Table Of ContentTRANSFORMATIONALANDTRANSACTIONALLEADERSHIPBYATHLETIC
TRAININGEDUCATIONPROGRAMDIRECTORS
By
GREGORYMICHAELZUEST
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOLOFTHE
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHE
REQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOFDOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
2003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IwouldliketobeginbythankingmycommitteemembersfromtheDepartmentof
EducationalLeadership,PolicyandFoundations,Drs.DavidHoneyman,JamesDoud,
andDaleCampbell,fortheirguidanceandpatiencethroughouttheyearsofmydoctoral
studyattheUniversityofFlorida.IwouldalsoliketothankDr.MaryBethHorodyski,
whosetirelessdedicationtoherfamily,students,andprofessioncontinuetoamazeme
evenafter11years!
NeitherthisnoranyothersuccessIhavehadinmylifewouldhavebeenpossible
withouttheloveandsupportofmyfamilyandfriends.Ithankthemverymuchfor
everything.Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyboss,Dr.SvenNormann,forbeingatruly
transformingleader.
n
1
TABLEOFCONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
1INTRODUCTION \
StatementoftheProblem 6
PurposeoftheStudy 7
DefinitionofTerms 8
Limitations 10
SignificanceoftheStudy 10
Summary
1
2.REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE 13
TransformationalLeadershipTheories 13
RelatedResearchonBass’Model 22
RelatedTheories 24
ChangeandTransformationalLeadershipinHigherEducation 28
AthleticTrainingEducationProgramsandFacultyResponsibilities....33
ChangeinAthleticTrainingEducationPrograms 36
Summary
3g
3.DESIGNOFTHESTUDY
ResearchPopulation 41
ProcedureforDataCollection 41
Instrumentation 42
StatisticalAnalysis 40
Summary 4^
iii
4.PRESENTATIONANDANALYSISOFTHEDATA 48
SurveyResponses 49
PopulationProfile 49
ResearchQuestion1 50
ResearchQuestion2 52
Summary 56
5. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS,ANDIMPLICATIONS
FORFUTURERESEARCH 58
FindingsandConclusions 59
ImplicationsandSuggestionsforFutureStudy 68
APPENDIX COVERLETTERANDSURVEYINSTRUMENTS 74
REFERENCELIST 78
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 85
IV
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchooloftheUniversityofFloridain
PartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
TRANSFORMATIONALANDTRANSACTIONALLEADERSHIPBYATHLETIC
TRAININGEDUCATIONPROGRAMDIRECTORS
By
GregoryMichaelZuest
December2003
Chair:DavidS.Honeyman
MajorDepartment: EducationalLeadership,PolicyandFoundations
Thebeginningofthe21stcenturybroughtaboutarapidlychangingeducationaland
economicenvironment,makingtheneedforleadershipinathletictrainingeducation
programsofparamountimportance.Tosuccessfullyovercomeeducationalreformsand
increasingdemandsplacedonfaculty,programdirectorsmustprovideleadershipthat
inspiresandallowsfacultymemberstoperformatoptimallevels.
ThepurposeofthisstudywastoinvestigatetheapplicabilityofBernardBass’Full-
RangeofLeadershipModeltoathletictrainingeducationprogramdirectors.Bass’model
includesninedistinctleadershipfactorsincludingfivetransformational,three
transactional,andthenon-transactionalfactorlaissez-faireleadership.Asecondary
purposewastoinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenninemeasuresofleadershipbehavior
includedinBass’model,fourmeasurementsofleadershipexperience,andthethree
measuresofleadershipoutcomeincludedinBass’model.
v
TheMLQ-5Xwasutilizedtoascertaintheprogramdirectors’perceptionsoftheir
leadershipbehaviorsaswellastheleadershipoutcomemeasurementsofleader
effectiveness,followersatisfactionwiththeleader’smethods,andextraeffortin
followers.Programdirectorswerealsoaskedtocompletealeadershipexperience
questionnairethatassessedfourleadershipexperiencemeasures.
Analysisofthesurveyresultssuggestedthatprogramdirectorsperceivedthemselves
asutilizingthefivetransformationalleadershipbehaviorsandthetransactionalleadership
behaviorcontingentrewardtoagreaterdegreethanthetransactionalleadershipbehaviors
ofmanagement-by-exceptionactiveandpassiveandthenon-leadershipbehaviorlaissez-
faire.Comparingacompositeprofileofprogramdirectors’leadershipbehaviorstoBass’
“optimal”leadershipprofilerevealsthatprogramdirectors’leadershipwasnotlikelyto
matchthe“optimal’profileduetothefrequentuseofthetransactionalleadership
behaviorcontingentreward.
Regressionanalysesrevealedfivesignificantrelationshipsbetweenthethree
leadershipoutcomesmeasuredontheMLQ-5X,nineleadershipbehaviorsmeasuredon
theMLQ-5Xandfourmeasurementsofleadershipexperience.Inspirationalmotivation
wassignificantlyrelatedtoallthreeleadershipoutcomes,whileidealizedinfluencewas
significantlyrelatedtofollower’ssatisfaction,andcontingentrewardwassignificantly
relatedtoleader’seffectiveness.Theserelationshipssuggestthatastheuseofthese
leadershipbehaviorsincreasessodoestheoutcomemeasure. Norelationshipswere
foundbetweenleadershipoutcomesandleadershipexperiencemeasures.
vi
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
Thebeginningofthe21stcenturybroughtaboutarapidlychangingeducationaland
economicenvironment,makingtheneedforleadershipinathletictrainingeducation
programs(ATEP)ofparamountimportance(Peer&Rakich,2000).Educationalreform
inthefieldofathletictrainingplacedgreatdemandsuponprogramdirectorsandtheir
facultymemberstoadapttonewdidacticandclinicalaccreditationstandards(Mangus,
1998).PeerandRakich(2000)statedthateducationalleadersmustprovideboth
transactionalandtransformationalleadershipifathletictrainersaretosecurealegitimate
placeashealthcareprovidersinthehighlycompetitivemanagedcareenvironment.A
deepunderstandingofmanagementandleadershiptheorywillhelpguideprogram
directors’behaviorstowardstheseends.However,accordingtoRankinandIngersoll
(1995),managementtheoryisanareaofdevelopmentthathasbeenvirtuallyignoredin
athletictraining.
Leadershiphasbeenstudiedforatleasttwomillennia(Bums,1978);however,no
singledefinitionofleadershiphasbeenusedconsistentlyintheresearch(Komives,Lucas
&McMahon,1998).DefinitionshaverangedfromHerseyandBlanchard’s(1993)belief
thatleadershipis“theprocessofinfluencingtheactivitiesofanindividualoragroupin
effortstowardgoalachievementinagivensituation”(p.94)toBums’(1978)viewof
leadershipas“thereciprocalprocessofmobilizing,bypersonswithcertainmotivesand
values,variouseconomic,political,andotherresources,inacontextofcompetitionand
1
2
conflict,inordertorealizegoalsindependentlyormutuallyheldbybothleadersand
followers”(p.425).Thoughnumerousdefinitionshavebeenusedintheliterature,nearly
allthedefinitionshavetreatedleadershipas“agroupphenomenoninvolvingthe
interactionbetweentwoormorepersons”inwhich“intentionalinfluenceisexertedby
theleaderoverfollower”(Yukl,1989,p.3).
Earlyleadershipliteraturehadaone-dimensionalfocus.Forexample,thegreatman
theoriesandtraittheoriesfocusedontheleader’shereditaryendowmentsandnatural
abilitiesrespectively.Inthe1950s,researchersbegantostudytheobservablebehaviorof
leaders.Thisresearchincludedtheanalysisof“whatmanagersactuallydoonthejob”
(Yukl,1994,p.12),andcomparisonsofthebehaviorsofeffectiveandineffectiveleaders.
However,thebehavioristapproachtoleadershipignoredsituationalvariablesandgroup
processesresultingininconclusiveandinconsistentfindings(Komivesetal.,1998).
“Whereweoncethoughtofleadershipasarelativelysimpleconstruct,wenowrecognize
thatitisamongthemorecomplexsocialphenomena”(Heilbrunn,1994,p.66).
Leadershipresearchinthelate20thcenturyfocusedonleadershipasamulti-
dimensionalconstructincludingtheleader,therelationshipbetweentheleaderandhis
followers,andthesituationalvariablessurroundingtheleader/followerdyad.These
theoriesincludedFiedler’s(1967)ContingencyModel,HouseandMitchell’s(1974)
Path-GoalModel,andHerseyandBlanchard’s(1988)SituationalLeadershipModel.
Severaltheoristshaveinvestigatedthegrowth-orientedleadershipstylesof
“visionary”or“exceptional”leaders(Bennis&Nanus,1985;Sashkin&Fulmer,1985).
Thesetheoristspostulatedthattheseleadershavetheabilitytoarticulateavisionand
bringaboutnoticeablegrowthintheirfollowers,aswellastheirorganizations.Theyalso
3
statedthatvisionattractscommitmentandenergizespeople,createsmeaning,establishes
astandardofexcellence,bridgesthepresentandthefuture,andempowersfollowers
(Nanus,1992).
Finally,twotheories,Bums’(1978)TransformationalLeadershipModeland
Greenleafs(1977)ServantLeadershipTheory,werebasedonthereciprocalnatureofthe
leader-followerinteraction.Thesetheoriesemphasizedmutualgoalsandmotivationsof
theleadersandfollowers,aswellasempowermentandelevationofthefollower.
BuildinguponBums’(1978)TransformationalLeadershipModelandincorporating
aspectsofvisionarytheories,Bass(1985)proposedachange-basedmodelofleadership.
BothBums’(1978)andBass’(1985)modelswerebasedonthebehaviorally
dichotomousstylesofleadership,transactionalleadershipandtransformational
leadership,anddistinguishedbetweenhigherandlowerorderchangeinfollowers.Bass
statedthattransactionalleadershipisbasedoncost-benefitsandeconomicexchangesto
meetfollowers lowerordermaterialandpsychicneedsinreturnforservicesrenderedby
thesubordinate.Bums(1978)statedthattransformationalleadersrecognizetheselower
orderneedsinsubordinatesbutgofurthertosatisfyfollowers’higherorderneedsand
morefullyengagethefollower.Bass(1985)explainedthattransformationalleaderscan
succeedinmovingfollowersfromalowerlevel(order)toahigherlevel(order)ofneed,
accordingtoMaslow’s(1954)HierarchyofNeeds,byincreasingthefollowers’maturity
levelofneedsfromsecurityandaffiliationtoconcernsforrecognition,achievement,and
self-actualizing.
Bums(1978)consideredleadershiptobetransactionalwhenfollowersaremotivated
byexchangingrewardsforservicesperformed.Forexample,hestatedthatpolitical
4
transactionalleaders“approachfollowerswithaneyetoexchangingonethingfor
another:jobsforvotesorsubsidiesforcampaigncontributions.Suchtransactions
comprisethebulkoftherelationshipsamongleadersandfollowers,especiallyingroups,
legislatures,andparties”(p.4).
Bass’(1985)viewoftransactionalleadershipparalleledthatofBums,however,
BassbuiltuponHouseandMitchell’s(1974)Path-GoalModel.HouseandMitchell’s
modelstatedthatone’seffortstowardagoalisbasedontwocriteria:1)one’sconfidence,
subjectiveprobability,orexpectationthatanoutcomecanandwillbeattainedbymeans
ofone’sperformance;and2)thevalueoftheoutcome—howmuchitisdesiredand
valued,orhowmuchitisperceivedasinstrumentalinrealizingotherdesiredoutcomes.
Bassstatedthattransactionalleadersservetoclarifyroleandtaskrequirementsof
subordinates.Theleadermustalsorecognizetheneedsofthefolloweranddefinehow
thoseneedswillbemetinexchangeforthefollower’ssatisfactoryeffortand
performance.Thisrecognitionofthefollower’sneedshelpstheleadermakethe
designatedoutcomeofsufficientvaluetothefollowerastoheightenhisefforttoattain
thedesiredoutcome.
Bass(1985)explainedthattransformationalleaders“canmovethoseinfluencedto
transcendtheirownself-interestforthegoodofthegroup,organization,orcountry”
(p.15). Bums(1978)statedthattransformationalleadershipis“aprocesswhereleaders
andfollowersraiseoneanothertohigherlevelsofmoralityandmotivation”(p.20).
Transformationalleadershipmayresultin“arelationshipofmutualstimulationand
elevationthatconvertsfollowersintoleadersandmayconvertleadersintomoralagents”
(p.4).
