The academic leadership questionnaire was developed from instruments available from the literature. Three potential instruments that can be used in the study:
1. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. 2. Transformational Leadership Questionnaire.
3. Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire – Form XII.
3.9.1 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
In the US, the most popular survey instrument being used in leadership studies was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Avolio, Bass &
58
Jung, 1999). The concept of MLQ was based on Burns (1978); later the idea was explored further by Avolio and Bass in the mid-80s. From the reviews, the MLQ was used extensively in determining leadership styles (Lee, 2005; Kirkbride, 2006; Castiglione, 2006; Vbra, 2007; Limsila & Ogunlana, 2008; Xirasagar, 2008; Wu, 2009) in private organizations. Further, the MLQ was reliable and valid, and had been used worldwide (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
The MLQ consists of 45 items. It measured leadership behaviour of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and non-transactional leadership. The MLQ also measured three outcomes of leadership, namely extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction. Further, the MLQ can be used to examine not just leaders but also perceptions of subordinates on their leaders. The MLQ was owned by the Mind Garden, Inc., United States of America (http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlq.htm). The MLQ survey instrument was on sale:
1. The MLQ Manual/Sampler Set:
The cost was US$40.00 (£26.41). It consisted of non-reproducible instrument and scoring key marked “sample”.
2. The MLQ Instrument:
The cost depended on the number of reproductions required for the study. The minimum purchase was US$100.00 (£66.01) and written license to reproduce the questionnaire for the maximum of 50. The purchase amount did not include the Manual/Sampler Set. Details of the cost were available at
http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlqr.htm.
This study considered 600 questionnaires to be distributed to faculty members in the 20 public universities in Malaysia. As such the cost of using the MLQ was almost US$500.00 (£330.03). Due to financial justification, it was not viable to use the MLQ instrument. [Note: Exchange rate calculation based on Barclays Bank on 12/3/2010 11.00 am with the exchange of GBP:USD at 1.515]
3.9.2 Transformational Leadership Questionnaire
In the UK, Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2000), and Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe (2007) had developed a questionnaire known as the Transformational
59
Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ). The development of the questionnaire transpired as the MLQ were used mostly with the US organizations. As such it comes with a diagnostic tool that caters for UK organizations. The TLQ had been tested on public organizations in the UK such as the Cabinet Office and the Improvement and Development Agency (Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000; Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007). The TLQ had been distributed to “an approximately equal number of male and female managers and managers at different levels of seniority (executive, top, senior, middle)” (Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000, p.283). Through these self-assessments by managers on their leadership, the results supported the hypotheses that each scale was a valid predictor.
The TLQ instrument can be administered to subordinates at all levels in the organization to anonymously complete the questionnaire by rating their current or a previous boss (Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000; Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2007). As such it gave a better perspective of 360- degree evaluation as “managers, in general tend to rate themselves higher in management competence and leadership effectiveness than do their colleagues who also rate them (i.e. their boss, peers, and staff)” (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998, p.36).
The TLQ was owned by the Real World Group Limited (RWG), United Kingdom (http://www.realworld-group.com/index.asp). This study contacted RWG with the intention of using the TLQ. Unfortunately, the RWG listed the terms of use of the TLQ (refer to Appendix 4). The pertinent issues relating to non-use of the TLQ are justified below as listed in RWG’s correspondence:
1. “that the TLQ items will not be published in full, and that the dissertation will only give a maximum of two examples to illustrate each of the scales;”
2. “that any publication of the research findings in an academic or professional journal or conference presentation will only include (as a maximum) the same two examples as in the dissertation;”
3. “that the results will be communicated to RWG as soon as is practicable.”
4. “that a copy of the data relating to the TLQ will be forwarded to RWG on completion of the research project to enable RWG to maintain its data base, and up-date its norms.”
60
Further, RWG allowed TLQ to be used in this study by fulfilling the requirement,
“that you send a £50 cheque made payable to Real World Group as deposit for the data; that will be returned to you on receipt of RWG receiving the data.”
The rejection of the TLQ was due to the restriction of dissemination of knowledge in the form of dissertation, academic or professional journal or conference presentation. This was also due to the restriction to use only two examples to illustrate each of the scales and the similar examples to be used in all other publications. Moreover the data from the research must be given to RWG for their data base update. And, if the research result was practicable, then RWG must be informed. This, in turn, means the whole research study became the property of RWG.
3.9.3 Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire
The Leadership Behaviour Development Questionnaire – Form XII (LBDQ-XII) was developed by Ohio State University, USA (Stogdill, 1963). The questionnaire is freely available from the Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University’s website (http://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/LBDQ-XII/). Further, the use of the LBDQ-XII needs no permission.
The LBDQ-XII consisted of 100 items with 12 subscales. The breakdown of the number of item under subscales is depicted in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: The LBDQ-XII's Subscales
No. Subscale Subscale Explanation No of Item
1 Representation Speaks and acts as the representative of the group.
5
2 Reconciliation Reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system.
5
3 Tolerance of Uncertainty Ability to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset.
10
4 Persuasion Uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions.
10
5 Structure Clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected.
10
6 Tolerance and Freedom Allows followers scope for initiative, decision and action.
10
7 Role Assumption Actively exercises the leadership role rather that surrendering leadership to others.
61
8 Consideration Regards the comfort, well being, status, and contributions of followers.
10
9 Production Emphasis Applies pressure for productive output. 10 10 Predictive Accuracy Exhibits foresight and ability to predict
outcome accurately.
5
11 Integration Maintains a closely knit organization; resolves inter-member conflicts.
5
12 Superior Orient Maintain cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status.
10
The LBDQ-XII had been tested on several highly selected samples such as commissioned and non-commissioned officers in an army combat division, the administrative offices in a state highway patrol headquarters office, the executives in an aircraft engineering staff, ministers of various denominations of an Ohio Community, leaders in community development activities throughout the state of Ohio, presidents of ‘successful’ corporations, presidents of labour unions, presidents of colleges and universities, and United States Senators. The LBDQ-XII Cronbach’s alpha of the samples was 0.54 to 0.86 across the nine time periods.
The LBDQ-XII was also used in various leadership studies such as leadership of German and English managers (Schneider & Littrell, 2003), leadership behaviour of Chinese managers (Littrell, 2002) and leadership style preference (Lucas, Messner, Ryan & Sturn, 1992). Schriesheim and Glinow (1977) assert the LBDQ-XII constitutes the most operational accuracy of the theory’s leadership construct. Further, Szilagyi and Keller (1976) claimed that the LBDQ-XII initiating structure dimension is significantly and positively related to satisfaction with supervision and overall satisfaction.
Table 3.3 shows the LBDQ-XII is relevant although the instrument was established almost 50 years ago by Stogdill (1963). House (1996) stated the most frequently used measures are the Ohio State leader initiating structure and leader consideration scales.
Table 3.3: The LBDQ-XII in Theses and Journals
Year Items Type
2009 4 Theses Journal 2008 4 Theses Journal 2007 9 Theses 2006 5 Theses 2005 4 Theses 2004 8 Theses 2003 13 Theses
62 Journal 2002 7 Theses Journal 2001 3 Theses 2000 2 Theses
As for this study, the LBDQ-XII was adopted and adapted according to the previous empirical studies and the level of its Cronbach’s alpha apart from the free availability of the tool. The Cronbach’s alpha for LBDQ-XII ranged from 0.54 to 0.85 (Stogdill, 1963) as depicted in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: The Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent Variables
Part Construct No of Items Cronbach’s alpha A1 Visionary 10 0.69 to 0.85 A2 Adaptable to change 10 0.58 to 0.85 A3 Competency 5 0.59 to 0.81 A4 Effective leadership 10 0.58 to 0.86 A5 Transformational leadership 10 0.64 to 0.80 A6 Charisma 5 0.54 to 0.85 Total Items for
Independent Variables
50