See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342782205

The Full Range Leadership Model: Essentials and Practicum

Article · July 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 2,935

1 author:

Olivier Serrat
Chicago School of Professional Psychology
605 PUBLICATIONS   1,340 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research in Development View project

Nurturing Knowledge Ecologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Serrat on 08 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Full Range
Leadership Model:
Essentials and
Practicum

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire generates a

psychological inventory from propositions that aim to
assess leadership styles and leadership outcomes: it is
a multi-rater (or 360-degree) instrument, which means
that its output—the MLQ 360 Leader's Report—
interprets and compares a leader's self-assessment
with ratings contributed across the same items by
associates. This précis reflects on a Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire exercise conducted in May
2020.

Olivier Serrat
07/07/2020
 1

Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced the Full Range Leadership Model to shine light on the ability
and behavior of leaders in different work situations. The Full Range Leadership Model owes
much to Burns's (1978) trait-based approach to leadership, from whose work Bass (1985) drew
heavily: the model condenses all leadership approaches into motivation, stimulation, and
influencing (transformational leadership); management-by-exception and contingent reward
(transactional leadership); and de facto denial of responsibility for leadership (passive–avoidant
or laissez-faire behaviors) (Avolio & Bass, 1991). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
borne out of Avolio and Bass (1991) is used to assess leadership ability and behavior across
many types of organizations—with a view to training and coaching but also selection, transfer,
and promotion activities—and is much referenced in organizational studies (Mind Garden, n.d.).

Understanding the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scales

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire contains 45 items (or 36 items having to do with
leadership styles and nine items relating to leadership outcomes) across nine components,
termed "scales". (Transformational leadership has five scales. Transactional leadership and
passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors have two scales each. Leadership outcomes have
three scales). Each of the nine scales for transformational, transactional, and passive–avoidant
or laissez-faire behaviors is assessed by four highly inter-correlated items, all of them having
the lowest possible correlation with those of the other scales. Drawing from Mind Garden (n.d.),
Figure 1 groups the categories and associated behaviors of the Full Range Leadership Model.

Figure 1: Categories and Scales of the Full Range Leadership Model

Transformational Leadership

•Builds Trust (Idealized Influence – Attributes)

•Acts with Integrity (Idealized Influence – Behaviors)
•Encourages Others (Inspirational Motivation)
•Encourages Innovative Thinking (Intellectual Stimulation)
•Coaches & Develops People (Individualized Consideration)

Transactional Leadership

•Rewards Achievement (Contingent Reward)a

•Monitors Deviations & Mistakes (Management-by-Exception: Active)b

Passive–Avoidant (or Laissez-Faire) Leadership

•Fights Fires (Management-by-Exception: Passive)

•Avoids Involvement (Laissez-Faire: Avoidant)

Note. a Constructive; b Corrective. (Mind Garden, n.d.)

As shown in Figure 1, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
assesses transformational leadership with five scales (20 items in toto):
• Builds Trust—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader builds trust,
inspires power and pride, and goes beyond his/her own individual interests to focus on
those of the group.
 2

• Acts with Integrity—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader acts
with integrity, talks about his/her values and beliefs, focuses on a desirable vision, and
considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her actions.
• Encourages Others—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader
motivates those around him/her by providing meaning and challenge.
• Encourages Innovative Thinking—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a
leader stimulates efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions,
reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways.
• Coaches & Develops People—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a
leader pays attention to individual needs for achievement and growth by acting as a coach
or mentor. (Mind Garden, n.d.)

Next, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses transactional
leadership with two scales (eight items in toto):
• Rewards Achievement—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader
rewards in return for achievement of expected levels of performance.
• Monitors Deviations & Mistakes—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a
leader monitors for deviations, mistakes, and errors and takes corrective action. (Mind
Garden, n.d.)

Then, per Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses passive–avoidant
or laissez-faire behaviors with two scales (eight items in toto):
• Fights Fires—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader waits for a
problem to appear before taking corrective action.
• Avoids Involvement—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader
refuses to assume the responsibilities that are a part of his/her position as leader. (Mind
Garden, n.d.)

In addition, per Mind Garden (n.d.), the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire assesses
outcomes of leadership with three scales (nine items in toto), questions toward which are only
put to raters:
• Generates Extra Effort—This 3-item scale assess the frequency with which a leader is
perceived to be able to influence his/her followers to do more than they are expected to do.
• Is Productive—This 4-item scale assesses the frequency with which a leader is perceived
as being effective when interacting at different levels of the organization.
• Generates Satisfaction—This 2-item scale assesses the frequency with which raters are
satisfied with their leader's methods of working with others. (Mind Garden, n.d.)

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire comprises two forms: (a) the Leader Form (36 items);
and (b) the Rater Form (45 items). (The Rater Form includes the perceptions of raters vis-à-vis
the outcomes of leadership.) All scales are assessed using a 5-point scoring rubric as follows:
(a) 0.0 = Not at all; (b) 1.0 = Once in a while; (c) 2.0 = Sometimes; (d) 3.0 = Fairly often; and (e)
4.0 = Frequently, if not always (Mind Garden, n.d.).

Administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Using Mind Garden's Transform™ System, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is

administered online to individuals (or groups) and takes about 15 minutes to complete. Leaders
prepare the names and email addresses of 12–20 individuals who will serve as objective and
honest raters. Preferably, 3–5 individuals should be at a higher organizational level (aka Above),
 3

3–5 should be at the same organizational level (aka Same), 3–5 should be at a lower
organizational level (aka Lower), and 3–5 should be others who work or have worked with the
leader (aka Other). The feedback from raters is grouped so the leaders do not know how each
assessed them. Mind Garden's Transform™ System's online survey platform gives leaders 24/7
access to assessments, data, and reports. As raters complete the survey, the data and scoring
file is dynamically updated and individual (or group) reports become available (Mind Garden,
n.d.). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report—the MLQ 360 Leader's
Report—is a 50-page document that presents (a) aggregate scores; (b) self and rater feedback
(by level); (c) comparison with norms; (d) transformational leadership strengths and areas for
development; (e) self to all rater gaps; (f) complete ratings of all rater levels; and (g) rater
feedback to open-ended questions (Mind Garden, n.d.).

Interpreting the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report

A leader may feel challenged by rater statements and wish to contest their importance or
meaning (Mind Garden, n.d.). But, Mind Garden (n.d.) remarks commonsensically that leaders
must manage what others believe as well as the reality. So that leaders might make the most of
feedback, Mind Garden (n.d.) underscores that each item is a validated marker: hence, a leader
may need to scrutinize his/her own implicit assumptions about leadership (Mind Garden, n.d.).

Mind Garden (n.d.) underscores also that leaders should not get locked into one particular
aspect of the MLQ 360 Leader's Report but reflect on the whole. Citing from Mind Garden (n.d.),
when viewing the MLQ 360 Leader's Report, one should consider the following questions:
• What are my leadership strengths? (Notice what leadership behaviors were rated high that
you already knew were strengths.)
• What are the areas where I tend not to perceive myself as having leadership strengths, but
where my raters see me as having strengths? (Focus on leadership behaviors that were
rated high but which you did not know were strengths.)
• In which areas do I need to develop my leadership behaviors? (Notice leadership behaviors
that were rated low that you know are low and could develop.)
• Which specific leadership behavior items do I need to do more frequently? (Focus on
leadership behaviors that are rated low that you could practice more frequently.)
• Which specific behavior items do I need to do less frequently? (Focus on items in the
transactional or passive–avoidant scales.)
• In which areas do I see myself as being stronger than my raters see me? (Notice leadership
behaviors where I rate my frequency higher than I am being rated.) (Mind Garden, n.d.)

Next, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should consider how to change one's leadership style:
• How can I be a more effective leader with my followers?
• How can I be a more effective leader with my peers?
• How can I influence "upwards" more effectively? (Focus on leadership behaviors I can
practice with those at a higher organizational level than I am.)
• Which issues really challenge my thinking about my leadership? (Mind Garden, n.d.)

Then, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should focus on the transformational leadership section:
• What are my strongest transformational leadership behaviors? How can I leverage those
behaviors?
• What transformational leadership behaviors are most important for me to improve given my
current role in the organization and the surrounding environment? (Mind Garden, n.d.)
 4

Finally, per Mind Garden (n.d.), one should look at transactional and passive–avoidant
behaviors:
• Do I reward achievement more frequently than I monitor deviations and mistakes, and if not
why not? Do I rely too much on transactional behaviors when compared with my
transformational repertoire?
• Am I frequently seen to be engaging in fire-fighting? Do I frequently avoid involvement?
Should I pay more attention to perceptions that I am passive–avoidant lest it should
discourage others. (Mind Garden, n.d.)

Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report

1. Approach

The first section of this précis was given over to understanding the categories and scales of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; the second itemized the logistics of the survey associated
with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; and the third clarified the precepts for
interpretation of the MLQ 360 Leader's Report. This section summarizes key elements of
feedback from my MLQ 360 Leader's Report (dated May 19, 2020). The next section will
analyze my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and that which follows will conduct individual and goal
setting for two areas for development. The concluding section in this précis will offer thoughts on
how to appreciate multi-rater feedback in a world that is not short of it. Figure 2 outlines the
organizing structure and steps for the review of my MLQ 360 Leader's Report.

Figure 2: Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report

Understanding the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Categories and Scales

Administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Interpreting the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report

Reflecting on My MLQ 360 Leader's Report

Conducting Individual Planning and Goal Setting

Table 1 gives some details of the 14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered
feedback.
 5

Table 1: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Rater Population

Organizational Level Number of Gender

Raters
Male Female
Above 2 2 0
Same 4 3 1
Lower 2 0 2
Other 6 3 3
Total 14 8 6
Note. Ten of the 14 raters were former colleagues who were—at some point or another—closely
associated with the work I conducted for an international organization in the areas of
environmental management, evaluation, information and communication technology, project
design and administration, public relations, and strategic planning. One worked with me from a
different organization. Three are doctoral students at The Chicago School of Professional
Psychology.

2. Average Scores

The average scores in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report are:

• Transformational Leadership (14 Raters)—Score = 3.3 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.),
the ideal frequency of all five Transformational behaviors is a "Fairly often" rating of 3.0 or
greater.]
• Rewards Achievement (14 Raters)— Score = 3.3 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the
ideal frequency of Rewards Achievement is between "Sometimes" and "Fairly often" (2.0–
3.0).]
• Monitors Deviations & Mistakes (14 Raters)—Score = 2.1 [According to Mind Garden
(n.d.), the ideal frequency of Monitors Deviations & Mistakes is between "Once in a while"
and "Sometimes" (1.0–2.0).]
• Fights Fires (14 Raters)—Score = 0.5 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal
frequency of Passive–Avoidant behaviors is between "Not at all" and "Once in a while" (0.0–
1.0).]
• Avoids Involvement (14 Raters)—Score = 0.1 [According to Mind Garden (n.d.), the ideal
frequency of Passive–Avoidant behaviors is between "Not at all" and "Once in a while" (0.0–
1.0).]

3. Aggregate Scores

Table 2 reproduces the aggregate scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and
matches the ideal frequency of behavior and outcome of research validated benchmarks to
corresponding categories or scales.
 6

Table 2: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Aggregate Scores

Category Scale Score (Rater's Ideal Frequency

Average) (Research
Validated
Benchmark)
Transformational Leadership
Builds Trust 3.3 ≥3.0
Acts with Integrity 3.3 ≥3.0
Encourages Others 3.4 ≥3.0
Encouraged Innovative 3.4 ≥3.0
Thinking
Coaches & Develops 3.2 ≥3.0
People
Transactional Leadership
Rewards Achievement 3.3 2.0 – 3.0
Monitors Deviations & 2.1 1.0 – 2.0
Mistakes
Passive–Avoidant Behaviors
Fights Fires 0.5 0.0 – 1.0
Avoids Involvement 0.1 0.0 – 1.0
Outcomes of Leadership
Generates Extra Effort 3.2 ≥3.5
Is Productive 3.2 ≥3.5
Generates Satisfaction 3.5 ≥3.5
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 =
Frequently, if not always.

Table 3 reproduces the feedback by rater level recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report.

Table 3: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Feedback by Rater Level

Category Scale Score Above Same Lower Other

(Rater's
Average)
Transformational Leadership
Builds Trust 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.2
Acts with Integrity 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2
Encourages Others 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3
Encouraged 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.3
Innovative Thinking
Coaches & Develops 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.1
People
Transactional Leadership
Rewards 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.1
Achievement
Monitors Deviations 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.7
& Mistakes
Passive–Avoidant Behaviors
Fights Fires 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6
 7

Category Scale Score Above Same Lower Other

(Rater's
Average)
Avoids Involvement 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1
Outcomes of Leadership
Generates Extra 3.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.1
Effort
Is Productive 3.2 2.3 3.5 3.4 3.3
Generates 3.5 3.0 3.6 3.5 3.5
Satisfaction
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 =
Frequently, if not always.

4. Style Strengths

Table 4 reproduces the style strengths suggested by my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and
matches each to its corresponding score and scale.

Table 4: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Style Strengths

Score (Rater's Scale Item

Average)
3.9 Encourages Others I articulate a compelling vision of the future.
3.9 Encourages Others I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished.
3.6 Encourages Innovative I get others to look at problems from many
Thinking different angles.
3.6 Acts with Integrity I consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions.
3.6 Builds Trust I act in ways that build others' respect for me.
3.5 Encourages Innovative I re-examine critical assumptions to question
Thinking whether they are appropriate.
3.4 Encourages Others I express confidence that goals will be
achieved.
3.4 Encourages Innovative I suggest new ways of looking at how to
Thinking complete assignments.
3.4 Coaches & Develops I treat others as individuals rather than just as
People members of the group.
3.4 Builds Trust I go beyond self-interest for the good of the
group.
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 =
Frequently, if not always.

5. Areas for Development

Table 5 reproduces the areas for development suggested by my MLQ 360 Leader's Report and
matches each to its corresponding score and scale.
 8

Table 5: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Areas for Development

Score (Rater's Scale Item

Average)
2.3 Encourages Others I talk optimistically about the future.
2.8 Builds Trust I instill pride in others for being associated
with me.
3.0 Encourages Innovative I seek differing perspectives when solving
Thinking problems.
3.1 Coaches & Develops I spend time teaching and coaching.
People
3.1 Coaches & Develops I help others to develop their strengths.
People
3.1 Acts with Integrity I emphasize the importance of having a
collective sense of mission.
3.1 Builds Trust I display a sense of power and confidence.
3.3 Coaches & Develops I consider each individual as having different
People needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.
3.4 Acts with Integrity I talk about my most important values and
beliefs.
3.4 Acts with Integrity I specify the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose.
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 =
Frequently, if not always.

Analyzing My MLQ 360 Leader's Report

1. A Disciplined and Open Mind

The MLQ 360 Leader's Report provides group calculations but shares scant interpretation: the
near-entirety of the report consists of sequential self-ratings, rater averages, and research
validated benchmarks across the items in each scale. The only comments to be found in the
MLQ 360 Leader's Report—provided unedited and in no order of relative importance—are in the
section on rater feedback to open-ended questions regarding (a) what might help the leader be
more effective; (b) obstacles facing the leader's effectiveness; and (c) what is admired about the
leader. And so, interpreting the MLQ 360 Leader's Report requires discipline as well as an open
mind.

Specifically, to extract value from the MLQ 360 Leader's Report, one should according to Mind
Garden (n.d.) (a) take to heart the ratings to appreciate how others perceive the leadership
behaviors; (b) ponder the outcomes of leadership in relation to one's leadership style; (c)
scrutinize the differences between self-ratings and those of others, paying attention to variances
across rater levels; (d) compare each rating with the benchmark validated by research; and (e)
formulate a plan to increase or decrease behaviors, preferably picking items that would lift the
average score for a leadership style (Mind Garden, n.d.).

2. Style Strengths

Table 2 indicates that all the aggregates scores for transformational leadership in my MLQ 360
Leader's Report were above the ideal frequency by 0.2–0.4 points; the aggregate score for
 9

constructive transactional leadership is above the ideal frequency range by 0.3 points while that
for corrective transactional leadership is outside the ideal frequency range by only 0.1 points. All
aggregate scores for passive–avoidant behaviors are within the ideal frequency range. But, the
aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal frequency range by 0.3 points
in two out of three scales, a relative shortcoming that will be touched upon in the following
section.

Table 3 breaks down the feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report by rater level. To note, the
feedback from raters at same (aka Same) and lower (aka Lower) organizational levels, or 10 of
14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered feedback, is here and there higher,
sometimes by as much as 0.6 points, than that of raters at higher (aka Above) and other (aka
Other) organizational levels. Then again, the population of raters at higher (aka Above) and
other (aka Other) organizational levels is too small to hazard a guess for relatively lower
perceptions. Lastly, although no table was prepared to demonstrate this here, the aggregate
scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report show that my behaviors as perceived by the
raters are in every instance higher than the universal norms (N = 3,755) associated with
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive–avoidant (or laissez-faire)
leadership, and outcomes of leadership. [The word "better" would be more appropriate apropos
passive–avoidant (or laissez-faire) leadership.]

Table 4 shows the notable strengths of transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's
Report to be (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I articulate a compelling vision of the future (Score
= 3.9); and (b) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished (Score = 3.9). Three others strengths of transformational leadership in my MLQ
360 Leader's Report are scored at 3.6, one is scored at 3.5, and four are scored at 3.4. The
strengths cut across all five scales of transformational leadership.

Concluding, the feedback on transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report does
not suggest areas that the raters but not I see leadership strengths in; there was no surprise
there. All scores, both from followers and peers, are characteristically high and do not volunteer
behavior items I need to perform more frequently or less frequently. To note, although no table
was prepared to demonstrate this here, I deemed myself—across all scales—as being stronger
than my raters see me. "Ambition is not what man does … but what man would do," Robert
Browning was reinterpreted as saying. Then again, one should not hang on miracles. In relation
to this, one rater commented on "… the sometimes unrealistically high expectations [I have of
myself]", which is representative of other rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report on
what can help me be more effective and what obstacles face my effectiveness. Rater feedback
in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to open-ended questions on what was admired will not be
reproduced in this précis but confidence, dedication, moral standards, passion, self-reflection,
tenacity, transparency, trustworthiness, and vision and strategy were common themes. (Here is
one representative example of a repartee: "Strong vision of the future, strong intuition and
tension to accomplishment".)

3. Areas for Development

Table 2 indicates that the aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal
frequency range by 0.3 points in two out of three scales, as reported earlier, even if both are
higher than the universal norms (N = 3,755) by 0.1–0.5 points. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report
does not flag this as an area for development but the outcomes of leadership are self-evidently
important and the matter assuredly demands attention in the future. The two scales are (a)
Scale: Generates Extra Effort: I get others to do more than they expected to do; I heighten
 10

others' desire to succeed; and I increase others' willingness to try harder (Score = 3.2); and (b)
Scale: Is Productive: I am effective in meeting others' job-related needs; I am effective in
representing my group to higher authority; I am effective in meeting organizational
requirements; and I lead a group that is effective (Score = 3.2). Table 3 exposes perceived
shortcomings relative to extra effort and productivity: specifically, the shortfall regarding Scale:
Generates Extra Effort is explained by raters at higher (aka Above) organizational level
perceiving that I only once in a while or sometimes—not fairly often or frequently—get others to
do more than they expected to do whereas two raters at lower (aka Lower) organizational level
perceive I frequently achieve this; the shortfall regarding Scale: Is Productive is explained by the
same raters perceiving that I am only sometimes—not fairly often or frequently—effective in
meeting others' job-related needs and effective in representing my group to higher authority.

At any rate, Table 5 does flag two areas for development of transformational leadership: (a)
Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the future (Score = 2.3); and (b) Scale:
Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with me (Score = 2.8). [Paradoxically,
with respect to the first area for development of transformational leadership, my MLQ 360
Leader's Report identified that my two highest style strengths relate to (a) Scale: Encourages
Others: I articulate a compelling vision of the future (Score = 3.9); and (b) (a) Scale: Encourages
Others: I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished (Score = 3.9).] Although no
table was prepared to demonstrate this here, the complete ratings of all rater levels for
transformational leadership recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report reveal widely differing
feedback regarding both (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the future
(Score = 2.3); and (b) Scale: Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with me
(Score = 2.8). Specifically, regarding Scale: Encourages Others: I talk optimistically about the
future (Score = 2.3), I note that one rater at the other (aka Other) organizational level scored me
at 0 (Not at all) and that one rater at the lower (aka Lower) organizational level scored me at 1
(Once in a while). Regarding Scale: Builds Trust: I instill pride in others for being associated with
me (Score = 2.8), I note also that two raters at the other (aka Other) organizational level scored
me at 0 (Not at all) and 1 (Once in a while), respectively. I can think of no explanation but the
disparity of feedback across these two scales explains why my MLQ 360 Leader's Report
singled out them as areas for development: therefore, they will be the subject of individual
planning and goal setting. No other score in the areas for development of transformational
leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report is inferior to 3 (Fairly often).

Away from numbers, I found unexpected value in the rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's
Report to open-ended questions on what can help me be more effective and what obstacles
face my effectiveness. Pell-mell, rater advice was to "Be a better listener, be less intense",
"Don't try to be right all the time and try different, less confronting pathways to achieve your
goal[s]", "[Be] more understanding of those who may not meet [your] own productivity
standards, more empathetic, and less inclined to criticize or draw attention to weaknesses",
"[Be] more inclusive, accepting other people's limits", and "Tak[e] on board the views of
supervisors". References to "Perfectionism" and "Intolerance or lack of understanding of those
who fail to satisfy his high standards" cropped up too. I probably need to manage "upwards"
better: rater feedback in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report to open-ended questions on what can
help me be more effective drew attention to "[My] tendency to assume everyone understands
[me]", "Assumptions that everyone understands the nuances of what [I] try to implement", "[My]
relationship with authority", and the fact that "[C]onfrontation is not always the right path. Build
more coalitions. Don't theorize too much but stay practical".
 11

Conducting Individual Planning and Goal Setting

Exhibiting willingness to receive feedback is essential part of leadership self-development, a

personal journey with different destinations that each leader works toward in the broader context
of his/her life space. But, change is what all leaders have in common and change is the main
goal of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Summing up, my MLQ 360 Leader's Report
infers that I can be a more effective leader if, in particular, I do a better job of talking
optimistically about the future and instilling pride in others for being associated with me.
According to my MLQ 360 Leader's Report, I can also make marginal improvements at getting
others to do more than they expected to do, meeting others' job-related needs, and representing
my group to higher authority. Drawing from information received through my MLQ 360 Leader's
Report, Table 6 specifies two generic developmental goals to encourage others and build trust
in furtherance of my self-development. The note to Table 6 explains why the actions for
changing myself and changing how I relate to others are not case-specific, hence draw in
extenso from Bass and Avolio's (2015) prototypical suggestions.

Table 6: My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning and Goal Setting

Scale Score Item Outcome

(Rater's Average)
Encourages 2.3 I talk optimistically My associates are motivated
Others about the future. by meaning and challenge.
Changing Myself:
• Communicate a clear scenario of the organization's potential.
• Create a positive and enthusiastic work climate that will energize associates.
• Speak openly about the kinds of rewards I receive from my job.
• Expect resistance to change: anticipating this normal reaction, I will include requisite
strategies in the change process.
• Frequently consider how what I am doing now and plan to do in the future may affect
associates.
• Talk about the future.
• Volunteer to lead and help to motivate a group that is struggling with low morale.
• Respond to challenges with optimism and show energy to get them solved. (Bass &
Avolio, 2015)
Changing How I Relate to Others:
• Communicate clearly with associates and define changes that are being planned.
• Work to encourage the commitment of associates to the organization.
• Build the expectation among associates that money is not the only recognition for high
performance.
• Meet with associates to point up how their inputs help deliver the goals of the
organization.
• Help associates maintain enthusiasm for their jobs by being enthusiastic myself.
• Motivate employees to take on added responsibility to develop and use their skills to
fullest potential.
• Offer support and advice to associates when they are faced with obstacles.
• Recognize early successes, respond with encouragement, and showcase the
achievements of my work unit. (Bass & Avolio, 2015)
Builds Trust 2.8 I instill pride in My associates have a
others for being positive, team-oriented
associated with me. approach.
 12

Scale Score Item Outcome

(Rater's Average)
Changing Myself:
• Become the "best" representative of associates by volunteering for initiatives.
• Be more relaxed so associates do not feel inhibited by my opinions.
• Recall a person from my past (e.g., an athletic coach, a cultural hero, a fictional character,
a mentor, a supervisor, a teacher) who acted admirably in difficult circumstances. Behave
as that person would in my situation.
• Think of people with whom I am proud to be associated and reflect on why I feel that way.
• Whenever I fear I may act inappropriately, I will consider how I would like associates to
behave in similar circumstances and I will model their behavior.
• Upon meeting someone, I will show a friendly face and display an optimistic attitude.
(Bass & Avolio, 2015)
Changing How I Relate to Others:
• Focus still more on the qualities of associates.
• Look for opportunities to build relations with associates (e.g., small talk and informal lunch
invitations).
• Recognize associates on the occasion of milestones (e.g., birthdays, project completions,
promotions, and years of service). (Bass & Avolio, 2015)
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 =
Frequently, if not always. I am on a sabbatical and the actions that this development plan lists
do not relate to a particular organization, except such that I may join or assist next. Hence, the
actions will be acted upon as the opportunity arises or social connections demand in
congruence with my philosophy of leadership and the personal leadership development plan I
designed in support of my doctoral dissertation (Serrat, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). The actions are
generic and behavioral and do not call for resources or support or the monitoring of progress
according to a particular deadline.

Afterword

1. Appreciating the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is founded on the premise that transformational and
transactional attributes must be displayed if a leader is to be successful. However, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire cannot account for all the dimensions of leadership (e.g.,
authentic, autocratic, democratic, paternalistic) and ignores the leadership modes (i.e.,
administrative, enabling, and adaptive) that Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) made out.
To this critique, Marion and Gonzales (2014) added the difficulty of spotting pseudo-
transformational leaders who display all the required abilities and behaviors but are
subsequently found to have worked for their self-interest. In addition, the centered leadership
approach advocates that leaders should first lead themselves (Barsh, Mogelof, & Webb, 2010).

To boot, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire makes no account of the interplay between
the external environment and organizational configuration and the impact that interaction has on
organizational culture and related organizational ideology, thence on leadership and associated
behaviors. Surely, diagnosis of organizational culture using, say, Cameron and Quinn's (2011)
competing values framework would clarify what is expected (or permitted) of leaders, with
differing (or dissenting) views made known by, say, Martin's (2002) integration, differentiation,
and fragmentation perspectives or Schein's (2017) three intraorganizational typologies (e.g.,
operator, engineer, and executive). In such cacophony, leaders must spend precious time
 13

learning and re-learning on which foot to dance depending on the audience, which cannot make
for the effectiveness the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire means to promote.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire suffers also from the inherent limitations of
questionnaire surveys. Yes: questionnaires are affordable, easy, and practical ways to gather
quantitative data from a large (and often anonymous) audience, data that one can then—
comfortably and without time constraint—analyze, compare, and contrast with other results to,
say, examine trends or devise strategies. But, respondent bias can be an issue; respondents
may not understand questions fully, may interpret them differently, or may leave them
unanswered; respondents may not be entirely truthful; questionnaires cannot capture emotions
or feelings; open-ended questions cannot be quantified and must be reviewed by a person, not
an algorithm; survey fatigue or lack of accessibility can lead to low completion rates; and lack of
personalization can put off potential respondents. Most problematic of all, what individual
planning and goal setting can one confidently embark on if there is no way to know if
respondents have really understood a question (as divergent responses can suggest)? To
promote the likelihood of accurate and consistent results, it has been suggested that raters
should be trained on the process and use of measurement instruments so they might avoid
biases and rating errors (or simply "missclicks"): but, how feasible is that?

Pace the above caveats, which confirm if there ever was a need to that magic bullets are not of
this world, leaders who wish to gain the most from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire can
consider using other personality inventory tools in tandem. The Emotional and Social
Competency Inventory, another multi-rater instrument; the Emotional Intelligence (or EQ) test, a
self-assessment instrument; and, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, another self-assessment
instrument, come to mind.

2. Taking Back Control

On the topic of my MLQ 360 Leader's Report, the issue that principally challenged my thinking
is well encapsulated in Mind Garden's (n.d.) remark, paraphrased earlier, that leaders must
manage what others believe as well as the reality. "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is
necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the
development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it
is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop," said Churchill (1939). If so, shock, anger, and
rejection—if such are the reactions—are both meaningless and unprofitable; one had better
accept as many of the ratings as one can and determine a course for action because
practicable hope lies there.

So, feedback gives people the opportunity to look at themselves in a different light: but in 2020,
contrasted with 1939, there may be a surfeit of advice. In a world that is so driven by information
and communication technology the greater ease with which one can be judged can sap the
desire to pursue the life we want to create for ourselves. Gervais (2019) declared that "If you
want to be your best and perform at a high level, fear of people's opinions may be holding you
back". Paraphrasing, conforming to what others may or may not think harms potential and
undermines the talents, beliefs, and values that make you you, Gervais (2019) explained
further. And so, Gervais (2019) recommended we should (a) articulate a personal philosophy to
guide thoughts, decisions, and actions; (b) commit to live in line with our personal philosophy;
(c) solicit feedback from a few persons—not a grouping of individuals at various levels—who,
paraphrasing, have a good sense of who we are and who we are striving to become; and (d)
keep in mind that growth and learning happen best when we operate at the edge of capacity. In
my view, Gervais's (2019) is not a call for splendid isolation but for taking back control, thence
 14

extract even more value from the MLQ 360 Leader's Report and suchlike multi-rater (or 360-
degree) instruments. Gervais (2019) is consonant with positive psychology and Quinn's (2005)
assertion that the leaders who do their best work do not copy others: rather, "they draw on their
own fundamental values and capabilities" to lead in thought and action (p. 115).

References

Avolio, B, & Bass, B. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced
manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.
Barsh, J., Mogelof, J., & Webb, C. (2010). How centered leaders achieve extraordinary results.
McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 78–88. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/how-centered-leaders-achieve-extraordinary-results
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2015). Multifactor leadership questionnaire leader's workbook. Mind
Garden, Inc.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and change organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Churchill, W. (1939, January 7). The British people would rather go down fighting. New
Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/archive/2013/12/british-
people-would-rather-go-down-fighting
Gervais, M. (2019). How to stop worrying about what other people think of you. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/05/how-to-stop-worrying-about-
what-other-people-think-of-you
Marion, R., & Gonzales, L. (2014). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the
practitioner (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mind Garden. (n.d.). Mind Garden: Tools for positive transformation. Retrieved from
https://www.mindgarden.com/
Quinn, R. (2005). Moments of greatness. In On managing yourself (pp. 115–134, 2010). Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Serrat, O. (2018a). Personal philosophy of leadership. Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago
School of Professional Psychology.
Serrat, O. (2018b). Personal leadership development plans: Essentials and practicum.
Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
Serrat, O. (2018c). Personal philosophy of leadership (2nd edition). Unpublished manuscript,
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 298–318.

View publication stats