Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs
Eighty-seven respondents completed either a graphic rating or a forced ranking questionnaire describing their immediate superior. Five leadership scales were embedded in each questionnaire. Three represented transformational leadership constructs (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Educational and psychological measurement 1989-09, Vol.49 (3), p.509-527 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 527 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 509 |
container_title | Educational and psychological measurement |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Bass, Bernard M. Avolio, Bruce J. |
description | Eighty-seven respondents completed either a graphic rating or a forced ranking questionnaire describing their immediate superior. Five leadership scales were embedded in each questionnaire. Three represented transformational leadership constructs (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation); two reflected transactional leadership constructs (contingent reward and management-by-exception). Appended to each questionnaire were five additional scales. The items constituting these scales measured two outcomes-satisfaction with the leader and effectiveness of the leader. The remaining scales measured each participant's leadership prototype, the participant's tendency to be lenient in his/her ratings, and a general measure of satisfaction. As expected, the intercorrelations among the factor scores representing the transformational and transactional leadership constructs were reduced substantially by using the forced rankings as compared with the graphic ratings. Also, the magnitude of the relationships among leadership and outcome factor scores was reduced, on average, when using the forced rankings. Prototypicality factor scores were more highly correlated with factor scores reflecting transformational than were factor scores portraying transactional leadership. The tendency of participants to be more or less lenient in their ratings or rankings and their general level of satisfaction were of little or no consequence to the intercorrelations among the leadership and outcome factor scales. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/001316448904900302 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_221525717</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_001316448904900302</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3095649</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-8e1e6377a8d6f04d70ee2edb0456d9c185c6aa28164a84248967d1a2f8982a223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFO20AQhlcVSAToC3Ba0SuGnfXaXvfWRi0gpSIK6dma2mMwDbvpzkZVXoznY530gFQxl9H8-v5foxkhzkBdAlTVlVKQQ2mMrZWplcqV_iAmUBQ6y621B2IyAtlIHIlj5ieVygBMxMvcR3JxwJX8OiATy8HJGWFHgR-HtfxByJtA_Fne-L9yHnz0cbsmvkiQG8i12wuJrpPX5CikkHuMA_fYxsE7uaAVRpLRy0WS3QPv0AW637vB93IZ0HHvwzOOhuQfgZ24j0jKm2Wm3nEMmzbyqTjsccX08V8_ET-_f1tOb7LZ3fXt9Mssa42yMbMEVOZVhbYre2W6ShFp6n4pU5Rd3YIt2hJR23QYtEan85VVB6h7W1uNWucn4nyfuw7-z4Y4Nk9-E9Ja3GgNhS4qqBL06T0IdK2ggNyMlN5TbfDMgfpmHYZnDNsGVDM-sfn_icl0tTcxPtCb2Pcdr6DSnlg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1290151347</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Bass, Bernard M. ; Avolio, Bruce J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bass, Bernard M. ; Avolio, Bruce J.</creatorcontrib><description>Eighty-seven respondents completed either a graphic rating or a forced ranking questionnaire describing their immediate superior. Five leadership scales were embedded in each questionnaire. Three represented transformational leadership constructs (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation); two reflected transactional leadership constructs (contingent reward and management-by-exception). Appended to each questionnaire were five additional scales. The items constituting these scales measured two outcomes-satisfaction with the leader and effectiveness of the leader. The remaining scales measured each participant's leadership prototype, the participant's tendency to be lenient in his/her ratings, and a general measure of satisfaction. As expected, the intercorrelations among the factor scores representing the transformational and transactional leadership constructs were reduced substantially by using the forced rankings as compared with the graphic ratings. Also, the magnitude of the relationships among leadership and outcome factor scores was reduced, on average, when using the forced rankings. Prototypicality factor scores were more highly correlated with factor scores reflecting transformational than were factor scores portraying transactional leadership. The tendency of participants to be more or less lenient in their ratings or rankings and their general level of satisfaction were of little or no consequence to the intercorrelations among the leadership and outcome factor scales.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-1644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3888</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/001316448904900302</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Leadership ; Ratings & rankings ; Social research</subject><ispartof>Educational and psychological measurement, 1989-09, Vol.49 (3), p.509-527</ispartof><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Autumn 1989</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-8e1e6377a8d6f04d70ee2edb0456d9c185c6aa28164a84248967d1a2f8982a223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-8e1e6377a8d6f04d70ee2edb0456d9c185c6aa28164a84248967d1a2f8982a223</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001316448904900302$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001316448904900302$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27846,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bass, Bernard M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avolio, Bruce J.</creatorcontrib><title>Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs</title><title>Educational and psychological measurement</title><description>Eighty-seven respondents completed either a graphic rating or a forced ranking questionnaire describing their immediate superior. Five leadership scales were embedded in each questionnaire. Three represented transformational leadership constructs (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation); two reflected transactional leadership constructs (contingent reward and management-by-exception). Appended to each questionnaire were five additional scales. The items constituting these scales measured two outcomes-satisfaction with the leader and effectiveness of the leader. The remaining scales measured each participant's leadership prototype, the participant's tendency to be lenient in his/her ratings, and a general measure of satisfaction. As expected, the intercorrelations among the factor scores representing the transformational and transactional leadership constructs were reduced substantially by using the forced rankings as compared with the graphic ratings. Also, the magnitude of the relationships among leadership and outcome factor scores was reduced, on average, when using the forced rankings. Prototypicality factor scores were more highly correlated with factor scores reflecting transformational than were factor scores portraying transactional leadership. The tendency of participants to be more or less lenient in their ratings or rankings and their general level of satisfaction were of little or no consequence to the intercorrelations among the leadership and outcome factor scales.</description><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Social research</subject><issn>0013-1644</issn><issn>1552-3888</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFO20AQhlcVSAToC3Ba0SuGnfXaXvfWRi0gpSIK6dma2mMwDbvpzkZVXoznY530gFQxl9H8-v5foxkhzkBdAlTVlVKQQ2mMrZWplcqV_iAmUBQ6y621B2IyAtlIHIlj5ieVygBMxMvcR3JxwJX8OiATy8HJGWFHgR-HtfxByJtA_Fne-L9yHnz0cbsmvkiQG8i12wuJrpPX5CikkHuMA_fYxsE7uaAVRpLRy0WS3QPv0AW637vB93IZ0HHvwzOOhuQfgZ24j0jKm2Wm3nEMmzbyqTjsccX08V8_ET-_f1tOb7LZ3fXt9Mssa42yMbMEVOZVhbYre2W6ShFp6n4pU5Rd3YIt2hJR23QYtEan85VVB6h7W1uNWucn4nyfuw7-z4Y4Nk9-E9Ja3GgNhS4qqBL06T0IdK2ggNyMlN5TbfDMgfpmHYZnDNsGVDM-sfn_icl0tTcxPtCb2Pcdr6DSnlg</recordid><startdate>19890901</startdate><enddate>19890901</enddate><creator>Bass, Bernard M.</creator><creator>Avolio, Bruce J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Educational and Psychological Measurement, etc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19890901</creationdate><title>Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs</title><author>Bass, Bernard M. ; Avolio, Bruce J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-8e1e6377a8d6f04d70ee2edb0456d9c185c6aa28164a84248967d1a2f8982a223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Social research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bass, Bernard M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avolio, Bruce J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bass, Bernard M.</au><au>Avolio, Bruce J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs</atitle><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle><date>1989-09-01</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>509</spage><epage>527</epage><pages>509-527</pages><issn>0013-1644</issn><eissn>1552-3888</eissn><abstract>Eighty-seven respondents completed either a graphic rating or a forced ranking questionnaire describing their immediate superior. Five leadership scales were embedded in each questionnaire. Three represented transformational leadership constructs (charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation); two reflected transactional leadership constructs (contingent reward and management-by-exception). Appended to each questionnaire were five additional scales. The items constituting these scales measured two outcomes-satisfaction with the leader and effectiveness of the leader. The remaining scales measured each participant's leadership prototype, the participant's tendency to be lenient in his/her ratings, and a general measure of satisfaction. As expected, the intercorrelations among the factor scores representing the transformational and transactional leadership constructs were reduced substantially by using the forced rankings as compared with the graphic ratings. Also, the magnitude of the relationships among leadership and outcome factor scores was reduced, on average, when using the forced rankings. Prototypicality factor scores were more highly correlated with factor scores reflecting transformational than were factor scores portraying transactional leadership. The tendency of participants to be more or less lenient in their ratings or rankings and their general level of satisfaction were of little or no consequence to the intercorrelations among the leadership and outcome factor scales.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/001316448904900302</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0013-1644 |
ispartof | Educational and psychological measurement, 1989-09, Vol.49 (3), p.509-527 |
issn | 0013-1644 1552-3888 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_221525717 |
source | SAGE Complete; Periodicals Index Online |
subjects | Leadership Ratings & rankings Social research |
title | Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T10%3A57%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Potential%20Biases%20in%20Leadership%20Measures:%20How%20Prototypes,%20Leniency,%20and%20General%20Satisfaction%20Relate%20to%20Ratings%20and%20Rankings%20of%20Transformational%20and%20Transactional%20Leadership%20Constructs&rft.jtitle=Educational%20and%20psychological%20measurement&rft.au=Bass,%20Bernard%20M.&rft.date=1989-09-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=509&rft.epage=527&rft.pages=509-527&rft.issn=0013-1644&rft.eissn=1552-3888&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/001316448904900302&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3095649%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1290151347&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_001316448904900302&rfr_iscdi=true |