A self-report questionnaire was constructed using the survey monkey website (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/pmleadershipsv). A full copy of the questionnaire is in appendix C. The MLQ 5X and the WLEIS were adopted in this study, as both are long-standing questionnaires that have undergone rigorous scrutiny and ethical consideration. The survey comprised of five main sections; demographics, leadership and emotional intelligence. Each of these areas are discussed in the sections that follow.
Questions one to eight of the questionnaire captured data on the participants’
demographics. Demographical data are important to allow a comparison of the respondents to the wider population and investigate gender differences. The third question was included to ascertain how long each respondent had been working in the construction industry. Participants were able to select the amount of years they had spent in the industry from a drop down box, this ranged from <1 year up to 60 years.
73
The fourth question was devised to eliminate participants who were not working in either NZ or the UK, or engaged as a CPM. Questions five to eight, were designed to obtain information relating to the amount of time (years) the participants had been acting as CPMs, their background prior to becoming CPMs, the highest level of any construction related qualification they held and any current training being undertaken. It was important to ensure that respondents were CPMs currently practicing in this role, in order to acquire up to date feedback for the industry at present, instead of a representation of the past. Over time attitudes and approaches may have changed therefore, it was necessary to exclude any retired or ex-project managers.
Questions number nine to seventeen were designed to measure the nine constructs of the full range leadership continuum identified in chapter 3.10.2. These were IIA, IIB, IM, IS, IC, CR, MBEA, MBEP and LFL. This was done through thirty-six statements, against which CPMs were asked to rate how frequently the statement applied to them in the workplace on a seven point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’ with
the following weighing; ‘never’ [1], ‘rarely / seldom’ [2], ‘sometimes’ [3], ‘unsure’ [0], ‘often’ [4], ‘frequently’ [5], ‘always’ [6]. Each of the questions related to one of the constructs of the underlying research paradigm, for example, question nine included four statements: ‘I instil pride in others for being associated with me’, all of these statements measured the construct of ideal influence (II) of TL. The sum of the scores given for all of the statements were combined then and then divided by the number of responses, to arrive at the mean score for each construct. A full survey is available in appendix E. The construct measured by each question is indicated in red at the end of each question. Table 2 summarises the question numbers with each of the leadership styles and constructs measured. The asterisk signifies the two open ended questions that were included to ascertain the CPMs perceptions in respect of EI and leadership.
74
Table 2: Leadership Question and Associated Constructs
The statements used in questions nine to seventeen were based on those contained within the MLQ 5X. This is a recognized and well established instrument which has become the most widely used method of measurement for the TL style (Kirkbride, 2006). For the purpose of this study, the original statements contained within the MLQ 5X were used but with subtle adjustments to certain words and phrases in order to tailor the survey to the context of the study. For example, one of the original MLQ 5X statements reads; ‘I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group.’ For the purpose of this study, the statement was changed to: ‘I go beyond self-interests for the good of my team.’ These changes were minor but were introduced to make the survey easier for CPMs to relate to. The original MLQ 5X contained statements relating to the measurement of outcomes such as effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort.
Question Measure Construct
1 Demographics - 2 Demographics - 3 Demographics - 4 Demographics - 5 Demographics - 6 Demographics - 7 Demographics - 8 Demographics - 9 TL IIA 10 TL IIB 11 TL IM 12 TL IS 13 TL IC 14 TRL CR 15 TRL MBEA 16 PAL MBEP 17 PAL LFL 18 * Leadership - 19 EI SEA 20 EI OEA 21 EI UOE 22 EI ROE 23 * Emotions -
75
These items were not necessary for the purpose of this study because they are outcomes attributed to leadership styles. As this study was looking at the link between EI and leadership rather than the link between leadership and the associated outcomes, this element of the MLQ 5X was excluded from the questionnaire design. The original layout and order of the questionnaire was also altered in an attempt to make the survey clearer and improve the aesthetics. The decision was made to change the five point rating scale to an extended seven point rating scale, to provide a better range of results for statistical data analysis. A copy of the original MLQ 5X and scoring sheet can be found in appendix F.
Question eighteen was the final question in related to leadership. This was not an original component of the MLQ 5X but was designed to gather qualitative data on the views and opinions of CPMs. The question asked; ‘How do you get the best
performance from your project team? Please comment below.’ This allowed
participants free reign to express the relevant factors they believed to be beneficial, without being confined to the constraints of multiple choice.
The next set of questions within the survey concerned the measurement of the
participants’ EI. Questions number nineteen to twenty two were designed to measure the four construct of EI as earlier defined in chapter 3.10.1; SEA, OAE, UOE and ROE. Four questions were included, each of which contained four statements. The CPMs were again asked to rate how frequently the statement applied to them in the context of the workplace. The same seven point Likert scale used for the leadership questions, was again used for these EI questions to provide consistency with the earlier quantitative questions and to prevent any confusion for the respondent. Each of the four statements related to one of the constructs of the underlying research paradigm for EI. These were based on the original WLEIS, a full copy of which can be found in Appendix G.
From the literature review, it was evident that some construction workers within the industry view EI in a negative light. For this reason and to gain additional qualitative information on the importance CPMs attribute to emotions in the context of the
76
construction industry, the following question was included; ‘In your opinion what is the relevance of emotions, if any, for a leader working in the construction industry?
Please comment below.’ This questionnaire was not without limitations. The uses of
self-rating measures have the potential to be subjective. In this instance, the research could be affected by the perception of the CPM, which may not fully reflect the reality of the leadership and EI ability. This is acknowledged but after consideration of the complexities and ethical problems relating to inclusion of multi-rating surveys from team members and leaders, to incorporate into an overall leadership score, it was considered too problematic to include a second phase of the research to do so. Multi- rating surveys were also beyond the scope of an MSc thesis but could be a useful topic for further research.
The respondents were asked if they would like to receive a copy of the summary research findings. Assurances were given that their contact details would remain confidential, before they were asked to click the ‘done’ button to submit their results. The questionnaire was designed so it was impossible to reach this stage, unless answers to the some of the questions had been provided. Logic was incorporated into the questionnaire, so that if certain questions were missed or incomplete, then an error message would appear and the respondent would be unable to move on to the next section or complete the questionnaire. This measure was introduced as it precluded those who did not give their consent to take part and reduced the potential of incomplete data against questions deemed essential for the study. For example, question number four asked the respondents to indicate in which country they were working as a CPM. This question was considered necessary to ensure the respondents were currently working in the appropriate countries and to allow for comparison of the two samples (NZ & UK). The questionnaire was constructed using the survey monkey website and was subsequently tested on a number of various media types including laptop, desktop, iPhone, tablet etc. to ensure compatibility prior to administration. A pilot test was conducted within an organisational construction setting as detailed in section 4.7.
77