ESTRATEGIA EXPORTADORA PARA EL SECTOR AVÍCOLA DE SANTANDER.

There are a variety of available methods for specifically measuring TL and the full range continuum, alongside traditional methods such as interviews and observations. There is also technology available which measures the neurological response of emotions called functional magnetic reasoning imaging, this can be used to identify the neurological response which takes place in the social exchange of leadership. This identifies stimulants and pinpoints the areas of the brain responsible for interpreting and then providing the outcome in response. Recently Balthazard, et al. (2012), studied leaders across a variety of organisation, both profit and non-profit. When conducting the research they asked team members and colleagues to rate the perceived TL style of the leader. They found that neurological imaging was significantly related to the reported TL style of the leader; TLs were found to have more activity within the front lobe of the brain, this area is reported to be used when dealing with self-emotions, understanding others emotions in challenging circumstances, understanding new and unusual situations and the ability to predict future events. Although this technique does not fully measure the TL style, it is hoped that this technique will be beneficial in understanding the role of emotions for leadership in the future (Balthazard et al., 2012). Notwithstanding this, should functional magnetic reasoning imaging have been considered a suitable measure, the

44

availability, cost, ethical considerations and skill required to interpret the results would have deemed this method unfeasible.

3.5.1Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Amongst the available recognised measures, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1997) is one of the most widely accepted methods of measuring leadership. This incorporates all constructs of the full range leadership continuum. It is extensively implemented and has become the most prevalent method for measuring TL (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kirkbride, 2006). The MLQ has been developed to measure the full range of leadership styles identified in the earlier work of Bass et al. (2000). This questionnaire contains 67 items alongside a five point Likert scale. The items measure the constructs of TL, TRL, and LFL alongside four

associated outcomes. These outcomes are leaders’ effectiveness, extra effort of team members, team member satisfaction and performance of the leader.

There are two MLQ forms, the first of which is the self-rating questionnaire; this is used for the leader to self-rate their own leadership style and behaviour. The second is the rater questionnaire, used by a team member or work colleague to assess the

leaders’ style and behaviour. The inclusion of the rater questionnaires is important as

it reduces the chance of results suffering from bias, which could arise if the measure was based on a subjective view of the leader alone. Each of these questionnaires takes around forty-five minutes to complete. There is currently a short form MLQ available; the MLQ 5X has been condensed to measure five TL responses, four TRL, and one laissez-faire response. The self-report questionnaire takes on average ten minutes to complete. This measure has been used globally and has been translated into a number of different languages. Despite being the most widely used and accepted method of leadership measurement, the validity of the MLQ has been questioned in the past (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008). However, the internal consistency, construct validity and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire has now been extensively tested through

45

separate studies, all of which have concluded it to be a reliable measure (Avolio et al., 2004).

3.5.2Alternative Measures

The Behaviour Inventory (TLI) was introduced by Podsakoff, et al. (1990) after a review of the research available at the time, including that of the MLQ. This is the second most frequently used measure of TL (Bryman, 2011).

Podsakoff, et al. (1990) concluded that there were just six leadership behaviours responsible and required in the measurement of TL, these were identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectation, providing individualised support and intellectual stimulation. Many of these identified measures of TL overlap with those of Bass (Bass, 1985) and upon comparison are reasonably similar. This measure has been used in a variety of different countries and organisations worldwide.

Another of the most frequently used methods of measurement is the transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ). This measure was developed and introduced by Alimo-Metcalf, et al. (2001) and included nine robust scales against which TL could be reliably measured; concern for others, empowers others, integrity, approachability, clarifies boundaries, encourages critical thinking, inspirational networker, decisive and political sensitivity. The survey was first used in a pilot test in the context of the UK public sector with a sample of 1,464 managers working in the National Health Service.

Significantly, the main difference between the MLQ, TLQ and the TLI is that the MLQ is the only option that fully measures the full range leadership continuum. Both the TLI and the TLQ only measure the TL leadership style and do not measure the constructs of TL and TRL.

46

3.5.3Foundation for Leadership Measurement

After consideration of all the available measures, it is clear that the MLQ is a well- respected and proven method of leadership measurement. The advantage this measure has over other available options is that it can accurately measure the full range leadership continuum, which is vital to this research. This is the most frequently used proven and unrivalled measure that has consequently been chosen to act as a basis for development of the theoretical framework for this research. Information relating to the theoretical framework can be found in chapter 4.