My Context - wordsabre.com

MLQ and FRLM – Theory and Practice in My Context

Introduction

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a tool that provides all-rounded feedback to participants about their levels of leadership skills when measured against the Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM). At the very highest level of the FRLM, transformational leadership is described as the ideal model for leadership in modern business organizations.

In this paper, I will examine two aspects of the theory and practice of transformational leadership that has affected my world: one of which is the development of highly developed teams as agile, collaborative units within an organization; the second is the benefits of shared leadership within an organization. My personal and corporate experiences have straddled a number of organizations and communities.

I will also examine the MLQ 360° feedback on a number of points where I have been able to interpret the ratings provided by my answering the questionnaire versus the ratings given to me by independent reviewers.

Transformational Leadership

Of all the models of leadership presented by the Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM), transformational leadership has been singled out as the leadership style that works best in the world of leadership. Transformational Leadership is where the leader builds a culture within the organization where they build trust, act with integrity, inspire others, encourage innovative thinking, and coach people. Transformational Leadership energizes people (followers) in the right direction and allows them to get to their destinations under their own steam without any control mechanisms or constant coercion. Both in the short term and in the long term, followers are inspired and stimulated to develop their strengths, not constantly having to fix their weaknesses. There is a culture of continuous education and learning, continuous improvement – fixing and improving the issues rather than blaming the people.

The Benefits

Transformational Leadership allows freedom and empowerment for followers to get to the defined vision and shared destination, whatever that may be, under their own steam. The transformational leader defines the overall vision, maybe after discussions with key stakeholders. The followers have the freedom to catch the vision and do the work within the defined framework of the vision.

Freedom and empowerment encourages innovative and creative thinking. Followers make extra effort if they are allowed the freedom to create and think. There is an effortlessness and lightness involved in doing work when followers catch a shared vision, and the work done is more focused, takes less time and more productive. Followers are more fulfilled and satisfied in their workplace.

In the modern 21^st century, where the global and local business environment is perceived to be tough and highly competitive, transformational leadership lends a competitive edge to organizations and leaders who adopt it. The workforce is easily mobilized and motivated to achieve personal and professional goals that are aligned with the corporate vision. There is greater freedom, creativity and fruitfulness unleashed to achieve the corporate vision when people are encouraged to adopt innovative thinking.

Transformational leadership affords a flatter, leaner, more agile organizational structure, allowing faster change and mobility. Organizations and leaders can adapt to rapid change when the organization structures allow this to happen. Rapid change might happen when the global and local business environment changes. Both leaders and followers are called to be adaptable and innovative in rapidly changing environments.

Fostering Collaboration

Transformational Leadership allows the leader closer contact with more people within their organization. The demands for face-to-face contact may need to increase. Alternative technologies such as collaboration tools may need to be used to help facilitate transformational leadership.

Collaboration tools help build a shared history and knowledge-base for the organization, and provides an effective communication channel between leader and followers. As followers become collaborators, the flow of information becomes bi-directional between leaders and collaborators. The leader and collaborators are all kept on the same page with rapidly accessible information. Information can be kept up-to-date when needed. Collaborators can constantly refer to information on demand rather than demanding the leaders face-to-face contact time.

All followers or collaborators have the same information in hand whenever they need it. This means that everybody gets the same information without any distortion through any form of Chinese whispers. People who come on board the project sometime downstream can catch up with the organization’s knowledge-base. This eases the leader’s load with imparting knowledge and training the newcomer. Collaborators who were unable to attend a meeting or were on vacation can also catch up with what they might have missed if content and outcomes of meetings were recorded in collaboration tools.

Followers and collaborators can help the decision-making process by brainstorming new ideas, solving problems that are too big for one person to solve. Collaboration tools facilitate information sharing and a collaborative work culture. Information can flow bi-directionally between leaders and collaborators without being hindered by unwieldy bureaucratic processes. Information flow is fast and transparent. Information is available. Information access is egalitarian and immediate.

360° Feedback

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) provides the participants with 360° feedback about their leadership skills. This provides a theoretically based framework for evaluating one’s current level of skills while one is working towards transformational leadership. In order to progress from our current position, one must know where one is positioned on the leadership scale proposed by the MLQ as FRLM.

By getting a number of independent reviewers and observers, one is able to measure one’s own perceptions against what might be a reality check of external observers. This provides alternative opinions against which one can balance one’s own perceptions.

Speaking for myself, MLQ feedback says that I tend to rate myself a little bit higher than my raters have rated me. This provides me with the feedback that says that I have become more introverted as a leader in the face of public opposition than when I started as a leader. I have responded negatively to public opinion and public scrutiny. This feedback allows me the opportunity to change my behavior towards my friends, colleagues, peers and leaders. I am able to reach out towards other people by using the practical steps suggested for building trust and giving positive feedback to people with whom I interact. I am encouraged to initiate conversations on difficult and controversial topics that proactively address issues of mutual concern. I also need to give feedback during conversations to show that I am actively listening to whomever I am talking to and to show that I understand what is being said.

As a communicator, I communicate primarily by writing as this allows me to reach people from all over the world over the internet as quickly as I am able to publish my writing. While I have great skills for one-on-one face-to-face conversations, I have not developed speaking skills for mass communication. Speaking to mass audiences is a more personal approach as one can convey facial expressions and the dynamics of verbal speech. One is more likely to build trust by appearing in person to deliver a message. Communicating by speaking to mass audiences requires a lot of travelling all over the world to meet all of these people. I am required to stay put in Sydney, Australia, and thus, I am limited to writing for mass communication over the internet.

The Theoretical Basis of MLQ

In Building Highly Developed Teams (Avolio, 1996) …

Organizations are rapidly transforming themselves from hierarchical and functionally arranged structures, to ones that are networked and cellular (Cascio, 1995; Drucker, 1993; Naisbitt, 1994; Toffler, 1990). Why? There are several converging forces driving this transformation. First, as we move towards greater customization of products, and a need for increasing the speed of going from ideas to implementation, the old systems of ‘checks and balances’ are giving way to collaborative cellular-based systems.

Second, these new organizational systems are comprised of individuals who are now more knowledgeable and able to exchange information via electronic networks.

Third, the creation of cells versus departments provides for greater flexibility to change in advance of shifts in the market.

Fourth, the current technology that is available provides more resources and power to each cell, which previously was controlled by departments embedded within steep organizational hierarchies. In total, where trust and commitment, replace compliance and over sight, the need for steep structures driven by a management-by-exception style of leadership is no longer needed.

In Developing Shared Leadership in Teams (Avolio, 1996) …

As far back as in the mid 1960s, Seashore and Bowers (1966) discussed the importance of ‘shared leadership’ to group development indicating, ‘there are both common sense and theoretical reasons for believing that a formally our acknowledged leader through his (sic) supervisory leadership behaviour set the pattern of the mutual leadership which subordinates supply each other.’

…

Using the full range model presented in Figure 1.1, we have discovered that teams — ones we would call ‘highly developed’ — are distinguished from groups in the following manner:

… high levels of trust among members, results in a willingness to sacrifice short-tern gain for long-term potential;

… team members have a solid belief in themselves, the team, and its collective mission;

… members readily identify with the team mission and are committed to and inspired by it;

… conflict over different perspectives is valued and encouraged, often resulting in profound knowledge development;

… each individual considers it his or her responsibility to develop the potential of their associates (Avolio, Jung, Muny, & Sivisubramaniam, 1996; Shamir 1990; Guzzo, et al., 1993; Ilgen, et al., 1994).

Our position is that the leadership of teams described above, at a ‘collective level’, represents all four components of transformational leadership described earlier.

Conclusions

In my personal and corporate experience, I have found the freedom and empowerment with organizations which have adopted transformational leadership principles to be an inspiration and a release from the chains of traditional hierarchical organizations. Transformational leaders build a trust culture, without which an organization can become driven by fear and competition between peers. Fear-driven and competitiveness between peers within organizations are uncomfortable and sap my creative and innovative energies, rather than channel my strengths towards productive potential.

Transformational leadership builds an organization for the long term. Transformational leadership builds collaboration and cohesion between individuals in a team to form highly developed teams. Transformational leadership fosters a culture of shared leadership between followers. Followers are encouraged to lead each other. Transformational leaders build a high trust and strongly innovative culture. Transformational leaders continuously develop individuals at all levels of the organization.

Bibliography

Avolio, B. J. (1996). What’s all the karping about down under?: Transforming Australia’s leadership systems for the twenty-first century. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research and practice: Emerging themes and new challenges. Victoria: Pitman.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72, 441-462. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=2635131&site=ehost-live

Bass, B. M. (2004, February). Authentic transformational leadership. 360 degree Feedback: Newsletter of the Accredited MLQ Network, 6(1).

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9608128&site=ehost-live

Elliott, R. H. (2001, November). Organisational Leadership in Challenging Times: Australian Perspectives and New Benchmarks. Keynote address at the Australian Human Resources Conference on Leadership.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of Consolidated- Business-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thompson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75-96. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=heh&AN=12128513&site=ehost-live