face to face, email, presentations,
informal conversations, etc.
Leaders Challenge the Process by searching for opportunities and by
experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, p. 4).
Challenge the Process, the third of the five practices, demonstrates courage of
convictions, those leaders who stand up for theirs and their constituents beliefs during
times of intense challenge and radical change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002a, p. 182). In
regards to searching for opportunities, a leader must seek out meaningful challenges and
ideas that incur inspiration, and look for ways to add meaningful challenges to others
work by delegating significant projects. A leader must also ensure questioning of the
status quo and ongoing development for oneself and others in the organization.
In regards to experimenting and taking risks, a leader must move towards
innovation through small increments, providing a safe environment for developing and
testing new ideas, evaluating each outcome and determining the next incremental steps to
lead to innovation. Throughout this process one must give people choices about how they
41
will participate. An example of this would be discussing, with those involved in the
process, what needs to be done and by whom. This builds commitment and a sense of
ownership for the project. Its also essential that leaders admit their mistakes and learn
from them, so as not to damage their credibility. Project or initiative post mortems are
other opportunities for continued learning, and prevention of past mistakes, that can
positively impact the organization.
Leaders Enable Others to Act by fostering collaboration and strengthening
others (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, p. 5). Enable Others to Act, the fourth of the five
practices, demonstrates the creation of a trusting climate in which leaders create positive
interactions among all of their constituents, and the ability for the organization to get
extraordinary things done (Kouzes & Posner, 2002a, p. 288). In regards to fostering
collaboration, it is essential for a leader to continuously assess the level of collaboration
in his or her group to ensure all necessary participants are collaborating effectively. A
leader must also instill trust among the group to promote collaboration by disclosing
information, asking questions, listening and taking advice. In regards to strengthening
others, leaders must take the opportunity to assign constituents tasks that are critical to
the business. This will create a stronger connection between the constituent and the
organization and will increase the sense of ownership for the business. Being a leader
also necessitates providing the necessary support and training to ensure success when
constituents take on new roles and responsibilities. Empowering constituents by
removing roadblocks and creating a climate that values learning are also essential.
Leaders Encourage the Heart by recognizing contributions and celebrating
values and victories (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, p. 6). Encourage the Heart, the fifth of
the five practices, demonstrates recognition of contributions by showing appreciation for

individual excellence and creating a spirit of community by celebrating the
organizations values and victories (p. 12). In regards to recognizing contributions, it is
essential that a leader creatively and publicly recognize and reward their people. Leaders
must also remember to say thank you for constituent efforts. In regards to celebrating
values and victories, Kouzes and Posner (Kouzes & Posner, 2002a) recommend bringing
celebrations that honor a principle or achievement... and create a spirit o f community
(p. 370) into as many critical events as you can (p. 371). Other actions that instigate
development and sustainment of a sense of community are public bragging boards,
commemorative awards, and increasing human interaction through acts such as daily
informal conversations. The leaders ability to show passion and compassion, as well as
have fun, will energize the organization and create a spirit of community.
Adult Learning and Development
Adult education as a professional field of practice has only been in existence since
the mid-1920s. An all encompassing model or theory defining all of the components that
comprise adult learning still does not exist. The theories range from the more
foundational, andragogy and self-directed learning, to the more contemporary,
transformational learning, informal and incidental learning, and context-based learning
(Merriam, 2001). Knowles, in 1968, proposed a new term, andragogy, to define adult
learning and differentiate it from pedagogy. Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998)
described andragogy as a set of core adult learning principles that apply to all adult
learning situations. The goals and purposes for which the learning is offered are a
43
separate issue (pp. 2-3). There are six core adult learning principles that are the elements
or andragogy:
1. the learners need to know
2. self-concept of the learner
3. prior experience o f the learner
4. readiness to learn
5. orientation to learning
6. motivation to learn, (p. 3)
The foundational elements of these learning principles are five assumptions made
in describing a typical adult learner:
(1) has an independent self-concept and who can direct his or her own learning,
(2) has accumulated a reservoir of life experiences that is a rich resource for
learning, (3) has learning needs closely related to changing social roles, (4) is
problem-centered and interested in immediate application o f knowledge, and (5)
is motivated to learn by internal rather than external factors. (Merriam, 2001, p.
5)
As the perception of the theory of andragogy being only for adults and pedagogy only for
children waned in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the assumptions of adult learners
being true for all adults, Knowles adjusted his theory from an adversarial perspective,
andragogy versus pedagogy, to a continuum. Andragogy then became defined more by
the learning situation than the learner. Other critics of this theory also point out its lack of
acknowledgement of cultural and societal contextual factors that can also shape the adult
learner and the learning experience (Merriam, 2001).
44
In providing middle managers (MMs) the opportunity to strengthen their
leadership skills and identify development steps for effectively transitioning between
management and leadership, instructor-led classroom training was determined to be the
most appropriate solution. It would give MMs a valuable opportunity to network with
other MMs, leverage their shared knowledge, and discuss leadership with a Senior
Manager. Once having completed the face to face classroom experience, MMs can then
transfer their learning to the job while continuing to leverage the network theyve created.
On the job training only, in this instance, would not give the MMs the same opportunities
they would find in a classroom session.
Self directed learning (SDL), learning that is widespread, that occurs as part of
adults everyday life, and that is systematic yet does not depend on an instructor or a
classroom (Merriam, 2001, p. 9) was proposed by Tough at about the same time that
Knowles introduced androgogy. Both Tough and Knowles developed the initial SDL
linear model in the 1970s in which learners moved through a series of steps to reach
their learning goals in a self-directed manner (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999, p. 293).
Later models were developed in the 1980s and 1990s, such as the interactive models,
which proposed SDL in a non-linear format, and instructional models which would assist
instructors to incorporate SDL into their formal classroom learning.
Transformational learning theory, as described by Baumgartner (2001), began in
the 1990s, and is a learning experience that changes a persons view of themselves and
how they relate to the world around them. Mezirow (as cited in Baumgartner, 2001)
referred to the triggering event as a disorienting dilemma (p. 17) such as a personal
crisis that causes a person to reflect on the situation in regards to his or her values and
45
beliefs. The individual then comes to a new conclusion via validating conversations
concerning his or her new viewpoint. Later viewpoints of transformational learning
theory also account for developmental transitions, the link between learning and
spirituality, the importance of relationships in the process, as well as context and culture.
Informal and incidental learning covers a broad range of intentional but not
highly structured (Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 25) learning situations, in which the
locus o f control rests with the learner. Examples of informal learning include selfdirected learning, networking, coaching, mentoring, and performance planning that
includes opportunities to review learning needs (Marsick & Watkins, 2001, pp. 25-26).
Examples of incidental learning include the hidden agenda of an organizations culture
or a teachers class, learning from mistakes, or the unsystematic process of trial and
error (Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 26). Self reflection and assessment of learning styles
and socio-cultural context can assist learners in taking better advantage of these learning
opportunities.
Context-based adult learning proposes that learning is not something that
happens, or is just inside the head, but instead is shaped by the context, culture, and tools
in the learning situation (Hansman, 2001, p. 45). The concepts behind context-based
adult learning are also the foundation of situated cognition theory or situated learning
which encompasses cognitive apprenticeships and communities of practice. These
concepts emphasize interaction between the learner and other learners and tools in a
sociocultural context (Hansman, 2001, p. 46), such as clubs or groups whose interests
parallel the learners, and simultaneously offer opportunities to learn. LeGrand Brandt,
Farmer, and Buckmaster (as cited in Hansman, 2001) described cognitive apprenticeships
46
as occurring in five phases: modeling, approximating, fading, self-directed learning, and
generalizing.
Modeling is comprised o f behavioral and cognitive modeling. In behavioral
modeling learners observe community experts performance of a particular activity, while
learners are exposed to more intricate details of the performance in the process of
cognitive modeling. Approximating involves learners participating in the activity. This
also includes articulation of the purpose of the activity by the learner and reflection based
on assessment of his or her performance. During the fading process the assistance needed
by the learner from the experts diminishes with proficiency. Self-directed learning then
takes place as learners practice and adapt what they have learned, and infrequently
request assistance. Generalizing occurs as learners are able share their level of expertise
with others.
Communities of practice (CoP) are self-organized select groups based on mutual
engagement and sharing o f knowledge in a particular area (Hansman, 2001; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). CoPs are often informal, but their strength is the passion
and commitment of their members, who are joined by a mutual interest in the expertise of
the group, and the freedom o f determining their own leadership, objectives, etc. The
outcomes o f the group learning o f CoPs can often benefit organizations in such ways as,
developing new business practices to improve the process of doing business with
emerging markets, while also engaging with members from those markets; creating a safe
venue for new managers to learn about the intricacies of their role and experienced
managers to learn how they can better assist in the development of new managers.
47
Corporate Leadership Development
The perceived need for developing managers beyond their undergraduate business
degrees, or workplace acquired knowledge, and moving them into manager education at
the graduate and professional level began in the late nineteenth century. The first MBA
programs developed to meet that need were at the Wharton College in 1881 and Harvard
University in 1908. Current management and executive development programs were
derived from these programs. The creation of non-degree management and executive
development programs was derived from a fifteen week course at Harvard Business
School during World War II, the purpose of which was to train civilian managers to be
military managers for overseeing war production capabilities (Crotty & Soule, 1997).
In 1956, General Electric (GE) developed and began implementing its own
advanced management program at the Crotonville Management Development Center.
The purpose o f developing and implementing this program was to ensure GE would
remain competitive in the marketplace and to leverage Crotonville in influencing the
management and organizational changes that needed to occur to orchestrate that success.
Accomplishing this goal required GEs managers to be capable of functioning
successfully in a multi-functional general manager role, with the abilities to effectively
run a decentralized organization, instead of the centralized narrowly-focused
organizations that were the foundational components of GE at the time (Crotty & Soule,
1997).
The original courses and curriculum were developed with the assistance of
nationally known experts, drawing especially from Harvard professors to create the
Crotonville program. The outcome of this was the well known GE blue books. In the
48
1960s the GE blue books carried such clout in the industry and academia they even
influenced the curricula of business schools (Crotty & Soule, 1997), but by the late
1970s the courses were no longer relevant to GEs changing business. In 1981 CEO Jack
Welch, with the assistance of Noel Tichy and later Steve Kerr, began revamping the
Crotonville program to better align with GEs changing business needs and culture
(Fulmer & Gibbs, 1998; Tichy, 2002) and provide a vehicle for refining and
communicating his vision, values, and concept of the future (Fulmer & Gibbs, 1998, p.
181). GEs Crotonville workshops now focus on action learning where participants work
on real business issues and develop solutions. The impact of the workshops is measured
using 360 degree assessments prior to the workshop and again a couple of months later.
This not only assists the organization in measuring the effectiveness of the workshops,
but builds accountability into the leadership development process to also push
participants to continually develop themselves as leaders and change agents (Fulmer &
Gibbs, 1998).
During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the middle manager population
dwindled due to economic downsizing and corporate restructuring. Between 1985 and
1992, middle managers accounted for five to eight percent of the workforce, but
constituted seventeen to twenty percent of downsized workers (Council, 1999).
Simultaneously, the remaining middle managers inherited increased spans of control, i.e.
increased number o f employees reporting into a manager, and a changed organizational
structure without a clear role for middle managers in a more tumultuous environment
than their predecessors had known.
49
Todays middle managers and those currently moving up into the role of middle
manager, unlike their past counterparts, need to be able to respond quickly and
effectively to continuous change. With a shift in emphasis for middle managers from
planning and control to speed and flexibility (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994), corporations
have adopted competency-based management development systems that articulate and
define competencies middle managers need to achieve to be successful in their role and
bring success to the organization (Corporate Executive Board, 2000; Council, 1999,
2002). Based on their case studies in developing contemporary middle managers, the
Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) found that middle managers need to develop the
following new competencies (Corporate Executive Board, 2000;Council, 1999, 2002):
Achieving innovative solutions/creative thinking
Balancing short and long term strategic initiatives
Negotiating, communicating, building and managing relationships

internally and externally
Coaching and persuasive leadership
Serving in roles with cross-functional/cross-divisional relations

requirements
The CLC case studies reviewed middle manager development programs from four
organizations, Mobil, Motorola, British Petroleum (BP), and Company A, a high
technology company generating more than $20 billion in annual revenues and employing
between 60,000 and 100,000 individuals (Council, 1999, p. 7). The programs specific to
leadership development, Mobil and Company A, will be reviewed in the following
paragraphs.
The purpose of Mobils program, Individual Leadership, is to improve the

coaching and influencing skills of its middle managers and prepare them to fill leadership
roles across the organization. Mobils program consists of one 3 day, one 4 day, and one
2 day modules over the course of a year. On-the-job action learning continues well after
the participants have completed the program. The program was mutually developed and
is managed by outside vendors and Mobil. Participants of the program include middle
managers, select front-line managers, and executives, who complete a 360 degree
leadership and causal trait pre-assessment prior to beginning the program. The 360
degree assessment input is collected via a paper and pencil survey from the participants
supervisor, peers, and self and is administered by an outside vendor. Participants then
take a psychometric exam, also administered by an outside vendor. Its intent is to analyze
the personality traits that shape the participants behavior and compares the behavior to
that of more than 10,000 U.S. managers (Council, 1999).
Module One, day one, is a coaching session in which the participant reviews the
pre-assessment feedback with the assistance of an industrial psychologist and discusses
implications of the data. Day two and three are spent developing coaching skills via a
series of role playing exercises based on individual participants current coaching
situations back in the workplace. These role plays are done three times while also being
video taped and later critiqued by the group. The experience enables participants, in a
safe environment, to practice and receive valuable feedback to enhance and adapt their
coaching abilities. Module Two, occurring approximately six months after module one, is
a four day, general leadership skills, case study in which participants are grouped into
cross-functional teams of four to five. Their 360 degree causal trait assessments are
51
reviewed with team members and performance goals are set based on the assessment
measures for the duration of the four day program. Each team brainstorms solutions to
issues presented in the case study and at the end of the four day session team members
offer feedback to each other based on whether or not they have met their performance
goals (Council, 1999).
Module Three, occurring approximately 3 to 4 months after Module Two, is a two
day session, the purpose of which is to improve participants communication and
influencing skills via interactive theater exercises. After completing the program, teams
of past participants are expected to meet to work together on real workplace business
issues that they are facing. These meetings are facilitated by one of the leadership
program facilitators. The results of the program have been measured by positive
participant feedback and data gathered from a climate survey indicating that the
companys leadership ranked significantly higher in the November 1997 survey than the
1992-1993 survey (Council, 1999).
The purpose o f Company A s program, is to develop middle managers
influencing skills and styles to improve their interactions with colleagues in obtaining the
buy-in and cooperation necessary to achieve business goals. Company A s program is a
one-day program that was designed and is facilitated by an outside consultant, but is
managed internally. There is a two part pre-assessment consisting of a forty-eight
question 360 degree survey which participants send out to their supervisors, customers
and direct reports, and then create an informal analysis of the results. Participants also
create a detailed description of a current work situation that requires influencing skills, to
then be used as a case study during the program. During the program, the facilitator
52
presents a model o f influencing styles and guidelines, and, based on their 360 degree
assessment, participants identify three key behaviors they would be focusing on
throughout the program. Participants then engage in exercises and simulations to hone
their influencing skills as well as develop influencing strategies to be used in their case
study. Team development of influencing strategies is strongly encouraged during the
activities (Council, 1999).
The results o f the program were based on the participants perception of the
impact the program had on their influencing abilities. The data was collected via two post
tests, one in December 1997, and another in January 1998. Participants who had attended
the program at least 3 to 6 months prior were administered the post test. Overall, after
having attended the program, it was found that 52.10% selected influence behaviors that
were more appropriate to the situation, 2.80% did not, 48.10% responded that they
somewhat select more appropriate behaviors. A greater variety o f influence behaviors
were found to be used by 63.40%, whereas 36.60% somewhat used the behaviors.
Balancing the need to achieve results with the need to build relationships was found to
occur for 61.10% o f the participants, occurred somewhat with 37.50% o f participants,
and not to occur with 1.4%. Having a plan or strategy for influencing occurred 38.8% of
the time, occurred somewhat 55.60% of the time, and not at all 5.60% of the time
(Council, 1999).
Brown and Posner (2001) investigated how learning and leadership are connected
by asking What relationship does the way that people leam have with the manner in
which they lead? (p. 274). There were three groups of participants in the study for a total
of 312 participants. The first group was middle managers from a large high-technology
company who were enrolled in a university-based management development course. The

second group was working professionals from a variety of high technology companies
who were enrolled in an evening MBA program. The third group was a cross section of
managers enrolled in an MBA program. Participants each completed two surveys, the
learning tactics inventory (LTI) and the leadership practices inventory (LPI). The intent
of the LTI is to assess, using a five point Likert scale, how people perceive their learning
style when faced with an unfamiliar task or experience. The intent o f the LPI is to assess,
using a ten point Likert scale, participants self-perceived frequency of engagement in a
specific set o f leadership behaviors. The results of this study showed that there was a
significant correlation between each of the learning tactics and each of the leadership
practices. The thinking learning tactic had the strongest correlation to leadership while
accessing others had the weakest correlation. This positive relationship indicates strong
support for the relationship between learning and leadership (Brown & Posner, 2001).
Spreitzer and Quinn (1995) found that there was minimal understanding regarding
the process of developing middle managers from their changing role o f transactional
manager to transformational leader. There were three research questions the authors
addressed in this study:
1. What types o f change are middle managers capable of undertaking? That is
can we identify a typology of change initiatives?
2. What individual and organizational characteristics facilitate or inhibit middle
managerial change?
3. What are the outcomes of the different types of changes initiated by the
middle managers? (p. 6)
54
The purpose of their field study was to explore these issues while observing a
large-scale middle management development program at a Fortune 100 company. The
company began the program due to the impact global competition was having on their
business realizing that transformational leadership was needed throughout all levels of
the company, but most especially at the middle manager level. Developing middle
managers to reform from their transactional manager role to a transformational leader
role defied decades o f conditioning and assumptions regarding the role of the middle
manager in the workplace (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1995).
The middle manager program was developed via a partnership between the
company and a prominent Midwestern business school. The objective of the program
was to transform, rather than inform, with the goal of helping middle managers alter
existing assumptions and redefine their role in the organization (Spreitzer & Quinn,
1995, p. 5). During a 4 year period, the entire middle manager population, 3,000 middle
managers, attended the program. The program consisted of a one week session followed
up six months later by a two and a half day session. During the week long session
participants assessed their own leadership skills, as well as the competitive business
environment, the company and their roles in the organization.
In their learning groups, participants also developed a specific change initiative to
implement upon their return to the workplace which they publicly commit to on video.
Participants are expected to implement the change initiative in the six months following
the session prior to returning for the follow up session. In the follow up session
participants shared their experiences, learning, and coping strategies for making change
in a system that often discourages change (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1995, p. 6). Participants
55
also met with a senior executive during this session to discuss concerns regarding middle
managers new role in the organization.
Spreitzer and Quinn (1995) collected qualitative and quantitative data from a
randomly selected sample of 191 middle managers. Data was collected at three different
points in time. At the beginning of the week long session, individual and social support
data was collected. Six months later, prior to the follow up session, data was collected
regarding the dimensions of the change initiative, barriers to change, and effectiveness.
Data was also collected two-years after the follow up session as to actual promotion. In
determining results for the first research question a typology of change initiatives
emerged, Type 1: Management Style Change referred to individual management style
changes, 17% of the sample were found to meet this change type. Type 2: Transactional
Within Unit Change, referred to incremental work group changes, 21% of the sample
were found to meet this change type. Type 3: Transactional Organizational Change,
similar to Type 2 but broader in nature, referred to incremental concrete management
improvements focused at the organizational level, 16% of the sample were found to meet
this change type. Type 4: Transformational Work Unit Change were similar to Types 2
and 3, but also included high impact on the bottom line and within the organizational
system, 12% of the sample were found to meet this change type. Type 5:
Transformational Organization Change would consist o f system level changes across
multiple business units or functions involving many people, 34% of the sample, the
largest proportion o f program participants were found to meet this change type.
Those middle managers who were found to have positive feelings about their jobs
and relationships were most likely to make Type 4 and 5 changes. Participants who
56
focused on Type 1 changes had the lowest scores on self esteem, job affect, and social
support from co-workers and supervisors as well as the lowest number o f job promotions
over the previous five year period. While those middle managers who implemented Type
4 and 5 changes received immense support from co-workers and supervisors, those
middle managers implementing Type 5 changes received fewer promotions as they were
viewed as too radical and threatening to supervisors, for initiating change outside of their
traditional domain of control (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1995, p. 21). These barriers would
account for why middle managers tend to remain in their traditional transactional domain.
Fulmer, Gibbs, and Goldsmith, (2000) studied the various approaches to
leadership development at winning companies to determine if there were common
denominators among their approaches to developing leaders. Upon completing their
benchmarking study, six companies were found to have best practices for leadership
development, Arthur Anderson, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, Johnson & Johnson,
Shell International, and The World Bank. Based on the data, common denominators were
found, a five-step process emerged, awareness, anticipation, action, alignment, and
assessment.
Awareness entails recognition and understanding of external challenges,
emerging business opportunities and strategies, internal developmental needs and the
ways other leading organizations handle development (Fulmer et al., 2000, p. 52).
Anticipation involves companies using forward looking learning tools, such as exploring
potential challenges or the impact of emerging technologies in focus groups, multi-level
organizational strategic planning, and analysis of future scenarios. Action requires an
action learning approach towards leadership development. This engages participants with
57
real world business issues in a learning environment for participants to then determine
and present strategic solutions. Alignment links leadership development and succession
planning to ensure that high performers are tracked and continue to be developed to
eventually move into higher level positions throughout the company. Assessment
measures the impact o f the leadership development process on corporate performance,
customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. A common model used by the
companies reviewed was the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Fulmer et al.,
2000).
As elements that impact middle manager leadership development do not only
occur in a face-to-face classroom setting (Holton, 1996; Knowles et al., 1998), Antonioni
(1999) conducted an applied research Study to determine what factors motivate middle
managers, and the relationship between delegation of decision making and participation
in goal-setting, to motivation and empowerment. More than one thousand middle
managers participated in the study and the results indicated a strong positive relationship
between the delegation of full decision making authority and feelings of empowerment,
but delegation of full decision making authority was not found to motivate middle
managers, e.g. having a project fully imposed on them with no warning or assistance
from the senior manager. Motivation was found to have a strong positive relationship
with delegation o f joint decision making authority, for example, jointly making decisions
with a senior manager.
Results also showed that participation in goal setting was positively related to
motivation and empowerment. Factors that were found to motivate middle managers
were respect, trust, and caring from senior managers. Based on the findings the author
58
recommended that senior managers spend more time with their middle managers thereby
creating a motivational environment that empowers middle managers to achieve their
best (Antonioni, 1999). It is important that organizations abide by their goal of offering
action learning leadership development opportunities. This will assist in ensuring that
training and learning have a strong positive impact on the results of the organization once
the participants have left the classroom.
Evaluation
Donald Kirkpatrick (1994) developed the four levels of evaluation for training
programs while writing his dissertation thesis and consequently wrote an article defining
these levels in an issue of Training & Development back in 1959. His purpose for
developing this model was to clarify the elusive term evaluation (p. xiii). The four
levels o f evaluation for training programs are as follows:
1. Reaction,
2. Learning,
3. Behavior,
4. Results.
Level 1, Reaction, occurs immediately after training, measures how people respond to the
training. Level 2, Learning, occurs after training (sometimes occurs both before and
after), measures the extent to which people change attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or
increase skill as a result of attending the program (p. 22). Level 3, Behavior, occurs
approximately three to six months after training, measures the extent to which behavior
change occurred due to the participant attending training. Level 4, Results, occurs
approximately six to twelve months after training, measures the final outcome of the
59
training, such as increased production, improved quality, decreased costs, reduced
turnover, etc.
Jack Phillips (1997) describes the purpose of training evaluation as systematic
process to determine the worth, value, or meaning o f an activity or process (p. 36). In his
book, Phillips reviews the Kirkpatrick evaluation model as well as his own model, the
Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework. The first four levels of the Phillips model are
similar to the four levels of the Kirkpatrick model:
1. Reaction and Planned Action,
2. Learning,
3. Job Application,
4. Business Results
but Phillips has added a fifth level, Return on Investment (ROI). The purpose of this level
is to take the Kirkpatrick model one step further by measuring the monetary value of the
results and costs for the program (p. 43).
The Kaufman Five Levels of Evaluation model, building upon the four levels of
the Kirkpatrick model, is also reviewed by Phillips. This model, as discussed by Watkins,
Leigh, Foshay and Kaufman (1998), and referred to as the Kirkpatrick Plus framework, is
different from the Phillips and Kirkpatrick models as it addresses todays organizational
paradigm, one that includes societal value-added as well as a focus on continuous
improvement (p. 91). The study reviews the addition of the fifth level of the Kirkpatrick
Plus model, societal contributions. The conclusion of this study was the Kirkpatrick Plus
framework can easily be implemented to not only assist organizations in becoming more
60
proactive in their continuous improvement efforts, but also assist organizations in their
societal obligation to add value to the community beyond the organization.
Holton (1996), in his research o f evaluation models argued that Kirkpatricks four
level evaluation model is flawed as it does not specify outcomes correctly, account for
the effects of intervening variables that affect outcomes, and indicate causal
relationships (p. 5). Holton (1996) refers to Kirkpatricks model as a taxonomy and
claims that it makes or implies causal statements leading to practical decisions that are
outside the bounds o f taxonomies (p. 7) and is not a true model for Human Resource
Development (HRD) evaluation. The Conceptual Evaluation Model was proposed by
Holton to account for the effects of intervening variables that are not accounted for in the
Kirkpatrick model, such as motivational elements, environmental elements, and
ability/enabling elements, that impact training transfer. The outcomes of the Conceptual
Evaluation Model are Learning, Individual Performance, and Organizational Results. On
the basis o f his research, Holton concludes that further research and testing is needed to
develop a more integrative HRD evaluation model, but that it is within our reach.
Kirpatricks (1996) response to this article in regards to his evaluation model not being a
model, but a taxonomy was:
Perhaps he is correct. I dont care whether its a model or taxonomy as long as
training professionals find it useful in evaluating training programs. People have
asked me why the model is widely used. My answer: Its simple and practical.
Many trainers arent much interested in a scholarly, complex approach. They
want something they can understand and use. The model doesnt provide details
61
on how to implement all four levels. Its chief purpose is to clarify the meaning of
evaluation and offer guidelines on how to get started and proceed, (p. 55)
Corporate Leadership Development Evaluation
As organizations strive for success and realize that attaining success requires
investing in the education and training of their employees as part o f their overall business
strategy, organizations are not only increasing their investments in employee education,
they are also expecting to determine how the impact of the training effects the business
strategy. Training of employees is now seen as directly connected to the overall strategy
and success o f the organization (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002a). The American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD) Fourth Annual Report on Standards fo r Evaluating
Organizations' Investments in Education and Training sought to determine how and what
learning was being evaluated by organizations and what the outcomes were of those
evaluations.
The data in this report was collected over a four year period, 1998 - 2001. A total
o f 305 organizations responded. This data set includes 2,165 reports taking into account
data from 19,938 courses. It also included more than 456,000 individual assessments of
learning outcomes. Van Buren and Erskine (2002a), using the ASTD Measurement Kit,
designed for benchmarking:
across course content, type of delivery method, and industries, the data was
collected in three parts, (1) learners initial assessment of the utility of what they
learned, (2) learners follow-up assessment of the utility of their learning at three
to 12 months after the learning event, and (3) supervisors follow-up assessment
of the utility o f learning, (p. 2)
Results showed that the greatest disparities in initial and follow-up assessments
existed for courses on product knowledge and managerial skills. The initial assessment
rating for product knowledge was low, but in the follow-up assessment for both
participants and their supervisors rated the course as having a high impact. Managerial
skills, scored high in the initial participant assessment, but scored near the bottom in
regards to utility based on the opinions of participants and their supervisors. The results
also indicate that learners satisfaction with the content organization as well as with the
instructor had a strong influence on their perception of being able to apply concepts from
the course back on the job. The top three enablers for the transfer o f learning were (1) an
opportunity to actually use the knowledge or skills; (2) help with applying the knowledge
or skills through coaching or feedback, and (3) content that reflected what actually
happens on the job (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002a, p. 16). On the basis of these findings,
the authors recommend organizations focus additional effort in these areas.
Bramley (1999) proposed an evaluation model by the European Foundation for
Quality Management, referred to as the EFQM model, to establish a clear link between
organizational effectiveness, an environment that positively influences training results,
and behavior in the workplace. Implying that ability is not enough, when people are not
allowed to do something or are actively discouraged from doing it, there will be no
performance (Bramley, 1999, p. 146). Organizational effectiveness, as defined in
Bramley (1999), includes enablers: leadership, people management, policy and strategy,
resources and processes; and results: people satisfaction, customer satisfaction, impact on
society and business results.
The issue presented (Bramley, 1999) was the limitation of the Kirpatrick training
evaluation model not taking into account the environment in which the training
participants must function after the training is completed. The necessity o f establishing a
clear link between organizational effectiveness and behavior change, allowing the
organization to have realistic criteria for which to evaluate the impact of the management
development activities, was reviewed in the four case studies presented. The case studies
reviewed dealt with issues of changing management style from hierarchical to
consultative, the impact o f rapid change in regards to management behavior and customer
satisfaction, the relationship between management behavior, employee satisfaction, and
business results, as well as the impact on the community. On the basis of the findings,
Bramley (1999) concludes that behavior change in the workplace will often require
changing situational factors as well as managerial skills and attitudes. The evaluation
framework used to measure manager behavior change should take this into account by
including a review o f the organizational context and the ways in which it does or does not
support the desired behaviors. Individual development activities for managers should also
ensure a direct relationship to organizational priorities.
Van Der Velde, Jansen, and Vinkenburg (1999), in their study compared the
perceptions of two levels o f managers, top managers and middle managers, in regards to
importance and frequency o f managerial activities to determine managerial effectiveness.
Participants in this study were top and middle managers at a large insurance company in
The Netherlands in 1995. All of the top managers (34) and middle managers (452) were
invited to participate in the study by filling out a questionnaire. Half (17) of the top
managers participated in the study, while 75% (334) middle managers participated.
64
Based on a comparison of the self-reported managerial activities of both top and
middle managers (Van Der Velde et al., 1999), the results of the study showed that both
spend more time on activities they perceive as important, such as developing ideas,
motivating people, planning and decision making. Significant differences in perceived
importance o f activities between top and middle managers were found in the areas of
staffing, and developing ideas. Top managers also perceived themselves as spending
more time in the areas of interacting with outsiders, motivating people, and developing
ideas. Based on a comparison o f top managers perceptions of middle managers versus
the middle manager self-assessment data, top managers underestimated middle managers
perceived importance and time spent for most managerial activities, except for those
activities perceived as unimportant. Concomitantly, middle managers self-reports were
slightly more positive indicating a pattern o f either overestimation by middle managers or
underestimation by top managers.
Based on a comparison o f middle managers perceptions of top managers versus
top managers self-reports (Van Der Velde et al., 1999), middle managers underestimated
top managers or top managers were found to overestimate themselves. Areas where
middle managers especially underestimated top managers were in areas that were found
to be important, developing ideas, motivating people, planning and decision making. The
same pattern was found for time spent on activities. Top managers self-reports were
more positive. Overall, both groups underestimated each other or overestimated
themselves.
Blanchard, Thacker, and Way (2000) found that there was a difference between
how practitioners were evaluating training and what academics suggested as the
65
appropriate method to use when evaluating training, Kirkpatricks Four Levels of training
evaluation. The purpose o f their study was to determine how practitioners in Canada were
evaluating training and compare that to the academic recommendation. Data was
collected via survey from 202 organizations indicating a 22% response rate. Forty percent
o f the sample represented organizations with 200 employees or less, 34% of the sample
represented organizations with 201-1000 employees, and 25% of the sample represented
organizations with over 1000 employees, for a total of over 470,000 employees.
Respondents to the survey were requested to qualify themselves as the individual having
the most knowledge regarding the organizations human resource function.
The authors (Blanchard, P. et al., 2000) found that 72% (145) of the organizations
that responded to the survey provided formal training programs for their employees. O f
those organizations offering formal training programs, 90.3% evaluated management
training and 95.9% evaluated non-management training. The results of this study indicate
that 37.2% of management training and 46.9% of non-management training was being
evaluated at the Kirkpatrick Level 3, behavioral level. At the Kirkpatrick Level 4, results
level, 42.8% o f management training and 35.9% of non-management training was
evaluated demonstrating that less than half of the organizations in Canada are performing
these evaluations.
Overall, only 19% o f the organizations evaluated non-management training at
both Level 3 and 4, and only 22% evaluated management training at both levels,
indicating that merely one-fifth o f the organizations in the sample evaluated their training
using a method recommended by academics. In conclusion, it was found that
practitioners used the Kirkpatrick model for evaluating training when it was necessary to
meet the objectives of the customer. Using organizational resources to evaluate all
training at all levels would not have been feasible or necessary to meet customer
objectives (Blanchard, P. et al., 2000).
Sirianni and Frey (2001) evaluated the effectiveness of a leadership development
program that was developed and delivered internally at Mellon Financial Services. The
purpose o f this study was to measure the effectiveness of the program and if it should be
continued internally and proliferated throughout the organization. The program included
thirteen modules that were delivered in three hour sessions every two weeks over a nine
month period. A combined adaptation of Kirkpatricks (1994) four level training
evaluation model and three primary outcomes from Holtons (1996) conceptual
evaluation model were used to perform the evaluation. Four sources of data were
analyzed to determine the programs effectiveness: (a) Participant Feedback Forms, (b)
Employee Satisfaction Surveys, (c) Annual Employee Turnover Statistics, and (d)
Regional Scorecard Results.
Reaction feedback was collected from 29 participants via a feedback form at the
midpoint and completion of the program. Scores from both surveys were compared to
determine if participants found the program valuable. Monthly Regional Service
Scorecard results were used to compare participant behavior before and after completion
of the program to determine behavior change. Employee Satisfaction survey ratings data
from March 2000 and September 2000 were compared to determine change in employee
attitudes. The final piece of evaluation data was an annual comparison employee turnover
statistics. Turnover rates often directly correlate with employee satisfaction, therefore if
satisfaction has gone up the turnover rate should decrease (Sirianni & Frey, 2001).
67
The results from this study (Sirianni & Frey, 2001) indicated that 100% of the
respondents perceived the leadership development program as beneficial. The final rating
scores were higher than the midpoint demonstrating that the impact and quality of the
course were sustained throughout the program. For employee satisfaction, Market Service
Managers ratings rose 13.4%, while Sales Managers ratings of employee satisfaction
dropped 13.8%. Employee turnover was shown to decrease except for store managers.
Based on this data, Mellon Financial Services decided to continue the leadership
development program as an internal organizational function and expand the program.
360 Degree Instruments
The 360 degree instruments used in many Fortune 1000 organizations in the
United States, and in some countries outside of the U.S., collect feedback from multiple
sources, such as supervisors, peers, direct reports, customers, etc., regarding an
individuals behavior and performance for either development or performance related
purposes. The instrument was originally used in the 1940s by U.K. military intelligence
before making its way over to the U.S. military academies, where 360 degree instruments
were found to be more effective in determining leadership efficacy than supervisor
reports or paper and pencil tests. The current and prevailing use of 360 degree
instruments is for collecting leadership and management development feedback, and
therefore determining what developmental opportunities exist for those individuals being
assessed. This type o f assessment has also been shown to be successful in determining
the effectiveness of training and development programs (Cacioppe & Albrecht, 2000).
In their study o f leadership performance in 304 mangers in Australia, Cacioppe
and Albrect (2000), determined that there was a considerable need to establish a set of
68
core dimensions that are a true measure of leadership and managerial effectiveness while
at the same time allowing flexibility to include specific skills relevant to particular
organizational requirements (p. 393) developed an updated version of a standard
framework for leadership and management competencies, as well as a 360 degree
instrument based on the updated version of that framework. The key results from this
study recommend that leaders performance management skills, in regards to linking
higher level business objectives to their staffs performance, were in need of
development. Their findings also suggest, subordinates rated their managers higher in
regards to performing their strategic leadership role than did the managers themselves or
their peers. Post-feedback evaluations were also performed to determine if participants
felt they were able to improve their performance based on the feedback and 95% felt that
it was useful.
Overall, there are some important issues to be considered when implementing 360
degree feedback. Waldman and Atwater (as cited in Cacioppe & Albrecht, 2000) indicate
studies have also shown that individuals who provided inflated self-ratings relative to
others ratings are poorer performers and less effective than individuals who provide selfratings in greater agreement with others ratings (p. 392). It was also found that
supervisor ratings had more reliability than peer ratings and peer ratings were shown to
have more reliability than subordinate ratings. Collecting 360 degree feedback using off
the shelf instruments is recommended for situations in which the feedback is being
gathered for employee development purposes. The benefits of utilizing a standardized
instrument are the reliability, repeatability, comparison against norms, etc. When
collecting feedback for performance appraisal an instrument specifically designed for the
69
needs o f the organization is recommended. An instrument using a seven to ten point scale
is also advised, a ten point scale being preferable as it influences more genuine responses
and deters disingenuous feedback.
Jansen and Vloeberghs (1999) performed a study concerning multi-rater feedback
methods, this included 360 degree feedback methods, and the personal and organizational
implications. The problem addressed in their study was even though the use of multi-rater
feedback is increasing, the focus of the feedback is usually reserved for use at the
individual-psychological level as opposed to the organizational level. Jansen and
Vloeberghs sought to obtain further understanding of the conditions and implications of
multi-rater feedback methods, both at the individual and organizational level (p. 457).
The study consists o f a review and interpretation of findings concerning multi-rater
feedback. Mabe and West (as cited in Jansen & Vloeberghs, 1999) determined
intercorrelations between 360 degree feedback raters, e.g., supervisors, peers,
subordinates, are low for individual participants. Although, participants who were better
able to perceive themselves and others with a high degree o f accuracy, and to adjust
their behaviors accordingly (p. 461), whereas, poor self raters were perceived as less
effective.
In the second round of 360 degree feedback the managers self-assessment ratings
were more closely related to those submitted by their subordinates. Overall, feedback
stimulated positive behavior change in managers to either improve behavior or their selfassessment. In regards to research at the individual-psychological level, Jansen and
Vloebergh (Jansen & Vloeberghs, 1999) concluded that reliability of bystanders ratings
is low, and that focal persons react in different ways to feedback depending on
70
discrepancies between their self-image on the one hand and bystander feedback on the
other hand (p. 473).
Garavan, Morley and Flynn (1997) completed a study focusing on the issue of
360 degree feedback and how it relates to employee career development and the
organization. Benefits and drawbacks of 360 degree feedback were examined from both
individual and organizational perspectives. The researchers found the most useful
application of 360 degree feedback was in the area of employee development, (executive
development, career development, remedial training, and self-development) as opposed
to performance appraisal. When administered for the purpose of employee development,
observer feedback was found to be more balanced than for performance appraisal.
London and Beatty (as cited in Garavan et al., 1997) reported that 34 percent of
respondents in their study would rate their boss differently if the feedback were shared
with their supervisor for performance appraisal (p, 137). Regardless of whether the
instrument is used for performance or development assessment, the focus of the
instrument should be behavior as opposed to general traits. It is also suggested that an
even scale should be used to avoid neutral ratings.
The most frequently cited organizational benefits for using 360 degree feedback
were enhancing communication between participants and their observers increasing their
ability to work in teams. Empowering employees by giving them the opportunity to be
involved in the development of their managers was another positive result of this study.
The authors concluded, for the instrument to be effective, it should be used to provide
specific behavioral feedback to the participant and be viewed by the organization as part
of the organizational learning philosophy (Garavan et al., 1997).
71
Summary
The literature review for this study focused on six areas that are relevant to the
purpose o f this study: leadership, adult learning and development, corporate leadership
development, evaluation, corporate leadership development evaluation, and 360-degree
instruments.
The leadership section presented a survey of various leadership theories,
practices, behaviors and styles. Some of which were discussed in relation to LTMOs
current leadership development course offerings, situational leadership for first line
managers and the six leadership styles and leadership pipeline for middle managers
(MMs) and the impact that those aspects of leadership have on followers and the
organization. The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership and the importance of training
middle managers to be better prepared for their leadership role were also presented.
The adult learning and development section began with an overview of androgogy
in regards to its core adult learning principles and foundational elements. The basis of the
decision for an MM leadership solution to be an instructor-led course was also discussed.
This section then presented an overview of learning theories such as self-directed
learning, transformational learning, informal and incidental learning, context-based
learning, modeling, and communities of practice.
The corporate leadership development section reviewed the historical
development o f manager education from Wharton College in 1881 through GEs
Crotonville focusing on the need for management and leadership development programs
to adapt to changing needs o f the business, from planning and control to speed and
flexibility. Cases from three middle manager leadership development programs, Mobil,
72
Company A and a Fortune 100, showed that after the training at Mobil leadership ranked
higher in a climate survey than it had in years previous to the training, at Company A its
middle managers perceived that 52.10% of them selected influence behaviors that were
more appropriate to the situation, and at the Fortune 100, 34% implemented
transformational organizational change. Common denominators of leadership
development at winning companies and motivational factors for middle managers were
also reviewed.
The evaluation section first began with an overview of Kirkpatricks Four Levels
o f Evaluation, reaction, learning, behavior, results. Second, was a review of the Phillips
Five-Level ROI framework, which is similar to the Kirkpatrick model, but adds a fifth
level, Return on Investment (ROI). Third was an overview of the Kaufman Five Levels of
Evaluation model, also similar to the Kirkpatrick model, but adds a fifth level, societal
contributions. Finally, an argument stating that the Kirkpatrick model is flawed is
presented as well as Kirkpatricks response to the argument.
The corporate leadership development evaluation section highlighted the lack of
evaluation that occurs in organizations, especially beyond Kirkpatricks Level 2
(learning), during a time when management and leadership development programs are
expected to show how they are positively impacting the results of the business. This
section also reviewed how and what learning was being evaluated by organizations and
what the outcomes were o f those evaluations.
73
The final section, 360-degree instruments, described the historical development of
these instruments, and reviewed strengths and concerns in the use of 360 degree
instruments, such as multi-rater feedback surveys, as a management and leadership
development tool. The benefits of utilizing off the shelf standardized surveys for
employee development purposes are also examined.
74
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methods
The research design and methods of this study are outlined in this chapter. First
the research questions are restated. Second, the research design is reviewed and the
variables are identified and described. Third, the population, sample, and analysis unit is
defined and described. Fourth, an overview of the procedures of the study is presented.
Fifth, the characteristic that were measured by the study are reviewed. Sixth, the
instrument for the study is identified and described, including a discussion of evidence of
its validity and reliability.
Restatement o f the Research Questions
The main question guiding the research was What is the relationship between the
self-assessments of the leadership behaviors of the LTMO middle managers and the
assessments of their leadership behaviors made by their supervisors? In focusing the
research process and findings, the following questions were used:
1. Is there a significant behavior change in self-perceived leadership after a 3 month
period between those middle managers who did versus those who did not attend a
leadership development course?
2. Is there a significant difference in supervisors perceptions of middle managers
leadership behaviors after a 3 month period, when supervisors are grouped
according to whether their middle managers attended a leadership course or not?
managers who attended a leadership development course and the assessment of
their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors after a 3 month
period?
75
managers who did not attend a leadership development course and the assessment
of their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors after a 3
month period?
Research Design
This study utilized a quasi-experimental design, a nonequivalent preassessmentpostassessment comparison group research design in which the treatment group and
comparison group were selected without random assignment. Both groups take a
preassessment and a postassessment (Creswell, 1994, p. 132), and only the treatment
group received the intervention (attended the LFTM course). This design allowed the
measurement of leadership behavior at different intervals using the Leadership Practices
Inventory (administered the survey once prior to the intervention and again three months
later). Measuring these intervals occurred by soliciting the 222 middle managers who
attended the Leading from the Middle (LFTM) course from September 2004 through
September 2005, and a comparison group of 250 middle managers who did not attend the
course during that same time period and for three months afterwards, to self -assess their
perceived leadership behaviors (see APPENDICES D-F).
Since the study performed for this dissertation utilized Level 3 evaluation, which
is best measured 3 to 6 months after training has occurred, having surveyed participants
three months after the LFTM session should have been sufficient to allow for behavior
change to occur (Kirkpatrick, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2002b; Phillips, 1997). Middle
managers leadership behaviors were also assessed by the middle managers supervisors.
The middle manager self assessments from both the treatment and comparison groups
76
were then compared. Assessments from the treatment and comparison groups of middle
managers supervisors were also compared against the middle managers own selfassessments. The assessments from the treatment and comparison groups supervisors,
grouped according to whether their middle managers attended a leadership course or not,
were compared as well.
The LFTM course is a one day course that was specifically designed to assist in
developing the leadership skills of middle managers and was offered 83 times in 2003, 35
times in 2004, and 37 times in 2005 at various worldwide locations within the
organization, such as Shanghai (China), Hillsboro (Oregon), Swindon (England), Haifa
(Isreal), and Cavite (Philippines). The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was designed
by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner (Kouzes & Posner, 2003b) to measure the
degree to which the five leadership practices, Modeling the Way, Inspiring a Shared
Vision, Challenging the Process, Enabling Others to Act, Encouraging the Heart, were
being employed.
Research question 1. To answer research question one, this study used a quasiexperimental design, a nonequivalent preassessment-postassessment comparison group
research design. In this design, a popular approach to quasi-experiments, the
experimental Group A and the control Group B are selected without random assignment.
Both groups take a Preassessment and postassessment, and only the experimental group
received the treatment (Creswell, 1994, p. 132). The treatment in this instance was the
one day LFTM course for middle managers. The treatment group, consisting of middle
managers, was administered the self-perceived leadership behavior assessment (LPI) one
77
week prior to attending the LFTM course. They were again administered the self
perceived leadership behavior assessment 3 months after attending the LFTM course.
The comparison group, also consisting of middle managers, was administered the
pre-assessment as well and again three months later. Data collection occurred
simultaneously with the collection of data from the treatment group cohort. Confirmation
o f middle manager status in compliance with the middle manager definition (manages
first line managers and/or manages senior individual contributors; may also manage
internal departments or functions such as Marketing) was made via the middle manager
development program tracking database prior to inviting participants to partake in the
study. Demographic information such as confirming their middle manager role,
identifying their business group, site location, length o f time in the position, length of
time at LTMO, other middle manager courses they have completed, was also collected.
Differences in the scores between the treatment and comparison groups preassessments
and postassessments scores were compared using a One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA). The non-equivalent (preassessment-postassessment) control group design is
illustrated in Figure 1.
Group A (Treatment group) O
X------------ O
Group B (Comparison group) O------------------------O

Figure 1. Nonequivalent (preassessment-postassessment) comparison group design.
The symbol O represents an observation or a measurement (LPI pre-assessment and post
assessment). The symbol X represents an exposure of a group to an experimental variable
or event, in this case the LFTM course, (Creswell, 1994), the effects of which are to be
measured through a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
78
Research question 2. To answer research question two, a quasi-experimental
design, a nonequivalent (preassessment-postassessment) comparison group research
design was also used. Once the middle manager participants were identified for the
treatment and comparison groups, the study commenced, and the LPI was administered to
the MMs in the treatment and comparison groups. Their supervisors were then notified
via email pertaining to the premise of the study. These supervisors were then asked to
complete the LPI survey in regards to the leadership behavior of the middle manager.
Another email was sent out 3 months later for supervisors to complete the LPI survey
again in regards to the leadership behavior of the middle manager. The data from the
treatment and comparison groups supervisors was then analyzed using a One-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine if there were differences in perceived
behavior change between the treatment and comparison groups supervisors.
Research question 3. To answer research question three, a quasi-experimental
design was used. Once the middle manager participants were identified for the treatment
group, the study commenced, and the LPI was administered to the MMs in the treatment
group. Their supervisors were then notified via email pertaining to the premise of the
study. The treatment group supervisors were then asked to complete the LPI survey in
regards to the leadership behavior of the middle manager. Another email was sent out 3
months later for treatment group participants and their supervisors to complete the LPI
survey again. The data from the treatment group and their supervisors was then analyzed
using a One-Way Analysis o f Variance (ANOVA) to determine if there were differences
in perceived behavior change between the supervisors and the treatment group.
79
Research question 4. To answer research question four, a quasi-experimental
design was used. Once the middle manager participants were identified for the
comparison group, the study commenced, and the LPI was administered to the MMs in
the comparison group. Their supervisors were then notified via email pertaining to the
premise of the study. The comparison group supervisors were then asked to complete the
LPI survey in regards to the leadership behavior of the middle manager. Another email
was sent out 3 months later requesting that comparison group participants and their
supervisors complete the LPI survey again. The data from the comparison group and their
supervisors was then analyzed using a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to
determine if there were differences in perceived behavior change between the supervisors
and the comparison group.
Organization
LTMO is a global organization that has approximately 100,000 employees with
sites in Asia, Canada, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, and the United States.
The organization is comprised o f 12 major enterprise groups. Sixty-percent o f the
company resides within manufacturing which is the core of LTMOs business.
Population, Sample and Analysis Unit
The analysis unit for this study was one middle manager (MM) from the five
largest U.S. sites of a large technology manufacturing organization (LTMO). The
population of this study included those MMs located at the five largest U.S. sites that had
not yet attended the LFTM course. Two samples were drawn: the treatment group
consisting o f MMs who had enrolled for one of the 22 LFTM course sessions offered
80
between September 2004 and September 2005, and the comparison group consisting of
MMs who had not enrolled for the LFTM course.
In 2003, the 1st year the LFTM course was offered, of 1160 middle managers at
the five largest U.S. sites, with 44 sessions of LFTM being offered at those sites, only
164 MMs (14%) completed the LFTM course. On average, 41 MMs matriculated every
three months in 2003. However, beginning in 2004, as opposed to 2003, a LFTM session
was not offered if enrollment dropped below 12 participants.
The number of sessions offered beginning in 2004 dropped from an average of 15
sessions offered per 3 month period in 2003, to 6 in 2004. The reason for this was to
create a greater incentive for middle managers to attend, as well as an incentive to not
cancel from the sessions if there are fewer available. Therefore, throughout the duration
o f this study from September 2004 to December 2005 (there were 22 scheduled sessions
held from September 2004 to September 2005) it was expected that a minimum of 264
MMs (22 sessions at a minimum o f 12 participants per session) would have matriculated
from non-completers to completers. One hundred and fifty-eight MMs matriculated from
non-completers to completers, which was 60% of what was expected. A rolling data
collection was implemented due to low survey return rates extending the original study
period (set to originally end in March 2005) through December 2005.
Two weeks prior to the scheduled LFTM session, study participants for the
treatment group were identified from a list of enrollees for the 22 LFTM sessions that
took place from September 2004 through September 2005. A comparison cohort group
was then drawn from those MMs in the middle manager development tracking database
that had not already completed or enrolled for the LFTM course. To mitigate the
81
possibility of individuals from the comparison group from enrolling in LFTM during the
3 month period o f this study, an additional 13% was added to the comparison group
sample size.
A typical MM has been with LTMO approximately eight to ten years, having
worked his or her way up from an individual contributor, to a First-Line Manager, to a
middle manager role. Known demographics, derived from a Human Resource database,
the database from which the middle manager development tracking database is derived,
such as MM location (site codes, region codes), business group, and organization unit
numbers, were used to ensure that participants in both the treatment and comparison
groups were demographically equivalent. The following sections describe the
involvement of the participants in answering the research questions.
Procedures
Research question 1. The treatment group was administered a pre-course self
perceived behavior assessment (LPI) 2 weeks prior to the LFTM course. These
participants then attended the course at least two weeks after completing the pre-course
assessment. Three months after the course completion, participants from the treatment
group were again administered the LPI assessment. For the comparison group, an equal
number o f MMs, plus one more, per LFTM session were solicited to participate in the
study. These were MMs who had not previously attended LFTM. Those who responded
with a completed LPI had been administered the LPI assessment. MMs from both groups
were administered the LPI again three months later. The subscale scores for the thirty
questions that comprised the pre and post-assessments for both groups were calculated
and compared.
82
Research question 2. To answer research question 2, the treatment groups
supervisors were administered a perceived behavior assessment (LPI) in regards to the
leadership behavior of the MM two weeks prior to the MM attending the LFTM course.
The comparison groups supervisors were also administered a perceived behavior
assessment (LPI) in regards to the leadership behavior of the MM. Three months after the
MMs course completion, the treatment and comparison groups supervisors were again
administered the LPI assessment in regards to the leadership behavior of the MMs. The
subscale scores for the thirty questions that comprised the pre and post-assessments for
both groups were calculated and compared.
Research question 3. The treatment group was administered a pre-course self
perceived behavior assessment (LPI) two weeks prior to the LFTM course. These
participants then attended the course at least two weeks after completing the pre-course
assessment. Their supervisors were administered the LPI perceived behavior assessment
simultaneously in regards to the leadership behavior of the MMs. Three months after the
course completion, the treatment group was again administered the LPI assessment as
were their supervisors. The subscale scores for the 30 questions that comprised the pre
and post-assessments for both groups were calculated and compared.
Research question 4. To answer research question 4, the comparison group was
administered the self-perceived behavior assessment (LPI) 2 weeks prior to the LFTM
course session that the treatment cohort was scheduled to attend. An equal number of
comparison group MMs, plus one more, per LFTM session were solicited to participate
in the study. The groups supervisors were administered a perceived behavior assessment
(LPI) in regards to the leadership behavior of the MMs. Three months later, the
83
comparison group and their supervisors were again administered the respective LPI
assessment. The subscale scores for the thirty questions that comprised the pre and post
assessments for both groups were calculated and compared.
Characteristics Measured
Research question 1. In answering research question 1, six variables were used,
five dependent and one independent. The dependent variables represented the outcomes
o f the MM LPI pre and postassessments subscale scores for the treatment and comparison
groups. The independent variable represented the participant group (see Table 1).
o f the LPI pre and postassessments subscale scores for the treatment and comparison
groups supervisors. The independent variable represented the participant group (see
Table 1).
o f the LPI pre and postassessments subscale scores for the treatment group and their
supervisors. The independent variable represented the participant group (see Table 1).
o f the LPI pre and postassessments subscale scores for the comparison group and their
supervisors. The independent variable represented the participant group (see Table 1).
84
Table 1.
Variable Names and Variable Types
Variable Name
Variable Type
1: Group
Independent
(categorical/nominal:
middle manager (MM)
treatment & comparison,
senior manager (SM)
treatment & comparison)
2: Modeling postassessment Dependent
score
(treated as interval data)
3: Inspiring postassessment Dependent
score
4: Challenging
Dependent
postassessment score
5: Enabling postassessment Dependent
score
6: Encouraging
Dependent
postassessment score
For the purpose o f establishing the demographic equivalency of the treatment and
comparison groups, these data points were also collected when the LPI was administered
to study participants:
1. Has the participant attended any of these middle manager courses: The Expert
Coach, Strategy from the Middle, Stakeholder Management, Leading from
Middle? (If comparison group participants have not taken LFTM prior to the
study, but have been found to have taken it during the study then they will be
removed from the sample.)
2. Which business group does the participant belong to?
3. How many years has the participant been in his or her middle manager role?
4. Which site is the participant located?
85
These data points were not analyzed as part of this study, but may be used for future
research.
Instrument
There is one instrument that was used in this study, the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) by Kouzes and Posner (2003b) was the dependent measure used in this
study. The LPI is a 360 degree assessment survey that requires input from at least seven
to ten individuals (supervisor, peers, subordinates) in regards to a leaders performance to
the Five Practices o f Exemplary Leadership Model as defined by Kouzes and Posner
(2002), Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to
Act, and Encourage the Heart. For the purposes of this study, the LPI will be used as a
multi-rater survey instead of a full 360 degree assessment. Based on more than two
decades of research, the LPI is comprised of thirty leadership behavior questions, six
questions for each o f the five practices. The possible responses to these leadership
behavior questions are based on a ten point Likert scale, (1) Almost Never, (2) Rarely, (3)
Seldom, (4) Once in a while, (5) Occasionally, (6) Sometimes, (7) Fairly Often, (8)
Usually, (9) Very Frequently, (10) Almost Always. Scoring for the LPI is additive, with
scores on each subscale ranging from 6 to 60 for each of the Five Practices, with sixty
being the highest possible score. This scoring treats ordinal (Likert scale) data intervally
and was done in this study since that was how Kouzes and Posner (2003b) treated their
data.
In administering the LPI, two surveys are used, self and observer, each of which
should take no more than eight to ten minutes to complete. Treatment and comparison
group participants, as well as treatment group supervisors, usually complete the
86
respective survey online. There are paper-based versions as well. Participants and
supervisors respond to the survey rating the frequency with which they observe these
behaviors being engaged by the leader.
Kouzes and Posners (2003b) percentile ranking compares self and observer
scores to a database o f 2,500 to 5,000 respondents who have completed the same version
o f the LPI. A high ranking is at the 70th percentile or above, moderate is between 70th and
30th, and low ranking is below the 30th percentile. The additive scores within each
subscale differ on these percentiles. Over 250,000 leaders and nearly one million
observers have completed this survey and over one hundred and fifty doctoral
dissertations and academic research projects have been based on the Five Practices of
Exemplary Leadership Model using the LPI as a research tool. Validation studies
conducted by Kouzes and Posner, as well as other researchers, have consistently
confirmed over a fifteen year period that the LPI has very strong validity and reliability
(Kouzes & Posner, 2003b).
Validity
The LPI meets the needs of face validity as the LPI survey items are related to
consistent Leadership Challenge workshop participant accounts of their own and others
leadership experiences. Factor analysis was used to determine empirical validity, the
extent to which the instruments items measure common or different content areas. The
results from various analyses reveal that the LPI contains five factors, the items within
each factor corresponding more among themselves than they do with the other factors
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002b, p. 14).
87
Concurrent validity o f the LPI is also met as leadership scores are consistently
associated with important aspects of managerial and organizational effectiveness such as
workgroup performance, team cohesiveness, commitment, satisfaction, and credibility
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002b, p. 15). Construct validity was demonstrated using discriminant
analysis as a classification technique to determine how well the LPI could group
managers into performance categories such as high and low. The LPI correctly classified
92.6% o f the known cases and 77.8% o f those in the holdout sample.
When evaluating models, it is useful to set aside part of the data to assess how
well the selected model performs on the holdout data. This provides a stronger
test o f a model's predictive validity and value, than testing it on the same data set
on which the mode was developed (estimation sample). (DecisionPro, 2003).
Reliability
The reliability of the LPI consistently meets instrument internal consistency
reliabilities above .60 which is considered good (see Table 2). Reliability coefficients for
the LPI observer survey (ranging between .88 and .92) have a tendency to be somewhat
higher that those for the LPI self assessment survey (between .75 and .87), but this is not
found to be an issue.
88
Table 2.
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) Coefficients for the LPI by Respondent Category
Leadership
Respondent Category
Practice
Leader
Observers Manager
Direct
CoOthers
(Self)
Report
(All)
Worker or
Peer
Challenge
.80
.89
.89
.90
.88
.88
Inspire
.87
.92
.92
.92
.91
.91
Enable
.75
.88
.86
.89
.87
.88
Model
.77
.88
.86
.90
.87
.87
Encourage
.87
.92
.92
.93
.92
.93
Note. (n = 17,908; Self = 2,072; Manager = 1,426; Direct Report = 5,234;

Co-Worker/Peer = 5,591; and Other = 3,585). From The Leadership Practices Inventory:
Theory and Evidence Behind the Practice of Exemplary Leaders (p. 6) by Kouzes and
Posner (2002b), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Copyright 2002 by Kouzes and Posner.
Reprinted with permission (see APPENDIX G).
Test -retest reliability for the five leadership practices has been consistently
strong, generally at the .90 level and above.. .and scores on the LPI have been relatively
stable over time (Kouzes & Posner, 2002b, p. 7). Since 1987, LPI scores from
participants attending Kouzes and Posners Leadership Challenge Workshop have been
compared every two years. The results from those biennial scores find strong consistency
across each of the five leadership practices for each comparison. In comparisons based
upon individual differences, LPI scores have been found, in general, to be unrelated with
various demographic characteristics (e.g., age, marital status, years of experience,
educational level) or organizational features (e.g., size, functional area, line versus staff
position) (Kouzes & Posner, 2002b, p. 8).
In comparisons between Self and Observer perspectives, as the sample size increases,
the chance of finding statistically significant differences between groups also increases,
even if these differences are not, for any one individual respondent, particularly
meaningful, practical or significant (Kouzes & Posner, 2002b, p. 9).
Statistical Analysis
SPSS 14 was used to analyze the data collected in this study. Significance was set
at the .05 level o f confidence for all calculations. All ^-values of .05 or less were
regarded as statistically significant.
90
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter 4 presents and displays the findings of this study. Survey data were
collected from September 2004 to December 2005 from study participants. Leading from
the Middle (LFTM) course sessions were conducted from September 2004 to September
2005. During this period, 22 sessions of the LFTM course were held at five major U.S.
sites in four states (Oregon, Arizona, California, and New Mexico). A population o f 472
middle managers was invited to participate in this study.
Among the middle managers invited to participate in this study, 112 (23.73%)
completed the preassessment, and 55 (11.65%) of 112 middle managers completed the
postassessment. Among the supervisors of middle managers who were invited to
participate in the study, 84 (17.80%) completed the preassessment and 54 (11.44%) of the
84 supervisors completed the postassessment. A total of 22 middle managers and their
supervisors in Group A completed a preassessment and postassessment. A total of 26
middle managers and their supervisors in Group B completed the preassessment and
postassessment.
For each of the four research questions, SPSS was used to analyze the data
collected. Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations, of the preassessment
scores of the treatment and comparison groups of middle managers for each of the 30
items on the LPI are presented in Table 3. A Two-Way ANOVA was not used in this
instance as the study is only measuring against one independent variable (Group).
91
Table 3.
LPI Preassessment Scores and Descriptive Statistics
Group 1-4
LPI: Items 1-15
Statistics
la. Sets a personal example of what is expected (M)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
2a. Talks about future trends influencing our work (I)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
3a. Seeks challenging opportunities to test skills (CH)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
4a. Develops cooperative relationships (EO)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
5a. Praises people for a job well done (EH)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
6a. Makes certain that people adhere to agreed-on

standards (M)
7a. Describes a compelling image o f the future (I)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
8a. Challenges people to try new approaches (CH)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
9a. Actively listens to diverse points of view (EO)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
10a. Expresses confidence in people's abilities (EH)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
11a. Follows through on promises and commitments

(M)
12a. Appeals to others to share dream of the future (I)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
13a. Searches outside organization for innovative

ways to improve (CH)
14a. Treats others with dignity and respect (EO)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
15a. Creatively rewards people for their contributions

(EH)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
MM-T
SM-T
MM-C
SM-C
Total
7.82
7.59
8.00
7.92
7.84
1.259
1.054
1.265
1.324
1.225
6.23
5.95
7.23
5.92
6.35
1.824
1.731
1.505
1.917
1.806
6.55
6.73
7.31
7.31
7.00
1.262
1.751
1.569
1.463
1.536
8.23
8.50
8.42
7.65
8.19
1.307
1.371
.987
1.696
1.386
7.55
7.68
7.58
6.96
7.43
1.438
1.701
1.724
2.068
1.758
6.73
7.64
6.69
7.04
7.01
1.549
1.787
1.892
1.732
1.762
5.86
4.95
6.27
5.58
5.69
2.416
1.647
1.823
2.369
2.114
6.18
6.32
6.92
6.69
6.55
1.651
1.460
1.547
1.258
1.486
7.91
7.50
8.31
7.38
7.78
1.411
1.793
1.225
1.768
1.584
7.32
6.95
7.31
6.62
7.04
1.701
1.864
1.490
2.021
1.777
8.59
8.86
8.81
8.96
8.81
1.221
.941
1.059
1.076
1.069
5.50
5.73
5.73
5.35
5.57
1.946
2.142
1.710
2.348
2.025
5.73
6.14
6.27
6.42
6.16
2.292
2.054
1.888
1.793
1.986
9.45
9.18
9.58
8.92
9.28
1.011
1.296
.703
1.324
1.121
6.36
7.05
6.96
6.92
6.83
1.620
1.759
1.755
1.998
1.787
(table continues)
92
Group 1-4
SM-T
MM-C
SM-C
5.73
6.09
5.69
5.88
5.84
1.518
1.601
1.738
2.286
1.808
5.95
6.23
6.00
5.92
6.02
1.588
1.541
1.697
2.058
1.723
6.86
7.41
7.46
7.35
7.28
1.754
1.563
1.606
1.441
1.581
7.82
7.77
8.08
7.73
7.85
1.140
1.232
.977
1.116
1.105
6.50
7.41
6.50
6.54
6.72
1.896
1.501
2.005
2.121
1.918
7.23
7.45
7.15
6.92
7.18
1.716
1.535
1.515
1.742
1.616
6.91
6.18
7.77
6.31
6.81
1.849
1.868
1.751
1.828
1.905
7.73
7.50
8.15
8.27
7.94
1.279
1.683
1.287
1.430
1.435
8.50
7.55
8.38
7.23
7.91
1.300
1.405
1.235
1.275
1.392
Mean
6.45
7.41
6.12
6.08
6.48
Std.
Deviation
1.654
1.333
1.681
2.096
1.783
7.00
6.27
7.31
7.00
6.92
1.927
2.074
2.131
1.980
2.035
6.50
6.05
6.73
6.69
6.51
2.263
1.889
1.823
2.346
2.077
6.36
6.59
7.08
6.88
6.75
1.560
1.919
1.197
1.657
1.589
8.00
7.09
7.50
7.27
7.46
1.234
1.571
1.273
1.151
1.329
7.86
7.77
7.15
7.38
7.52
1.207
2.022
1.592
1.981
1.735
LPI: Items 16-30
Statistics
16a. Asks for feedback on how

his/her actions affect people's
performance (M)
Mean
17a. Shows others how their

interests can be realized (I)
Mean
18a. Asks "What can we learn?"

(CH)
19a. Supports decisions other

people make (EO)
20a. Recognizes people for

commitment to shared values (EH)
21a. Builds consensus around

organization's values (M)
22a. Paints "big picture" o f group

aspirations (I)
23a. Makes certain that goals, plans

and milestones are set (CH)
24a. Gives people choice about how

to do their work (EO)
25a. Finds ways to celebrate

accomplishments (EH)
26a. Is clear about his/her

philosophy of leadership (M)
27a. Speaks with conviction about

meaning o f work (I)
28a. Experiments and takes risks

(CH)
29a. Ensures that people grow in

their jobs (EO)
30a. Gives team members

appreciation and support (EH)
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
MM-T
Total
Note. MM-T = middle manager treatment group (n = 22); SM-T = middle manager
supervisor treatment group (n = 22); MM-C = middle manager comparison group
(n = 26); SM-C = middle manager supervisor comparison group (n = 26).
93
Levenes Test for equality of variances found that equal variances could be
assumed except for item 11 (see Table 4).The Levenes Test is used here to test the
assumption that variances, in regards to the normal distribution of the sample, are equal
across all four groups (MM treatment and comparison, SM treatment and comparison). If
Levenes Test is not significant, the variance of the dependent variable is assumed to be
approximately equal. ANCOVA was not used as this study is not measuring the
neutralized independent variable (Group) on a continuous scale, which would be
improper use of an ANCOVA. A One-Way ANOVA was used to determine whether
differences between the means of the two groups were statistically significant (see Table
5).
A One-Way ANOVA examined the preassessment and postassessment LPI scores
among middle managers and their supervisors for each of five LPI scales: Modeling,
Inspiring, Challenging, Enabling and Encouraging (see Table 5). A statistically
significant difference was found between the preassessment scores among middle
managers and their supervisors on the Enabling measure, but not on the other four
measures.
94
Table 4.
LPI Preassessment Scores Levenes Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
LPI: Items 1-15
Assumptions
la. Sets a personal example of what is expected (M)
Equal variances assumed
.090
Sig.
.765
Equal variances not assumed

2a. Talks about future trends influencing our work (I) Equal variances assumed
.758
.389

3a. Seeks challenging opportunities to test skills (CH) Equal variances assumed
3.213
.080
.000
1.000

4a. Develops cooperative relationships (EO)

5a. Praises people for a job well done (EH)
.231
.633

6a. Makes certain that people adhere to agreed-on
standards (M)
7a. Describes a compelling image o f the future (I)
.427
.517

4.031
.051

8a. Challenges people to try new approaches (CH)
.383
.539

9a. Actively listens to diverse points of view (EO)
1.555
.219

10a. Expresses confidence in people's abilities (EH)
1.895
.176

1 la. Follows through on promises and commitments
(M)
5.405
.025
12a. Appeals to others to share dream o f the future

(I)
13a. Searches outside organization for innovative

ways to improve (CH)
14a. Treats others with dignity and respect (EO)
.150
.700

.194
.662

.624
.434

15a. Creatively rewards people for their contributions Equal variances assumed
(EH)
.000
.989
t-test for Equality of Means

t
Sig.
(2-tailed)
df
.649
42
.520
.649
40.739
.520
.509
42
.614
.509
41.887
.614
-.395
42
.695
-.395
38.187
.695
-.675
42
.503
-.675
41.902
.503
-.287
42
.775
-.287
40.872
.775
-1.803
42
.079
-1.803
41.165
.079
1.458
42
.152
1.458
37.049
.153
-.290
42
.773
-.290
41.379
.773
.841
42
.405
.841
39.803
.405
.676
42
.503
.676
41.654
.503
-.830
42
.411
-.830
39.436
.412
-.368
42
.714
-.368
41.617
.714
-.623
42
.536
-.623
41.503
.536
.778
42
.441
.778
39.647
.441
-1.338
42
.188
-1.338
41.718
.188
(table continues)
95
Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances_______ t-test for Equality of Means
F
16a. Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect
people's performance (M)
17 a. Shows others how their interests can be realized (I)
.048
Sig.
.828

.206
.653

18a. Asks "What can we learn?" (CH)
.599
.443
.018
.895

19a. Supports decisions other people make (EO)

20a. Recognizes people for commitment to shared values Equal variances assumed
(EH)
.584
.449
21a. Builds consensus around organization's values (M)
.025
.875

22a. Paints "big picture" o f group aspirations (I)
.006
.940

23a. Makes certain that goals, plans and milestones are
set (CH)
1.046
.312
24a. Gives people choice about how to do their work

(EO)
25a. Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments (EH)
.042
.838

.870
.356

26a. Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership (M)
27a. Speaks with conviction about meaning o f work (I)
.417
.522
.744
.393

28a. Experiments and takes risks (CH)
.853
.361

29a. Ensures that people grow in their jobs (EO)
.544
.465
3.249
.079

30a. Gives team members appreciation and support (EH) Equal variances assumed
Sig.
(2-tailed)
df
-.773
42
.444
-.773
41.881
.444
-.578
42
.566
-.578
41.962
.566
-1.089
42
.282
-1.089
41.456
.282
.127
42
.900
.127
41.748
.900
-1.763
42
.085
-1.763
39.899
.086
-.463
42
.646
-.463
41.484
.646
1.298
42
.201
1.298
41.996
.201
.504
42
.617
.504
39.190
.617
2.339
42
.024
2.339
41.750
.024
-2.108
42
.041
-2.108
40.186
.041
1.205
42
.235
1.205
41.775
.235
.723
42
.474
.723
40.705
.474
-.431
42
.669
-.431
40.318
.669
2.134
42
.039
2.134
39.776
.039
.181
42
.857
.181
34.278
.857
96
Table 5.
One-Way ANOVA LPI Preassessment & Postassessment Scores
Dependent Variable
Source
Sum Modeling
Preassessment
Between Groups
Sum Inspiring
Preassessment
Sum Challenging
Preassessment
Sum Enabling
Preassessment
Sum Encouraging
Preassessment
Sum Modeling
Postassessment
Sum Inspiring
Postassessment
Sum Challenging
Postassessment
Sum Enabling
Postassessment
Sum Encouraging
Postassessment
Sum o f Squares
df
Mean Square
8.322
2.774
Within Groups
3348.636
92
36.398
Total
3356.958
95
313.330
104.443
Within Groups
6996.503
92
76.049
Total
7309.833
95
235.014
78.338
42.521
Between Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
3911.976
92
Total
4146.990
95
281.616
93.872
Within Groups
2428.290
92
26.394
Total
2709.906
95
175.986
58.662
Within Groups
6125.972
92
66.587
Total
6301.958
95
Between Groups
Between Groups
14.474
4.825
Within Groups
2031.682
92
22.083
Total
2046.156
95
53.997
17.999
Within Groups
6182.493
92
67.201
Total
6236.490
95
131.441
43.814
Within Groups
3782.517
92
41.114
Total
3913.958
95
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
171.604
57.201
Within Groups
2073.021
92
22.533
Total
2244.625
95
186.928
62.309
Within Groups
4034.406
92
43.852
Total
4221.333
95
Between Groups
Between Groups
Sig.
.076
.973
1.373
.256
1.842
.145
3.557
.017
.881
.454
.218
.883
.268
.848
1.066
.368
2.539
.061
1.421
.242
Tukeys HSD posthoc comparison test was used to determine the source of the
significant F-ratio for the Enabling measure. A statistically significant difference was
found between the presassessment scores of middle managers in the comparison group
and supervisors in the comparison group (see Table 6).
97
Table 6.
Tukey HSD Posthoc Comparison Test
Tukey HSD
M ean
D ifference (I-J)
Std. Error
SM-T
2.318
1.549
.444
M M -C
-.360
1.488
.995
SM -C
3.717
1.488
.067
M M -T
-2.318
1.549
.444
M M -C
-2.678
1.488
.280
Dependent Variable
(1) Group 1-4
(J) Group 1-4
Sum Enabling
Preassessment
M M -T
SM -T
M M -C
SM-C
Sum Enabling
Postassessm ent
M M -T
SM-T
M M -C
SM-C
Sig.
SM-C
1.399
1.488
.784
M M -T
.360
1.488
.995
SM-T
2.678
1.488
.280
SM-C
4.077 *
1.425
.026
M M -T
-3.717
1.488
.067
SM-T
-1.399
1.488
.784
M M -C
-4.077 *
1.425
.026
SM -T
2.318
1.431
.373
MM -C
.601
1.375
.972
SM-C
3.332
1.375
.080
M M -T
-2.318
1.431
.373
M M -C
-1.717
1.375
.598
SM-C
1.014
1.375
.882
M M -T
-.601
1.375
.972
SM-T
1.717
1.375
.598
SM-C
2.731
1.317
.169
M M -T
-3.332
1.375
.080
SM-T
-1.014
1.375
.882
M M -C
-2.731
1.317
.169
* The m ean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Research Question 1
Research question one, asked: Is there a significant behavior change in selfperceived leadership after a three month period between those middle managers who did
versus those who did not attend a leadership development course?
98
Modeling LPI scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment and
comparison groups for the 30 items on the LPI are presented in Table 3. A One-Way
ANOVA examined the difference between the preassessment means between two groups
for LPI Modeling
(items la, 6a, 1 la, 16a, 21a, & 26a). Levenes test for equality of variances found that
equal variances could be assumed except for item 11 (see Table 4). No statistically
significant difference was found (see Table 5) between the means of the middle managers
in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Modeling preassessments ip =.973) or
postassessments (p =.883).
The null hypothesis is not rejected and the alternate hypothesis is rejected. After a
three month period, no statistically significant difference was found in self-perceived
leadership behavior change between those middle managers who did (treatment) versus
those who did not (comparison) attend a leadership development course, as measured by
the LPI in regards to the practice of Modeling.
Inspiring LPI scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment and
for LPI Inspiring
(items 2a, 7a, 12a, 17a, 22a, & 27a). Levenes test for equality of variances found that
equal variances could be assumed (see Table 4). No significant difference was found
between the means o f the middle managers in the treatment and comparison groups(see
Table 5) for LPI Inspiring preassessments (p =.256) or postassessments (p =.848).
99
The null hypothesis is accepted and the alternate hypothesis is rejected. After a
three month period, no significant difference was found in self-perceived leadership
behavior change between those middle managers who did (treatment) versus those who
did not (comparison) attend a leadership development course, as measured by the LPI in
regards to the practice o f Inspiring.
Challenging LPI scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment
and comparison groups for the 30 items on the LPI are presented in Table 3. A One-Way
for LPI Challenging
equal variances could be assumed (see Table 4). No significant difference was found
between the means o f the middle managers in the treatment and comparison groups (see
Table 5) for LPI Challenging preassessments (p =.145) or postassessments (p =.368).
regards to the practice o f Challenging.
Enabling LPI scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment and
for LPI Enabling
100
equal variances could be assumed except for item 29 (see Table 4). Significant difference
was found between the means of the middle managers in the treatment and comparison
groups for LPI Enabling preassessments ip =.017). However, no significant difference
was found (see Tables 5 and 6) in the postassessments {p =.061).
regards to the practice o f Enabling.
Encouraging LPI scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment
for LPI Encouraging
equal variances could be assumed except for item 25 (see Table 4). No significant
difference was found between the means of the middle managers in the treatment and
comparison groups (see Table 5) for LPI Encouraging preassessments ip =.454) or
postassessments ip =.242).
101
regards to the practice of Encouraging.
Research Question 2
Research question two asked: is there a significant difference in supervisors
perceptions of middle managers leadership behaviors after a three month period, when
supervisors are grouped according to whether their middle managers attended a
leadership course or not?
for LPI Modeling (items la, 6a, 1la, 16a, 21a, & 26a). The findings for the Levenes Test
(Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Table 5) are the same as presented for research question
one. No significant difference was found between the means of the middle managers
supervisors in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Modeling.
three month period, there is no significant difference in the leadership behaviors of
middle managers who attended a leadership development course versus those who did
not, as perceived by supervisors of middle managers, as measured by the LPI in regards
to the practice of Modeling.
for LPI Inspiring (items 2a, 7a, 12a, 17a, 22a, & 27a). The findings for the Levenes Test
102
one. No significant difference was found between the means of the middle managers
supervisors in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Inspiring.
to the practice o f Inspiring.
for LPI Challenging (items 3a, 8a, 13a, 18a, 23a, & 28a). The findings for the Levenes
Test (Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Table 5) are the same as presented for research
question one. No significant difference was found between the means of the middle
managers supervisors in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Challenging.
to the practice o f Challenging.
103
for LPI Enabling (items 4a, 9a, 14a, 19a, 24a, & 29a). The findings for the Levenes Test
(Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Tables 5 and 6) are the same as presented for research
managers supervisors in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Enabling.
to the practice o f Enabling.
for LPI Encouraging (items 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a, & 30a). The findings for the Levenes
managers supervisors in the treatment and comparison groups for LPI Encouraging.
to the practice o f Encouraging.
104
Research Question 3
Research question three asked: are there significant differences between the selfassessments o f those middle managers who attended a leadership development course
and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors
after a three month period?
one. No significant difference was found between the means of the middle managers and
their supervisors in the treatment groups for LPI Modeling.
middle managers as perceived by middle managers who attended a leadership
development course versus their supervisors, as measured by the LPI in regards to the
practice o f Modeling.
105
their supervisors in the treatment groups for LPI Inspiring.
practice o f Inspiring.
for LPI Challenging (items questions 3a, 8a, 13a, 18a, 23a, & 28a). The findings for the
Levenes Test (Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Table 5) are the same as presented for
research question one. No significant difference was found between the means of the
middle managers and their supervisors in the treatment groups for LPI Challenging.
practice o f Challenging.
for LPI Enabling (items questions 4a, 9a, 14a, 19a, 24a, & 29a). The findings for the
106
Levenes Test (Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Tables 5 and 6) are the same as presented
for research question one. No significant difference was found between the means of the
middle managers and their supervisors in the treatment groups for LPI Enabling.
practice o f Enabling.
for LPI Encouraging (items questions 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a, & 30a). The findings for the
Levenes Test (Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Table 5) are the same as presented for
research question one. No significant difference was found between the means of the
middle managers and their supervisors in the treatment groups for LPI Encouraging.
practice o f Encouraging.
Research Question 4
Research question four asked: are there significant differences between the selfassessments o f those middle managers who did not attend a leadership development
107
course and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by those middle managers
supervisors after a three month period?
Modeling LPI Scale. Descriptive statistics for the middle manager treatment and
their supervisors in the comparison groups for LPI Modeling.
middle managers as perceived by middle managers who did not attend a leadership
practice o f Modeling.
their supervisors in the comparison groups for LPI Inspiring.
108
practice o f Inspiring.
for LPI Challenging (items 3a, 8a, 13a, 18a, 23a, & 28a). The findings for the Levenes
managers and their supervisors in the comparison groups for LPI Challenging.
practice of Challenging.
for LPI Enabling (items 4a, 9a, 14a, 19a, 24a, & 29a). The findings for the Levenes Test
(Table 4), and the ANOVA (see Tables 5 and 6) are the same as presented for research
managers and their supervisors in the comparison groups for LPI Enabling.
109
practice o f Enabling.
for LPI Encouraging (items 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a, & 30a). The findings for the Levenes
managers and their supervisors in the comparison groups for LPI Encouraging.
practice o f Encouraging.
Additional Findings
In addition to analyzing the data collected in regards to the studys four research
questions, there are also descriptive findings of interest that are presented in the areas
below. While these differences were not hypothesized under the original scope of the
study, they are presented here as they may be of interest to practitioners and future
researchers alike.
110
Preassessment scores of middle managers (treatment and comparison) and

preassessment scores of their supervisors (treatment and comparison) for each
of five LPI scales.
Preassessment scores o f middle managers (treatment and comparison) and

preassessment scores o f their supervisors (treatment and comparison) fo r each o f the five
LPI scales. These findings used data from the preassessment scores of middle managers
and their supervisors from the treatment and comparison groups. Data were also included
in this analysis from a single point in time LPI survey that was sent during February 2005
to middle managers who had not attended the LFTM and their supervisors. This survey
was completed to determine scores from a larger sample to establish baseline scores for
each o f five LPI scales. This baseline group consisted of 208 middle managers and their
supervisors (104 middle managers and 104 supervisors).
SPSS 14 was used to analyze the data collected. Descriptive statistics, means, and
standard deviations o f the preassessment scores of middle managers and their supervisors
for each of the 30 items on the LPI are presented in Table 7. Except for the Enabling and
Encouraging scales, Levenes test for equality of variances found that equal variances
could be assumed (see Table 8).
Ill
Table 7.
Preassessment Means and Standard Deviations o f Middle Managers and Their
Supervisors
LPI: Pretest
Group
Sum Modeling
MM
104
43.38
SM
104
Mean
MM
104
SM
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
6.687
.656
44.17
6.717
.659
39.24
8.790
.862
104
37.20
8.478
.831
MM
104
42.38
7.149
.701
SM
104
42.81
6.509
.638
Sum Enabling
MM
104
49.86
4.639
.455
SM
104
47.40
5.740
.563
Sum Encouraging
MM
104
41.26
7.791
.764
SM
104
43.64
7.963
.781
Sum Inspiring
Sum Challenging
Table 8.
Preassessment Responses o f Managers and Supervisors on the LPI (n = 208)
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
LPI: Preassessment
Sum Modeling
Preassessment
Sum Inspiring
Preassessment
Sum Challenging
Preassessment
Sum Enabling
Preassessment
Sum Encouraging
Preassessment
Assumptions
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
F
.490
.117
1.291
4.781
.004
Sig.
.485
.732
.257
.030
.948
t-test for Equality o f Means
206
Sig. (2tailed)
.392
-.859
205.996
.392
1.702
206
.090
1.702
205.730
.090
-.446
206
.656
-.446
204.214
.656
3.388
206
.001
3.388
197.326
.001
-2.183
206
.030
-2.183
205.901
.030
t
-.859
df
Summary o f Findings
The results for research questions one through four found a significant difference
in the preassessment scores on the Enabling LPI Scale. No significant difference,
however, was found in the postassessment scores. No evidence was found that
completing the one-day LFTM course significantly changed the leadership behavior of
middle managers. Results for additional findings found preassessment scores did not
differ significantly from postassessment scores on any of the five LPI scales.
113
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
This chapter presents a summary o f the study, conclusions, and implications for
further research related to the research questions. Strengths, weaknesses, and concessions
o f the study are presented as well as the potential application of the results.
Summary o f Findings
The purpose of this quasi-experimental design study was to determine if the self
and supervisor-perceived leadership behaviors of middle managers who attended a
leadership development course differed after a 3 month period from those middle
managers who did not attend the course.
Research question one asked: Is there a significant behavior change in self
perceived leadership after a 3 month period between those middle managers who did
versus those who did not attend a leadership development course? The results showed
that there was no statistically significant behavior change in self-perceived leadership
after a three month period between those middle managers who did versus those who did
not attend a leadership development course, in regards to the five LPI scales.
Research question two asked: is there a significant difference in supervisors
perceptions o f middle managers leadership behaviors after a 3 month period, when
supervisors are grouped according to whether their middle managers attended a
leadership course or not? The results showed that there was no statistically significant
difference in supervisors perceptions of middle managers leadership behaviors after a
three month period, when supervisors are grouped according to whether their middle
managers attended a leadership development course, in regards to the five LPI scales.
114
Research question three asked: are there significant differences between the selfassessments of those middle managers who attended a leadership development course
and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by those middle managers supervisors
after a 3 month period? The results showed that there were no statistically significant
differences between the self-assessments of those middle managers who attended a
leadership development course and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by those
middle managers supervisors after a three month period, in regards to the five LPI
scales.
Research question four asked: are there significant differences between the selfassessments of those middle managers who did not attend a leadership development
course and the assessment of their leadership behaviors by those middle managers
supervisors after a three month period? The results showed that there were no statistically
significant differences between the self-assessments of those middle managers who did
not attend a leadership development course and the assessment of their leadership
behaviors by those middle managers supervisors after a 3 month period, in regards to the
five LPI scales.
These findings suggest that a one-day leadership development course does not
significantly change leadership behavior of those middle managers who attend, as
opposed to those middle managers who do not attend, as measured by the LPI. Holton
(1996) suggests since Level 3 evaluation, such as the one performed for this study, was
conducted in accordance with the Kirkpatrick (1994) model, other elements such as
motivation, environment, and ability/enabling elements may be important to take into
account. Antonioni (1999) also showed in his study the importance and positive effect of
115
creating a motivational environment that empowers middle managers to achieve their
best. Other factors that may have impacted this study were a possible lack o f the top three
enablers in the LTMO environment that are conducive to the transfer of learning as
defined by Van Buren & Erskine (2002a) (1) an opportunity to actually use the
knowledge or skills; (2) help with applying the knowledge or skills through coaching or
feedback, and (3) content that reflected what actually happens on the job (p. 16).
Additional effort may be needed in these areas within LTMO and LFTM.
Bramley (1999) also states that ability is not enough, when people are not
allowed to do something or are actively discouraged from doing it, there will be no
performance. (p. 146). Bramley concluded that behavior change in the workplace will
often require changing situational factors as well as managerial skills and attitudes. The
evaluation framework used to measure manager behavior change should take this into
account. This can be accomplished by including a review of the organizational context
and the ways in which it does or does not support the desired behaviors. It must also be
taken into consideration that the sample for this study was much lower than anticipated
and that may have also impacted the outcome of the results.
Additional Findings o f Interest
Additional findings show that the LPI Inspiring scale was found to have the
lowest preassessment mean score among MMs (39.24) and SMs (37.20) on a scoring
scale of 10 to 60, while the Enabling scale was found to have the highest mean score
among MMs (49.86) and SMs (47.40). This finding may be an indicator o f the LTMO
environment as perceived by MMs and their supervisors. Preassessment and
postassessment mean scores when compared within each group (MM treatment, MM
116
comparison, SM treatment, SM comparison) do show a slight increase from
preassessment to postassement, though this change cannot be attributed to anything other
than chance. Still, this finding may show that those who participated perceived their
abilities in regards to the five LPI scales with a high degree of accuracy and did not
inflate their assessments. This may have been influenced by the purpose of the
assessments which was to assist in participants development, not their performance
appraisals (Garavan et al., 1997; Jansen & Vloeberghs, 1999).
Strengths, Weaknesses and Concessions
The research methods proposed for this study in June 2004 were sound. The main
challenge found for implementing this study was the response rate. The target audience
for this study, middle managers, and the observers, supervisors of middle managers, due
to time constraints and role demands, must carefully prioritize how they spend their time.
If participating in a study and completing a survey is not perceived as a priority it is
reasonable to assume that subjects will not voluntarily participate in large numbers. There
was also a substantial restructuring o f the entire LTMO organization in January 2005 (5
months into this 15 month study) which was a cause of substantial angst and upheaval
throughout all facets o f the organization, and almost certainly impacted participation in
this study and may have impacted the survey results.
The sample that was solicited for this study is representative of the larger
population of U.S. middle managers, due to the average time spent in the role and overall
time spent within the organization. Though no significant differences were found, this
does not necessarily indicate that the content of the course was ineffective. What it may
indicate is that a one-day leadership development course is not a broad enough solution to
117
affect behavior change. A more robust solution is needed that includes participation from
each of these areas: management and leadership development, business group human
resources, organizational development, as well as compensation and benefits.
The LPI survey instrument used in this study may also not have been as well
aligned with the objectives and content covered in the LFTM course as expected.
Respondents might not have recalled the one-day LFTM course sufficiently well enough
to respond adequately to the survey after a 3 month time period. An even bigger issue is
the possible interpretation of the training being ineffectual. On one hand, the training
keeps MLDG in business, but on the other hand, it could also negatively impact the
groups reputation for creating training solutions that positively impact the business. One
solution may be to develop a new survey that combines the LPI factors and the Goleman
leadership styles and use that instrument for future LFTM pre and postassessments.
It must also be acknowledged, that over time leadership behavior survey scores
tend to drop. Cavazzoni (Cavazzoni, 2002) found leadership performance begins to wear
off between the 6th and 12th month (p. 153).
Utility o f Results
Management and leadership development training is only one piece of a
multifaceted solution needed to develop and sustain effective managers and leaders.
Development of management and leadership development training should be part of a
larger organizational development strategy that is linked into the overarching business
strategy. Having a program evaluation plan in place, prior to program launch, which
would include collecting data in regards to behavior change of participants,
organizational effectiveness, annual review data, business results, etc., could be a part of
118
that strategy. Single point in time solutions, such as a one-day training course, can
achieve greater organizational impact if the environmental inhibitors are removed and
enablers are added and empowered. In the future would also recommend having study
participants share their developmental survey feedback with their supervisor, and vice
versa. This would stimulate positive behavior change in managers to either improve
behavior or their self assessment. It would also increase and improve communication
between survey participants and their observers.
Recommendations fo r Future Research
Given the findings in Chapter 4, the following recommendations for future
research are suggested. First, the LFTM course should continue to be run, but without
performing Level 3 evaluations solely on this course as that may be too limiting a
measure to determine behavior change. Instead recommend including LFTM as part of an
overall middle manager development program Level 3 evaluation that would include
other middle manager development course offerings, as well as correlations with other
measures such as organizational effectiveness, annual review data, business results, etc.
Second, the Level 3 evaluation should be run using LPI and Goleman leadership
styles 360 degree assessment data including self, peers, subordinates and supervisors in a
web based format as opposed to the cumbersome Microsoft Excel email format used for
this study. Third, the researcher should ensure a large enough sample size can be secured
to participate in the study, possibly enlisting an executive champion to assist with
participation goals. Beware that the study would possibly become a quarterly objective to
be completed in an accelerated corporate timeframe. This may involve using a treatment-
119
control experimental design, giving the latter group placebo training, rather than the
treatment-comparison quasi-experimental design used in this study.
Fourth, a comparative analysis should be performed o f scores of MMs whose
supervisors are collocated versus those whose supervisors are not collocated. This should
be done as part of a Level 3 program evaluation as opposed to a Level 3 course
evaluation. And finally, a comparison o f the data gathered to equivalent data gathered at
other worldwide corporations should be performed. The implications of that data should
then be shared with others in the field to improve the development of middle managers
on a larger scale.
Researchers Observations
The one day LFTM course is effective in getting middle managers to consider
their leadership styles, how those styles impact others and their work, determining where
they are in the leadership pipeline and what challenges they face, as well as having the
opportunity to discuss and address these and other current business issues with a senior
manager. However, the path to becoming a middle leader does not begin and end with a
one day course.
The corporate middle manager program did not exist prior to June 2002, but as
can often occur when organizations need to quickly launch corporate training programs,
the primary focus became developing courses. Developing courses produces a tangible
item that is easily measured by standard training group indicators, Level 1 surveys and
attendance. Measuring lasting behavior change is usually not one of these indicators due
to the difficulty of measuring it. The cause of the problem trying to be solved needs to be
considered when developing solutions to instigate behavior change. Training is not
120
always the solution for creating behavior change (Bramley, 1999). Changing
environmental factors within the organization is often the more appropriate solution
(Antonioni, 1999; Bramley, 1999; Van Buren & Erskine, 2002a) but can take years to
implement and measure. This researcher believes that a more holistic approach to middle
manager development, that is directly linked to the overarching business strategy, must
be considered for middle managers and the organization to continue to succeed.
This holistic approach would not only include training courses, but would include
coaching, mentoring and real world experiences via simulations or job rotation programs.
Currently, MLDG is taking advantage of their position, having in place a full line of
training courses for first line, middle, and senior managers, and is vigorously moving into
the realms of coaching, mentoring, succession planning, and providing opportunities for
managers to have real world and simulated experiences. Support for this is also coming
from the CEO due to the current state of the business. He is realizing the urgency the
organization must have for developing an effective management pipeline of present and
future leaders for the continued success of the organization.
121
References
Antonioni, D. (1999). What motivates middle managers. Industrial Management, 41(6),
27-30.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Concepts of leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership:
Understanding the Dynamics o f Power and Influence in Organizations (pp. 3-23).
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. In S. B. Merriam
(Ed.), The New Update on Adult Learning Theory (Vol. 89, pp. 15-24). New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can't lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Berman, M. (2001). The CEO challenge: Top marketplace and management issues 2001 (No. R-1286-01-RR): The Conference Board.
Blanchard, K. (1985). SLII: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA:
Blanchard Training and Development.
Blanchard, P., Thacker, J. W., & Way, S. A. (2000). Training evaluation: Perspectives
and evidence from Canada. International Journal o f Training & Development,
4(4), 295-304.
Bramley, P. (1999). Evaluating effective management learning. Journal o f European
Industrial Training, 23(3), 145-153.
Brown, L. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2001). Exploring the relationship between learning and
leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(6), 274-280.
122
Cacioppe, R., & Albrecht, S. (2000). Using 360 feedback and the integral model to
develop leadership and management skills. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 21(B), 390-404.
Cavazzoni, M. (2002). Evaluating the impact o f corporate executive leadership
programs: Impacts on executive behaviors. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the
leadership powered company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corporate Executive Board. (2000, April). Overview o f employee development.
Washington, D.C.
Council, C. L. (1999). Case Studies in Developing the Comtemporary Middle Manager
(No. 070224425): Corporate Executive Board.
Council, C. L. (2002). Talent management fo r mid-level managers (No. CLC1IYBJM):
Corporate Executive Board.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, P. T., & Soule, A. J. (1997). Executive education: Yesterday and today, with a
look at tomorrow. Journal o f Management Development, 16( 1), 4-21.
DecisionPro. (2003). Holdout. Retrieved May 8, 2004, from
http://www.mktgeng.com/help/mnl/holdout.htm
Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test
o f an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 67-84.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle
management's strategic role. Academy o f Management Executive, 5(4), 47-48.
123
Fulmer, R. M., & Gibbs, P. A. (1998). Lifelong learning at the corporate university.
Career Development International, 3(5), 177-192.
Fulmer, R. M., Gibbs, P. A., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Developing leaders: How winning
companies keep on winning. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 49-59.
Garavan, T. N., Morley, M., & Flynn, M. (1997). 360 degree feedback: Its role in
employee development. Journal o f Management Development, 16(2/3), 134-147.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78-90.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review.
Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170.
Grove, A. S. (1995). High output management (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.
Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The New
Update on Adult Learning Theory (Vol. 89, pp. 43-51). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Harrell, K. D. (2001). Level III training evaluation: Considerations for today's
organizations. Performance Improvement, 40(5), 26-29.
HayGroup. (1999). What makes great leaders: Rethinking the route to effective
leadership. Philadelphia: HayGroup.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training &
Development Journal, 23, 26-34.
Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal o f
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise o f middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), p72,
78p.
Hymowitz, C. (2002, July 30). In the lead: middle managers find their skills, integrity
now carry more weight. The Wall Street Journal, p. B 1.
Jansen, P., & Vloeberghs, D. (1999). Multi-rater feedback methods: Personal and
organizational implications. Journal o f Managerial Psychology, 14(1 IS), 455476.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs: Thefour levels. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 56(1), 54-59.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5,
48-60.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner (5th ed.).
Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kotter, J. P. (1997). What leaders really do. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership:
Understanding the dynamics o f power and influence in organizations (pp. 24-34).
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002a). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002b). The leadership practices inventory: Theory and
evidence behind the practice o f exemplary leaders. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003a). The five practices o f exemplary leadership. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
125
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003b). Leadership practices inventory (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Kraut, A. I., Pedigo, P. R., McKenna, D. D., & Dunnette, M. D. (1989). The role of the
manager: What's really important in different management jobs. Academy o f
Management Executive, 3(4), 286-293.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning through legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lavelle, L. (2002, Aug 26, 2002). Another crop of sleazy CEOs? Business Week, 12.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. In S. B.
Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (Vol. 89, pp. 25-34).
New York: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning
theory. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (Vol. 89,
pp. 3-13). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.
Nohria, N., Joyce, W., & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works. Harvard Business
Review, 81(7), 42-53.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
126
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Patterson, J. (1993). Leadership fo r tomorrow's schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervisors and Curriculum Development.
Phillips, J. J. (1997). Handbook o f training evaluation and measurement methods (3rd
ed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sirianni, P. M., & Frey, B. A. (2001). Changing a culture: Evaluation of a leadership
development program at Mellon Financial Services. International Journal o f
Training & Development, 5(4), 290-301.
Spreitzer, G., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Empowering middle managers to be
transformational leaders: A field study (No. G 95-12 (288): Center for Effective
Organizations - Marshall School of Business - University of Southern California.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey o f the
literature. Journal o f Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Tichy, N. (2002). The leadership engine: How winning companies build leaders at every
level. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Useem, J., Warner, M., & Dash, E. (2002, Sept 16). In corporate America it's cleanup
time. Fortune, 146.
Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002a). Learning outcomes: ASTD's fourth annual
report on standards fo r evaluating organizations' investments in education and
training. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002b). State o f the Industry: ASTD's Annual Review
o f Trends in Employer Provided Training in the United States. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Van Der Velde, M. E. G., Jansen, P. G. W., & Vinkenburg, C. J. (1999). Managerial
activities among top and middle managers: Self versus other perceptions. Journal
o f Applied Management Studies, 5(2), 161-174.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive
theory. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 72(3), 444-451.
Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Foshay, R., & Kaufman, R. (1998). Kirkpatrick plus: Evaluation
and continuous improvement with a community focus. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 46(4), 90-96.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities o f practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX A
Leading from the Middle Course Description
129
Effective organizations foster leadership at every level of their hierarchies. This is
especially true in the case o f middle managers, whom Andy Grove considers the muscle
and bone of every sizable organization. Effective middle managers must be given
opportunities to do more than simply direct their teams processesthey must be enabled
to supply an overarching vision and direction that will keep their teams focused,
motivated, and generating results. They must be empowered to excel as Middle managers
by influencing up, down, and across the organization, as well as helping their own
employees see the critical links between their personal and career goals and the
organizations overall goals.
In this course you will define middle leadership, determine your strengths and
development areas, assess and determine how best to leverage your leadership styles,
apply leadership concepts to current challenges facing LTMO, and address individual
areas for leadership improvement.
APPENDIX B
Leading from the Middle Course Objectives
131
Define middle leadership and determine your strengths and development areas.
Assess your leadership styles and determine how best to leverage them.
Move forward as a Middle manager.

-
What do you build on?
What do you leave behind?
Apply leadership concepts to current challenges facing LTMO.
Address individual areas for leadership improvement.
APPENDIX C
Leading from the Middle Course Agenda
133
Introduction
Module 1: Assessing Leadership Skills, Styles and Attributes
9 11:00 a.m.
11-1 1 :1 5 a.m. Break
1 2 - 1 p.m. Lunch
Module 2: Being an Effective Middle Leader

-
1 - 2 p.m.
2 - 2:15 p.m. Break
Module 3: Applying Middle Leadership

-
2:15-4 :0 0 p.m.
APPENDIX D
Leadership practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument Self Treatment Group
135
This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to

complete. Please "Save" this survey and email your
responses to Jen Ryan by xx/xx/xx.
Please indicate below if you agree or disagree to volunteer to be in this study given the
following:
I am giving you permission to gather similar survey data from my
supervisor.
Individual data gathered in this study will not be shared with others, or used for any other
purpose beyond this study.
I understand, this study is for a dissertation and I do not have to participate in the study.
If I elect to participate there will be absolutely no negative consequences for not participating or
withdrawing from the study.
I understand all the data will be kept confidential (if requested I will be provided additional
information regarding confidentiality).
Participation in this study is voluntary and it is not necessary to answer every question.
Your responses will be kept confidential.
Please mark an X next to one of the following statements:
Based on the statements above, I agree to voluntarily participate
in this studv
Based on the above statements above, I disagree to voluntarily
participate in this studv
Please mark an "X" next to those Middle Manager courses
you have attended:
MM Leading from the Middle
MM The Expert Coach
MM Strateay from the Middle
FLM/MM Stakeholder Manaaement
Click on cell below to
select response
Please select your business group--------------------------------------
How long have you been in your Middle Manager role at Intel?
(indicate below)
Years
Months
select response
Please select your site location----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------- .>
Begin Leadership Practices inventory

Your Name:
Survey Instructions:
136
Below you will find thirty statements describing various leadership
behaviors. Please read each statement carefully, and using the
RATING SCALE below, ask yourself:
How frequently do 1engage in the behavior described?
When selecting your response to each statement:
Be realistic about the extent to which you actually engage in the
behavior.
Be as honest and accurate as you can be.
DO NOT answer in terms of how you would like to behave or in
terms of how you think you should behave.
DO answer in terms of how you typically behave on most days,
on most projects, and with most people.
Be thoughtful about your responses. For example, giving yourself
10s on all items is most likely not an accurate description of your
behavior. Similarly, giving yourself all 1s or all 5s is most likely not
an accurate description either. Most people will do some things
more or less often than they do other things.
If you feel that a statement does not apply to you, its probably
because you dont frequently engage in the behavior. In that case,
assign a rating of 3 or lower.
For each statement, decide on a response and then record
the corresponding number next to the statement.
RATING SCALE: runs from 1 to 10. Select the number that best applies to each statement.
1 = Almost Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Seldom
4 = Once in a while
5 = Occasionally
6 = Sometimes
7 = Fairly Often
8 = Usually
9 = Very Frequently
10 = Almost Always
To what extent do you typically engage in the following
behaviors? Choose the response number that best applies to
each statement and record it next to the corresponding
statement.
Question
1 .1set a personal example of what I expect of others.
2 . 1talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets
done.
3 . 1seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and
abilities.
4 . 1develop cooperative relationships among the people I work
with.
5 . 1praise people for a job well done.
6 . 1spend time and energy making certain that the people I work
with adhere to the principles and standards that we have agreed
Click on the Rating cells

below to select
responses
Rating
137
on.
7.1 describe a compelling image of what our future could be like.
8.1 challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their
work.
9.1 actively listen to diverse points of view.
1 0 .1make it a point to let people know about my confidence in
their abilities.
11.1 follow through on the promises and commitments that 1make.
1 2 .1appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future.
13 .1search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for
innovative ways to improve what we do.
1 4 .1treat others with dignity and respect.
1 5 .1make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their
contributions to the success of our projects.
1 6 .1ask for feedback on how my actions affect other peoples
performance.
1 7 .1show others how their long-term interests can be realized by
enlisting in a common vision.
1 8 .1ask What can we learn? when things dont go as expected.
19 .1support the decisions that people make on their own.
2 0 .1publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to
shared values.
2 1 .1build consensus around a common set of values for running
our organization.
2 2 .1paint the big picture of what we aspire to accomplish.
2 3 .1make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete
plans, and establish measurable milestones for the projects and
programs that we work on.
2 4 .1give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding
how to do their work.
2 5 .1find ways to celebrate accomplishments.
2 6 .1am clear about my philosophy of leadership.
2 7 .1speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and
purpose of our work.
2 8 .1experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of
failure.
2 9 .1ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills
and developing themselves.
3 0 .1give the members of the team lots of appreciation and
support for their contributions.
Please "Save" this survey and email your responses to Jen
Ryan by xx/xx/xx.
138
APPENDIX E
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument Self Comparison Group
139
This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to

complete. Please "Save" this survey and email your responses
to Jen Ryan by xx/xx/xx.
following:
I understand that upon agreeing to participate in this study I will not attend a Leading from
the Middle course session in the next three months.
I am giving you permission to gather similar survey data from my
supervisor.
Participation in this study is voluntary and it is not necessary to answer every question.
Based on the statements above, I agree to voluntarily participate in
this studv
Based on the above statements above, I disagree to voluntarily
participate in this studv
Please mark an "X" next to those Middle Manager courses you
have attended:
MM Leading from the Middle
MM The Expert Coach
MM Strategy from the Middle
FLM/MM Stakeholder Management
select response
Please select your business group------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
How long have you been in your Middle Manager role at Intel?
(indicate below)
Years
Months
select response
Please select your site location------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Begin Leadership Practices Inventory

Your Name:
140
Below you will find thirty statements describing various leadership
behaviors. Please read each statement carefully, and using the
RATING SCALE below, ask yourself:
How frequently do 1engage in the behavior described?
Be realistic about the extent to which you actually engage in the
behavior.
DO NOT answer in terms of how you would like to behave or in
terms of how you think you should behave.
DO answer in terms of how you typically behave on most days, on
most projects, and with most people.
Be thoughtful about your responses. For example, giving yourself
10s on all items is most likely not an accurate description of your
behavior. Similarly, giving yourself all 1s or all 5s is most likely not
an accurate description either. Most people will do some things
more or less often than they do other things.
If you feel that a statement does not apply to you, its probably
because you dont frequently engage in the behavior. In that case,
assign a rating of 3 or lower.
For each statement, decide on a response and then record the
corresponding number next to the statement.
RATING SCALE: runs from 1 to 10. Select the number for each of the questions below that best
applies to each statement.
1 = Almost Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Seldom
4 = Once in a while
5 = Occasionally
6 = Sometimes
7 = Fairly Often
8 = Usually
9 = Very Frequently
10 = Almost Always
To what extent do you typically engage in the following
behaviors? Choose the response number that best applies to
each statement and record it next to the corresponding
statement.
Question
1 .1set a personal example of what I expect of others.
2 . 1talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets
done.
3 . 1seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and
abilities.
4 . 1develop cooperative relationships among the people I work
with.
5 . 1praise people for a job well done.
Click on the Rating cells

below to select
responses
Rating
141
6.1 spend time and energy making certain that the people 1work
with adhere to the principles and standards that we have agreed
on.
7.1 describe a compelling image of what our future could be like.
8.1 challenge people to try out new and innovative ways to do their
work.
9.1 actively listen to diverse points of view.
1 0 .1make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their
abilities.
11.1 follow through on the promises and commitments that 1make.
12 .1appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future.
13 .1search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for
innovative ways to improve what we do.
1 4 .1treat others with dignity and respect.
15.1make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their
contributions to the success of our projects.
1 6 .1ask for feedback on how my actions affect other peoples
performance.
17 .1show others how their long-term interests can be realized by
enlisting in a common vision.
18.1ask What can we learn? when things dont go as expected.
1 9 .1support the decisions that people make on their own.
2 0 .1publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to
shared values.
2 1 .1build consensus around a common set of values for running
our organization.
2 2 .1paint the big picture of what we aspire to accomplish.
2 3 .1make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete
plans, and establish measurable milestones for the projects and
programs that we work on.
2 4 .1give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding
how to do their work.
2 5 .1find ways to celebrate accomplishments.
2 6 .1am clear about my philosophy of leadership.
2 7 .1speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and
purpose of our work.
2 8 .1experiment and take risks, even when there is a chance of
failure.
2 9 .1ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills
and developing themselves.
3 0 .1give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support
for their contributions.
Please "Save" this survey and email your responses to Jen
Ryan by xx/xx/xx.
APPENDIX F
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument Observer Supervisor
143
This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please

"Save" this survey and email your responses to Jen Ryan by xx/xx/xx.
following:
Your direct report is aware and has given permission to collect this data from his/her
supervisor.
Participation in this study is voluntary and it is not necessary to answer every quest on.
I aqree to voluntarily participate in this study
I disagree to voluntarily participate in this study
Begin Leadership Practices Inventory
Name of Middle Manager (for whom you are filling this out):
Below you will find thirty statements describing various leadership behaviors.
Please read each statement carefully, and using the RATING SCALE below, ask
yourself:
How frequently does this person engage in the behavior described?
Be realistic about the extent to which this person actually engages in the
behavior.
DO NOT answer in terms of how you would like to see this person behave or in
terms of how you think he or she should behave.
DO answer in terms of how this person typically behaves on most days, on most
projects, and with most people.
Be thoughtful about your responses. For example, giving this person 10s on all
items is most likely not an accurate description of his or her behavior. Similarly,
giving someone all 1s or all 5s is most likely not an accurate description either.
Most people will do some things more or less often than they do other things.
If you feel that a statement does not apply, its probably because you dont see or
experience the behavior. That means this person does not frequently engage in
this behavior, at least around you. In that case, assign a rating of 3 or lower.
144
For each statement, decide on a response and then record the
corresponding number next to the statement.
RATING SCALE: runs from 1 to 10. Select the number for each of the questions below that best
applies to each statement.
1 = Almost Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Seldom
4 = Once in a while
5 = Occasionally
6 = Sometimes
7 = Fairly Often
8 = Usually
9 = Very Frequently
10 = Almost Always
To what extent does this leader typically engage in the following behaviors?
Choose the response number that best applies to each statement and record
it next to the corresponding statement.
He or She:
Question
1. Sets a personal example of what he/she expects of others.
2. Talks about future trends that will influence how our work gets done.
3. Seeks out challenging opportunities that test his/her own skills and abilities.
4. Develops cooperative relationships among the people he/she works with.
5. Praises people for a job well done.
6. Spends time and energy making certain that the people he/she works with
adhere to the principles and standards that we have agreed on.
7. Describes a compelling image of what our future could be like.
8. Challenges people to try out new and innovative ways to do their work.
9. Actively listens to diverse points of view.
10. Makes it a point to let people know about his/her confidence in their abilities.
11. Follows through on the promises and commitments he/she makes.
12. Appeals to others to share an exciting dream of the future.
13. Searches outside the formal boundaries of his/her organization for innovative
ways to improve what we do.
14. Treats others with dignity and respect.
15. Makes sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the
success of our projects.
16. Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect other peoples performance.
17. Shows others how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in a
common vision.
18. Asks What can we learn? when things dont go as expected.
Click on
the Rating
cells
below to
select
response
s
Rating
145
19. Supports the decisions that people make on their own.
20. Publicly recognizes people who exemplify commitment to shared values.
21. Builds consensus around a common set of values for running our organization.
22. Paints the big picture of what we aspire to accomplish.
23. Makes certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and
establish measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on.
24. Gives people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their
work.
25. Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments.
26. Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership.
27. Speaks with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of our
work.
28. Experiments and takes risks, even when there is a chance of failure.
29. Ensures that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing
themselves.
30. Gives the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their
contributions.
Please "Save" this survey and email your responses to Jen Ryan by
xx/xx/xx.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
APPENDIX G
Permission to Reproduce Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Instrument
147
EOUEES M fBR INTEHMtiAllONAL

15419 Banyan Lane
Mttoto Scrcno, California MOO
PAX: (4081354-9170
N o v v a iK r ii.a o o a
M s , J e n n if e r R y a n
212 SW l0 5 * T n w
P o rtla n d . O r e g o n 9 7 2 2 5
D e a r Je n n ife rT h a n k y o n f o r y o u r r c tp ie s t t o
ms
t h e 3 "' E d itio n o f th e L e a d e r s h ip P r a c tic e s In v e n to ry
tL P O m y o o r d is s e r ta tio n . W e
willing t o a llo w y o u to re p ro d u c e th e in s tr u m e n t
o u tlin e d In y o o r t e a , a t n o d u n e , w ith t h e f o llo w in g u jto em arid in g .* :
i l l T I M th e tJ P i is u s e d o n ly f u r r e s e a r c h p o r p o r e s a n d i s n e t s e W o r u s e d in
c o n ju n c tio n w ith a n y c o tn p w m iled n ia n a g s m c n i d e v e lo p m e n t a c tiv itie s ;
2) T h a i c o p y r ig h t o f th e U N , o r a n y d e r iv a tio n o f th e in s tru m e n t, is r e ta in e d b y
K o u r c s P m n c r h u c t m tl m m i. a n d th a t th e f o llo w in g c o p y r ig h t s a t e r n o i t is
in c lu d e d o n a lt c o p i e s o f t h e i u t o u m o K T 3 o p p i i b * 2 S 0 3 J a m e s
B a rry 2L P o s n e r , A ll rig h ts r e s e r v e d U s e d w i th p e n a is i o n ;
(3 j T hat
mm ( I )
K oezes and
b o u n d c o p y o f y o u r c h s s e rta o o n a n d o n e |1 J c o p y o f
re p o r ts , a r tic le s , a n d th e lik e w h ic h m a k e
usr itf
U,
ms o f th e
aS. p p e i s ,
I P ! d a ta h e s e n t p r o n r a t l v to
and,
(4 J T h a t y o u a g r e e to a llo w u s to in c lu d e m a b s tr a c t o f p u r s s u ^ s r a n d a n y cube*
j r a b M w d p a p e r s u n t i r i n g th e L P l o n o u r v a r io u s w e b s ite s ,
I f th e te r m s o u tlin e d a b o v e mm a c c e p ta b le , w o u ld y o u in d ic a te s o b y s ig n in g o tic { 1 1 c o p y
o f th is le tte r a n d r e tu r n in g it t o *, B e st w is h e s f o r e v e r y s u c c e s s w ith y o u r r e s e a rc h
p ro je c t,

Evaluating Perceived Changes in Leadership Behavior Among Middle Managers PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Evaluating Perceived Changes in Leadership Behavior Among Middle Managers PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pepperdine University

Graduate School of Education and Psychology

EVALUATING PERCEIVED CHANGES IN LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

UMI Number: 3246688

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright by Jennifer M. Ryan (2006)

This dissertation, written by

M a^aret J. Weber, PhD

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 26

CHAPTER THREE: REASEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS..................................... 74

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS............................................................................................. 90

CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications........................................... 113

Table 3. LPI Preassessment Scores and Descriptive Statistics............................................91

Concentration: Computer Graphics.

Program Manager, Corporate Management & Leadership

Training Development Manager, Sales & Marketing Group

Training Development Manager, Communication Products

Training Developer, Intel Mask Operations

Purpose o f the Study

3. Are there significant differences between the self-assessments of those middle

Importance o f the Study

Nature o f the Intervention

Move forward as a middle manager.

What do you build on?

What do you leave behind?

Apply leadership concepts to current challenges facing LTMO.

Address individual areas for leadership improvement.

Transitions in management roles must be acknowledged and experienced to

An icebreaker activity to activate participant thinking regarding middle leadership at

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

Limitations o f the Study

The degree to which perceived Middle managers leadership behavior change

the five practices, demonstrates recognition of contributions by showing appreciation for

Achieving innovative solutions/creative thinking

Balancing short and long term strategic initiatives

Negotiating, communicating, building and managing relationships

Coaching and persuasive leadership

Serving in roles with cross-functional/cross-divisional relations

The purpose of Mobils program, Individual Leadership, is to improve the

company who were enrolled in a university-based management development course. The

Group B (Comparison group) O------------------------O

Note. (n = 17,908; Self = 2,072; Manager = 1,426; Direct Report = 5,234;

la. Sets a personal example of what is expected (M)

2a. Talks about future trends influencing our work (I)

3a. Seeks challenging opportunities to test skills (CH)

4a. Develops cooperative relationships (EO)

5a. Praises people for a job well done (EH)

6a. Makes certain that people adhere to agreed-on

7a. Describes a compelling image o f the future (I)

8a. Challenges people to try new approaches (CH)

9a. Actively listens to diverse points of view (EO)

10a. Expresses confidence in people's abilities (EH)

11a. Follows through on promises and commitments

12a. Appeals to others to share dream of the future (I)

13a. Searches outside organization for innovative

14a. Treats others with dignity and respect (EO)

15a. Creatively rewards people for their contributions

LPI: Items 16-30

16a. Asks for feedback on how

17a. Shows others how their

18a. Asks "What can we learn?"

19a. Supports decisions other