Examining the relationship between organizational culture and leadership style using the MLQ instrument

Organizational Culture

This chapter presents a recapitulation of the MLQ instrument's questions together with an analysis of the corresponding responses received. As previously stated in the earlier chapters, the purpose of this study was to examine the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions to develop a leadership-management culture model to which can be adapted as standard operating procedure in the organization with multi-cultural attributes the findings in this chapter are based on data analyses related to the following questions that were adapted using the well tested MLQ instrument; to guide and frame the research process in this study.

A cross-sectional survey was the main source used to collect data. This survey instrument was mailed to all supervisors/administrators and subordinate cafeteria manager/workers. One hundred twenty-nine surveys were distributed and 110 (85.5%) were returned completed and used in the survey data results. Surveys that were returned not completed in their entirety were not used for the purpose of this research project.

For presentational purposes, chapter four will be presented to report the internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument as measured and outlined in the methodology chapter 3. Also covered in this section was the internal consistency and reliability of the survey instrument as determined by the data collected during the actual survey. Additionally this chapter will cover categorical variables, both independent and dependent. Demographic characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, country of origin, preferred/native language spoken, and educational background were measured, numerically and graphically. Then each question on the survey was analyzed. Frequency tables were used to display these results, as well as bar charts was used to graphically depict the data results. Finally, results for the continuous scaled variables ranged from 0 to 4 (0= not at all; 1 = once in a while; 2 = sometimes; 3 = fairly often; and 4 = frequently, if not always), were displayed in descriptive statistics and histograms. This display data obtained from the surveys were analyzed quantitatively in support of the proposed hypotheses.

As mentioned in chapter 3 - Methodology, it was the intention of the researcher to present data in respect to t-Test and NOVA, but upon further review, outcomes presented a different view. In support of T-test or ANOVA, regression analysis will not provide any further insights beyond the summary data derived from the MLQ scoring guidelines and the percentile analysis that have been developed question by question.

For the convenience of the readers, the hypotheses/null hypotheses are restated below and were used to guide the direction of the research:

Ho: There is a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

Ha: There is not a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

These hypotheses are not "all-conclusive" in the sense that there exists a high probability of their acceptance. Cultural or cross-cultural research often produces contradicting results, and both culturally-contingent and universalist perspectives provide strong along with some supporting evidence. Nevertheless, the hypotheses have been styled and formulated in such a way that the probability of their being true can be judged as slightly higher than the probability of their not being true. In any case, in this type of research both confirmation and disconfirmation of a particular position are equally interesting, equally important, and represent an equally significant contribution to the body of knowledge.

Of the total responses received to the MLQ, the Hispanic cohort represents the dominate group and is very concentrated in cultural/ethnic and educational attributes. The results of the review of the relevant literature concerning organizational culture and the results of the MLQ administration suggest that most people want to do a good job and are willing to go the extra mile in the workplace when called upon, but there are some important personal considerations involved in the analysis as well that must be taken into account and Simon (2006) supported this assertion. Simon (2006) further posited that if the null hypothesis is not rejected, this does not lead to the conclusion that no association or differences exist, but instead that the analysis did not detect any association or difference between the variables or groups.

The two hypotheses/null hypotheses are important and relevant to the study in order to accomplish the objective of the study. The objective of the study was to determine the extent that a company's management failure to fully understand and appreciate its workers' unique culture is likely the extent to which the company's leadership style will be ineffective in achieving its organizational goals; hence the need to specifically include and measure unique culture attributes.

Data gathered from the survey questionnaires has included demographics (Part I of the survey) such as gender, ethnicity, educational background, and employment and of the respondants. Exploratory testing indicated that participants tend to rate themselves higher on the MLQ scales than their followers' rating of them.

However, as the research involves comparisons of individuals' perceptions, rather than demonstrated behaviors, the data is considered to be an accurate representation of participants' ideas. Simon (2006) recommended that the researcher include a section on the data demographics such as explaining the age, gender, or relevant related information on the population.

Studies

As noted in the preceding chapter, this study used the MLQ instrument (copyright permission provided at Appendix ____) which is reproduced below together with an analysis of the responses received. Because the researcher used an established instrument, the instrument testing was not necessary (Sproull, 2004).

Based on the analysis of the statistical data derived from the survey instrument and an interpolation of the literature review findings, a synthesis and evaluative action plan is provided, followed by relevant recommendations and a summary of the chapter.

All participants were individually asked if they were able and willing to participate in the survey. Before given the questionnaire, each respondent was assured of their anonymity to participating in the MLQ and they were advised they were free to withdraw from participating at any point. They were told that the questionnaire is intended to describe their leadership style as they saw and perceived it. They were told to please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item was irrelevant, or if they were unsure or do not know the answer, leave the item blank.

Each was given forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the MLQ questionnaire in Attachment (_). They were each told to judge how frequently each statement fits them. And finally, they were told that the word "others" may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors and/or all of these individuals.

Important: Which best describes you as a rater (required for processing):

I am at a higher organizational level than the person I am rating:

The person I am rating is at my organizational level:

I am at a lower organizational level than the person I am rating:

do not wish my organizational level to be known:

Participants:

Of the 129 targeted participants who were surveyed, 23 were supervisor/administrators (S) and raters above managers and 87 managers/workers (W) and raters below supervisors; and 19 (O) others who either chose not to respond, questionnaire defective or cared not to be known. Of the 129 questionnaires, 110 (85%) were acceptable to the study.

Of the 110 acceptable responses which are comprised of 23 (21%) supervisor or administrators (S) and 87 (79%) managers or workers (W).

Functions:

Administrators/supervisors (S):

Managers/Workers (W):

Of the 110 acceptable responses 12 (11%) were Male and 98 (89%) were Female.

Gender:

Male:

Female:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 21 (19%) were White, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 20 (18%) were Black and 2 (2%) were Others.

Ethnic background:

White:

Hispanic:

Black:

Other:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 91 (83%) had at least 6 college credits, 12 (11%) have bachelor degrees, 3 (3%) have masters degree and 4 (4%) had other qualifications.

Educational Level:

Bachelors:

Masters:

Other:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 21 (19%) were White, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 20 (18%) were Black and 2 (2%) were Others.

Country of origin:

North America:

South America:

Europe, except Africa and India:

Others - Caribbean, Africa and India:

Of the 110 acceptable responses 31 (28%) were English, 67 (61%) were Hispanic, 10 (9%) were French and 2 (2%) were Others.

Preferred/native language spoken/birth:

English:

Spanish:

French/Creole:

Others:

The following summations are the results of the question and outcomes of the MLQ questionnaire administered.

Results

Key:

Administrators/(S)upervisors

W) orkers/Managers

Provide other with assistance in exchange for their efforts. 3.7-3.5.

Re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.

Fail to interfere until problems become serious. 0.4-0.5

Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards.

Avoid getting involved when important issues arise. 3.6-0.7

Talk about my most important values and beliefs. 3.2-3.9

Am absent when needed. 0.4-0.8

Seek differing perspectives when solving problems. 3.4-3.5

Talk optimistically about the future. 3.3-3.6

Instill pride in other for being associated with me. 3.4-3.8

Discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets.

Wait for things to go wrong before taking action. 0.2-0.1

Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 3.7-3.9

Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 3.8-3.85

Spend time teaching and coaching. 2.4-3.2

Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.

Show that I am a firm believer in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. 3.9-4.0

Treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group.

Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action.

Act in ways that build others' respect for me. 3.9-3.8

Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures.

Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. 3.8-3.5

Keep track of all mistakes. 0.3-0.1

Display a sense of power and confidence. 3.4-3.4

Articulate a sense of power and confidence. 0.7-3.7

Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards. 3.0-3.5

Avoid making decisions. 3.3-0.5

Consider an individual as having different needs, ability, and aspirations from others.

Get others to look at problems from many different angles. 3.7-3.4

Help others to develop their strengths. 3.3-3.5

Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. 3.9-3.9

Delay responding to urgent questions. 0.3-0.3

Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.

Express satisfaction when others meet expectations. 3.9-4.0

Express confidence that goals will be achieved. 3.6-3.5

Am effective in meeting others' job-related needs. 3.7-3.4

Use methods of leadership that are satisfying. 3.7-3.9

Get others to do more than they expected to do. 3.4-2.0

Am effective in representing others to higher authority. 3.7-3.9

Work with others in a satisfactory way. 3.3-3.7

Heighten others' desire to succeed. 3.9-3.4

Am effective in meeting organizational requirements. 3.0-4.0

Increase others' willingness to try harder. 3.6-4.0

Lead a group that is effective. 2.9-4.0

Synthesis and Evaluative Action Plan

As noted in the introductory chapter, the study was guided by a hypothesis and null hypothesis which are reiterated below and answered in the concluding chapter using the general guidance provided in Table __ below.

Table ____.

Interpreting Results of Hypothesis: P-value Interpretation

Level

Outcome

P< 0.01

Very strong evidence against H0

Moderate evidence against H0

Suggestive evidence against H0

Little or no real evidence against H0

Ho: There is a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

Ha: There is not a quantifiable relationship between culture and leadership style.

According to the MLQ scoring key, "The MLQ scale scores are average scores for the items on the scale. The score [is] derived by summing the items and dividing by the number of items that make up the scale. All of the leadership style scales have four items, Extra Effort has three items, Effectiveness has four items and Satisfaction has two items" (p. 1). The realms are shown in the tables and figures below.

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

SMLQ

WMLQ

Realm

Idealized influence (attributed)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Idealized influence (behavior)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Inspirational motivation

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Intellectual stimulation

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Individualized consideration

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Contingent reward

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Management-by-Exception (Active)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Management by Exception (Passive)

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Extra Effort

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Effectiveness

Administrators/Supervisors

Managers

MLQ

Realm

Satisfaction

Recommendations summary of the MLQ results is presented in the concluding chapter, but taken together, the results of the review of the relevant literature concerning organizational culture and the results of the MLQ administration suggest that most people want to do a good job and are willing to go the extra mile in the workplace when called upon, but there are some important personal considerations involved in the analysis as well that must be taken into account. There were, not surprisingly, some fundamental differences between the responses of the cafeteria managers and Administrators/Supervisors concerning individual perceptions of fairness, effectiveness and leadership attributes, but the majority of the respondents of both types expressed a sense of being effective on the job and being capable of accomplishing their assigned responsibilities in a timely fashion. It is therefore recommended that the MLQ be readministered on a periodic basis and the results compared to these benchmarks to determine if any of the recommendations provided in chapter five below have achieved the desired effect and to identify opportunities for improving the leadership climate in these cafeterias.

Chapter Summary

Data gathered from the survey questionnaires also included demographics such as gender, ethnicity, educational background, and employment and of the respondants. This chapter presented a percentile analysis of the 45 questions contained in the MLQ in tabular and graphic form, and these findings are narrated in chapter five below.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

As noted in chapter three above, the purpose of the use of the MLQ questionnaire was to differentiate between transformational (effective) and less effective (transactional) leaders. The results of the MLQ administration indicate that there is a high level of congruence in the participants' perception of their effectiveness as a leader in their respective settings. The majority of the respondents could be deemed transformational leaders in many of the MLQ realms, with most adopting a proactive attitude towards organizational goals and motivational issues. Transformational leadership ratings of immediate superiors and at the same level as the respondents using the MLQ concerning the transformational leadership constructs are as follows:

A. Charismatic and inspirational leadership (the leader envisioned a valued future, articulated how to reach it, set high standards, and set himself as an example which followers identified with and wanted to emulate);

B. Intellectual stimulation (the leader encouraged followers to question assumptions and look at old problems in new ways to enable the followers to be more innovative and creative); and,

C. Individualized consideration (the leader treated each of her followers individually with different needs for support and development) (Bass, 2000).

According to Bass, "The individual scores of individual leaders are rated using the MLQ by those above... And at the same level in their organization. Empirically, the transformational factor scores correlate with the independently-based effectiveness of leadership which in most circumstances are positively associated with effectiveness" (p. 18). One of the constraints in the six realms used for synthesizing the MLQ data, though, is an inability to distinguish transformational and transactional leadership absolutely. In this regard, Bass reports, "Although charismatic and inspirational leadership could not be separated in the [MLQ] factor analysis, conceptually they are seen as two highly correlated but different components of leadership behavior" (p. 18).

The responses to the MLQ also suggest that the majority of the participants are satisfied overall with their work environment, but there were some significant differences reported for some constructs such as the tendency to avoid making decisions that can likely be attributed to the lack of authority to do so, but may also reflect a tendency to avoid "going out on a limb" whenever possible. There was also a high level of congruence across the board discerned form the MLQ concerning desirable leadership traits and how these operated in the workplace. The vast majority of the respondents communicated a distinct sense of proactivity and the importance of the accomplishment of organizational goals and the role of leaders in achieving these objectives. The few distinct differences in responses rates identified in the MLQ administration may be also attributable to language issues that were not taken into account in the statistical analysis but which might have been an important factor in the varying response rates identified for these individual statements.

Recommendations

Based on the foregoing results, the following recommendations are provided:

An organizational culture should be encouraged from the top-down to promote employee citizenship behaviors that contribute in meaningful ways to the accomplishment of the organization's mission.

Although money continues to rank among the most important aspects of an individual's sense of job satisfaction, other factors such as recognition by superiors and peers, a clearly delineated career path and equitable treatment in the workplace remain highly significant factors as well. Therefore, it is recommended that existing approaches to the provision of employee recognition initiatives be reevaluated to identify opportunities for improvement including the addition of a periodic survey to determine top performers in the respective cafeteria operations.

Implement a cultural diversity awareness initiative that celebrates the existing multicultural aspects of the workplace including periodic language instruction in the most commonly used foreign languages identified.

Continue to seek additional funding for increased salaries and benefit packages for both managers and Administrators/Supervisors who demonstrate sustained superior performance.

Given the large number of Hispanic respondents and the unique needs of the organization in question, a custom survey that captures the precise information outlined in the guiding research questions and provide Spanish-speaking respondents with a Spanish language version to ensure that the survey questions are understood and the responses are comparable.