accomplishment), while part of the contingent and noncontingent
behaviors generally measured, was not reported in this study
because it was observed very infrequently. That is, survey
scores and critical incidents recorded indicated that leaders
very rarely demonstrated noncontingent reward (Avolio et al.,
1996).

Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership and its
effectiveness have been discussed by a number of contemporary
leadership authors (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989; House, 1977;
Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990; Conger & Kanungo,
1987, 1988; Trice & Beyer, 1986). Bass and Avolio (1993)
suggested that transformational leaders are characterized by a
higher form of leadership influence than transactional leaders.
(For a thorough description of a full range of leadership see
Avolio et al. (1996)). For example, transformational leaders do
not necessarily take problems as given. They question
assumptions underlying problems, they focus on increasing
follower potential, and they build a collective sense of purpose.
As such, transformational leaders are distinguished from
transactional leaders who may simply focus on resolving a problem
to achieve the standard objectives. Generally, transformational
leaders have been shown to be more effective than transactional
leaders, getting followers to exhibit higher levels of effort and
performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993).

Numerous studies have supported the contention that
transformational leadership is related to effectiveness.
Specifically, transformational leadership reportedly correlated
between .50 and .90 with various measures of organizational and
leader effectiveness (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Results of a recent
meta-analysis from 39 studies using the Multi-Factor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) and measures of leader effectiveness also
supported the positive relationship between transformational
leadership and work unit effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1995). Transformational leadership also was
found to be more highly associated with work unit effectiveness
than contingent reward.

It is noteworthy that in military settings, transformational
leaders have been rated by followers as being the most effective
leaders, and have been found to be more likely to be promoted to
higher rank than individuals exhibiting other leader styles
(Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Clover
(1989) found transformational leaders more likely to be rated as
role models. Curphy (1992) found transformational leaders
achieved higher performance with their cadet teams.
Transformational leaders also have received higher ratings of
leadership in simulated combat exercises than nontransformational

7



Table 6

A_Mean Comparison of Cadets _in Three Peer Ranking Groups

on Four Predictors at Four Different Times

Time 1
Physical Fitness

Self-Esteem

Hardiness

Moral Reasoning

Time 2

Physical Fitness

Self-Esteem

Hardiness

Time 3

Physical Fitness
Self-Esteem
Hardiness

Moral Reasoning

Low

176.27
(54)

3.27
(63)

6.29
(63)

31.64
(55)

195.75
(56)

3.26
(47)

7.15
(46)

196.78
(57)

3.30
(46)

7.22
(46)

36.35
(41)

20)

9.01

(80)

3.25
(64)

6.86
(63)

213.54

(79)

3.20
(69)

7.25
(70)

31.69

28

(53)

214.19
(61)

3.30
(55)

7.34
(55)

224.13
(60)

3.35
(50)

7.40
(50)

31.98
(44)

6.63%*

2.29*

97

4.52%

9. 89kEX

1.40

49

2.42*



queuystung quebuT QUOoUON = GON /QuaeWYysTUNg WUebuTQUOD = qd /pazeMey quebuTQUOD = Yd
feazyej-zessteT = al /dtyszepee] [TeuoyTQemzoysuerzL = AL {reexX OTWepeow = AW ‘ALON

SSeUueATIONIIT
yo sbhutyuey r008d

peutejqy yued

don/dd/a9/aT/aa
yo shutjey t008eq

don/do
/a9/a1/4L Jo
sbhutzey (szotunt
pue sezowoydos)
@3euTpsroqns

butuoseey Te1z0N

sseuqta Teotshud

don/d0/ao/a1/iL
yo shut je¥
(szofues)
azojyizedns

doNn/d9/a89/a1/4L
jo shut jew
(ezouoydos)
aQeUuTpzogns

Hutuoseey Te10W

sseuqyta TeotsAud

aT/db

zo shutjey
(szoTues

pue szotun[)
aotazedns

don /do/ad/2T/ab
zo shutQeW
(uewysezz)
93eUTpzogns

sseuqtd TeotsAud

awalold

souenTsjur azA0Tad

Xepur TeT\UejOg AepeeT
ssousnoTqUeToOsuOD
AATITaw eaTyTUuboD
Huyuosesy Tez0W

sseuqta Teotsxud

ssouTpzeH ssouTplzeH ssouTpzeH ssouTpzey
Wee 3sd-FTSS wee qsd-FTSsS Wee 4sSd-IJTSES Wee3sd-FTeS
S6-P66T AW V6-C66T AW €6-Z66T AW 26-T66T AW

y oUTL E ours Zz ora T owt.

b eTaeL

24



T-tests of Mean Differences (Individual Differences)

Physical Fitness Scores

t-values by Groups

Time

Periods Variable Low Middle High
1-2 Senior Rank - 9.48%* (131) -6.41%% (48) 1.35 (9)
1-3 Senior Rank -10.16** (126) —-7.66%** (49) —-3.23%%(9)
1-4 Senior Rank - 5.43#*(110)  -6.10%*(42) -5.37#*(8)
2-3 Senior Rank - 3.04%*(134)  -2.48%*(51)  -1.94" (11)
2-4 Senior Rank - .88 (115) -2.00* (43)  -2.58" (9)
3-4 Senior Rank -89 (111) +10 (44) -1.21 (9)
1-2 Peer Rank - 5.28%%(57) —8.05%** (73) —-5.00%%* (57)
1-3 Peer Rank - 6.19%* (49) -8.87%* (72) —6.84%* (56)
1-4 Peer Rank — 4,.15%**(45) —-5.26%* (63) -5.42%* (56)
2-3 Peer Rank - 1.90" (52) -2.61%* (77) —3.44%% (58)
2-4 Peer Rank - 1.24 (48) -1.27 (65)  -2.60%*(59)
3-4 Peer Rank +29 (46) -59 (64) = .71 (58)
Self-Esteem Scores

1-2 Senior Rank 1.72* (113) - .23 (41) 1.84 (9)
1-3 Senior Rank 1.76" (108) 795 (44) = .27 (9)
1-4 Senior Rank 1.71" (78) -02 (36) - .95 (5)
2-3 Senior Rank - .06 (86) -69 (35) - .64 (7)
2-4 Senior Rank 1.26 (59) -1.18 (27) N/A (<5)
3-4 Senior Rank +11 (60) - .12 (32) N/A (<5)
1-2 Peer Rank +15 (47) +57 (61) - .05 (53)
1-3 Peer Rank - .17 (46) 2.27% (65) - .12 (49)
1-4 Peer Rank -16 (39) 1.10 (51) -50 (35)
2-3 Peer Rank 09 (34) +29 (52) - .35 (43)
2-4 Peer Rank «47 (28) -54 (38) - .23. (29)
3-4 Peer Rank +82 (30) - .35 (43) - .41 (28)
Hardiness Scores

1-2 Senior Rank 1.25 (108) (42) 1.72 (9)
1-3 Senior Rank - 1.78" .(107) (47) -1.13 (9)
1-4 Senior Rank +14 (76) (38) -1.53 (5)
2-3 Senior Rank - 2.51**(85) (35) 1.27 (7)
2-4 Senior Rank 1.24 (57) (27) N/A (<5)
3-4 Senior Rank 2.29% (60) - .42 (32) N/A (<5)
1-2 Peer Rank - .88 (46) 1.81" (61) -1.17 (52)
1-3 Peer Rank - 1.11 (46) -2.20* (68) - .62 (48)
1-4 Peer Rank - 1.27 (39) -54 (52) =- .86 (35)
2-3 Peer Rank - .41 (33) 2.66%* (52) - .18 (43)
2-4 Peer Rank 1.19 (27) - .95 (37) 1.40 (29)
3-4 Peer Rank 1.14 (30) 1.29 (43) -08 (28)

B-3



with no rank were the lowest on self-esteem at each time period.
It is interesting to note the drop in self-esteem among those
cadets who held no senior rank.

Figure 4 presents the self-esteem data for those in the
high, middle and low peer ranking groups. While the highest
ranking group is higher on self-esteem throughout the four years,
the differences are not as dramatic as for the senior rank
criterion and only differ significantly among the peer ranking
groups at Time 1 (see Table 6). It is interesting to note that
the self-esteem scores dropped off for all three groups at Time 4
to below the scores at matriculation, although no group
experienced a significant drop. Somewhat surprisingly and
contrary to our expectations none of the groups increased
significantly on self-esteem from matriculation to graduation
when either the senior rank or peer ranking criterion is
considered.

Figure 5 presents the pattern of hardiness scores over time
for those in the high, middle and low senior rank groups. Those
who had attained high rank scored significantly higher than the
low group at Times 2, 3 and 4 (see Table 5). Those who did not
hold rank had a significant drop in hardiness from Time 2 to Time
3 and then from Time 3 to Time 4. This was not the case for
those cadets who held rank.

Figure 6 presents the results for hardiness as a function of
peer ranking groups. The patterns for the three groups are
similar, with those receiving the highest peer rankings also
displaying the highest hardiness, though the differences are not
remarkable between groups. The peer ranking groups only differed
significantly at Time 2 (see Table 6). Here again, the drops in
hardiness from Time 1 to Time 4 are notable though the decreases
are not statistically significant.

Figure 7 presents the senior rank data for moral reasoning
scores over the three time periods. Interestingly, moral
reasoning scores generally go up, with significant increases
between Times 1 and 3 for the low and middle rank groups and
marginally significant increases between Times 1 and 4 for these
same two groups. For those who did not hold rank, their scores
were higher than those holding rank at Time 1, but dropped off
some at Time 4. Sample sizes in these groups were quite small in
some cases, so these data should be interpreted cautiously. The
comparisons for moral reasoning over time by peer ranking group
(presented in Figure 8) are similar to those for cumulative rank
groups, though the low peer ranking group did not increase
significantly in moral reasoning from Time 1 to Time 3. However,
all groups for both effectiveness criteria displayed increases
from Time 1 to Time 4, although the increases were only
marginally significant.

33



LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS PREDICTING EMERGENCE
OF LEADER EFFECTIVENESS

INTRODUCTION

The effective Army officer of the 21st century will be
required to lead in ambiguous and complex circumstances. A broad
range of capabilities will be required of officers as well as
their followers. Due to budget cuts and constraints, leaders
will be required to do more with less. Increasing leadership
capabilities will be demanded.

Our current understanding of how such effective leaders are
developed in the military needs to be enhanced to augment U.S.
military preparedness and overall effectiveness. In order to
optimally understand the leadership development process, leaders
need to be studied over time.

Howard and Bray (1988) were the first to demonstrate that
psychological measures administered to young managers just
beginning their careers could predict eventual levels of
advancement at AT&T. Yet, few studies since have attempted to
expand this knowledge base with additional longitudinal research.
As Bass (1990) suggested "leadership development is a continuing
process. Thus, researchers need to learn a lot more about how
experience with subordinates, peers, superiors, as well as family
and friends, shapes one’s subsequent performance as a leader"
(Bass, 1990, p. 911). The present study attempted to gain
additional understanding of the leadership development process in
a military setting. The ultimate goal of this study was to
provide the U.S. Army and others with information relevant to
developing effective leaders. A better understanding of the
leader development process could positively impact leadership
training and selection.

It was the intention of this study to track the leadership
and development of a group of young leaders in a military school
from matriculation to graduation. Biographical data, personality
measures, and other individual differences were measured at
matriculation. The development of self-esteem, hardiness (stress
tolerance), moral reasoning, and physical fitness, were then
tracked over a 4-year period and compared for the most and least
effective leaders. In general, we expected more effective
leaders to have more positive characteristics (e.g., higher self-
esteem) and for the changes over time to be in a positive
direction (e.g., increases in self-esteem over time).
Additionally, the ability to predict leadership effectiveness
from early measures of individual differences was assessed.

A second, related purpose was to track leadership behavior
over time for the most and least effective leaders. We assessed
the extent to which the uses of transformational and
transactional (contingent reward and punishment) leadership,
noncontingent punishment, and laisséz-faire leadership were
predictive of peer ratings of leader effectiveness and attained

1



predictors. Subordinate ratings of contingent reward and
noncontingent punishment were significantly correlated with peer
rankings but did not account for unique variance. Those engaging
in more contingent punishment, more contingent reward, less
noncontingent punishment and less laissez-faire leadership were
most likely to receive higher peer rankings.

DISCUSSION

Due to the nature of the data collection, all cadets were
not measured at each time period. As such, the data are not
purely longitudinal. We did, however capture data on a
significantly large sample at each time and thus have made some
causal inferences over time. These inferences should be
considered in light of the quasi-longitudinal nature of the data.

Individual Differences as Predictors of Leader Effectiveness

The results presented above indicate that individual
differences are predictive of leader effectiveness, in some
instances over a four-year time span. Physical fitness was
highly predictive of leader effectiveness at each time period,
and self-esteem and hardiness also were relevant to
effectiveness. In this context, physical fitness likely is
associated with a set of personality variables that are
indicative of conscientiousness or perseverance, and self-
confidence. In support of this, physical fitness was
significantly positively correlated with self-esteem, hardiness
and conscientiousness. As such, it may not be merely physical
fitness, but the mental and physical strength that it represents
that predicts leadership effectiveness.

Also interesting regarding physical fitness was the upward
trend over time, indicating that the cadets, particularly those
holding rank, continued to increase their fitness levels. They
did not become complacent over time and slack off in terms of
physical conditioning. However, the most improvement occurred
during the first two years.

Self-esteem also significantly predicted the focal cadets’
rank attained in Year 4. Those cadets who were more sure of
themselves and had more positive opinions of themselves were more
likely to emerge among those holding rank than those with lower
self-esteem. Interestingly, self-esteem was not significantly
related to the peer rankings of effectiveness. This may reflect
a tendency for those leaders who display modesty or who underrate
themselves relative to ratings provided by others to receive
higher ratings of effectiveness by others (see Atwater &
Yammarino, in press). In other words, those who present
themselves as less cocky or confident are no less admired or

61



Table 9

A_Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank Groups on

Leadership Measures at Time 2

Ra: Gro ade: ehavi

Subordinates Low Middle High F

Transformational 2.01 1.98 2.19 +70
(105) (44) (19)

Contingent Reward 1.86 1.98 2.08 62
(74) (33) (19)

Contingent Punishment 1.86 1.92 2.05 -35
(74) (33) (19)

Noncontingent Punishment 1.64 1.71 1.77 18
(73) (33) (19)

Laissez-faire 1.62 1.40 1.37 3.06*
(101) (44) (19)

Superiors

Transformational 2.04 2.30 2.54 3.62*
(82) (37) (14)

Laissez-faire 1.74 1.55 1.40 1.77
(86) (37) (14)

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses.

* p< .05

43



Table 8

vidua i rences as edicto: of Seni ank_and
Peer Rankings
Senior Rank Peer Rankings _
x 8 x 8
Cognitive Ability 15% -18%% -.04 -.01
Hardiness (Time 1) 05 -.01 01 -.04
BIOLEAD ~14% 09 -10 07
Physical Fitness (Time 1) ~20%% 14% - 234% 18%*
Prior Influence Experiences -18%% -15* «24%% -21*%
Conscientiousness -12* -05 07 -06
Moral Reasoning (Time 1) -.04 -.11° -.06 -.07
Self-Esteem (Time 1) 14% -08 12° -.06
Leader Potential Index (LPI) -15* -.01 -07 -.07
Multiple R = .33** Multiple R = .32k*
R? = .11%* R= .10**
“p< .10
*p< .05
ee p< .01
eek D < .001

41



Table 13

an_Com son Cadets in ee Senior Rank Groups o:
dershi) sures Time
r ler io
bo: es Low Middle High F

Transformational 2.47 2.62 2.60 43
(63) (40) (21)

Contingent Reward 2.56 2.67 2.52 20
(63) (40) (21)

Contingent Punishment 2.13 2.41 2.30 1.92
(63) (40) (21)

Noncontingent Punishment 1.65 1.57 1.27 98
(63) (40) (21)

Laissez-faire 1.48 1.43 1.15 -89
(62) (40) (21)

Peers

Transformational 2.36 2.25 2.47 +22
(38) (20) (11)

Contingent Reward 2.11 2.24 2.52 63
(38) (20) (11)

Contingent Punishment 2.06 2.26 2.26 1.51
(38) (20) (11)

Noncontingent Punishment 1.78 1.63 1.16 1.31
(38) (20) (11)

Laissez-faire 1.65 1.44 1.24 80
(38) (20) (11)

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses

47



Ratings

2.8 5 —— Sup/Peer - Hi
26- —- Sup/Peer - Mi
" ~+- Sup/Peer - Lo
2.4 4
2.2" —
2.0 5
1.8 T 7 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
2.8 5 Ratings
2.6 4 —e Subord - Hi
-=- Subord - Mi
2.4 4 ~«- Subord - Lo
2.2 4
2.0 4
1.8 5
1.6 : T 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Figure 11 Contingent Reward Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of Cadets

Note:

in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

51



When these four predictor variables were included in
multiple regression analyses, predicting each of the criterion
variables, the multiple R was significant in each equation (see
Table 7). Physical fitness was clearly the best predictor for
each of the four time periods for both measures of effectiveness.
The beta for physical fitness predicting senior rank was
significant at each of the three time periods.” The beta for
physical fitness predicting peer rankings was significant at
three of the four time periods. Self-esteem also emerged as a
significant unique predictor of senior rank at Times 2 and 3, and
hardiness at Time 2 was marginally predictive of senior rank. If
we look at the correlations presented in Table 7, hardiness at
Time 3 is positively related to senior rank, though the
correlation is modest and the beta is nonsignificant.

An additional set of analyses was performed to assess the
extent to which a more complete set of individual difference
variables measured at Time 1 could account for a significant
portion of variance in each of the effectiveness measures.

Table 8 presents the results of the regression analysis
using cognitive ability, hardiness, BIOLEAD, physical fitness,
prior influence experiences, conscientiousness, moral reasoning,
self-esteem and the leader potential index as predictors of
(ungrouped) senior rank and peer rankings. The regression
equation predicting senior rank (presented in Table 8) was
significant (R’ = .11, p<.001)). Cognitive ability, physical
fitness, and prior influence experiences, were significant
predictors, accounting for unique variance (i.e., significant
betas) in senior rank held. Moral reasoning was marginally
significant. Higher cognitive ability, better physical fitness,
more prior influence, and lower moral reasoning characterized
those who had attained higher rank.

Table 8 also presents the analyses using the same set of
predictors described above to predict peer ranking scores. In
this analysis, the equation also was significant (R’ = .10,
p<.01). The significant predictors of unique variance were
physical fitness and prior influence.

Leader Behaviors Linked to Leader Effectiveness

Five leadership variables were measured at varying intervals
over time. Both superior and subordinate perceptions of

*senior rank was not used as a criterion at Time 4 because
ranks were decided before Time 4 predictors were measured.

39



evaluated, at least in part, on the basis of the effects their
behavior has on followers. As such, because noncontingent
punishment is expected to have a negative impact on followers’
reactions and performance, and because noncontingent punishment
is likely to be viewed as unjust, we would expect leaders who use
noncontingent punishment to be rated as less effective.

METHOD

Organizational Context

The context of the study was the Virginia Military
Institute, a military college in which all cadets live in
barracks during the school year. Approximately 1300 male cadets
attend the school. A dominant structure of the school is the
Cadet Corps, which comprises the entire student population. The
members of the upper classes of the Cadet Corps are responsible
for training the cadets in lower classes. The educational
philosophy of the college is to provide a high quality
undergraduate education within a system of military training and
discipline. A central theme and focus of the educational system
is leadership development.

The structure and function of the Cadet Corps provide cadets
with individual leadership opportunities and responsibilities.
The Cadet Corps is organized as an Army infantry regiment with
three battalions comprised of three companies in each battalion
(and a regimental band company). Each company comprises
approximately 120 cadets, 25 to 35 from each class. The upper
class cadets are charged with the maintenance of military
proficiency and the administrative duties necessary to the
operation of a military unit.

Subjects

The 401 cadets who enrolled at VMI in August 1991 comprised
the initial sample of focal cadets. At the end of the four
years, 236 cadets remained at VMI. The 236 cadets comprise the
sample reported on in this study. Throughout the four years,
different groups of cadets, superiors, subordinates and peers
provided leadership and effectiveness ratings of the focal
cadets. Each of these rater groups is described below.

Subordinate Ratings. Focal cadets were first rated on
leadership during their sophomore year. At this time, the
freshmen rated their leadership. Focal cadets were rated by the
sophomores when they were juniors, and by sophomores and juniors
when they were seniors.

11



Table 6 (continued)

Time 4 Low

Physical Fitness 202.20
(50)

Self-Esteem 3.27
(39)

Hardiness 7.04
(39)

Moral Reasoning 33.25
(18)

Middle

213.91
(69)

3.21
(54)

6.94
(54)

34.15
(22)

High

224.14
(61)

3.35
(35)

7.25
(35)

31.86
(24)

4.49%

~56

71

+23

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses.

-10
05
01
-001

eee”
fo fo fo fo
AAAKN

29



sz0yUes ezeM sz0yzedns {sezowoydos ezem sejeUypzogns {szoTunf e2em szepeo TeIOd »
sz0yues pue szotunf ezem sz0tzedns ‘uewysezy 820M sezeUTprogqns {sezowoydos e1em Szepeo TBOOd .
ezyey ZessTel = IT
quewystund QuebuytzUCOUON = dON /jueuYystung quebuTQUOD = dd
pzemey quebuyQu0p = ud ‘dytyszepee] TeuoTyewACZsueIL = AL

TOO*>A = vax {TODA = ex fSO°>d = « foT*>d =.
veaLT° = eee2T° =

eee2y° = UY STATION ¥eeS€° = UY eTdtzTow
LTT ¥%0Z°- ¥edEo- 8eT #ST*= *0Z°- dT zotzedns
TeT Tto° zo°- 9ST Lo° €o° dON 2oTIedns
vet 90° TT’ Lst 90° 60° dd azo0Tzedns
eet so° 9T* SST yo° 80° uo zoypzedns
LTT so° *0Z° Bet SO°- so° dL 2otTtedns
eet 90°- 8T°= Set LO°- €T°- dT szeutpszoqns
yTTt 00° **eTE°— yet w9Too #¥Leon dON 93euUTPIOqns
yIT ¥6T° *£eE° set *ST° ¥¥LZ° dd ea 7euTpszoqns
vTTt To*- ¥eTe° Set so° *#87° ao szeuTpsoqns
Tet LOo* LT* vet 90° TT" dL ezeuTpsogqns
N g z N g =z_ pe SUT

¥ee2T° = Of ¥#80° =

eeeve° = UY STATION *#6Z° = U OTdTQIOW
vet *#*6T*- eeREE SH LET eT *= e4TZ°o a1 z0yzedns
Tet ##0Z° *¥*7E° eet ¥ST° #*0Z° dL zotzedns
Let 60°- ¥LT°- yOT wTo= ¥#LT*= JT sZeutTpszoqns
ett so° £0° Set v£T° et’ dON 93eUTpsroqns
ett vO°- €Tt° 92T 90°- 60° dd 9 jeuTpszoqns
€Tt eT? 8Tt° 92T Lo° 80° wo szeUuTpzoqns
TSt zo°- 60° 89T TO°- TT? dL eZeutpszoqns
a g a a ES] a 3e OWLL

SbuyyueY Teed yuey topues

sbuTyued ased pue sure aoTues bursoTpeid Spoyred Sure OMI 7

st 9TqeL

60



FOREWORD

The Center for Leadership and Organizations Research (CLOR),
jointly established by the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) and the
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
(ARI), conducts programmatic research on Army-wide priorities in
the areas of organizational leadership and leader education,
training, and development. The CLOR’s major research effort is
known as Leadership Education and Development for the 2ist Century
(LEAD 21). The overall goal of LEAD 21 is development of a
longitudinal database as a capability for understanding the
leadership development process. LEAD 21 involves the creation of a
longitudinal database, begun with the USMA cadets in the Class of
1998, which will allow a description of changes in leadership
behavior with organizational progression, as well as identification
of experiences contributing to progressive leader development.

Important to this and other leader development research are
effective methods for measuring, over time and experience,
leadership behavior and behavioral change. The research described
in this report concerns a form of leadership that likely becomes
increasingly applicable over levels of organizational leadership.
This form of leadership is “transformational leadership.” The
expectation is that compared to conventional forms of leader-
follower transactions, transformational leadership inspires
followers toward goals transcending immediate self-interest,
increased organizational effort, and greater self-development.

The research reported investigated the emergence of leadership
behavior and leadership effectiveness in students over the course
of their education and training at a military undergraduate
college. The research sought to identify the individual
characteristics and leadership behaviors that differentiated the
leadership positions and leadership effectiveness achieved by the
students as college seniors. Results showed that individual
characteristics, even measured at college entry, predicted position
attainment and rated leadership effectiveness. Results also showed
that transformational, as well as transactional, behavior
characterized emerging leaders. The findings altogether suggest
the appropriateness of a focus on transformational leadership in
longitudinal research on variations the effective patterns of
leadership behaviors across levels of military leadership.

ZITA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Deputy Director Director
(Science and Technology)



prior influence experiences, conscientiousness, self-esteem and
the leader potential index were all significantly correlated with
senior rank. This suggests that indeed, individual differences
can predict who will later emerge as leaders. Consistent with
earlier research (cf. Lord et al., 1986) cognitive ability was
associated with leadership. Also consistent with previous
findings, conscientiousness was a significant correlate (cf.
Bentz, 1990). These results significantly add to our
understanding of leader effectiveness in that in this study, the
individual variables were measured years before leader
effectiveness was assessed and therefore are likely predictors of
who will later emerge as a leader.

In terms of predicting peer rankings, only physical fitness
and prior influence experiences were significant unique
predictors. Self-esteem, measured at Time 1 was marginally
significantly correlated with peer rankings. Nevertheless, the
combination of individual differences accounted for 10 percent of
the variance in peer rankings. This is a notable finding in that
the individual differences were measured almost four years prior
to obtaining the peer rankings of leader effectiveness. This
again suggests that we can, on the basis of individual
differences, predict to some extent who will become the most
effective leaders.

It is interesting that the individual difference measures
were more predictive of senior rank, overall, than they were of
peer rankings. This may be indicative of the error (such as
friendship bias) that enters when peer ratings or rankings are
used as the criterion, compared to more objective indicators such
as attaining a position. Or it may suggest that individual
differences are more predictive of who will assume formal
positions of leadership than how leaders are perceived by their
peers.

In summary, these findings suggest that it may be possible
to create selection batteries that can help predict who will be
the best leader candidates. Similar to selection procedures at
the U.S. Naval Academy where a weighted regression score, based
on empirically derived weights, is used to assist in admission
decisions, individual difference variables also could be used, in
combination with other variables, to help select leaders who have
a greater than average chance of being effective.

Leader Behaviors as Predictors of Leader Effectiveness

Subordinates’ ratings of transactional leadership at Time 3
(i.e., contingent reward and contingent punishment) were
significantly related to leader effectiveness. In each case, the
relationships were positive. This suggests that as discussed
above, contingent behaviors on the part of the leader may improve

63



respected by their peers than those with higher degrees of self-
esteem.

Surprisingly, and contrary to expectations, self-esteem
scores overall did not increase from Time 1 to Time 4, and in
looking at Figures 3 and 4, even showed a slight drop, or
downward trend for some groups. This may have been a result of
realizing one’s limitations, or perhaps due to fears and
apprehensions associated with graduation.

Hardiness was expected to distinguish more and less
effective leaders. Hardiness was, in fact, related to senior
rank at Times 2, 3, and 4, and though not a significant predictor
of peer rankings, those in highest senior rank and peer ranking
groups generally had higher hardiness scores (see Figures 5 and
6). As indicated above, the development of hardiness or stress
tolerance among cadets was an important part of VMI’s training
mission. The pressures placed on cadets in terms of time, and
physical and emotional conditioning were such that stress
tolerance was essential, and those with lower levels of hardiness
likely left the Institute. However, it is interesting to note
that at Time 4, similar to the scores on self-esteem, hardiness
scores tended to drop relative to what they were at Time 3. This
could have been due to the apprehension associated with
graduation, or with leaving the protection of the Institute.

The results for moral reasoning were somewhat perplexing in
that the most effective leaders were not those scoring highest on
moral reasoning. In fact, at Time 3 when means on moral
reasoning differed significantly for the peer ranking groups,
those in the low peer ranking group scored higher than those in
the high peer ranking group. One possible explanation for this
finding is that leadership at VMI requires individuals to "buy
into the system" and those with higher moral reasoning scores are
less likely to do this. Perhaps those at the higher moral
reasoning levels questioned the validity of using punishment for
development. According to Kohlberg (1981), individuals at the
highest stages of moral development are less likely influenced by
social pressures, or society’s norms, and instead develop their
own moral code or standards of conduct. This high stage of moral
reasoning may have been somewhat incompatible with leading in the
military structure at VMI.

The comprehensive list of individual differences, when used
as a set of predictors of leader effectiveness (see Table 8)
accounted for 11 percent of the variance in senior rank and 10
percent of the variance in peer rankings. Many of the individual
difference variables measured in Year 1 accounted for significant
portions of variance in the levels of rank attained in Year 4.
Cognitive ability, physical fitness, prior influence experiences,
and moral reasoning each accounted for significant portions of
unique variance. Cognitive ability, BIOLEAD, physical fitness,

62



leaders) made transformational behaviors less noticeable to
subordinates or less relevant to effectiveness.

mplications

This study demonstrated that leadership effectiveness could
be predicted by individual difference variables and leader
behaviors measured years before the effectiveness criteria were
assessed. The most important individual difference predictors
were physical fitness, self-esteem, cognitive ability, prior
influence experiences and conscientiousness. These findings are
consistent with those reported by Avolio et al. (1996), in that a
similar set of predictors predicted transformational leadership,
which has been documented as the most effective type of
leadership in numerous studies (cf. Hater & Bass, 1988; Bass &
Avolio, 1993).

Regarding leadership behaviors, again, behavior measured
years before effectiveness criteria were assessed were predictive
of leader effectiveness. Specifically, transformational
leadership behaviors as well as contingent reward and punishment
were positively related to leader effectiveness, while
noncontingent punishment and laissez-faire leadership were
negatively related. These findings confirm cross-sectional
studies (where leader behavior and effectiveness were measured
simultaneously). These findings suggest that leaders should be
encouraged to treat subordinates contingently, that contingent
punishment is conducive to effectiveness in a military
environment, and that noncontingent punishment or inactive,
laissez-faire leadership are counter-productive. These findings
have implications for military leadership training.
Transformational leadership training, as well as training in how
to effectively deliver contingent rewards and punishments could
increase military leader effectiveness.

The findings regarding developmental trends in this study
also were noteworthy. In terms of individual differences,
physical fitness continually improved over time, and moral
reasoning ability also increased. However, while self-esteem and
hardiness fluctuated over time, they did not increase from Time 1
to Time 4. These findings may reflect the pattern desired by
those conducting military training, that is, the individuals
learn to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and these
results reflect that pattern. In other words, they came in with
unrealistic self-assessments, and have now improved and become
more realistic. On the other hand, these results may reflect a
trend that indicates that military training (at least in this one
environment) is not accomplishing all of its purposes as it had
hoped. Individuals are not leaving the military training
environment with higher self-reported self-esteem or hardiness
than that with which they entered. These results suggest that

65



‘einsesu sty} uo ejep buysstu pey (%6) 9EzZ JO Ano sjepeo omMq-AQUeA,

9EZ=U 2930N

(apo boy z apo ‘bea 9

03 *Dexq Qeq) ¥ ‘oexg *6eu/apo *jeq ¢

vz ySTH=z 9 zseys “Hoy y

(2e0F F350 *oexa ‘0D €T *Ipd *op/*oexg ‘eG €

s9 yStH=2 03 APT 3eTd) 8% ‘dexd *00/FJeIS “Wea Zz

98 STPPTH=T 9¢ STPPTH-T 82 siepeeT u0z3eTd T

(quew on)

£9 MOT=0 9ST MOT=0 9ST yuey ON 0

riouStibed, a @A00S Aduenbetgd BA00S AdUotibed, a 910ds
Yuey Aottes pednoiws ey aoTtes

€ etqeL

22



leaders (Avolio, Atwater & Lau, 1993). Thus, we expect
transformational leadership to be positively related to leader
effectiveness.

Contingent Reward

While much previous research has investigated the effects of
punishment on satisfaction and performance of subordinates (Bass,
1991), few studies have tested relationships between leaders’
uses of contingent reward and their ratings of effectiveness.
Singer (1985) found a correlation of .71 between contingent
reward and effectiveness in a study of corporate executives.
Waldman, Bass, and Einstein (1985) reported a correlation of .48
between contingent reward and effectiveness in a study of
managers from a group of high-tech companies. Furthermore, Bass
(1990) proposed a model suggesting leader contingent reward
behavior leads to efforts to comply with a leader’s requests in
order to gain rewards. Compliance and rewards then lead to
follower satisfaction as well as continued effort to comply. If
we assume that followers’ effectiveness and compliance with the
leader’s requests have a positive impact on leader effectiveness,
we could expect leaders using more contingent reward to receive
higher evaluations of effectiveness since their followers would
be more effective.

Waldman, Bass and Yammarino (1990) found that contingent
reward used by leaders with their followers was positively
related to superiors’ evaluations of the leaders’ performance.
Thus, we expect contingent reward also to be positively related
to leader effectiveness.

Laissez-faire Leadership

Bass (1990) describes laissez-faire leadership as a inactive
form of leadership, actually non-leadership. Laissez-faire is
the absence or avoidance of leadership when it is needed. Bass
and Avolio (1989) reported a range of correlations from -.29 to
-.60 between laissez-faire leadership and the leader’s
contribution to the effectiveness of the group. Likewise,
Yammarino and Bass (1990) reported significant negative
correlations between laissez-faire leadership and superiors’
evaluations of the performance of naval officers. Hater and Bass
(1988) found negative relationships between laissez-faire
leadership and effectiveness among civilian managers. Thus, we
expect laissez-faire leadership to be negatively related to
leader effectiveness.



measures. The average fitness score at each time period for all
cadets completing the test was: Time 1: 188.43; Time 2: 207.79;
Time 3: 220.58; Time 4: 213.49.

Self-Esteem. Ten items measuring self-esteem were taken
from the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). These
ten items measure self-respect and the extent to which an
individual considers himself personally worthy. Self-esteem was
measured each year. The average score at each time period for
all focal cadets completing the test was: Time 1: 3.35; Time 2:
3.21; Time 3: 3.28 and Time 4: 3.21. Coefficient Alpha values
for these four periods were .81, .88, .85 and .86, respectively.

Hardiness. A measure of a cadet’s ability to cope with
stress was administered at four time periods throughout the four-
year period (see Kobasa, et al. 1982). This test contains 35
items that measure three aspects of hardiness; one’s level of
commitment to the stressful situations they face, one’s perceived
control in dealing with those situations and whether the
situation is seen as a threat or a challenge. The hardiness
items were rated on a ten-point scale with a higher score
representing a higher level of hardiness. The average hardiness
scores at each time period on a scale of 1 to 10 for all focal
cadets completing the measure were: Time 1: 7.11; Time 2: 7.11;
Time 3: 7.31; & Time 4: 6.92. Coefficient Alpha values for these
four time periods were .92, .91, .90, and .94 respectively.

Moral Reasoning. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) (Rest,
1986) was used to assess the cadets’ levels of moral reasoning.
The DIT is considered to be the most prominent objective test of
cognitive moral development. The test consists of six
hypothetical ethical dilemmas and a list of considerations for
determining what is the right choice to make. Respondents must
decide the action they would take and the reason they made that
decision. Subjects rank the four most important considerations
and these rankings are used to create the subject’s moral
reasoning score. Tests are scored at the Center for Ethical
Development and results are sent to researchers. The test is
scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 95, with a high score
representing a higher level of moral reasoning. This test was
administered during the first week of the first semester, and
again in the third and fourth years. The average score for the
focal cadet class was 28.8 at Time 1, and 33.03 and 32.87 at
Times 3 and 4. McNeel (1994) reports average scores for students
from longitudinal college samples as 37.2 for freshman and 46.2
for the same students as seniors. This indicates that compared
to national norms for male college students, the general level of
moral reasoning for the focal cadets in this study was lower.

Five dimensions of leadership were measured for the purposes
of this study. These were transformational leadership,
contingent reward, contingent punishment, noncontingent

14



In terms of the impact of contingent punishment on
perceptions of leader effectiveness, we believe there are a
number of reasons contingent punishment will likely contribute to
greater leader effectiveness. First, contingent punishment is
delivered in response to poor performance or unacceptable
behavior, with the intention of improving subsequent behavior.
Therefore, it is likely to be seen by subordinates as useful. If
leaders clarify standards for acceptable and unacceptable
behavior and adhere to those standards by using punishment when
standards are not met, then we expect such leaders to be
evaluated as effective. Second, and related to our first point,
equity theory (Adams, 1965) as well as principles of justice
(Furby, 1986) rest on the assumption that individuals make
contributions or investments, and then judge what they should
fairly receive in return for their investment. Good and poor
performers should therefore receive different outcomes to
maintain equity e.g., poor performance should be punished and
good performance should not be punished. Because contingent
punishment follows unacceptable performance or behavior, it is
likely seen as fair and just (Ball, Trevino & Sims, 1992). As
stated by Korukonda and Hunt, "the best remedy against poor
performance appears to be contingent punishment" (p.320). Third,
earlier work has consistently demonstrated that active styles of
leadership are seen as more effective than passive styles (Bass &
Avolio, 1990). For example, the use of active management-by-
exception, where the leader monitors for mistakes and corrects
subordinates when mistakes occur, has been related to higher
levels of leader effectiveness (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).
Contingent punishment is clearly active leadership, and therefore
could be expected to contribute positively to the leader’s
perceived effectiveness. Fourth, similar to McClelland’s (1975)
view of socialized leaders, we expect that leaders who use
contingent punishment are likely to be more self-controlled, thus
requiring greater amounts of energy to layout the contingencies
and follow through on the rules and boundaries of appropriate
behavior. Such leaders are less likely to be impetuous and
arbitrarily aggressive, and consequently should be perceived as
more effective in their role as leaders.

Noncontingent punishment has been shown to be negatively
related to subordinate performance (Podsakoff et al., 1984).
Similarly, the use of noncontingent punishment in laboratory
settings has been shown to promote depression and lower levels of
effort among those punished (Seligman, 1975). Lower follower
performance is likely to result from feelings of learned
helplessness where the recipient of noncontingent punishment
feels no amount of effort will be sufficient to reduce the
frequency of punishment (Podsakoff et al., 1984). Earlier
research has shown that noncontingent punishment used by leaders
was related to lower subordinate performance as well as the
leader being seen as a "bad leader" (Korukonda & Hunt, 1989;
Podsakoff et al., 1984). We would expect leaders to be

10



reason (e.g. medical) were no longer among the original class.
Second, we had missing data on some cadets (usually less than
25%) on some measures. As such, the number of cadets for whom we
had complete measures over the four-years was too small to
reliably test. As such, we made comparisons over time for those
cadets who remained at VMI throughout the four years and who had
data at each time period. For instance when we looked at self-
esteem at Time 1, those cadets who were still class members and
who provided self-esteem data at Time 1 were included.
Consequently, the n’s for the various comparisons were not
constant over time.

Nonetheless, we were still able to look at changes among the
samples over time, though we could not test the entire cohort
over time. Our analyses generally reflect an attempt to glean as
much meaning from the data as possible without using unreliably
small samples.

Individual Differences Linked to Leader Effectiveness

Four individual difference variables were measured at
varying intervals over time. Physical fitness, self-esteem, and
hardiness were assessed four times over the four-year period.
Moral reasoning was assessed three times. Table 4 presents a
timeline indicating when each of the measures was obtained over
the four-year period. Our first research question concerned the
extent to which these individual difference variables, measured
over time, could distinguish the most versus least effective
leaders in Year 4.

We attempted to run multivariate analyses of variance
(MANOVA) using the individual difference variables and the two
effectiveness criteria to assess the overall relationship between
individual differences and effectiveness. However, because
MANOVA can be performed only with listwise deletion, any cadet
who did not have complete data for all predictors and criteria
was dropped from this analysis. This reduced the sample size to
the point the analyses would have been unreliable. Thus, only
univariate analyses were performed.

A comparison was made of each of the four individual
difference variables, over time, for the leaders considered in
the top, middle and low peer ranking and senior rank groups. As
can be seen from Table 5, at Time 1 physical fitness levels among
cadets differed significantly as a function of senior rank, and
self-esteem was marginally significant. The means indicate that,
consistent with our expectations, physical fitness and self-
esteem were highest for those in the high rank group. At Times
2, 3 and 4, again, cadets in the three senior rank groups
differed significantly on physical fitness, self-esteem, and

23



Physical Fitness

Athletic ability and physical prowess have been shown to be
associated with leadership status in boys’ gangs and groups
(Bass, 1990). Cox (1926) found athletic prowess and energy
output to be associated with military leadership, but not with
leadership in other contexts.

In support of the connection between athletic ability or
performance and leadership in military settings, Rice, Yoder,
Adams, Priest, and Prince (1984) in a study of male cadets at the
U.S. Military Academy reported a positive correlation between
physical aptitude and being viewed as having leadership ability.
Atwater and Yammarino (1993) found athletic participation to be
the best predictor of follower ratings of transformational
leadership among midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Acadeny.

Yammarino, Spangler and Bass (1993) also reported a significant
relationship between military performance scores (which are based
partly on physical conditioning) obtained at the Naval Academy
and ratings of leadership obtained ten years later among naval
officers.

Physical fitness at VMI where this study took place is
considered to be a critical measure against which all cadets are
compared for leadership potential. This may be in part because
it represents persistence and hard work, as well as a higher
sense of self-worth. Anecdotal evidence collected in interviews
with cadets by the principal investigators suggested that those
cadets who were in the best physical shape were more highly
respected by other cadets. Conversely, cadets often made
disparaging comments about more senior cadets who exhibited poor
levels of physical conditioning as it was a sign of laziness and
complacency. Additionally, they indicated that those cadets were
not being effective role models.

Prior Influence Experiences

Over the last thirty years, a considerable amount of work
has been published examining the use of life history and biodata
for predicting a whole range of subsequent behavior, including
leadership (Mumford, Stokes & Owens, 1990; Stricker, 1989). A
core argument in this literature is that past behavior and
experiences capture characteristic ways that people interact and
also provide some clues to understanding the development of
individual personalities, interests and abilities (Mumford &
Stokes, 1992). Since past experiences condition how individuals
respond to future events, they establish a behavioral framework
or set of responses, which an individual can employ when
confronted with similar situations.



five or the bottom five is eighteen. Thus, this cadet’s middle
ranking is 234.

The top ranking, bottom ranking, and middle ranking are
added together to get a cadet’s raw peer ranking. This means
that each cadet gets one peer ranking score which is an additive
score based on the number of his peers that ranked him in the
top, bottom or middle (unranked). In the example, this total is
322. Two things are important to note because of the way this
raw score is computed. First, by this method, the top ranked
cadets have low scores and the bottom ranked cadets have high
scores. Second, because of the fact that this raw score is
dependent upon company size, it can be used as a comparison
within companies, but not between companies.

For intuitive ease, and so that peer rankings could be
compared between companies, two additional steps were taken.
First, the raw peer rankings were converted to z-scores for each
separate company. This standardization procedure allows for the
comparison of peer ranking across companies, and this
transformation now yields rankings which are all between
approximately 2.5 and -2.5. The second step is reversing these
z-scores so that a lower score reflects a lower ranking and a
higher score reflects a higher ranking. All of the succeeding
statistical analyses using the peer rankings were done with these
reversed z-scores.

A-4



follower performance such that others recognize the leader as one
who is effective. Unfortunately, however these leaders may not
be learning that noncontingent behaviors are less effective,
given that noncontingent punishment did not decrease over time.
Transformational leadership, particularly as rated by superiors
at Time 2 was significantly and positively related to leader
effectiveness, while ratings of laissez-faire leadership were
significantly negatively related to effectiveness.

When looking at the patterns of leader behavior over time in
Figures 9 - 18, a number of notable patterns were apparent.
First, regarding transformational leadership, those leaders who
were least effective were seen as using less transformational
leadership behaviors than more effective leaders by superiors at
Time 2. A similar conclusion can be drawn about contingent
reward. Generally, contingent reward behavior was rated lowest
by subordinates at Time 2 and by subordinates and superiors at
Time 3 in those leaders who did not subsequently hold rank, and
who received the lowest peer rankings. This suggests that the
leaders perceived as least effective were not engaging in
contingent reward or transformational behaviors when they were
most actively training the freshmen. The least effective leaders
used the highest amounts of noncontingent punishment as rated by
their subordinates in Years 3 and 4, and were also those
generally rated as most laissez-faire by their subordinates each
year. This is the typical pattern suggested by Bass (1985) and
others indicating that transformational and transactional
behaviors will be effective and nontransactional behaviors will
be ineffective.

Contingent punishment as rated by subordinates declined
somewhat from Time 3 to Time 4 for those leaders holding the
highest ranks yet increased for those in the middle and low rank
groups. The noncontingent punishment behaviors rated by
superiors and peers surprisingly showed a slight increase from
Time 3 to Time 4 for most groups as rated by superiors and then
peers. It is not surprising that contingent punishment would
decline for the most effective leaders in Year 4, but it is
surprising that noncontingent punishment would increase. This
may be due in part to the increasing role the seniors play in
training the freshmen, where a good deal of noncontingent
punishment is demonstrated.

In summary, we have identified some predictive relationships
between individual characteristics and leadership effectiveness
and between leadership behaviors and subsequent leadership
effectiveness. These findings generally support the available
cross-sectional studies of leader traits and behaviors. However,
the relationships found between transformational leadership and
effectiveness were disappointing and inconsistent with earlier
cross-sectional studies. Perhaps the military training context,
or the early stage of leadership development (i.e., young

64



Ratings

2.8 4 — SupPeer - Hi
—- Sup/Peer - Mi

26 —+- Sup/Peer - Lo

2.4 4

2.2 4

2.0 5

1.8 T 7 1

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

2.8 4 Ratings

-e Subord - Hi
26 -2- Subord - Mi
244 7 —*- Subord - Lo
2.2 5
2.0 4
1.8 T T 1

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 9 Transformational Leadership Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

49



LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS PREDICTING EMERGENCE OF LEADER
EFFECTIVENESS

CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION .......... eee e ewe ences seta ewe ececne eee ce eecerne 1
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PREDICTING LEADER EFFECTIVENESS ......... 2

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness .....
Leader Potential Index.....
Self-Esteem ........
Hardiness ............

Moral Reasoning .........
Physical Fitness .... .
Prior Influence Experiences . . .
Timing of Data Collection ................02008-

LEADER BEHAVIORS PREDICTING EFFECTIVENESS ..........eeeeeeeeeeee 6

Transformational Leadership ......... .
Contingent Reward.......
Laissez-faire Leadership
Contingent and Noncontingent Punishment .....

METHOD ........ eee eee eeee eee eeeeee oe

Organizational Context .......... eee
Subjects ............. eee eee seen ecene wees
Measures and Data Collection Procedures ....
Administration of Leadership Surveys .......

Leadership Effectiveness Measures .............4
RESULTS ......... oe eesnee wee e eee eee eee eens emcee wee e en eee 21
Sample Size Fluctuations .......... cece cee eee ee eee wee 21
Individual Differences Linked to Leader Effectiveness .... 23
Leader Behaviors Linked to Leader Effectiveness ........ +. 39
DISCUSSION ...... acca cecane tec eececccns a «+. 60
Individual Differences as Predictors of Leader
EffectiveneSs..... ccc cece eee cece eee eens eee eeweee 60
Leader Behaviors as Predictors of Leader Effectiveness ... 62
Implications

Limitations

xi



Leadership Effect. i veness Measures

Two independent measures of leader effectiveness were
obtained. The first was a measure of leadership responsibilities
assumed by focal cadets. This was operationalized as the level
of rank attained in the military hierarchy at VMI during the
cadet’s senior year. The highest rank is Regimental Commander
(held by 1 cadet), followed in order by Regimental Executive
Officer (held by 1 cadet); Battalion Commanders (held by 3
cadets); Regimental Staff Officers (held by 6 cadets); Battalion
Executive Officers (held by 3 cadets); Company Commanders (held
by 10 cadets); Battalion Staff Officers and Company Executive
Officers (held by 28 cadets); and Platoon Leaders (held by 30
cadets). A total of 82 cadet officer positions were filled in
the senior year.! Not all cadets hold a formal leadership
position in their senior year. Ranks were assigned scores from
zero to six, increasing in value as they increase up the military
hierarchy. For example, platoon leaders were assigned a score of
one, company executive officers a score of two and so on. Six
was the highest rank attained by any cadet. A cadet who held no
leadership rank in his senior year received a score of zero for
this measure.

The second measure of leader effectiveness (collected
subsequent to the collection of all leadership ratings) was a
measure of peer rankings of leader effectiveness, obtained at the
end of the fourth year from the focal cadets’ peers. Many
studies have shown very high validity for peer rankings or peer
nominations and objective performance measures (Downey, Medland,
& Yates, 1976; Hollander, 1965; Kraut, 1975; Mumford, 1983).

Each cadet was ranked by each of the other 25-28 cadets in his
senior class and company. Cadets selected the top five most
effective leaders among their peers, and the bottom five least
effective leaders among their peers from a list of names of the
seniors in their company. If a rater did not rank a cadet in the
top five or bottom five, a score was assigned which represented
the midpoint score in that company. Based on the number of times

‘The cadet officer selection process is initiated with a
compilation of individual performance scores of all cadets who wish
to be considered for a cadet officer position. Members of VMI
faculty, staff, athletic, and ROTC departments complete performance
evaluations for the individuals eligible to receive cadet rank
appointments (Cadets cannot be on academic or conduct probation).
The cadet candidates complete applications and submit them to the
cadet officer selection board if they are interested in holding
rank. Those cadets who receive the highest performance scores are
then interviewed by the board which consists of faculty and officer
representatives, as well as current cadet officers. Based on the
interviews, cadets are appointed into the rank positions by the
board.

20



2.2 7
2.0 +
1.8 4
1.6 5
1.4 4
1.2 5
1.0 4

Ratings

—e Sup/Peer - Hi
—- Sup/Peer - Mi
-+- Sup/Peer - Lo}

2.2 5
2.0 +
1.8 4
1.6 5
1.44
1.2 4
1.0 5

Time 2

Time 3 Time 4

Ratings

-e Subord - Hi
-a- Subord - Mi
~~ Subord -Lo

Time 2

Time 3 Time 4

Figure 15 Noncontingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates
of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

56



2.2 4 —e Sup/Peer - Hi
20-7 —2- Sup/Peer - Mi
° + Sup/Peer - Lo
1.8 4 ——
1.6 +
1.4 4
1.2 4
1.0 T T 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
2.25
2.0 4 ~e- Subord - Hi
-2- Subord - Mi
1.8 4 -*- Subord - Lo

167 0 *——*~__

1.4 4 =< j

1.2 4

1.0 T r 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 17 Laissez-faire Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of Cadets
in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

58



2.0 4 — —* Subord - Hi
~2- Subord - Mi
1.8 4 -* Subord- Lo
1.6 5
1.44
1.2 5
1.0 T T a
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
2.2 5
2.0 5 -e- Subord - Hi
-=- Subord - Mi
1.8 5 aN -*- Subord - Lo
1647 « —. *
1.4 4 —__N,
1.24
1.0 T T 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 18 Laissez-faire Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

59



The six-item scale (mean=1.93; s.d.=.82) and the two items
(mean=1.94; s.d.=.73) used in the Time 4 scale were correlated
using data for subordinates at Time 2. The resulting correlation
was .93. A similar analysis was conducted for superiors at Time
3 using the six-item scale (mean=2.33; s.d.=.80) and the two
items used at Time 4 (mean=2.27; s.d.=.89). The resulting
correlation was .94. As such, we believed the shortened version
of the contingent reward scale was representative of the longer
version and, therefore, the two were treated as comparable. A
typical item was "He gives followers recognition when they
perform well." A cadet received a contingent reward score based
on the average of these six (or two) items. Again, if cadets
were rated by more than one evaluator within a rater group (e.g.,
more than one superior or subordinate) the scale scores were
averaged across raters within rater group.

Contingent Punishment. Items measuring contingent
punishment were chosen from Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov (1982).
Five items assessed contingent punishment at Times 2 and 3. A
shortened four-item scale was used at Time 4 for efficiency
purposes. The five item scale and the four items used in the
Time 4 scale were correlated for subordinates using Time 2 data
and superiors using Time 3 data. The resulting correlations were
-92 and .90, respectively. As such, we believed the shortened
version of the contingent punishment scale was representative of
the longer version and, therefore, the two were treated as
comparable. A typical item was "He shows displeasure when a
follower’s work is below acceptable levels." A cadet received a
contingent punishment score based on the average of these five
(or four) items. If a focal cadet was rated by more than one
evaluator within a rater group (e.g., more than one superior or
subordinate) the scale scores were averaged across raters.

Noncontingent Punishment. Items measuring noncontingent
punishment were chosen from Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov (1982).
Four items assessed noncontingent punishment at each time period.
A typical item was "He shows displeasure with his followers for
no apparent reason." A cadet received a noncontingent punishment
score based on the average of these four items. If a focal cadet
was rated by more than one evaluator within a rater group (e.g.,
more than one superior or subordinate) the scale scores were
averaged across raters.

Laissez-faire Leadership. Items measuring laissez-faire
leadership were taken from the MLQ. At Times 2 and 3, the
laissez-faire scale included eight items. At Time 4, the scale
was reduced to four items. A typical item was "He takes no
action even when problems become chronic." A cadet received a
laissez-faire score based on the average of these eight or four
items. If a focal cadet was rated by more than one evaluator
within a rater group (e.g., more than one superior or
subordinate) the scale scores were averaged across raters.

17



Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in
leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general
satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of
transformational and transactional leadership constructs.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 509-527.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). ans fo: fe) i
Gevelopment: Manual for the multifactor leadershi
est. ire. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Improving organizational

effectiveness through transformational leadership. NY:

Sage.

Bentz, J. V. (1990). Contextual issues in predicting high-level
leadership performance: Contextual richness as a criterion
consideration in personality research with executives (pp.
131-143). In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of
leadership, (pp. 131-143). West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America, Inc.

Cherrington, D., Reitz, H., & Scott, W. (1971). Effects of
contingent and noncontingent reward on the relationship
between satisfaction and task performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 55, 531-536.

Clover, W. H. (1989). Transformational leaders: Team
performance, leadership ratings and first hand impressions.
In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership,
(pp. 171-184). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of
America.

College Entrance Examination Board (1989). s' itude
Test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral
theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.

Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment
process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 471-482.

Cox, C. M. (1926). he _ earl: ental tr: S_O: hre undred
geniuses. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Curphy, G. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of
transformational leadership and transactional leadership on
organizational climate, attrition and performance. In kK. E.
Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. R. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of
leadership. Greensboro, NC: The Center for Creative
Leadership.

70



LEADER ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS PREDICTING EMERGENCE OF LEADER
EFFECTIVENESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

This report provides the results of research examining how
antecedent measures of student leader personality, ability,
temperament, interpersonal style, experience, physical fitness
and early leadership behaviors can predict leadership
effectiveness 3 to 4 years later in the leader’s educational
career. The primary purpose of the research was to assess
leadership development over time to determine those individual
characteristics and leadership behaviors that positively or
negatively impact subsequent leader effectiveness.

Procedure:

Data were collected on site at the Virginia Military
Institute (VMI) spanning a 4-year period of time. Antecedent
measures of personality, temperament, and experience were
collected from each focal cadet leader upon entry to VMI.
Measures of self-esteem, hardiness, physical fitness, and moral
reasoning were collected at multiple points in time, as were
ratings of leader behavior. Leader effectiveness measures were
collected during the cadet’s junior and senior years. A
multisource/multimethod strategy was used in this longitudinal
study to assess the focal leader’s attributes, leadership
behavior, and effectiveness. Relationships among individual
differences, leader behavior, and leader effectiveness were
examined using multiple regression and multivariate as well as
univariate analyses of variance. Additionally, patterns of
development were tracked over time among the focal leader group
to present patterns of change distinguishing the most versus
least effective leaders based on institutional criteria for
leader performance.

Findings:

Results indicated that both individual differences and
leadership behaviors measured in earlier years predicted
subsequent leader effectiveness. Overall, the best predictors of
leader effectiveness were physical fitness, self-esteem, superior
ratings of transformational and laissez-faire leadership, and
subordinate ratings of transactional leadership (e.g., contingent
reward and punishment). Several general patterns of change in
the focal leaders over time suggested that physical fitness,
moral reasoning, and transformational leadership increased over

vii



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their appreciation to Neil Whitmore and
Brig. Gen. Michael Bozeman (USAR), Col. N. Michael Bissell (USA
ret.) and Maj. Gen. John W. Knapp (USAR, Ret.), for their efforts
in data collection, as well as their continued support and
encouragement. Additionally, the fine work of Kathryn Blocher,
Kathy Lusitana, and Ilene Sears also is greatly appreciated.

vi



A number of authors have provided evidence showing that life
history items can be developed and scaled to capture performance
relevant constructs, such as leadership (Kuhnert & Russell, 1990;
Munford, Uhlman & Kilcullen, 1992; Schoenfeldt, 1989). This
approach starts with a judgmental grouping of items with
relevance to the performance domain being measured. Following
the generation of items based on these qualitative judgnents,
empirical scales are developed and validated.

Because leadership is essentially influencing others, prior
experiences individuals have had where they demonstrated
influence with others could be expected to predict leadership
performance at a later time. We included measures of prior
influence in a biodata instrument administered to cadets with the
expectation that such prior experiences would predict subsequent
leader behavior and effectiveness.

Timing of Data Collection

Personality and biodata constructs were expected to remain
fairly constant over time, and thus were measured once, when the
cadets entered VMI. Self-esteem, hardiness, physical fitness and
moral reasoning were expected to change over time, and these
changes were expected to impact leadership development and
effectiveness. Change over time was expected largely because the
military training provided had as its goals to create leaders
with high degrees of self-esteem, stress tolerance, physical
conditioning, and moral integrity. ‘Thus we chose to assess these
four measures at various points throughout the four years.

LEADER BEHAVIORS PREDICTING EFFECTIVENESS

A broader or "“full-range" of leadership, that is,
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership were
the focus of this study (Bass & Avolio 1993). Due to the nature
of the environment and the frequent use of noncontingent
punishment, noncontingent punishment also was assessed over time.
The initial measures included four components of transformational
leadership, (i.e., individualized consideration, inspirational
motivation, idealized influence and intellectual stimulation),
two components of transactional leadership (contingent reward,
and contingent punishment), laissez-faire leadership, and
noncontingent punishment. As early results indicated the
components of transformational leadership were highly correlated,
they were combined into one construct. As such, five measures
are discussed in this report: Transformational leadership,
contingent reward, contingent punishment, noncontingent
punishment, and laissez-faire leadership. These are summarized
in the next four sections. Noncontingent reward (rewarding
others regardless of their level of performance or

6



some cadets may have entered VMI with unrealistic self-
assessments and have now become more realistic. On the other
hand, these results may reflect a trend that indicates that
military training (at least in this one environment) in not
accomplishing all of its purposes as it had hoped. Individuals
are not leaving the military training environment with higher
self-reported self-esteem or hardiness than the level they had
when they entered VMI. These results suggest that future
research should address the impact of military training on
perceptions o the self to determine whether trainees are leaving
our military institutions at the levels of self-esteem and
hardiness that are desired.

With respect to changes in leader behaviors over time,
subordinates’ ratings of transformational leadership, contingent
reward, and contingent punishment behaviors increased somewhat
over time for most cadets, suggesting that leaders were learning
more effective leadership behaviors. However, contrary to
expectations, noncontingent punishment, particularly as rated by
the leader’s peers, increased during the leader’s senior year for
those who were not in the highest attained rank groups. This may
be indicative of the need for additional leadership training in
transformational and transactional leadership.

ix



APPENDIX B

T-TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCE

B-1



Howard, A. & Bray, D. W. (1988). Manageria ves _ in

transition: Advancing age and changing times. New York:

Guilford Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (1984). Adult leadership and adult
development: A constructive view. In B. Kellerman (Ed.),
Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives, (pp. 199-230).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and

health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.

Kobasa, S., Maddi, S., & Pucetti, M. (1982). Personality and
exercise as buffers in stress illness relationships.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 391-404.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development:
Essays on moral development (Vol. 1). San Francisco:

Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The philosophy of moral development:
Essays on moral development (Vol. II). San Francisco:

Harper & Row.

Korukonda, A. R., & Hunt, J. G. (1989). Pat on the back versus
kick in the pants: An application of cognitive inference to
the study of leader reward and punishment behavior. Group
and Organization Studies, 14, 299-324.

Kraut, A. I. (1975). Prediction of managerial success by peer

and training-staff ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
60, 14-19.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Russell, C. J. (1990). Theory and practice in
the selection and development of leaders. Journal of
Management, 16, 1-13.

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. ourna. Ay i . ,
71, 402-410.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (1992). Contemporary views of
leadership and individual differences. Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 137-157.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996, in
press). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review.

Leadership Quarterly.

72



Stricker, L. J. (1989). Assessing leadership potential at the

Nava. dem' ith iographical measu: (Tech. Rep. No.
RR-29-14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its
routinization in two social movement organizations.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113-164.

Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Einstein, W. 0. (1985). Effort,
performance and transformational leadership in industrial
and military settings. (Working paper 84-78). Binghamton:
State University of New York at Binghamton, School of
Management.

Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to
contingent reward behavior: The augmenting effect of

charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15,

382-395.
Webb, U. (1915). Character and intelligence. iti urnal
of Psycho lonograph, No. 20.

Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. (1990). Long-term forecasting of
transformational leadership and its effects among naval
officers: Some preliminary findings. In Clark, K. E. &

Clark, M. B. (Eds.), Measures of leadership, (pp. 151-169).

West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, Inc.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993).
Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal

investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81-102.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory
and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251-289.

Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

75



Superior Ratings. Focal cadets were rated on leadership by
juniors and seniors when they were sophomores, and by seniors
when they were juniors.

Peer Ratings. Focal cadets were rated by their peers on
leadership when they were seniors. Peers also provided rankings
of each others’ leader effectiveness during their senior year.

leasures_ani Collecti fol
Cognitive Ability. Cognitive ability was assessed by using

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores (College Entrance
Examination Board, 1989). The SAT was taken by each cadet as
part of his admission requirements. SAT Verbal scores were used
as a measure of cognitive ability.

Early Life Experience. A 22-item biodata measure of life

experiences and behaviors was used, called BIOLEAD. The measure
drawn from a 73-item biodata questionnaire tested at West Point,
was empirically keyed to ratings of military performance and
leadership during Cadet Basic Training and Cadet Field Training
at West Point (Mael & Hirsch, 1993).

The methodology used to key BIOLEAD was done in the
following manner. First, means on the criterion for each biodata
item response were calculated. Next, a 0, 1, or 2 was assigned
to each response alternative. If the response fell within .05 of
the mean, it was considered to be at the mean and was assigned a
value of 1. Responses with means greater than .05 above the mean
were assigned a 2, while responses with means greater than .05
away from the mean were assigned a 0. If responses were not more
than .05 away from the mean, but two heavily-endorsed responses
were further than .05 from each other, those responses were
recoded 0 and 1, or 1 and 2, depending on whether the higher or
lower choice was closer to the mean. (For additional details on
methodology, see Mael & Hirsch, 1993). The biodata measures
necessary for BIOLEAD were administered to all VMI cadets during
the first week of the focal cadets’ first semester.

Prior Influence Experiences. The Life History

Questionnaire, also administered during the first year to focal
cadets at VMI, was developed based on the early work of Owens
(1968) and Owens and Schoenfeldt (1979), and more recently
Stokes, Mumford, and Owens (1989). This survey was developed
using transformational leadership theory as a conceptual model to
guide the creation and inclusion of items that are considered to
be linked to the development of leadership, particularly
transformational leadership. Nine items from the Life History
Questionnaire assessed experiences where focal cadets had
demonstrated influence with others. These items were selected by
two independent raters on the basis of their content representing

12



Technical Report 1044

Leader Attributes and Behaviors Predicting
Emergence of Leader Effectiveness

Leanne E. Atwater
Arizona State University West

Shelly D. Dionne and Bruce J. Avolio
State University of New York at Binghamton

John F. Camobreco
University of New Hampshire

Alan W. Lau
University of Maryland
July 1996
United States Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ee SN DTIC QUALITY INSPECTED &

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.



APPENDIX A

SCORING OF PEER RANKINGS



7.8 4

7.7 4

7.6 4

7.5 4

7.4 4

7.3 5

7.2 4

7.15

7.0 4

6.9 4

6.7 T T T 1
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure5 Hardiness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle
and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

35

-+~ High
—2— Middle
»#- Low



CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 12. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Peer Ranking
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 3............. 46

13. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 4........ eee AT

14. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Peer Ranking
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 4............. 48

Figure

15. Regression Analyses: Ratings of TF, CR, LF, CP, NCP? by
Subordinates and Superiors (Peers) at Three Time
Periods Predicting Senior Rank and Peer Rankings .... 60

LIST OF FIGURES
1. Physical Fitness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and

Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time ............e0ee0ee 30

2. Physical Fitness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and
Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time .............. wee 31

3. Self-Esteem Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and Low
Peer Ranking Groups Over Time ............. wee e ee eee 32

4. Self-Esteem Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and Low
Peer Ranking Groups Over Time ........ eee eee eres 34

5. Hardiness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and Low
Senior Rank Groups Over Time ........ eee e cease wee eee 35

6. Hardiness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and Low
Peer Ranking Groups Over Time ............0.05 ween ee 36

7. Moral Reasoning Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and
Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time ............cceeeee 37

8. Moral Reasoning Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and
Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time ....... see eee ~.. 38

9. Transformational Leadership Ratings by Superiors and

Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle and Low Senior
Rank Groups Over Time ............... Seem svc ccceee 49

xiii



CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

REFERENCES 2.2... cece cece e cece renee Cee ee te ee eee eee ween ee ene 67
APPENDIX A. SCORING OF PEER RANKINGS ..........ececeeececeeeee A-1
B. T-TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES .......... eee ee eawene B-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Subordinate and Superior
Leadership Ratings at Three Data Collection Periods . 16

2. Average Number of 1 Surveys Received From Each Rater
Group and Average and Maximum Number of Leadership
Surveys Received for Each Focal Cadet ......... ween 19

3. Frequency of Cadets in Senior Rank and Peer Ranking
GroupS ............- eee eee eee w ee cece cece wees 22

4. Timeline of Predictor and Leadership Measures
Collected Over Four Years......... ees 24

5. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank
Groups on Four Predictors Collected at Four Different
Times .............00. te eeeeeee eee esceceeee .

6. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Peer Ranking
Groups on Four Predictors at Four Different Times ... 28

7. Regression Analyses: Physical Fitness, Self-Esteem,
Hardiness and Moral Reasoning (Times 1, 2, 3, 4)
Predicting Senior Rank and Peer Rankings .......... ~- 40

8. Individual Differences a Predictors of Senior Rank
and Peer Rankings ...... see eee ee see eee eee eee ween ee AL

9. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 2........... ». 43

10. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Peer Ranking
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 2............. 44

11. A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank
Groups on Leadership Measures at Time 3............. 45

xii



Table 14

A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Peer Ranking Groups on
Leadership Measures at Time 4

ate: eader Be!

Subordinates

Transformational

Contingent Reward

Contingent Punishment

Noncontingent Punishment

Laissez-faire

Superijors

Transformational

Contingent Reward

Contingent Punishment

Noncontingent Punishment

Laissez-faire

Low

2.42
(35)

2.36
(35)

1.93
(35)

1.80
(35)

1.61
(34)

2.21
(17)

2.11
(17)

1.86
(17)

1.44
(17)

1.86
(17)

Middle

2.58
(39)

2.66
(39)

2.47
(39)

1.43
(39)

1.28
(39)

2.42
(27)

2.17
(27)

2.17
(27)

1.65
(27)

1.31
(27)

High

2.61
(48)

2.73
(48)

2.34
(48)

1.51
(48)

1.38
(48)

2.42
(23)

2.34
(23)

2.27
(23)

1.69
(23)

1.45
(23)

232

75

1.39

25

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses

ee p< .01

48



250 4

240 +

230 4

210 5

200 5

190 +

180 +

170

—-— High
—- Middle
--#-- Low

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 2 _ Physical Fitness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle

and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

31



Mael, F. A., & Hirsch, A. C. (1993). Rain forest empiricism and
quasi-rationality: Two approaches to objective biodata.
Personne] Psychology, 46, 719-738.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New
York: Irvington Publishers (distributed by Halstead Press).

McNeel, S. P. (1994). College teaching and student moral
development. In J. Rest and D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral
deve. nt_in the ions: Psych and _aj
ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miner, J. B., & Brewer, J. F. (1976). The management of
ineffective performance. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. New York:

Rand-McNally.

Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator
of the relationships between the big five personality

dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 111-118.

Mumford, M. (1983). Social comparison theory and the evaluation
of peer evaluations: A review and some applied

implications. Personnel Psychology, 36, 867-81.

Mumford, M. D., O’Connor, J., Clifton, T. C., Connelly, M. S., &
Zaccaro, S. J. (1993). Background data constructs as

predictors of leadership behavior. Human Performance, 6,
151-195.

Mumford, M. D., & Stokes, G. S. (1992). Developmental
determinants of individual action: Theory and practice in
applying background measures. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
61-138). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mumford, M. D., & Stokes, G. S., & Owens, W. A. (1990).

Patterns of life adaptation: The ecology of human
individuality. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaun.

Mumford, M. D., Uhlman, C. E., & Kilcullen R. (1992). The
structure of life history: Implications for the construct
validity of background data scales. Human Performance, 5,
109-137.

Owens, W. (1968). Toward one discipline of scientific
psychology. American Psychologist, 23, 782-785.

Owens, W., & Schoenfeldt, L. (1979). Towards a classification

of persons (monograph). Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,
569-607.

73



Zoey, YoOrs buyer stepeeT [TeooJ AoTUAS,

szepeeT Teoos AoTues Hut jer szotTunf{ pue sezowoydos,

siepesT [TeooJ azotunf butjze1 saotues,
siepeetT [Teoos azotunl but jez sezowoydos,

SZepesT [Ted0J erowoydos buyze1 sioTues pue szotunL,

SZepestT Teodoy erzowoydos Hut er useuysery,

PL°T
c6°e

ss s8100q
coe Se zeuTpIoOGns
v ouTL
79z pSaotazedns
Zvz ,SezeUTpPrAoOGnS
© our
STE qsaotaedns
099 seq eUTPAOGnS
@ SUT.

Jepep Tesor © aos
peatecssy sAeains
JO 7SeqUNN wnutTxen

Fepeo Teoog yore
OJ peateossy sAeaangs
yo zequny ebezsay

pejetduop skeaans
jo ZequUNN TejOL

z eTqeL

19



7.8 5

7.7 4

7.6 5

7.5 4

7.4 5

7.3 5

7.2 4

7.15

7.0 5

6.9 4

6.8 4

-+- High
—- Middle
--«-- Low

6.7

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure6 Hardiness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle and
Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

36



To assess the comparability of the 8- and 4-item scales, a
correlation was computed between the 8 items (mean=1.53;
s.d.=.59) as rated by subordinates at Time 2 and the 4 items
(mean=1.45; s.d.=.62) used in the Time 4 version as rated by
subordinates at Time 2. The resulting correlation was .91. A
similar correlation was computed for superior ratings at Time 2
using the eight items (mean=1.65; s.d.=.74) and superior ratings
at Time 4 using the four items (mean=1.70; s.d.=.93). This
correlation also was .91. As such, we believed the shortened
version of the laissez-faire scale was representative of the
longer version and therefore the two were treated as comparable.

Administration of Leadership Surveys

Leadership measures were collected on focal cadets when they
were sophomores and juniors in group testing sessions, with
coordination and supervision provided by a principal investigator
and several research assistants. Attendance at these sessions
was mandatory, however, exceptions were granted for those cadets
who had particular conflicts (e.g., an athletic competition).
Cadets excused from these initial data collection sessions
received the appropriate surveys by mail for completion and
return.

Surveys completed by subordinates, superiors and peers
contained names of specified focal cadets (ratees). Raters were
instructed to evaluate only the focal cadets listed on their
surveys. Each rater was asked to rate three focal cadets. If
the focal cadet could not rate a named focal cadet because he did
not know the cadet well enough, he was provided with another
name. As a last alternative, the cadet was allowed to select a
cadet he was familiar with to rate. In most cases, cadets rated
named focal cadets.

The surveys containing measures of transformational
leadership and laissez-faire leadership were administered at
separate times from those measuring contingent reward and
contingent and noncontingent punishment in all administrations
but the one done in the focal cadet’s senior year (Time 4). At
this time, the time constraints imposed by VMI required us to
collect all leadership data together.

Table 2 contains the number of surveys received from each
rater group, and the average number of surveys received for each
focal cadet rated. As can be seen from this table, not all focal
cadets were rated on each survey by each rater group. Numerous
attempts were made to obtain surveys from those unable to attend
the sessions, but these attempts were not always successful,
resulting in the differences in numbers of ratings per focal
cadet.

18



Ratings

—e Sup/Peer - Hi
2.6 | ->- Sup/Peer - Mi
944 —+- Sup/Peer - Lo}
2.2 + S
2.0 -

——
1.8 4
1.6 T r :
Time 3 Time 4
Ratings

2.6 4 —e Subord - Hi
2.44 —o- Subord - Mi

—*- Subord - Lo
2.2 4
2.0 5
1.8 4
1.6 t 7 :

Time 2

Time 3 Time 4

Figure 14 Contingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

55



time, whereas self-esteem and hardiness fluctuated over time but
did not increase between the first and fourth years. In fact,
for some leaders, self-esteem and hardiness appeared to drop off
at the end of the fourth year. Those leaders displaying the
highest self-esteem and physical fitness over time were those
most likely to be ranked as most effective by their peers and
also those most likely to have attained higher rank in the
military rank system. Those leaders displaying more
transformational and transactional leadership and less laissez-
faire leadership also were evaluated as more effective by their
peers.

Utilization of Findings:

During this 4-year longitudinal study of leader behavior and
effectiveness, a great deal has been learned regarding how
individual differences predict leader effectiveness, as well as
the behaviors most conducive to effectiveness. Leaders who
scored higher on cognitive ability, self-esteem, physical
fitness, BIOLEAD (an empirically validated biographical
instrument), the Leader Potential Index (LPI) (an index derived
from the California Psychological Index), and who had more prior
influence experiences were more likely to assume leadership roles
(i.e., hold rank). Those who scored higher on physical fitness
and had more prior influence experiences received higher peer
rankings. The set of individual difference variables that
included physical fitness, self-esteem, hardiness, moral
reasoning, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, BIOLEAD< the
LPI, and prior influence accounted for significant portions of
variance in predicting leader effectiveness. These findings may
help in future efforts to identify variables helpful in selecting
leaders.

Both the results for individual differences and the
differences noted in behaviors of more versus less effective
leaders have implications for training. Clearly, those
individuals rated as more transformational were more effective.
Contingent reward and punishment behaviors also were positively
related to leader effectiveness, while noncontingent punishment
and laissez-faire leadership were negatively related to
effectiveness.

Regarding general trends on the focal leader group over
time, physical fitness continually improved over time, and moral
reasoning ability also increased. However, while self-esteem and
hardiness fluctuated over time, each measure decreased slightly
from Year 1 to Year 4. These findings may reflect the pattern
desired for military training, where individuals learn to
identify their strengths and weaknesses, by providing them with
experiences that will challenge their self perceptions. Indeed,

viii



Contingent and Noncontingent Punishment

The concept of punishment appears in a number of models of
leadership. Propositions relating leader effectiveness to
punishment styles of leadership are prominent in many leadership
theories, including House’s (1971) Path-Goal theory, Hollander’s
(1978) transactional approach, as well as Podsakoff and
colleagues’ transactional contingent reward/punishment styles
model (cf. Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982; Podsakoff, Todor,
Grover, & Huber, 1984). The use of punishment or coercive power
also has been shown to occur in a wide variety of organizations
(cf. Bass, 1990; Hollander & Offerman, 1990). Miner and Brewer
(1976) found that 83 percent of the companies they surveyed used
punishment or threats of punishment to deal with employee problem
areas. Sims (1980) suggested that managers in work organizations
also “eventually do use aversive behavior [punishment] even
though they may be reluctant to admit it" (p. 57).

In the military and other settings, the use of punishment
has been associated with the development of stamina, stress
tolerance and self-confidence. The use of punishment during
indoctrination training can be widely observed in the Army as

. well as the other U.S. military branches. Consistent with this,
interviews, observations and critical incidents of leadership at
VMI indicated that punishment was widely used during military
drills to increase stress tolerance and physical conditioning.

Generally, prior research has reported that contingent
punishment, punishment that is delivered based upon specific
standards for the subordinate’s poor performance or unacceptable
behavior, is more effective and more satisfying to subordinates
than noncontingent punishment, delivered arbitrarily (Podsakoff
et al., 1982; Cherrington, Reitz, & Scott, 1971). Korukonda and
Hunt (1989) reported that the use of contingent punishment
resulted in greater improvements in performance than either
noncontingent punishment, or noncontingent reward. Korukonda and
Hunt (1989) argued that contingent punishment is associated with
a clear message of disapproval, thus motivating the target
individual to enhance his or her performance. Arvey and
Ivancevich (1980) also suggested that in some situations
punishment can be motivational and can actively improve the
performance of target individuals.

Korukonda and Hunt (1989) reported that the use of
contingent punishment resulted in greater improvements in
performance than either noncontingent punishment or noncontingent
rewards. Bass (1990) has suggested that contingent punishment
may lead to compliance in order to avoid punishment, although it
also can have the opposite effect, reducing compliance and
motivation if followers feel hostile toward the leader using
punishment.



Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects
on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly,
1, 2, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P., Todor, W., Grover, R., & Huber, V. (1984).
Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment
behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Podsakoff, P., Todor, W., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader
performance contingent and noncontingent reward and
punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 812-821.

Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and
Theory. NY: Praeger.

Rice, R. W., Yoder, J. D., Adams, J., Priest, R. F., & Prince, H.
T. (1984). Leadership ratings for male and female military

cadets. Sex Roles, 10, 885-901.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Biographical] data as the new

frontier in employee selection research. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans.

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.

Sims, H. P. (1980). Further thoughts on punishment in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 133-138.

Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational versus transactional
leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers.

Psychological Reports, 57, 143-146.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of

Psychology, 25, 37-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership (ist ed.). New

York: Free Press.
Stokes, G., Mumford, M., & Owens, W. (1989). Life history

prototypes in the study of human individuality. Journal of
Personality, 57, 509-545.

74



Table 12

compa:
Leadership Measures at Time 3
ate: Leade: avio’
Subordinates Low
Transformational 2.08
(30)
Contingent Reward 1.76
(27)
Contingent Punishment 1.67
(27)
Noncontingent Punishment 1.82
(27)
Laissez-faire 1.60
(30)
Superiors
Transformational 2.00
(35)
Contingent Reward 2.18
(31)
Contingent Punishment 1.96
(32)
Noncontingent Punishment 1.18
(31)
Laissez-faire 2.00
(36)

Middle
2.14
(38)

2.21
(41)

1.90
(41)

1.42
(41)

1.87
(39)

2.25
(44)

2.28
(58)

2.35
(59)

1.26
(58)

1.55
(43)

ing Groups on

2.39
(53)

2.28
(46)

2.23
(46)

1.33
(46)

1.33
(53)

2.34
(38)

2.49
(53)

2.25
(53)

1.15
(52)

1.25
(38)

1.91

3.19*

224

8.53%*

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses

"p< .10
* p< .05
eek p< .01

46



Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the

five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-
440.

Downey, R. C., Medland, F. F., & Yates, L. G. (1976).
Evaluation of a peer rating system for predicting subsequent
promotion of senior military officers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 206-209.

Drake, R. M. (1944). A study of leadership. Character &
Personality, 12, 285-289.

Furby, L. (1986). Psychology and justice. In R. L. Cohen
(Ed.), Justice: Views from the social sciences, (pp. 153-

230). New York: Plenum Press.

Gough, H. G. (1969). A leadership index on the California

Psychological Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
16, 283-289.

Gough, H. G. (1987). Administrator’s quide for the California

Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G. (1990). Testing for leadership with the California
Psychological Inventory. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark

(Eds.) Measures of leadership, (pp. 335-379). West Orange,
Nd: Leadership Library of America, Inc.

Hater, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors’ evaluations and
subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and
transactional leadership. J a ed ogy,
73, 695-702.

Hollander, E. P. (1965). Validity of peer nominations in
predicting a distance performance criterion. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 49, 434-438.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical quide
to effective relationships. New York: Free Press.

Hollander, E., & Offerman, L. (1990). Power and leadership in

organizations. American Psychologist, 45, 2, 179-189.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.
dministrati cience Qua: , 16, 321-338.

House, R. J. (1977). The theory of charismatic leadership. In

J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting
edge, (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University.

71



SCORING OF PEER RANKINGS

Each cadet was asked to rank the top five and bottom five
members of his company within his class in terms of leadership
effectiveness. This resulted in every member of the company
having a frequency distribution of how many times he was ranked
best, second best, third best, fourth best, fifth best, and
worst, second worst, third worst, etc.

For example, in a company with twenty-seven focal cadets, a
cadet could have been ranked best once, second best three times,
third best twice, fourth best not at all, and fifth best once.
He also could have been ranked worst, second worst and third
worst not at all, but been ranked fourth worst once and fifth
worst twice. In this scenario, the cadet was ranked at various
points in the top five or bottom five by nine of the twenty-seven
cadets in his company. The remaining eighteen cadets did not
rank him as a member of the top five or bottom five, so for the
purposes of analysis it was assumed that they ranked him in
exactly the middle of the company, thirteenth. When a cadet has

no ranking in one of the top five or bottom five spots -- such as
the above example, where no one ranked the cadet fourth best, or
worst, second or third worst -~- the frequency for this score is

zero and is figured into the final peer ranking in that way.

In order to compute the cadet’s final peer ranking score,
the cadet’s top ranking, bottom ranking, and middle ranking must
first be computed. His top ranking is computed by multiplying
the frequency with which he is ranked best through fifth best by
one through five, respectively. Thus, in the case of our
example, one is multiplied by one, three is multiplied by two,
two is multiplied by three, and one is multiplied by five. These
are then added together, and in the case of the example yield 18.
This is the cadet’s top ranking score.

The cadet’s bottom ranking is determined by the size of his
company. In the case of the example, a ranking of worst would
mean the cadet is twenty-seventh in a company of twenty-seven,
second worst means he is twenty-sixth, third worst means he is
twenty-fifth, fourth worst means he is twenty-fourth, and fifth
worst means he is twenty-third in a company of 27. In the
example the cadet was ranked fourth worst once and fifth worst
twice, so one is multiplied by twenty-four and two is multiplied
by twenty-three. These are then added together, and in this case
yield 70. This is the cadet’s bottom ranking score.

The cadet’s middle ranking is computed by multiplying the
middle point of the company by the number of cadets who did not
rank the cadet in either the top five or the bottom five. In the
example, the middle point of the company is thirteen, and the
number of cadets who did not rank the cadet in either the top

A-3



Ratings

2.8 4 > Sup/Peer - Hi
26- 2 SupPeer - Mi
ve —__ —+- Sup/Peer - Lo}
2.2 + _—_—-..

2.0 4

1.8 5

1.6 r 1

Time 3 Time 4

2.8 5 . Ratings

2.6 4 —e Subord - Hi
2.4 4 LZ) we Subord Lo
2.2 4
2.0 4 LY

1.8 5

1.6 : : :

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 12 Contingent Reward Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors



Table 5 (continued)

Time 4

Physical Fitness

Self-Esteem

Hardiness

Moral Reasoning

Low

205.39
(121)

3.17
(79)

6.81
(79)

31.09
(43)

Middle

217.34
(45)

3.35
(38)

7.30
(38)

37.11
(15)

High

253.84
(20)

3.62
(13)

7.71
(13)

34.20
(10)

F

15.51%e*

3.83%

4.408%

1.80

NOTE:
"PB

ek D
kak 5 =)

Specific samples sizes for each comparison are in parentheses.

<
<
<
<

-10
-05
-01
-001

26



future research should address the individual outcomes of
military training to determine if it is, in fact, having its
intended effects.

With respect to changes in leader behaviors over time,
generally transformational leadership behaviors increased over
time, suggesting that leaders are learning more effective
behaviors. Consistent with this, the use of contingent reward
also increased while noncontingent punishment decreased somewhat
over time for the most effective leaders, suggesting that leaders
may be discovering that they can use more transformational and
positive behaviors in lieu of noncontingent punishment.

Also, while not a specific purpose of this study, it is
interesting to note the differences in the patterns of leadership
ratings from superiors and subordinates. Clearly, these two
groups are not observing, experiencing, or interpreting leader
behavior similarly. This has implications for leadership
evaluations and could be the subject of future military research.

Limitations

Our ability to collect complete data on the entire class was
a limitation in this study. At the outset, we were unaware of
the difficulties we would encounter in getting the cadets to
complete surveys. In part, we erred because we burdened the
cadets with too many surveys, administered too often, and we did
not clearly recognize the many other burdensome survey requests
made of cadets by various functions at VMI.

A second limitation was our inability to obtain reliable
measures of leadership behavior with methods other than surveys.
We collected both critical incident and observational data but
were unable to use it as we did not have comparable measures on
all aspects of leadership on all cadets.

The inability to replicate findings regarding the strong
link between transformational leadership and effectiveness was
surprising. Perhaps the demands placed on leaders for
transactional leadership and noncontingent punishment in this
type of indoctrination environment precluded the demonstration of
transformational leadership behaviors cadets would have exhibited
in a less restrictive environment. Or perhaps, the context
blurred the distinction between transactional and
transformational leadership behaviors. In fact, the positive
correlations between contingent reward and contingent punishment
and transformational leadership (see Avolio et al. 1996) suggests
this may have occurred.

66



hardiness with the cadets in the high rank group scoring higher
on all three measures.

Table 6 presents the comparable univariate analyses for
physical fitness, self-esteem, hardiness, and moral reasoning at
the four time periods for the peer ranking groups. At Time 1,
physical fitness scores were highest for those cadets in the high
peer ranking group and moral reasoning scores were lowest for
those in the middle group. At Time 2, cadets with higher
physical fitness scores and higher hardiness scores were more
likely to be in the high peer ranking groups. At Time 3, again
physical fitness was higher among those cadets with higher peer
rankings, but moral reasoning also distinguished the groups (a
marginally significant effect). In this case, however, those in
the highest peer ranking groups did not have the highest moral
reasoning scores. Rather, those in the lowest peer ranking group
had the highest moral reasoning scores. Surprisingly, at Time 4,
when measures were taken shortly before the peer rankings were
obtained, only the physical fitness scores were significantly
different among the three peer ranking groups.

For ease of interpretation, Figures 1-8 present the means,
plotted over time, on each of the four predictor variables for
the two leader effectiveness criteria. Dependent t-tests were
conducted on the individual difference variables at each level
within each group to assess the significance of the increases or
decreases in scores over time. Specific t-test values, and
sample sizes are reported in Appendix B. Tables 5 and 6 present
the corresponding means, sample sizes and univariate results
(from which the figures were generated) for each of the predictor
variables with leader effectiveness criteria. Note that the
scores in the tables are rounded to one decimal place while the
figures were plotted using scores rounded to two decimal places.

Figure 1 presents the physical fitness data over time for
those in the high, middle and low senior rank groups. As can be
seen from the figure, the pattern of results, generally
increasing fitness over time, is similar for the three groups.
Fitness levels increased significantly from Time 1 to Time 4 for
all senior rank groups. However, those with the highest rank
consistently had significantly higher physical fitness scores
than those holding no rank (see Tables 5 and 6). A similar
pattern is presented in Figure 2 for those in the high, middle
and low peer ranking groups. Again, the fitness levels increased
significantly from Time 1 to Time 4 for all groups.

Figure 3 presents the results of the self-esteem scores over
time for those in the high, middle, and low senior rank groups.
Interestingly, similar to the physical fitness data, those with
the highest rank were consistently the highest on self-esteem
across the three time periods. Senior rank groups differed
significantly on self-esteem at each time (see Table 5). Those

27



transformational, laissez-faire, contingent reward, contingent
punishment, and noncontingent punishment were obtained.? During
the focal cadets’ senior year, peer ratings of leader behavior
were collected in lieu of superior ratings. For illustrative
purposes, Figures 9-18 present the patterns of leadership
behaviors exhibited by the focal cadets in the low, middle and
high senior rank and peer ranking groups as rated by superiors
and subordinates on the five leadership measures. Tables 9-14
present the corresponding means, sample sizes and

univariate results (from which the figures were generated) for
each of the leadership behaviors with leader effectiveness
criteria. Appendix B presents the significant t-test results of
leader behaviors compared over time. For the reader’s
information, Table 15 also includes the correlations between the
leadership variables at each time period and the two
effectiveness measures.

As can be seen from Table 9, subordinate ratings of laissez-
faire behaviors and superior ratings of transformational
leadership behaviors at Time 2 differed significantly across the
senior rank groups. Those cadets who practiced less laissez-
faire behavior with subordinates attained higher ranks. Those
cadets whose superiors regarded as practicing more
transformational behavior attained higher ranks.

Table 10 presents the corresponding time period results for
peer rankings. Subordinate and superior ratings of laissez-faire
behavior and superior ratings of transformational behavior
differed significantly across peer ranking groups. Those cadets
who practiced less laissez-faire behavior and more
transformational behavior received higher peer rankings.

Table 11 presents results from Time 3 regarding senior rank
and leader behaviors. Subordinate ratings of contingent reward,
contingent punishment and noncontingent punishment behaviors
differed significantly across senior rank groups. Those cadets
who practiced more contingent reward and contingent punishment
behaviors with less noncontingent punishment behavior attained
higher ranks. Those with no rank received the highest laissez-
faire scores from superiors.

Table 12 presents the corresponding time period results for
peer rankings. These results are similar to the cumulative rank
results in that subordinate ratings of contingent reward and
contingent punishment differed significantly. Cadets who
practiced more contingent reward and punishment and less laissez-
faire behavior received higher peer rankings. Superiors’

3superior ratings of contingent and noncontingent punishment
and contingent reward were not collected at Time 2 due to
scheduling conflicts.

42



punishment, and laissez-faire leadership. All items were rated
on a 5-point scale ranging from 0="Not at all" to 4="Frequently
if not always." Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for
subordinate and superior leadership ratings for the three years
leadership data were collected, i.e., during the focal cadets’
sophomore year (Time 2) junior year (Time 3) and senior year
(Time 4).

Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership
was measured using the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) form 5R (Bass & Avolio, 1990). This survey measures
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership.

The first and second admissions of the MLQ, administered when the
focal cadets were sophomores (Time 2) and juniors (Time 3),
included a 47-item transformational leadership scale, including
items from each of the components of transformational leadership
(i.e., individualized consideration, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence). A typical
transformational item (subordinate form) was "He instills pride
in what I do." When a cadet was rated by more than one
subordinate, superior, or peer, the scores within that group were
averaged. As such, each cadet received a scale score from each
rater group at each time period representing the average of the
47 items.

When focal cadets were seniors (Time 4) a reduced
transformational scale was used for efficiency. This scale was
derived from confirmatory factor analyses reported in Avolio et
al. (1996). This scale included 16 items, four measuring each of
the components of transformational leadership. Again, the items
were averaged creating a transformational score for each focal
cadet from each rater group (i.e., subordinates and peers).

To assess the comparability of the 47- and 16-item scales, a
correlation was computed between the 16 items used in the later
version (mean=2.04; s.d.=.61)as rated by subordinates at Time 2
and the 47 items rated by subordinates at Time 2 (mean=2.02;
s.d.=.66). The resulting correlation was .96. A similar
correlation was computed for superior ratings at Time 2 using the
47 items (mean=2.17; s.d.=.74) and the 16 items (mean=2.12;
s.d.=.84). This correlation was .96. As such, we believed the
shortened version of the transformational scale was
representative of the longer version and therefore the two were
treated as comparable.

Contingent Reward. Items measuring contingent reward were
adopted from Podsakoff, Todor, and Skov (1982). The contingent
reward scale from the MLQ was not used due to the high
intercorrelation between contingent reward and transformational
leadership when both were measured using the same scale at the
same time. Six items assessed contingent reward at Times 2 and
3. A shortened two-item scale was used at Time 4 for efficiency.

15



Table 11

A_Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank Groups on

Leadership Measures at Time 3

Rat. ‘ou der Behavi
ina Low
Transformational 2.20
(80)
Contingent Reward 1.90
(74)
Contingent Punishment 1.84
(74)
Noncontingent Punishment 1.73
(73)
Laissez-faire 1.62
(50)
Superiors
Transformational 2.17
(78)
Contingent Reward 2.23
(95)
Contingent Punishment 2.12
(97)
Noncontingent Punishment 1.20
(94)
Laissez-faire 1.77
(78)

Middle High

2.35
(37)

2.37
(32)

2.02
(32)

1.34
(32)

1.45
(38)

2.29
(32)

2.59
(41)

2.42
(41)

1.20
(41)

1.30
(32)

2.42
(17)

2.45
(19)

2.41
(19)

-96
(19)

1.37
(17)

2.20
(18)

2.29
(19)

2.25
(19)

1.33
(19)

1.36
(18)

84

5.21%

4.63%

33

3.14%

2.25*

22

4.58%

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses

“p< .10
* p< .05
ee p< .01

45



Ratings

—e Sup/Peer - Hi
26 - —- Sup/Peer - Mi
94-4 * —+- Sup/Peer - Lo}
224 —_
2.0 5
1.8 5
1.6 T T 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Ratings
2.6 4 — Subord - Hi
2.4 4 —a- Subord - Mi
-*- Subord - Lo
2.24
2.0 5 wa
1.8 5
1.6 T T 7

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 13 Contingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors



Technical Report 1044

Leader Attributes and Behaviors Predicting Emergence of
Leader Effectiveness

Leanne E. Atwater
Arizona State University West

Shelley D. Dionne and Bruce J. Avolio
State University of New York at Binghamton

John F. Camobreco
University of New Hampshire

Alan W. Lau
University of Maryland

Leader Development Research Unit
Trueman R. Tremble, Jr., Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Department of the Army

July 1996

Army Project Number Education and Training Technology
202627854791



3.7 4

3.6 5

3.5 4

3.4 4

3.3 4

3.2 5

——High
—2— Middle
-«-- Low

3.1

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 4 Self-Esteem Scores for Cadets in High, Middle
and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

34



3.7 5

3.6 4

3.5 4

3.4 5

3.3 4

3.2 4

3.1

—— High
—2— Middle
«Low

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 3 Self-Esteem Scores for Cadets in High, Middle

and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

32



2.2 5

-e- Sup/Peer - Hi
2.0 4 —=- Sup/Peer - Mi
1.84 ~+- Sup/Peer - Lo
1.6 +
1.4 4
1.2 5
1.0 4
8 T 7
Time 3 Time 4
2.2 5
2.0 5 —e- Subord - Hi
1.8 4 -a- Subord - Mi
16 - -*— Subord- Lo
1.44
1.24
1.0 5
8 T 7 1

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 16 Noncontingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors

57



rank. Additionally, we assessed the patterns of the leadership
behaviors used over time by the most and least effective leaders.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PREDICTING LEADER EFFECTIVENESS

Many of the early studies of leadership emergence and
effectiveness concentrated on linking leader personality traits
to various leader effectiveness or performance measures (Bass,
1990; Yukl, 1994). Generally, clusters of characteristics seemed
to differentiate effective from ineffective leaders, though no
specific trait or characteristic could be deemed essential.
Among the characteristics found to be of clear consequence to
leadership were cognitive ability, conscientiousness, self-
confidence, energy/activity level, values, and tolerance for
stress (Bass, 1990). Lord, DeVader and Alliger (1986) in their
meta-analytic review of the leader trait literature concluded
that traits did account for appreciable variance in leadership
perceptions. They also suggested using a set of traits to
predict leadership would be a promising approach.

Additionally, with the exception of the longitudinal work
done by Howard and Bray (1988), the vast majority of leader
trait-performance relationships have been tested using cross-
sectional designs, rather than predictive designs. In this
study, we were interested in determining the extent to which
traits measured early in the training process (i.e., early in the
first year at a military college) could predict leadership
emergence and effectiveness years later. The traits previously
shown to be important to leadership and included for assessment
are described below.

Cognitive Ability

"Evidence continues to mount that generalized intelligence
or mental ability is associated with a person’s performance as a
leader or manager" (Bass, 1990, p. 98). Research has
demonstrated that intelligence, or cognitive ability, is highly
correlated with leadership. Results of a meta-analysis of 18
studies of leadership conducted by Lord et al. (1986) indicated
that the aggregate correlation between intelligence and
leadership was .50. These studies were done on diverse
populations that included students, managers, military cadets,
and others. Lord and Hall (1992) argued that cognitive ability
levels determine the extent to which leaders are more successful
at anticipating and recognizing problems, thus improving their
ability to influence others.



Table 10

le ison s_in
Leadership Measures at Time 2

Rater Group/Leader Behavior

Subordinates Low
Transformational 1.98
(42)
Contingent Reward 1.78
(32)
Contingent Punishment 1.83
(32)
Noncontingent Punishment 1.78
(32)
Laissez-faire 1.60
(41)
Superiors
Transformational 1.82
(35)
Laissez-faire 2.02
(34)

Ra:

Middle

1.99
(56)

1.89
(36)

1.71
(36)

1.42
(35)

1.66
(54)

2.26
(46)

1.60
(49)

High

2.03
(53)

2.04
(45)

2.00
(45)

1.74
(45)

1.39
(52)

2.35
(40)

1.33
(41)

08

5.60%*

9.41%*

NOTE: Specific sample sizes for each comparison are in parentheses

"p< .10
*p< .05
ee p< .01

44



Ratings

2.8 5 —e Sup/Peer - Hi
-- Sup/Peer - Mi
2.6 4 ~+- SupPeer - Lo!
2.4 + =
2.2 4
2.0 4
1.8 7 r 1
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

2.8 5 Ratings

7 — Subord - Hi
2.6 —2- Subord - Mi
244 ~+*- Subord - Lo
2.2 4
2.0 4
1.8 T T 1

Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 10 Transformational Leadership Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time

Note: At Time 4 peers provided ratings instead of superiors



Hardiness

The survival of a group is often dependent on a style of
leadership that enables members and subgroups to work together
toward a common purpose, even in times of crisis or stress. In
order for the leader to help the group through crisis, he or she
must have a high personal tolerance for stress. Hardiness is a
self-report measure of an individual’s social, physical and
psychological resources for coping with stress. One’s ability to
cope with stress has been shown to predict which Managers can
best withstand stress without becoming ill or debilitated
(Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi & Pucetti, 1982). The stressful
nature of a military environment provides an optimal context to
study how hardiness impacts an individual’s effectiveness. We
would expect that those with the highest levels of hardiness
would possess the greatest resources to be able to lead others
effectively.

Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning refers to how individuals structure and
interpret the meaning of events to which they are exposed (Kegan
& Lahey, 1984). Fundamental to operationalizing moral reasoning
is the choice people make when confronted with dilemmas and the
standards they use to make that choice. Kegan and Lahey (1984)
suggested that moral reasoning levels be interpreted along a
continuum. At the lowest level, individuals frame events in
terms of being centered around themselves, with personal goals
and agendas serving as the individual’s frame of reference.
Kohlberg (1981, 1984) also referred to the lowest stages of moral
reasoning as those in which the individual’s sense of morality
centers around self-interest. Those leaders who are self-focused
narcissistic, and at the lower levels of moral reasoning would be
less interested in subordinate improvement, and would be more
likely to view followers as objects to be manipulated or
exploited.

In both Kegan and Lahey’s and Kohlberg’s models, as
individuals progress to more mature stages of moral reasoning or
perspective-taking capacity, they become more able to transcend
self-interest for the common good. Additionally, at these higher
stages of moral reasoning, the individual focuses on equity,
dignity, justice and human rights (Kohlberg, 1981; 1984). They
are able to exhibit empathy toward others. Given the above, we
expected those leaders at higher levels of moral reasoning to
emerge as more effective leaders, and to be more likely to have
attained positions of higher rank.



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE
1996, July

2. REPORT TYPE
Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
August 1990-December 1995

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Leader Attributes and Behaviors Predicting Emergence of leader
Effectiveness

Sa. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
MDA903-91-C-0131

Sb. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0602785A
6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER
A791
Leanne E. Atwater (Arizona State University West), Shelley D. 5d. TASK NUMBER
Dionne and Bruce J. Avolio (State University of New York at 1001
Bignhamton), John F. Camobreco (University of New Hampshire), Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER
and Alan W. Lau (University of Maryland) C03

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

VMI Research Laboratories Center for Leadership Studies School of Management
Virginia Military Institute State University of New York —_Arizona State University
Lexington, VA 24450 at Binghamton West

Binghamton, NY 13902 Phoenix, AZ 85069

8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: PERI-RM

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM
ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Technical Report 1044

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
COR: Trueman R. Tremble, Jr.

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

This report examines relationships between the leadership of entering leaders and antecedent measures of personality, ability,
temperament, interpersonal style, experience, and physical fitness. The data described a sample of cadets/students over the
course of their education and military training at a state military college. The primary purpose was to track longitudinally
leader development and emergence and to identify individual characteristics and leadership behaviors that differentiated the
leadership position and leadership effectiveness attained by the cadets. Results showed that individual characteristics, with
some measured at college entry, predicted position attainment and rated (peer) leadership effectiveness. Results also showed
that transformational behavior, as well as transactional leadership behavior, characterized cadets emerging as leaders.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Leadership behavior Transformational leadership Leader development
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
SECURITY CLASSIFIGATION OF | | 49. LimmTATIONOF | 20. NUMBER | 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)
16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE
Unclassified | Unclassified | Unclassified | Unlimited 95



Table 5

A Mean Comparison of Cadets in Three Senior Rank Groups on Four
Predictors Collected at Four Different Times

Time 1

Physical Fitness
Self-Esteem
Hardiness

Moral Reasoning

Time 2°

Physical Fitness
Self-Esteem
Hardiness

Time 3

Physical Fitness
Self-Esteem
Hardiness

Moral Reasoning

Low

184.64
(137)

3.33
(152)

7.06
(146)

29.15
(139)

204.11
(143)

3.25
(116)

6.93
(114)

207.14
(142)

3.23
(111)

7.24
(112)

32.32
(95)

Middle

191.63
(50)

3.35
(53)

7.11
(56)

28.05
(54)

210.63
(52)

3.34
(42)

7.39
(42)

216.93
(53)

3.27
(47)

7.28
(47)

35.71
(38)

25

3.51
(23)

7.47
(23)

28.42
(20)

224.92
(22)

3.61
(20)

7.51
(20)

242.93
(21)

3.65
(20)

7.81
(20)

30.99
(17)

5.08%*

2.49%

4.95%

5.50**

4.88%%

10.81***

6.98**

3.11*

1.57



Nevertheless, we believe this study added value in that we
were able to trace patterns of behaviors over time and link
individual difference measures to leadership effectiveness.

67



the types of influence experiences described by Mumford,
O’Connor, Clifton, Connelly, & Zaccaro (1993). Specifically,
each rater identified items that reflected the following
criteria: (a) participation in or an attraction to situations
where the expectation is to influence others, or (b) behaviors
indicative of an effective implementation of influence attempts.
Each of the nine items met one of the aforementioned criteria,
and the scale created (Prior Influence Experiences) had an
internal consistency alpha value of .70.

Conscientiousness. The California Psychological Inventory
(CPI) was administered to focal cadets the first week of their
freshman year. The 20 CPI scales (see Gough, 1987) were factor
analyzed, attempting to replicate the "Big 5" personality
factors, as suggested by Digman (1990). While factors
representing the Big 5 did not clearly emerge, a composite factor
representing conscientiousness was identified. The scales
loading highest on this composite factor, while not loading on
any other factors, were responsibility, self-control, achievement
via conformance, and socialization. These four scales were
included in the analyses as a measure of each focal cadet’s level
of conscientiousness. The alpha value for this composite scale
was .80.

Leader Potential Index. The LPI subscale of the CPI also
was included in our analysis. A high score on the LPI suggests
the individual has a talent for leadership and is dominant, self-
confident, aggressive, rational, logical, clear-thinking,
demanding, ambitious, and possibly egotistical. A low score
suggests the individual has a potential for leadership that is
below average. These individuals are cautious, careful, shy,
unassuming, patient, peaceable, submissive, and too cooperative.

The scales used to measure the LPI and conscientiousness
measures did not overlap. There was no empirical redundancy
between the measures used to represent these two respective
constructs.

Physical Fitness. The long-term objective of the physical
fitness test is to habituate cadets to exercise and to establish
life-long standards for physical fitness. Scores on physical
fitness were collected each year throughout the focal cadets’
four years at VMI. This physical fitness test is the VMI fitness
test which is given to each cadet semi-annually (in November and
April) as part of their physical education grade. This test
consists of three events, including pull-ups (maximum number
done), situps (maximum number done in two minutes) and a one and
one-half mile run for time. Scores are based on standardized
tests in the aforementioned three events. The test score is the
sum of the individual events and can vary from 0 to 300. Scores
ranged from 105 to 295. Fitness scores from the Fall of 1991,
1992, 1993 and Spring 1995 were used as Time 1,2,3,and 4

13



U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction
of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director

SS
Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army
Virginia Military Institute

Technical review by

Kenneth L. Evans
Thomas D. Kane

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address
correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN: PERI-STP, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia
22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not
return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army
position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.



T-tests of Mean Differences

Noncontingent Punishment Scores
Time

(Leadership)

t-values by Groups

Periods Rater Variable Low Middle High
2-3 Subordinate Senior Rank - .38 (38) -69 (22) 1.72 (8)
2-4 Subordinate Senior Rank - .10 (35) 1.32 (25) 1.43 (6)
3-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -27 (34) - .53 (23) -2.13* (7)
3-4 Superior Senior Rank -1.63 (21) -1.77* (17) -77— (8)
2-3 Subordinate Peer Rank - .48 (16) - .23 (18) 2.05* (35)
2-4 Subordinate Peer Rank 54 (20) - .18 (18) 1.64 (37)
3-4 Subordinate Peer Rank - .32 (16) -O1 (20) - .58 (37)
3-4 Superior Peer Rank 1.25 (16) -1.35 (19) -1.46 (21)
Laissez-faire Scores t-values by Group

2-3 Subordinate Senior Rank -53 (57) -1.48 (31) -69 (8)
2-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -19 (46) - .10 (35) - .01 (7)
3-4 Subordinate Senior Rank 1.15 (36) - .34 (28) «41 (7)
2-3 Superior Senior Rank - .26 (48) 1.24 (18) - .60 (5)
2-4 Superior Senior Rank 1.23 (19) - .57 (14) -47 (7)
3-4 Superior Senior Rank - .54 (17) -2.47* (9) - .30 (6)
2-3 Subordinate Peer Rank 1.17 (21) -1.50 (26) +05 (42)
2-4 Subordinate Peer Rank - .74 (24) 1.10 (30) - .02 (41)
3-4 Subordinate Peer Rank - .97 (18) 2.93**(18) - .09 (41)
2-3 Superior Peer Rank 71.40 (20) = .01 (24) -35 (21)
2-4 Superior Peer Rank -0O1 (8) -35 (16) «75 (16)
3-4 Superior Peer Rank - .75 (5) - .01 (14) -2.03* (15)
"p< .10

* p< .05

ee p< .01

Note: Sample sizes are in parentheses next to t-values.

B-6



37.11

31.09

-+- High
—o- Middle
--*-- Low

Time 1 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 7 Moral Reasoning Scores for Cadets in High, Middle
and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

Note: Moral Reasoning data were not collected at Time 2.

37



a cadet was ranked first, second, third, twenty-fifth, twenty-
sixth, etc., or not ranked, a score was computed for each cadet.
This scoring procedure is described in detail in Appendix A.

For purposes of using these two measures of effectiveness as
independent variables in a series of analyses of variance, each
of the above measures also was converted into grouped cumulative
scores. Grouped senior rank was created by first obtaining the
mean and standard deviation of the senior rank variable. If the
cadet’s senior rank was more than one-half a standard deviation
above the mean, the cadet received a two on grouped senior rank.
If the cadet’s senior rank score was between one-half a standard
deviation above or below the mean, the cadet received a score of
one. If the cadet held no rank during his senior year he
received a score of zero. As it turned out, cadets receiving
senior rank scores of three or more (Battalion Executive Officers
to Regimental Commander) received a two. Those receiving scores
of one or two (Platoon Leaders to Company Executive Officers)
received a one, and those who had held no rank senior year
received a zero.

Grouped peer ranking was created in a similar way. A cadet
was assigned a score of zero, one, or two on the basis of the
peer ranking score the cadet received in his senior year. If the
cadet’s peer ranking score was more than one half a standard
deviation above the mean peer ranking, the cadet received a score
of two. If his score was between one half a standard deviation
above or below the mean peer ranking score, he received a one,
and if the score was one half a standard deviation or more below
the mean, he received a zero on this measure. The correlation
between grouped senior rank and grouped peer rank was .43 (p
<.001).

A frequency distribution for cadets classified into each of
the senior rank groups, and each of the peer ranking groups is
presented in Table 3. Fifty-six cadets were in both the low peer
ranking group and the low senior rank group, 26 cadets were in
the middle group on both variables, and 18 cadets were in the
high group on both variables.

RESULTS

Sample Size Fluctuations

A number of factors have contributed to a less than pure
longitudinal study across the four years. That is, even though
we began with a sample size of over 400 in Year 1 and attempted
to collect data at all time periods on each cadet, our sample
over the course of the four years dwindled. First, over the
four-year period, 165 cadets attrited from VMI or for some other

21



--#-- Low

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 1 Physical Fitness Scores for Cadets in High, Middle
and Low Senior Rank Groups Over Time

] ——High
250 + —2 Middle
|
|

30



Moral Reasoning Scores

t-values by Group

Time

Periods Variable Low Middle High
1-3 Senior Rank - 1.95* (88) -2.38% (37) - .17 (7)
1-4 Senior Rank - 1.91" (40) -1.79" (14) N/A (<5)
3-4 Senior Rank - .33 (30) - .01 (13) N/A (<5)
1-3 Peer Rank - 1.25 (38) -3.50%*(49)  -1.29 (40)
1-4 Peer Rank - 1.90" (16) 71.83" (21) 71.95" (23)
3-4 Peer Rank -05 (14) - .73 (14) = .63 (21)
. p< .10

* p< .05

ae p< .01

Note: Sample sizes are in parentheses next to t-values

B-4



*sbhuy}e1 eQeUuTpzOgns

2o itoyizedns wo1jz seir0os pezeberbbe pey oyM szepeo Teooy Jo Aequmu s9yR 0 SAeJeT N ‘ALON
ve" 69 OO°T ZS°T 06" 8ZT 8° 6S°T 8° LET HL* GO°T eayej-zessteT
06° 69 T°T #9°T GL* LST 8° ez°T e/u e/u e/u e/u yuewYstung qUebuTyUOCoUON
SL° 69 08° ST°2 98° PST 64° Tez e/u e/u e/u e/u queuystund quebutquop
88° 69 90°T Tz°2 T6* SST o8° ce°z e/u e/u e/u e/u paemey quebutquop
96° 69 €6° vez L6*° 82T 69° O22 LE* EET HL* LT*Z [euopzemojsueszyL

0 N ds n 30 N ds HW E) N ds Wn sbutjzed

djtyszepee] rz0Tzedns
Se* €2T 86° TH°T 88° GET 8° PS°T €8° POT 6S° ES°T eayes-zesstey
48° p2T LO°T 9S°T 88° ZT OT*T TS'T €L° GZT 06° 89°T UeuYSsTUNd JQUebhuTQUCOUON
LL° v2T vL* Ge°z LB8° G2@T LL* 86°T LL* 92T T6* O06°T quewystung QuebutQu09
e8° zt 2O°T 6S°2 68° G2T T6* TI*Z GL* 92T 28° E6°T paemey QuebutQuo9
96° ZT 98° S°2 L6° VET LL* L2°% L6* B9T 99° Z20°2 [euoyTzeMIOJsuerL

Eo) N das W E-) N as W ) Nas W Sbutqed

dyysiepee] oyeutpzoqns

T etTaeg

16



T-tests of Mean Differences

Transformational Scores

(Leadership)

t-values by Groups

Time

Periods Rater Variable Low Middle High

2-3 Subordinate Senior Rank -1.80" (59) -2.57% (30) .00 (8)

2-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -2.54**(46) 3.48%*(35) - .28 (7)

3-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -1.45 (37) - .17 (28) -1.00 (7)

2-3 Superior Senior Rank - .33 (47) 1.04 (19) 2.02 (5)

2-4 Superior Senior Rank -2.05" (19) - .01 (14) -61 (7)

3-4 Superior Senior Rank -1.27 (17) -35 (9) -00 (6)

2-3 Subordinate Peer Rank -1.64 (22) - .67 (27) -2.13* (43)
2-4 Subordinate Peer Rank -2.20* (24) -2.59% (30) -3.25%*(41)
3-4 Subordinate Peer Rank -1.11 (19) -1.29 (18) - .82 (41)
2-3 Superior Peer Rank - .17° (19) +82 (25) -65 (21)
2-4 Superior Peer Rank - .62 (9) - .29 (16) -1.02 (14)
3-4 Superior Peer Rank -1.03 (5) -1.06 (14) - .76 (15)
Contingent Reward Scores

2-3 Subordinate Senior Rank - .14 (39) - .75 (22) -1.31 (8)

2-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -3.31**(36) -1.81" (25) - .53 (6)

3-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -4.26*#(34) - .02 (23) 1.70 (7)

2-4 Superior Senior Rank - .64 (21) -79 (17) - .26 (8)

2-3 Subordinate Peer Rank - .13) (16) - .35 (17) -1.80* (35)
2-4 Subordinate Peer Rank 71.82* (20) -1.57 (19) -3.54%*(37)
3-4 Subordinate Peer Rank 71.22 (16) -1.02 (20) -2.17* (37)
3-4 Superior Peer Rank - .25 (6) - .36 (19) - .47 (21)
Contingent Punishment Scores

2-3 Subordinate Senior Rank 217° (39) - .54 (22) - .83 (8)

2-4 Subordinate Senior Rank - .71 (36) -1.33 (25) -15 (6)

3-4 Subordinate Senior Rank -2.84%%*(34) -1.07 (23) -50 (7)

3-4 Superior Senior Rank «22 = (22) +21) (17) - .27 > (8)

2-3 Subordinate Peer Rank +62 (16) .03 (17) -2.01* (35)
2-4 Subordinate Peer Rank -68 (20) -1.45 (19) -1.62 (37)
3-4 Subordinate Peer Rank -1.41 (16) -2.90*#*(20) - .23 (37)
3-4 Superior Peer Rank -70 (7) «41 (19) - .60 (21)

B-5



CONTENTS (Continued)

Figure 10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

Page
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Transformational leadership Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer
Ranking Groups Over Time ............08 sce e eee eee ee 50

Contingent Reward Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior
Rank Groups Over Time ............... bee e eee eee eee 51

Contingent Reward Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer
Ranking Groups Over Time ...... cece eee cece eee eee ceee 53

Contingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior
Rank Groups Over Time ............. eee eee eee eee 2. 54

Contingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer
Ranking Groups Over Time .......... eee cece cece ee we. 55

Noncontingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior
Rank Groups Over Time ...... eer 56

Noncontingent Punishment Ratings by Superiors and
Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer
Ranking Groups Over Time ........ see e ee eee eens 22. 57

Laissez-faire Ratings by Superiors and Subordinates of
Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Senior Rank Groups
Over Time .............. see eee ccene obec ec ceecrence 58

Laissez-faire Punishment Ratings by Superiors and

Subordinates of Cadets in High, Middle, and Low Peer
Ranking Groups Over Time ..............0- eee e ee eee 59

xiv



reward. Superior (peer) ratings differed significantly at Time
3, with those in the middle group rated highest on contingent
reward (see Table 11).

Figure 12 shows the trends in contingent reward ratings for
the high, middle, and low peer ranking groups. Most obvious is
the direct upward trend in subordinate ratings between Times 2, 3
and 4. Between Times 2 and 4 and Times 3 and 4, those in the
high peer rank group significantly increased on subordinate
ratings of contingent reward. Also apparent are the consistently
lower subordinate scores for those in the low peer ranking group
compared to those in the high peer ranking group. These
differences were significant at Time 3 (see Table 12). Superior
(peer) ratings changed little between Times 3 and 4, and showed
no dramatic differences between those in the high and low groups.

Figure 13 shows the pattern of ratings on contingent
punishment. Two patterns are particularly noteworthy. First,
those rated lowest by subordinates at Times 2 and 3 were those
who held the lowest rank at Time 4, while those who attained the
highest rank received the highest ratings of contingent
punishment at Times 2 and 3. These differences were not
significant at Time 2 (see Table 9), but were at Time 3 (see
Table 11). Also apparent, between Times 3 and 4, the subordinate
scores on contingent punishment increased significantly for the
low and middle senior rank groups, indicating that the focal
cadets holding low and middle ranks as seniors were more likely
to deliver contingent punishment than they had been earlier in
their careers at VMI.

The ratings of contingent punishment presented in Figure 14
for those in the high, middle, and low peer ranking groups
indicate a pattern similar to the results seen in Figure 13. For
example, subordinate ratings at Time 2 were highest for the
cadets in the high peer ranking group, and generally, subordinate
ratings of contingent punishment increased over time. However,
the only significant increases were from Time 3 to Time 4 for the
middle group and from Time 2 to Time 3 for the high group.
Contingent punishment as rated by superiors decreased somewhat,
though not significantly for any particular group over time.

Figure 15 presents the results for noncontingent punishment
ratings over time as a function of senior rank group.
Interestingly, the pattern of superior ratings is quite different
from that shown for contingent punishment. Specifically, between
Times 3 and 4, scores the focal cadets received for noncontingent
punishment from superiors went up somewhat for those in the
middle and low groups. Also, those in the high senior rank group
received significantly lower scores on noncontingent punishment
than those in the low rank group from subordinates at Time 3 (see
Table 11).

wn
i)



REFERENCES

Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Andrews, P. (1984). Performance, self-esteem and perceptions of
leadership emergence: A comparative study of men and women.

Western Journal of Speech Communications, 48, 1-13.

Arvey, R., & Ivancevich, J. (1980). Punishment in
organizations: A review, propositions and research
suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other
agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of
leadership and performance predictions? Personnel
Psychology, 45, 142-162.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1993). Personal attributes as
predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of
military academy leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645-668.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1997, in press). Self-other
rating agreement: A review and model. Research in

Personne] _and Human Resource Management.

Avolio, B., Atwater, L., & Lau, A. (1993). A _multirater view of
transformational and transactional leadership behavior: Key

predictors of Army camp performance. Presented at the
National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

Avolio, B., Dionne, S., Atwater, L., Lau, A., Camobreco, J.,

Whitmore, N., & Bass, B. (1996). Antecedent predictors of

a _"full-range" eadership and mana 2) es. (ARI
Technical Report #1040). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Ball, G., Trevino, L., & Sims, H. (1992). Understanding
subordinate reactions to punishment incidents: Perspectives
from justice and social affect. Leadership Quarterly, 3,
307-333.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership.
New York: Free Press.

69



-+- High
—- Middle
--«-- Low

Time 1 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 8 Moral Reasoning Scores for Cadets in High, Middle |
and Low Peer Ranking Groups Over Time i

| Note: Moral Reasoning data were not collected at Time 2. |
| 1g

;

|

38



Table 7

Regression Analyses: Physical Fitness, Self-Esteem, Hardiness

d_Mo: easoni Times 3, 4) Predicti Senior Ri
and Peer Rankings
Senior Rank Peer Rankings
Fa Pa B
ime
Physical Fitness ~20%* -16* 223% -19%%
Self-Esteem .14% 12° 12 10
Hardiness 05 01 01 -.03
Moral Reasoning -.04 -.06 -.06 -.07
Multiple R = .22* Multiple R = .23*
R= .05** Ro = .05*
Time 2
Physical Fitness 222k 2 1QkEe oR 219%
Self-Esteem «22k 15% 10 06
Hardiness ~22%% -13* 211 205
Multiple R = .31%** Multiple R = .22%*
R= .09%#* R = .05
Time 3
Physical Fitness ~28ekK «26RR ~31ee* «28 eee
Self-Esteem o23ek -16* 02 ~.04
Hardiness 15% +02 05 04
Moral Reasoning 00 -.01 -.12 -.08
Multiple R = .33%%* Multiple R = .30%**
R2 = .11%e% R2 = 09%e*e
Time 4
Physical Fitness ~ 22% 18
Self-Esteem -08 02
Hardiness -09 04
Moral Reasoning -.02 -.02
Multiple R = .20*
R= .04*
"p< .10
* p< .05
*k p< .01

*e* D < .001

Note: Time 4 measures were not used as predictors of
because they were collected after senior ranks

40

senior rank
were assigned.



Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness includes characteristics such as having a
sense of purpose, and being responsible and persistent. In early
studies, (cf. Cox, 1926; Drake, 1944; Webb, 1915;)
conscientiousness and leadership were reported to be correlated
between .21 and .53. Later work by Mount and Barrick (1993)
reported that conscientiousness was the best predictor of
occupational performance in a series of studies spanning 36
years. Bentz (1990) reported that conscientiousness and
emotional stability were predictive of advancement rates to
senior executive ranks at Sears. Similar patterns also have been
reported previously in the leadership literature by Stogdill
(1948; 1974), who found that conscientiousness was positively
related to leader emergence.

Leader Potential Index

The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was developed
to assess traits and interpersonal behaviors that arise from and
operate in the domain of the social environment. Leadership is
one of these interpersonal behaviors, and items from the CPI have
been validated as capable of predicting leadership (Gough, 1969;
1987).

Several studies have provided a basis of support for the
utility of using the CPI for predicting leadership. Gough (1969)
provided empirical support for optimum weightings of CPI scales
successfully differentiating leaders from nonleaders. The five
scales he identified were dominance, self-acceptance, sense of
well-being, good impression and achievement via independence.
Four of the five scales were positively weighted, that is higher
degrees of the trait were predictive of leadership. Good
impression (social desirability) was negatively weighted in this
predictive grouping of scales. This weighted subscale is
referred to as the Leader Potential Index (LPI). Gough (1990)
further confirmed the validity of the LPI in predicting
leadership with a sample of male cadets at West Point.

Self-Esteem

Almost all authors reporting data on the relationship of
self-confidence to leadership were uniform in the positive
direction of their findings. Andrews (1984) showed that among
undergraduates, those with high self-esteem were more likely to
emerge as leaders of their groups, and were more likely to be
rated as displaying effective leadership behaviors. Self-esteem
in leaders appears to be related to the ability to accept people
as they are, to trust others, and to be able to work without the
constant need for approval or recognition (Bass, 1990).

3