The transformational leadership questionnaire

(TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant

validation study

Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe
Trinity and All Saints' University College, Leeds, UK
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
Nuffield Institute Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Leeds, UK

Keywords Government Version) (TLQ-LGV) (Alimo-

Leadership, Questionnaires, Introduction
Local government, Validity
Abstract
This paper sets out to provide
evidence of the convergent and
discriminant validity of a recently
developed leadership
questionnaire, the
Transformational Leadership
Questionnaire (Local Government
Version) (TLQ-LGV). Evidence is
presented, from a random,
stratified sample of 1,464 male
and female managers, working in
local government, that each of the
scales was significantly correlated
with each of five criterion
variables, even when the sample
was divided by level, sex, and level a major impact on the content of
x sex. Multiple regression
analyses suggested differential
patterns of relationships between texts, and on related organisational practices
the scales and the criterion
variables among different groups
and sub-groups of managers,
divided by level, sex, and level x
sex. These latter data were
interpreted as evidence of the
discriminant validity of the
instrument.
Received/Accepted:
May 2000
The authors wish to thank
the Local Government
Management Board (now
the Improvement and
Development Agency), in
particular Carole Barrie,
Ian Briggs and Stephanie
Goad, and the University of virtual US hegemony''.
Leeds for co-funding this
research.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739] http://www.emerald-library.com
[ 280 ]
The emergence of the ``New Leadership
Approach'' (Bryman, 1992) in the 1980s
represented a paradigm shift from
``transactional'' methods such as the
situational and contingency models of
Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), and
Yukl (1989), to the ``visionary'' (Sashkin,
1988), ``charismatic'' (Conger and Kanungo,
1988; House 1977), and the ``transformational''
(e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998a, 1998b, Bass and Avolio,
1994b). All these models, like the majority of
leadership publications, have emanated from
the wealth of studies by US scholars of
managers in US organisations, and have had
management education and development
(see Chelmers and Ayman, 1993; Hunt, 1996;
Rosenbach and Taylor, 1993; Wright, 1996, for
reviews). It is not an exaggeration to state
that they have contributed significantly to
``the received wisdom'' of leadership.
More recently, however, writers in the
field of leadership, such as Adler (1983a,
1983b, 1991), Ayman (1993), Smith and Bond
(1993), and Triandis (1990, 1993) have
questioned the generalisability of US
findings to non-US cultures. Indeed, two
recent issues of The Leadership Quarterly
journal have included articles devoted to this
matter (Hunt and Peterson, 1997; Peterson
and Hunt, 1997), with Hunt (1999, p. 138)
stating recently that: ``many scholars outside
the USA saw [leadership research] as a
As researchers and consultants in the field
of leadership working with organisations in
the UK, the issue of generalisabilty was also
our main concern and led us to develop a UK
leadership questionnaire, the Transform-
ational Leadership Questionnaire (Local
Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999), which
was developed from perceptions of leadership
of middle, senior and top managers in local
government. In addition, we were also aware
of other issues that might affect the validity
of the US leadership research for a non-US
context.
Leadership and social distance
Bryman (1996) draws attention to the fact that
most of the ``new leadership'' models have
emerged from studies of managers in top
positions. He contrasts this with the ``classic''
Ohio State studies of the 1950s and 1960s,
which focused on the styles of first-line
supervisors and lower-level managers.
Our concern in relation to the
organisational level of managers studied in
US research becomes particularly relevant in
the light of studies on leadership and social
distance. Some writers have asserted that for
attributions of ``charisma'' ± a central
construct of the new leadership models to be
ascribed to ``a leader'' ± social distance is an
essential condition (e.g. Etzioni, 1961;
Hollander, 1978). Thus, for example, Katz and
Kahn (1978) maintain that, since leaders are
being constantly evaluated by their staff,
social proximity will reveal that they are
``very human and very fallible and [thus]
their subordinates cannot build an aura of
magic about them. Day to day intimacy
destroys illusions'' (Katz and Kahn, 1978, p.
546).
This view is in stark contrast to the
position taken by other writers, including
Bass, (1985, 1988a, 1988b), Conger and
Kanungo (1987), House (1977), and Yagil
(1998), who view leadership as a function of
the relationship between a manager/leader
and her/his followers. Bass, for example, has
stated that since charisma is a product of
interpersonal relationships, and can be
attributed by an individual to their
immediate supervisor/manager, it is not the
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
monopoly of top leaders in an organisation
(Bass 1998a, 1998b). It may be that the
different views of these writers reflect their
particular social/historical era, with more
recent writers emphasising close
relationships between leader and follower.
The distinction as to which ``leaders'' in an
organisation are the subject of leadership
research is a crucial one in the light of
Shamir's (1995) findings of the different
characteristics attributed to ``distant'' versus
``nearby'' leaders. Distant leaders were
characterised as displaying an ideological
mission, communicated through their
rhetorical skills, and as being courageous in
their persistence and determination. Close or
nearby leaders were more frequently
admired for their consideration, openness,
sociability, humour and dynamic presence
(Shamir, 1995).
This study by Shamir, and a later one by
Yagil (1998), made a great deal of sense to us
in our project to develop a questionnaire
based on constructs of leadership of
immediate line managers. They were of
particular value as we were intending to
investigate what appeared to distinguish
those individuals who had an extraordinary
positive effect on the motivation, morale and
performance of the staff with whom they
worked closely (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
Metcalfe, 1999). We noted, however, that
Shamir's subjects were students and
therefore not typical of the organisational
members usually studied in leadership
research.
Qualitative methodology in leadership
research
In developing the TLQ-LGV, two further
matters occupied our minds. One was the
belief that we should adopt a qualitative,
grounded theory approach rather than
beginning the investigation with particular
preconceived ideas of leadership (as far as
this is possible). The second was the omission
from most leadership studies, such as those
cited above, of not considering gender as an
important variable, when developing models
of what is leadership.
In relation to the former issue, it appeared
to us essential to investigate leadership,
which is in its very nature about the effect
one individual has on another/others, from
the initial stance of grounded theory (e.g.
Martin and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1983). Parry
(1998) who is by no means alone in a belief of
the importance of adopting such an approach
(e.g. Avolio, 1995; Bass, 1990; Bryman, 1992,
1996; Conger, 1998; Hunt, 1999; Strong, 1984;
Yukl, 1994), succinctly summarised the
common sense of this approach in asserting
recently that, ``leadership can be
conceptualised as a social influence process.
Hence, leadership research needs to
investigate the nature of this social influence
process. An appropriate methodology must
reflect this need'' (p. 85). Conger (1998)
observed that qualitative methodologies ``are
responsible for paradigm shifts, insights into
the role of context . . . that other methods
often fail to capture'' (p. 107). Parry (1998) also
argued for complementarity, rather than
competition between qualitative and
quantitative methods, in the interest of
``triangulation''.
Gender and leadership
Our second concern related to our views of
the importance of any research we conducted
being gender-inclusive. Astonishingly, the
research we undertook to develop the TLQ-
LGV appears to be the first gender-inclusive
national research study of its kind. This is
not only surprising for the obvious reason
that both women and men work in
organisations, but also because of the recent
research findings on gender differences in
relation to transformational leadership.
These can be summarised as follows:
. Women, in general, have been found to
construe leadership more in
transformational terms; men, in general,
more in transactional terms (e.g. Alimo-
Metcalfe, 1995; Sparrow and Rigg, 1993).
. Women, in general, are more likely to
describe the style of leadership they adopt
as transformational; men, in general,
more likely to describe their leadership in
transactional terms (Rosener, 1990).
. Women, in general, are significantly more
likely to be described by their direct
reports as adopting a transformational
style (irrespective of the sex of their
report); men, in general, are more likely to
be described as adopting a transactional,
laissez-faire, or management-by-exception
style (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1998b; Bass and
Avolio, 1994b; Bass, Avolio and Atwater,
1996; Druskat, 1994; Komives, 1991).
The development of ``The Transformational
Leadership Questionnaire''
We, thus, set about designing a
questionnaire, which was to be based on
female and male constructs of leadership and
to be piloted on a national sample of male and
female UK public sector managers. The
methodology and initial findings of the
instrument's convergent validity are detailed
elsewhere (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
Metcalfe, 1999), but a brief summary of the
process and findings follows.
[ 281 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
[ 282 ]
The initial stage included the elicitation of
constructs of leadership held by managers
(female and male) at top, senior, and middle
level, in two major public sector
organisations, namely the National Health
Service (NHS) and local government.
Adopting the repertory grid techniques of
interviewing (Kelly, 1955), we conducted 92
interviews with managers at all levels from
executive to middle managers, and gathered
additional data from six focus groups of
doctors who were attending a leadership
development programme. Around 2,000
constructs were identified. From these data a
questionnaire was developed which
contained 176 items (independent variables)
and five criterion variables, four of which
were taken from the Bass and Avolio
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Bass and Avolio, 1990a, 1990b), plus one
relating to job-related stress. We noted the
criticism made of an early version of the
MLQ, namely that it included both
statements of leader behaviour, and
statements relating to the effects of leader
behaviour (Hunt, 1996). Accordingly, 13 items
were removed since it could be argued that
they reflected the latter.
The latter enabled us to provide evidence of
the convergent validity of the instrument: for
the sample as a whole, (p < 0.001), for the
sample divided by level (p < 0.01); and for
males and females separately (p < 0.01). Use
of the MLQ criterion items would also enable
us, in future research, to investigate cross-
cultural similarities/differences.
This paper focuses solely on the
instrument developed from analyses of local
government data. The TLQ-LGV instrument
emerged from the identification of nine
factors obtained from principal components
analysis and rotation of nine factors to an
oblimin solution (n = 1,464, of whom 394 were
female, 1,061 male, 9 not known). The inter-
correlations between the factor scores ranged
from r = -0.52 to r = 0.54. These factors formed
the basis of nine leadership scales which
reflected transformational aspects of
leadership.
The assertion that each of the scales
measures an aspect of transformational
leadership is consistent with the Third
Corollary proposed by Bass and Avolio (1993),
which states that, ``whatever the country,
when people think about leadership, their
prototypes and ideals are transformational''
(Bass, 1997, p. 135). In the light of this
corollary, and given the care taken to ensure
that the items reflected accurately the
constructs elicited, the TLQ-LGV can be
regarded as measuring transformational
leadership. Furthermore, the phraseology of
the items is consistent with concepts of
transformational leadership that emerge in
the literature.
The scales are described in Appendix
Table AI, and details of the number of items,
means and standard deviations, and internal
reliability and inter-item coefficients, are
presented in Appendix Table AII.
As noted, the number of items ranged from
5 to 17, and the Cronbach alpha coefficients
were acceptably high (range  = 0.97 to  =
0.85). Furthermore, within each of the
factors, the inter-item coefficients all
exceeded the r = 0.30 recommended by Kline
(1986) as suggesting unidimensionality
(Cortina, 1993).
The convergent validity of the TLQ-LGV,
both for managers at different levels in their
organisation, and for male and female
managers, was reported by Alimo-Metcalfe
and Alban-Metcalfe (1999), among local
government employees, using the same
criterion variables used by Bass and Avolio
(1994a, 1994b), plus an additional one
measuring level of stress (see Method
section). For managers as a whole,
statistically significant product-moment
correlations were detected, which ranged
from r = 0.42 (Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
and skills and reduced Stress) to r = 0.85
(Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and
Motivation) (p < 0.001, in each case). When
subjects were divided by level, the ranges of
the corresponding coefficients were as
follows: Level 1: Board/chief executive and
Level 2: Directorate/director, r = 0.52 (Scale 2
± Political sensitivity and skills and Reduced
stress) to 0.86 (Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for
others and Job satisfaction); Level 3: Senior/
assistant director, r = 0.40 (Political
sensitivity and skills and Achievement) to
0.84 (Genuine concern for others and
Motivation); Level 4: Middle/section-unit
head), r = 0.43 (Political sensitivity and skills
and Reduced stress) to 0.87 (Genuine concern
for others and Motivation) (p < 0.01, in each
case).
Statistically significant coefficients, range
r = 0.30 (Political sensitivity and skills, and
Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for
others and Job satisfaction, and Motivation),
were also detected among female managers;
with the corresponding coefficients for males
ranging from r = 0.47 (Political sensitivity
and skills, and Reduced stress) to 0.85
(Genuine concern for others and Motivation)
(p < 0.01 in each case).
Some of the scales resemble those
transformational scales identified by Bass
and Avolio (1990a, 1990b) in their widely used
instrument, MLQ. Following more recent
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
analyses, the MLQ has been found to
comprise three transformational factors:
1 Charismatic and inspirational leadership:
leadership which creates a vision of a
valued future and how it may be attained,
and which embodies a role model which
followers seek to emulate.
2 Intellectual stimulation: the leader
encourages followers to challenge
assumptions, look at problems from new
perspectives, and to think more creatively
and be more innovative.
3 Individualized consideration: the leader
treats each follower as an individual with
particular hopes, needs and potential, and
develops individuals' potential (Bass,
1998a).
Other researchers, however, also have
recently examined the factor structure of the
MLQ (Carless, 1998; Den Hartog et al., 1997),
and concluded that a single higher order
factor best fits the data.
Initial exploratory and confirmatory
principal components analysis of the TLQ-
LGV (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe,
1999), identified factors additional to those
identified in the MLQ. It also includes a
``Political sensitivity and skills'' scale,
designed to reflect the particular context of
managers working in UK local government
organisations.
In our discussion of the TLQ-LGV, we
noted certain additional features of the
instrument. Perhaps the most important of
these is that the first factor, ``Genuine
concern for others'', which explained more
variance than twice the amount of variance
explained by the remaining factors, is similar
to the third factor in the MLQ ±
Individualized consideration.
In contrast, the first factor in the MLQ ±
charismatic and inspirational leadership ±
defines very different behaviours. It relates
to the leader envisioning a valued future,
articulating how to reach it, and providing
followers with a role model which they seek
to emulate (Bass, 1998a p. 3). There is no such
notion of transformational leadership in the
UK data. The emphasis here is in what the
leader does for the individual, such as
valuing, supporting and developing potential.
The US model has a strong sense of
``followership'', almost entirely absent from
the TLQ-LGV. In addition, there is an
element of ``humility'' and ``vulnerability'' in
the UK data, as reflected in components of the
Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and
open (again, not represented conspicuously
in the MLQ). Scale 4 items make reference to
openness and honesty in dealings with
others, and to consistency and equability in
treating different members of staff. Further,
the TLQ-LGV includes a greater sense of
inclusiveness in decision making (Scale 8 ±
Clarifies boundaries, involves others in
decision making), reflected also in Scale 6 ±
Inspirational networker and promoter, and
Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability.
Together these four scales provide a clue as
to the essential difference between the TLQ-
LGV and the MLQ.
It may be the fact that the TLQ-LGV was:
. based on adopting a grounded theory
approach to eliciting constructs of
leadership;
. comprised constructs of leadership that
were elicited from both females and
males;
. based on a pilot instrument developed
from the constructs, that was piloted on a
substantial proportion of both females and
males; and
. based on responses from managers in one
large public sector organisation, that
influenced the final structure.
Such a conclusion would not be surprising,
given the research findings cited earlier in
relation to gender and leadership.
Alternatively, of course, the differences could
be a result of national cultural factors, and/
or the fact that the instrument was based on
constructs derived from a sample of
managers in one public sector, and piloted in
the same large public sector. Only additional
research can provide answers to these
questions.
Present investigation
In devising the TLQ-LGV, care was taken to
ensure that the instrument was based on
constructs elicited from a sample which
comprised an approximately equal number of
male and female managers and managers at
different levels of seniority (executive, top,
senior, middle). Factor analysis of the items
revealed the existence of nine separate
factors, each of which reflected a different
aspect of transformational leadership. Each
factor demonstrated a statistically significant
level of internal reliability (range  = 0.85 to
0.97) and convergent validity for the sample
as a whole, or divided by level or sex (range r
= 0.30 to 0.86) (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
Metcalfe, 1999).
The present investigation was designed to
determine whether the scales derived from
these factors: show convergent validity, even
when the subjects are sub-divided by level of
seniority and sex; and have differential
patterns of relationships with criterion
variables among the sample as a whole, and
[ 283 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
[ 284 ]
among the sample subdivided by level of
seniority, by sex, and by level x sex. The
latter would provide further evidence that
each of the nine scales measures a different
aspect of transformational leadership.
Accordingly, the following two hypotheses
were proposed:
H1: that each of the nine scales that
comprise the TLQ-LGV is
significantly positively correlated
with each of five criterion variables
(enabling more achievement than
expected, job satisfaction, motivation
to achieve more than expected,
satisfaction with leadership style, job-
related stress), when the subjects are
subdivided by level and sex;
H2: that differential patterns of
relationships exist between the nine
scales and the five criterion
variables.
Method
In order to examine further the convergent
validity and to determine the discriminant
validity of the TLQ-LGV, five items (criterion
variables) were used. These were designed to
measure the perceived effect of the manager
on the individual's Achievement (``Enables
me to achieve more than I expected''), Job
satisfaction (``Behaves in ways which
increase my job satisfaction''), Motivation
(``Increases my motivation to achieve''), and
Satisfaction with leadership style (``Leads in
a way that I find satisfying''). A single item
criterion variable was added which relates to
Stress (``Leads in a way which reduces my
job-related stress''). Four of these criteria
were chosen since they had been used to
establish the convergent validity of other,
comparable instruments (e.g. Bass and
Avolio, 1990a, 1990b). The items were
included within a pilot instrument, the
Leadership Questionnaire ± Local
Government Version (LQ-Pilot LGV), which
was distributed among a random, stratified
sample of local authority organisation
in the UK.
It is recognised that the use of single-
source, self-report evidence can be criticised
for leading to possible ``halo effects''.
However, given that the instrument has only
just been developed, evidence from objective
criteria is not yet available; as noted, the
criterion variables chosen were those
employed in the early stages of the validation
of a comparable instrument. More
substantially, to have sought relevant other-
source data would have compromised the
construct validity of the instrument, the
integrity of which is predicated on the
anonymity of the responses given. Even
where codes or numbers are allocated, the
suspicion remains that, at some later date, a
check could be made.
For each of the factors, a scale was
produced, based on the sum of ratings on the
items. The number of items per scale ranged
from 5 to 17. The scales were labelled: Scale 1
± Genuine concerned for others (17 items,  =
0.97); Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills
(6 items,  = 0.92); Scale 3 ± Decisiveness,
determination, self-confidence (8 items,  =
0.90); Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness,
honesty and openness (9 items,  = 0.93);
Scale 5 ± Empowering, develops potential (9
items,  = 0.91); Scale 6 ± Inspirational
networker and promoter (10 items,  = 0.93);
Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability (6
items,  = 0.85); Scale 8 ± Clarifies
boundaries, involves others in decisions (5
items,  = 0.85); Scale 9 ± Encourages critical
and strategic thinking (7 items,  = 0.89)
(Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 1999).
Because the total number of managers at
Level 1 and Level 2 (chief executive and
board level, respectively) was small, the
results for these two groups were combined.
Thus, the responses were first analysed for
the sample as a whole, and then the managers
were sorted by:
. level of rater (chief executive and top
managers (combined); senior managers;
middle managers);
. sex; and
. level  sex (Table I).
Results
Usable responses were received from 1,464
managers. These were obtained from
distributing the instrument to a random,
stratified sample of local government
organisations in England and Wales. The
data were analysed in two ways: product-
moment correlation coefficients; and step-
wise multiple regression equations, were
calculated between the scales and each of the
criterion variables. The step-wise method
was selected since the scales were not
themselves uncorrelated. In each case, an
Table I
Composition of sample, by level and sex
Level/sex Male Female
Level 1: Board/chief executive 33 1
Level 2: Directorate/director 127 22
Level 3: Senior/assistant director 346 115
Level 4: Middle/section-unit head 555 256
Notes: Nine subjects did not give their sex
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
SPSS programme was used to perform the
calculations.
1. Product-moment correlations
Statistically significant inter-correlations
were detected between Scales 1-9 and each of
the five criterion variables respectively (p <
0.05, in each case), divided by level  sex
(Table II).
In analysing the data presented in Table II,
there is the need for caution in relation to the
cells for Level 1 and 2 females, where n = 13,
and for Level 3 females, where n = 88.0
Among the Level 1 and 2 managers, the
coefficients for males ranged from r = 0.42
(Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and
reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Scale 1 ± Genuine
concern for others and Job satisfaction), and
for females from r = 0.74 (Political sensitivity
and skills, and Satisfying leadership style) to
0.89 (Genuine concern for others and
Motivation, and Satisfying leadership style).
Among the Level 3 male managers, the
coefficients ranged from r = 0.43 (Political
sensitivity and skills, and Achievement, and
reduced Stress) to 0.84 (Genuine concern for
others and Motivation), and for females from
r = 0.37 (Political sensitivity and skills, and
Achievement) to 0.85 (Genuine concern for
others and Job satisfaction). Among the
Level 4 male managers, the coefficients
ranged from r = 0.52 (Political sensitivity and
skills, and reduced Stress) to 0.87 (Genuine
concern for others and Motivation), and for
females from r = 0.22 (Political sensitivity
and skills, and Achievement) to 0.87 (Genuine
concern for others and Motivation). In the
cases of the male managers, p < 0.01, in each
case; and of the females, p < 0.05, in each case.
In the cases of the correlations involving
Political sensitivity and skills, and each of
the criterion variables among the managers
subdivided by level x sex, the coefficients for
the females were found, in each case, to be
significantly lower than for the males (c
ranged from 3.30 to 4.20, p < 0.001, in each
case) (Liem, 1962).
2. Multiple regressions
The results of the step-wise multiple
regression calculations between Scales 1-9
and each of the five criterion variables, for
the sample as a whole, and for the sample
divided by level, by sex, and by level  sex,
are summarised in Tables III (a), (b), (c) and
(d), respectively, where beta scores and
multiple Rs are presented. In each case, F
was significant beyond the 5 per cent level.
Whole sample
As indicated in Table III (a), taking the
sample as a whole, there was evidence from
the multiple regression analyses that four of
the transformational factors (Scale 1 ±

Table II
Product-moment correlation coefficients between scales 1-9 and criterion variables, for managers
Achievement job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others M 0.78 0.73 0.81 0.87 0.82 0.85 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.81 0.80 0.84 0.72 0.74 0.75
F 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.81 0.84 0.76 0.76 0.79
Political sensitivity and skills M 0.53 0.43 0.55 0.51 0.44 0.57 0.54 0.45 0.58 0.51 0.48 0.60 0.42 0.43 0.52
F 0.68 0.37 0.22 0.70 0.39 0.26 0.66 0.42 0.32 0.74 0.42 0.35 0.62 0.41 0.26
Decisiveness, determination, M 0.56 0.60 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.71 0.54 0.56 0.58
self-confidence F 0.59a 0.60 0.62 0.50a 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.69 0.70 0.60a 0.60 0.61
Integrity, trustworthiness, M 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.70 0.69
honesty and openness F 0.81 0.67 0.72 0.67 0.82 0.79 0.65a 0.77 0.81 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.5a 0.81 0.74
Empowering, develops potential M 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.69 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.71 0.61 0.62 0.64
F 0.69 0.74 0.72 0.63 0.75 0.74 0.60a 0.75 0.74 0.64 0.72 0.74 0.54a 0.69 0.65
Networker, promoter, M 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.71 0.66 0.69 0.64 0.67 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.75 0.57 0.62 0.61
communicator F 0.61 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.75 0.68 0.59 0.71 0.56
Accessibility, approachability M 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.60 0.62 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.61 0.65
F 0.66 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.69 0.73 0.79 0.69 0.74 0.78 0.70 0.75 0.64 0.65 0.67
Clarifies boundaries M 0.52 0.66 0.67 0.63 0.73 0.71 0.57 0.69 0.71 0.65 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.69 0.62
F 0.64 0.57 0.71 0.59 0.72 0.76 0.62 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.70 0.78 0.62 0.73 0.69
Encourages critical and M 0.67 0.66 0.72 0.78 0.69 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.75 0.76 0.70 0.76 0.59 0.59 0.60
strategic thinking F 0.68 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.72 0.73 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.72 0.74 0.68 0.67 0.65
Notes: Level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n  126), females (F) (n  13); Level 3, males (M) (n  294), females (F) (n  88); Level 4, males
(M) (n  393), females (F) (n  162); a Denotes p < 0.05; p < 0.01 (in all other cases)

[ 285 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence,
and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, involves
others in decisions), were all significant
predictors of each of the five criterion
variables. In each case, the largest beta
coefficient was for Genuine concern for
others.
Two other scales (Scale 7 ± Accessibility,
approachability, and Scale 9 ± Encourages
critical and strategic thinking) were
significant predictors of four of the criterion
variables, though with slightly different
patterns of relationship. Three of the
remaining scales (Scale 4 ± Integrity,
trustworthy, honest and open, Scale 5 ±
Empowers, develops potential, and Scale 6 ±
Inspirational networker and promoter) were
significantly related to at least one criterion
variable, while Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
and skills was not a significant predictor of
any of them.
The multiple Rs ranged from 0.74 to 0.84,
suggesting that a large amount of variance
was being accounted for.
Subjects divided by level
Analysis of the pattern of relationships
among managers at different levels (Table III
(b)) reveals that, while there was consistency
with the results for the sample as a whole, in
that Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
continued to show the greatest predictive
power, there were some level-related
differences. Thus, there was similarity
between the whole sample (Table III (a)) and
managers at the different levels in the
predictive power of Scale 1 ± Genuine
concern for others and Scale 4 ± Integrity. For
managers at all levels, these two factors
continued to be significant predictors of the
relevant variables, with the largest beta
values associated with Genuine concern for
others. Scale 3 ± Decisiveness continued to be
significantly related to Achievement; Scale 7

Table III (a)

Multiple correlations between factor 1-9 and criterion variables

Satisfying
Factor/criterion variable Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation leadership style Stress (negative)
Genuine concern for others 0.367 0.345 0.413 0.251 0.297
Political sensitive and skills ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence 0.157 0.109 0.177 0.144 0.118
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness ± 0.138 ± 0.150 0.157
Empowering, develops potential 0.100 ± 0.0.51 ± ±
Networker, promoter, communicators ± ± ± 0.068 ±
Accessibility, approachability ± 0.086 0.065 0.090 0.119
Clarifies dounaries, involves others 0.081 0.155 0.105 0.178 0.178
Encourages critical and strategi thinking 0.189 0.137 0.152 0.122 ±
Multiple R 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.74
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for whole sample (n  1172)

Table III (b)

Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variable
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others 0.617 0.274 0.387 0.440 0.241 0.353 0.470 0.404 0.328 0.293 0.231 0.248 0.335 0.145 0.351
Political sensitivity and skills ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.124 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-
confidence 0.238 0.183 0.123 ± ± 0.110 0.198 0.208 0.135 ± 0.127 0.166 ± ± 0.124
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty
and openness ± ± ± 0.178 0.222 0.085 ± ± ± 0.230 0.211 0.122 0.296 0.199 0.109
Empowering, develops potential ± 0.214 0.070 ± 0.107 ± ± 0.150 ± ± ± ± ± 0.096 ±
Networker, promoter, communicator ± ± ± 0.156 0.111 ± ± 0.118 ± 0.251 0.124 ± ± 0.120 ±
Accessibility, approachability ± ± ± ± 0.078 0.076 ± ± 0.076 ± 0.078 0.096 0.173 0.094 0.112
Clarifies boundaries ± ± 0.136 ± 0.145 0.183 ± 0.103 0.142 ± 0.146 0.228 ± 0.252 0.156
Encourages critical and strategic
thinking ± 0.233 0.180 0.174 0.098 0.145 0.167 ± 0.180 0.176 0.095 0.133 ± ± ±
Multiple R 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.77 0.74
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined) (n  388), and Level 4 (n  597)

[ 286 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
± Accessibility to reduced Stress, and Scale 9
± Encouraging critical and strategic thinking
to Job satisfaction and to Satisfaction with
leadership style.
At the same time, a number of differences
between managers at the different levels
were evident. Thus, three level-related
patterns of relationships were evident in the
case of Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, one involving
Scale 5 ± Empowers, two involving Scale 6 ±
Inspirational networker, two involving
Accessibility, and five involving Scale 8 ±
Clarifies boundaries.
Only among Level 1 and 2 (combined)
managers did Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
and skills emerge as a significant predictor,
in this case, of Motivation. The multiple Rs
ranged from 0.71 to 0.84, again suggesting
that the different factors together account for
a large amount of criterion variable
variance.
Subjects divided by sex
There were no differences between the
patterns of relationships for the sample as a
whole, and when males and females were
analysed separately, in the cases of Scale 1 ±
Genuine concern for others (which continued
to have the highest beta coefficients), Scale 3
± Decisiveness, Scale 4 ± Integrity and Scale 9

Table III (c)

Multiple correlations between factors 1-9 and criterion variables
Satisfying
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion variable M F M F M F M F M F
Genuine concern for others 0.359 0.368 0.355 0.329 0.457 0.385 0.249 0.266 0.267 0.358
Political sensitivity and skills 0.060 ±0.094 ± ±0.068 0.056 ± ± ± ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence 0.135 0.202 0.090 0.174 0.129 0.233 0.108 0.226 0.098 0.163
Integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and openness ± ± 0.145 0.115 ± ± 0.173 0.102 0.138 0.185
Empowering, develops potential 0.074 0.171 ± ± ± 0.093 ± ± 0.066 ±
Networker, promoter, communicator ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.084 ± ± ±
Accessibility, approachability ± ± 0.086 0.095 0.058 0.085 0.082 0.122 0.125 ±
Clarifies boundaries 0.106 ± 0.150 0.172 0.117 ± 0.176 0.173 0.166 0.189
Encourages critical and strategic thinking 0.168 0.237 0.138 0.136 0.140 0.198 0.123 0.125 ± ±
Multiple R 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.73 0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients and multiple Rs, for males (M) (n  855), females (F) (n  289), at all levels

Table III (d)

Multiple correlations between factors and criterion variables
Achievement Job satisfaction Motivation Satisfying leadership Stress (negative)
Factor/criterion A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Genuine concern for others M 0.628 0.177 0.377 0.535 0.217 0.409 0.629 0.405 0.444 0.391 0.194 0.264 0.409 0.212 0.330
F 0.659 0.360 0.380 0.714 0.454 0.333 ± 0.414 0.414 0.277 0.359 0.241 ± ± 0.394
Political sensitivity and M ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
skills F ± ± ±0.138 ± ± ±0.106 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.377 ± ±
Decisiveness, determination, M 0.236 0.127 0.116 ± ± 0.121 0.295 0.128 0.102 ± ± 0.152 ± ± 0.104
self-confidence F ± 0.209 0.193 ± 0.190 0.165 ± 0.378 0.191 ± 0.275 0.186 ± ± 0.156
Integrity, trustworthiness M ± ± ± 0.228 0.236 0.091 ± ± ± 0.315 0.291 0.124 0.369 0.161 0.107
F ± ± ± ± 0.201 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.142 ± 0.410 0.139
Empowering, develops M ± 0.184 ± ± 0.126 ± ± 0.103 ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
potential F ± 0.243 ± ± ± ± ± 0.202 ± ± 0.164 ± ± ± ±
Networker, promoter, M ± 0.112 ± 0.189 ± ± ± 0.114 ± 0.230 0.167 ± ± 0.107 ±
communicator F ± ± ± ± 0.171 ± ± ± ± 0.414 0.226 ± ± ± ±
Accessibility, M ± ± 0.085 ± 0.118 ± ± ± 0.095 ± ± 0.105 ± 0.115 0.143
approachability F ± ± ± ± ± 0.104 0.532 ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.205 ±
Clarifies boundaries M ± 0.157 0.133 ± 0.188 0.165 ± 0.120 0.149 ± 0.196 0.197 ± 0.291 0.144
F ± ±0.194 0.192 ± ± 0.249 ± ± 0.133 ± ± 0.291 ± 0.267 0.200
Encourages critical and M ± 0.156 0.178 ± 0.105 0.145 ± 0.100 0.153 ± 0.142 0.138 ± ± ±
strategic thinking F ± 0.321 0.217 ± ± 0.158 0.402 ± 0.249 0.407 ± 0.146 0.493 ± ±
Multiple R M 0.78 0.76 0.78 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.72 0.76 0.72
F 0.66 0.82 0.81 0.71 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.84 0.86 0.73 0.78 0.77
Notes: Beta coefficients, for managers at level 1 and 2 (combined), males (M) (n  126), females (F) (n  13); level 3, males (M) (n  294),
females (F) (n  88); and level 4, males (M) (n  393), females (F) (n  162)

[ 287 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
[ 288 ]
± Encourages critical and strategic thinking
(Tables III (a) and (c)). There was also much
similarity in the patterns for Accessibility,
which did not, however, emerge as a
significant predictor of Reduced stress
among females; among the men it had the
lowest beta coefficient (0.07).
Sex-related differences in the relationship
between Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and
skills, and Achievement, evident in the
correlational data, were also found here; for
males the relationship was positive, for
females negative. Sex-related differences
were also found in that Political sensitivity
and skills was negatively related to Job
satisfaction among females, but positively
related to Motivation among males.
In relation to each of the criterion
variables, there was at least one sex-related
difference; two of the differences involved
Political sensitivity and skills (q.v.) and
Empowers, respectively; Empowers and
Accessibility were only predictors of
Reduced stress among males. Also, uniquely
among males, Clarifies boundaries was
related to Achievement and to Motivation,
and Inspirational networker to Satisfying
leadership style; while among females, a
unique link was found between Empowers
and Motivation. Once again, the multiple Rs
(range 0.73 to 0.85) were high.
Subjects divided by level and sex
In analysing the data presented in Table III
(d), there is, again, the need for caution in
relation to the cells for Level 1 and 2
(combined) females, and for Level 3 females.
Thus, differences between these data,
particularly in relation to Level 1 and 2
(combined) females, and the data for Level 1
and 2 (combined) managers as a whole
(Tables III (a) and (b)), e.g. in the cases of the
relationships between Motivation and the
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others and
Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, and between Stress
and Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others,
Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills, and
Encourages critical and strategic thinking,
may be owing to the small sample size.
There was similarity between the
relationships between dependent and
independent variables for managers as a
whole and when divided by sex, in the
following cases: Achievement and Scale 1 ±
Genuine concern for others, and Scale 9 ±
Encourages critical and strategic thinking;
Job satisfaction and Scale 1 ± Genuine
concern for others; Motivation and Scale 5 ±
Empowers; Satisfying leadership style and
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others, and
Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker; and
Reduced stress and Scale 3 ± Decisiveness,
and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries.
Noteworthy among the differences were the
relationships involving: Scale 8 ± Clarifies
boundaries, where oppositely-valent beta
values were detected in relation to
Achievement, and there were other sex-
related differences in relation to Job
satisfaction, Motivation, and Satisfying
leadership style; Scale 4 ± Integrity, which
continued to be a consistent predictor of Job
satisfaction, and of Satisfying leadership
style, only among the male managers; Scale 3
± Decisiveness, which appeared to be more
related to Job satisfaction, and to Satisfying
leadership style, among female than male
managers; and Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity
and skills, which, among Level 4 females, was
a negative predictor of Achievement, and of
Job satisfaction.
Discussion
1. Product-moment correlations
Both the correlational and the multiple
regression data provide evidence of
statistically significant relationships
between each of the criterion variables and
transformational leadership Scales 1-9. These
data, then, provide evidence of the
convergent validity of each of the factors,
even though, as noted above, Scale 2 ±
Political sensitivity and skills is different in
its provenance from the other scales.
The correlational data for the managers
divided by level  sex suggest that, in the
case of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others,
between 56 and 72 per cent of criterion
variable variance can be accounted for by
this aspect of transformational leadership.
Even in the case of the lowest coefficients,
other than those involving Scale 2 ± Political
sensitivity and skills, the amount of Stress
variance accounted by Scale 3 ± Decisiveness
is 34 per cent.
The psychological significance of the
correlational data is, then, that they indicate
that each of the nine transformational scales
is significantly correlated to the different
measures of satisfaction, stress and outcome,
assessed by the five criterion variables.
Thus, they provide evidence of the
convergent validity of each of the
transformational leadership scales, even
when the managers are subdivided by level of
seniority and sex.
2. Multiple regressions
The psychological significance of the
multiple regression analyses is: that they
focus attention on the way in which the
different scales are particularly relevant to
different aspects of satisfaction, stress and
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
outcome; and, thus, that they provide
evidence that, in spite of themselves being
significantly intercorrelated, each of the
scales measures a distinct aspect of
transformational leadership, and the
discriminant validity of the instrument. In
other words, within the context of their
validity, each of the scales may have
particular relevance to certain aspects of how
a manager feels or acts. This particular
relevance may be described as the scale's
``focus of convenience''. In Personal Contract
Theory (Kelly, 1955), this term is defined as,
``a set of events which its user finds can be
most conveniently ordered within its
context'' (Bannister and Mair, 1968, p. 19), in
contrast to the ``range of convenience'' which
is ``a broader set of events which the
construct can deal with, if sometimes less
effectively''. In the present context, the focus
of convenience of a particular scale refers to
those aspects of job-related behaviour or
feelings to which that scale is most relevant.
In some cases, the focus of convenience of a
scale relates to an aspect of behaviour or
feelings among a group or sub-group of
managers. To suggest that a scale does not
have a particular focus of convenience does
not have implications for its range of
convenience. The range of convenience of a
scale is the wider range of feelings and
behaviours, among a wider range of groups
and sub-groups of managers, for which the
scale still has relevance (as evidenced by the
correlational data).
Thus, the correlational data suggest that
each of the five aspects of job-related
behaviour or feelings is within the range of
convenience of each of the nine scales. It is
important to be clear that the process of
stepwise multiple regression analysis entails
a successive removal of the variance
accounted for by each scale as it is partialed
out of the equation. The effect of this process
is, therefore, to remove both the variance
uniquely accounted for by the scale and also
any variance that it may share with other
scales. For this reason, the full amount of
variance accounted for by scales that are
extracted at subsequent steps in the process
will not always be evident. For this reason,
the focus of convenience of scales that
explain less of the common variance will not
always be evident. Either it will be reduced,
or when the amount of unique variance that
a scale can account for is very small, it may
not be at a level that will reach statistical
significance, and thus not be evident at all.
There is an underlying reason for not
expecting either the product-moment or the
multiple regression data to be identical for
the different groups and sub-groups of
managers. This is evidence of the influence of
``substitutes for leadership'' ± that is,
personal factors (e.g. high need for
independence, indifference to organisational
rewards, or a professional orientation) and
contextual factors (e.g. work group
autonomy, or routine or programmed work),
which can have a modulating effect on leader
behaviour (e.g. Bass, 1990; Gronn, 1999;
Howell, 1997; Howell, Dorfmann and Kerr,
1986; Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Jermier and
Kerr, 1997; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997).
Recent research by Stordeur, Vandenberghe
and D'Hoore (1999) among nurses in a
Belgian hospital indicated a significant
moderating effect of such factors on the
relationship between MLQ scores and the
four criterion variables, including job
satisfaction and satisfaction with
leadership style.
Both the correlational and multiple
regression data provide evidence of the
significance of Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for
others. Not only does this scale have the
highest correlations with each of the
criterion variables, but it also contributes the
greatest amount of predictive variance in
each of the multiple regression equations,
where it also has the largest beta values.
From the pattern of relationships between
the criterion items and the transformational
leadership factors (Table III (a)), it is clear
that each of the scales, except Scale 2 ±
Political sensitivity and skills, is a
significant predictor of one or more of the
criteria used. Three of the scales ± Scale 1 ±
Genuine concern for others, Scale 3 ±
Decisiveness, determination, self-confidence,
and Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries ± are
significant of all five criteria, though to
differing degrees. Two scales ± Scale 7 -
Accessibility, approachability, and Scale 9 ±
Encourages critical and strategic thinking ±
are significant predictors of four criteria.
Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthy, honest and
open is a significant predictor of Job
satisfaction, Satisfying leadership style, and
Stress (reduced level); while Scale 8 ±
Empowers, develops potential is a significant
predictor of Achievement, and Scale 6 ±
Inspirational networker and promoter is a
significant predictor of Satisfying
leadership style.
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
This scale emerged as being a consistently
significant predictor of each of the five
criterion variables, and also the greatest
single predictor, both for the sample as a
whole and when the sample was divided
either by level or by sex. However, when the
sample was subdivided by level  sex, this
was not true for Motivation and for Stress.
[ 289 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
[ 290 ]
Here, though, the absence of significant
relationships involving Levels 1 and 2 and
Level 3 female managers may be attributable
to the small size of the sample for these
analyses.
Overall, the results are consonant with the
nature of the scale, which relates both to
sensitivity to the feelings of others, and to
offering personal support and
communicating positive expectations.
Furthermore, they suggest that the scale
shows a measure of robustness, as evident in
an absence of sex-related differences, or of
differences between managers at different
levels in their organisation.
Scale 3 ± Decisiveness, determination,
self-confidence
Two other scales, Scale 3 and Scale 8 ±
Clarifies boundaries, also emerged as
significant predictors of each of the criterion
variables for the sample as a whole. For Scale
3, these relationships held true when the
results for female and male managers were
analysed separately, and also for managers at
Level 4. However, the evidence suggests that,
for managers at all levels, high scores on this
scale were only predictors of a feeling of
enabling greater achievement than expected
(Achievement) and of increasing motivation
to achieve (Motivation). The results for when
the managers were subdivided both by level
 sex are broadly consistent with the results
of the other analyses. In view of the small
sample size of Levels 1 and 2 female
managers, the absence of statistically
significant links with Achievement and
Motivation is probably an artefact.
As the label indicates, Scale 4 relates to
personal attributes of a manager as perceived
by a direct report. Thus, just as much for
female as male managers, and certainly for
managers at the lowest level, that they
perceive their boss to have these attributes is
a cause of satisfaction with their job and with
the leadership style of their manager, leads to
a reduced level of job-related stress, and
encourages and enables achievement.
Scale 8 ± Clarifies boundaries, keeps
others informed, involves others in
decision making
As noted above, Scale 8 is also a significant
predictor of all five criterion variables for the
sample as a whole. However, when the
sample was analysed by level, in no case did
the relationship hold true among the chief
executive and top-level managers, though
among the Level 3 and Level 4 managers the
whole sample results were more or less
replicated, the exception being Level 3
managers in the case of the Achievement
criterion. Furthermore, whereas there were
no sex-related differences in relation to
measures of satisfaction and Reduced stress,
there was evidence of such differences in
relation to Achievement and Motivation.
Thus, it would seem that only among male
managers, in general, do clarification of
boundaries and involvement in decisions
emerge as significant predictors of
encouraging and enabling achievement.
Quite why no such effect was detected among
females is not immediately apparent, though
clarification of boundaries was equally
relevant to both measures of satisfaction, and
to a reduced level of stress for both males and
females. The evidence of level-related
differences may be interpreted as suggesting
that only managers at lower levels need to
have their boundaries clarified for them;
managers at more senior levels are likely to
enjoy greater autonomy in determining the
parameters of their work on a day-to-day
basis. Indeed, for Levels 1 and 2 managers,
only two of the nine scales are significant
predictors of enabling them to achieve more
than they expected (Achievement).
The results for when the managers were
subdivided by level  sex are consonant with
the interpretation that clarification of
boundaries and involving others in decision
making are important to the job performance
of lower-level managers, both male and
female. The negative beta value for
Achievement among Level 3 female
managers is not readily interpretable and, for
reasons of sample size, most likely artificial.
Thus, while for managers, Clarifies
boundaries emerges as a significant
predictor of job-related satisfaction and of
reduced job-related stress for both male and
female managers in general, and of
encouraging and enabling achievement
among male managers in general, its
relevance or ``focus of convenience'' is
principally, if not exclusively, among senior
and particularly middle managers of both
sexes, i.e., those at lower levels in their
organisation.
Scale 9 ± Encourages critical and strategic
thinking
For the sample as a whole, Scale 9 is a
significant predictor of four of the criterion
variables for the sample as a whole, and
when the sample was divided by sex.
However, when the data were analysed by
level, this consistency persisted only for the
two measures of satisfaction. Only among
Level 3 (senior) and Level 4 (middle)
managers was the encouragement of critical
and strategic thinking a significant predictor
of Achievement, though for Motivation the
results were ambiguous. The analyses by
level and sex support the suggestion that the
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
focus of convenience of this scale is lower-
level managers, with the results being
consistent for both females and males at
Level 4.
For a manager to be scored highly on
encouraging critical and strategic thinking
implies that s/he is not only confident in her/
himself and but is also open to the ideas of
others ± two of the prerequisites of creativity
identified by Carl Rogers (1961). It has also
been identified as a factor (intellectual
stimulation) in the Bass and Avolio MLQ
(Bass, 1990a, 1990b).
Scale 7 ± Accessibility, approachability
Scale 7 was also found to be a significant
predictor of four of the criterion variables for
the sample as a whole. When the sample was
divided by level, the same pattern persisted
in the case of managers at Level 4, and also
for male managers, when the sample was
divided by sex. However, analyses of the
sample subdivided by level and sex were not
readily interpretable.
Thus, in no case did Accessibility emerge
as a significant predictor of enabling greater
achievement but, among both males and
females, it was a significant predictor of both
measures of satisfaction and of increased
motivation to achieve. It was also
significantly linked to reduced stress among
males, but not females. Why a sex-related
difference should exist is not self-evident,
though it may be hypothesised that among
female managers the perception of one's line
manager as relatively inaccessible and
unapproachable may be only one of many
job-related causes of stress.
For males and females combined,
Accessibility was significantly linked to
reduced level of stress among managers at all
levels, which is consonant with the results
for the sample as a whole. That Accessibility
is a significant predictor of satisfaction with
the job and with leadership style among
lower-level (Level 3 and Level 4) managers is
readily interpretable; that the relationship is
limited to them, may be a reflection of
generally more collegial relationships among
executive and top-level managers, with
access readily available and taken for
granted. Similarly, that the Motivation to
achieve is linked to Accessibility only among
middle-level (Level 4) managers may be an
organisational culture-related phenomenon.
It might also relate to findings from an
earlier study of the career development of
British managers (Alban-Metcalfe and
Nicholson, 1984) which included an
investigation of relative motivators in a job.
Based on an analysis of the rank ordering
of items identified in the literature at the
time of what motivates managers in a job,
``High quality senior managers'' was found to
emerge as the second and third of 17 factors,
for males and females respectively. Among
the comments regularly made in the final,
open-ended section of the survey instrument
used, were those relating to senior managers'
availability and accessibility, and their
familiarity with the difficulties faced by
those whom they managed (Alban-Metcalfe,
1985).
Thus, the focus of convenience of
Accessibility, approachability emerges as
being predominantly among lower-level
managers, though among both female and
male managers in general.
Scale 4 ± Integrity, trustworthiness,
honesty and openness
Among the sample as a whole, Integrity,
trustworthiness, honesty and openness
emerged as a significant predictor of three
criterion variables ± both measures of
satisfaction and reduced stress ± a pattern
which was replicated when the data were
analysed by level and by sex. When the
sample was subdivided by level  sex, the
pattern was again replicated among the male
managers, but not the female.
Given that the scale is predicated on
perceptions of the line manager as someone
whose actions are based on moral and ethical
principles, relationships between it and the
three criterion variables are readily
interpretable, and indeed to be expected.
What is difficult to understand is the
apparent inconsistency among the female
managers, when analysed by level. While
evidence of sex-related differences among the
Level 1 and 2 group can, perhaps, be
attributed to sample size, the absence of
significant relationships involving Job
satisfaction (Level 4 females) and Satisfaction
with leadership style (Level 3 females) are
less readily explicable, and would warrant
further investigation. Could it be that, for
females, satisfaction at work is not as
strongly predicated on the integrity or
trustworthiness of their line manager, or
perhaps more radically, that females have
learnt not to expect satisfaction from
working with their boss? Further analyses by
sex of rater and sex of target manager might
inform discussion.
Scale 5 ± Empowers, delegates, develops
potential
Two criterion variables ± both achievement-
related ± were predicted by this scale among
the sample as a whole, but only the
relationship with Achievement was
replicated among sub-groups, and only when
the sample was divided by sex. Why different
patterns of significant relationships should
[ 291 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
[ 292 ]
emerge when the sample was subdivided may
be attributable to the nature of the scale.
Thus, while the scale does relate to a
psychologically coherent entity and, in
statistical terms, the internal reliability was
high ( = 0.91) and the individual items were
significantly intercorrelated (r = 0.37 ± 0.73),
the component items assess different aspects
of what is, in reality, a continuous process. It
may be that different groups of managers
attribute different levels of personal
significance to different aspects of the scale.
However, in the absence of concrete evidence
of this, it would be inappropriate to speculate
further. It might prove valuable to
investigate further the nature and the
correlates of this scale.
Scale 6 ± Inspirational networker and
promoter
Among the sample as a whole, this scale
emerged as a predictor only of Satisfaction
with leadership style, though when the
sample was analysed by sex, the relationship
only persisted among the male managers.
However, analyses by level indicated that the
scale predicted both sources of satisfaction
among managers at Level 1 and 2 (combined)
and Level 3, a finding that was replicated for
Satisfaction with leadership style, though not
Job satisfaction for both male and female
managers, analysed separately.
In spite of having high internal reliability
( = 0.93) and significant inter-items
correlations (r = 0.42 ± 0.74), the Inspirational
networker and promoter scale relates to
different aspects of manager behaviour ±
drawing people together, communicating,
promoting the department ± that are linked
by a common theme. Thus, while the scale
tends to lead to satisfaction among higher
(Level 1 and 2 and Level 3), rather than
middle-level (Level 4) managers, it may be
the case that different groups and sub-groups
of managers relate to different aspects of it;
or, alternatively, that these behaviours are
more likely to be observed by higher-level
managers, or both reasons combined.
Scale 2 ± Political sensitivity and skills
The absence of significant relationships
involving this scale among the sample as a
whole must be interpreted in the light of the
results when the sample was analysed by sex,
where oppositely-valent beta values were
detected for Achievement. These, and the sex-
related differences in the relationship
between Scale 2 and both Job satisfaction and
Motivation, suggest that perceiving their line
manager to be politically sensitive and
politically skilled may have an opposite effect
on the actions and feeling of female and male
managers. This interpretation may prove to
be consonant with the finding that among
managers at each of the levels, scores on
Scale 2 were significantly lower for females
than males. If replicated by others, the
implications of these findings may be
important for the dynamics of an
organisation at different levels, and would
certainly warrant further investigation.
The only other relationship to merit
comment is the readily interpretable link
between Political sensitivity and skills, and
Motivation (increases my motivation to
achieve) among Level 1 and 2 managers in
general. These two groups, particularly those
at Level 1 (executive), are those who come
into most contact with elected members (i.e.
locally elected councillors), and are therefore
most likely to respect this attribute in others
and themselves to need to possess the
attributes measured by Scale 2. At the same
time, it is important to be conscious of the
provenance of the items that comprise the
scale; five of the six items were proposed by
management trainers working in local
government, and not, as with all the other
items, based on constructs elicited by staff
working in local government at each of the
four levels. The focus of convenience of this
scale is executive and top-level managers, for
whom it was devised.
Conclusions
Overall, the results support the hypotheses
that each scale is a valid predictor of each of
the five criterion variables used, and that the
nine scales that comprise the TLQ-LGV
measure different aspects of transform-
ational leadership.
Thus, the product-moment correlations
indicated that the nine scales are all valid,
even when the managers were subdivided by
level and sex. What emerged from the
regression analyses was firstly that, for the
sample as a whole, the nine TLQ-LGV scales
differ from each other in the extent to which
they are significant predictors of the five
criterion variables, in other words in their
focus of convenience.
Scale 1 ± Genuine concern for others
emerged consistently as the greatest single
predictor, but the use of the stepwise method
meant that, with each successive step, the
variance attributable to previously extracted
scales was partialed out. In this way, the
unique predictive value of each scale could
be determined.
Thus, there is evidence that the eight
remaining scales demonstrated a statistically
significant level of predictive validity in
their own right. This constitutes further
evidence of the validity of distinguishing
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
between different aspects of transformational
leadership as measured by the TLQ-LGV,
even though the scales themselves share
variance in common.
That, by and large, the pattern of
relationships between scales and criterion
variables persisted when the sample was
divided by sex is not surprising given the
lengths that were undertaken to ensure that
the TLQ-LGV was free from gender-bias. It is,
nevertheless, reassuring that such overall
consistency should be evident. Where sex-
related differences were detected, these were
associated with differences in level, and were
mostly interpretable with reference to sex-
plus-level-related influences, and the possible
effects of ``substitutes for leadership'' factors.
While there was much consistency
between the sample analysed as a whole and
when divided by level, a number of
interpretable level-related differences were
detected. Since a close/nearby concept of
leadership was adopted, and this was
reflected both in eliciting initial constructs
and in the nature of the ratings provided by
the respondents (i.e. of their current or
previous boss), and in the stratified sample
used to construct the TLQ-LGV, these
differences cannot readily be dismissed as
artefacts. Rather, the nine scales should be
regarded as having particular relevance to
the job-related perceptions of managers at
different levels in their organisation ± their
own, unique focus of convenience. Here,
there often appeared to be a dichotomy
between top managers versus those at senior
and middle level. Furthermore, where sex-
related differences were reported, they were
also level-related.
These findings would also appear to justify
the researchers' aim to investigate the effects
of culture, gender, and social distance, in
relation to models of transformational
leadership in a country other than the US,
from which most respected leadership
models emanate. Given the differences in the
dimensions identified in the TLQ-LGV,
coupled with those in the MLQ , it would
seem important to consider the implications
of these differences for multinational
organisations, and for UK-US organisations
seeking to select and develop individuals
with leadership qualities.
Criticisms and further
investigations
The conclusions to be drawn from these
analyses must be interpreted in light of the
small number of female managers at Levels 1
and 2, and the fact that, even though a
representative range of organisation was
used, the sample was derived from only one
part of the UK public sector. The research is
limited in that each of the five criterion
variables was assessed on the basis of self-
perceptions, that each variable was
measured using a single item, and that there
is the possibility of ``halo effects'', at least in
the correlational data.
The next stages of the research will
include:
. testing the ``ecological'' validity of the
TLQ-LGV in a different public sector, and
against independent criteria;
. examining the factorial structure of the
TLQ-LGV, using confirmatory factor
analysis;
. identifying dispositional and other
personal correlates of the different aspects
of transformational leadership;
. analysing data for various raters
participating in a 360-degree feedback
process, based on the TLQ-LGV;
. analysing the data by sex of rater and sex
of target manager rated;
. developing a UK Model of
Transformational Leadership;
. cross-cultural studies of transformational
leadership.
While this study has examined the validity of
a new transformational leadership
instrument, and provided supportive
evidence, the authors would urge that more
qualitative research be conducted on
constructs associated with leadership in:
. different organisations;
. different sectors (public and private);
. different countries; and
. at different organisational levels.
The intention here was not to replace a grand
US model of transformational leadership
with a ``grand UK model''; rather, to start
from a grounded theory approach, to identify
further the nature of the ``leadership
phenomenon'' in different cultural and
organisational settings, and to contribute to
an ongoing debate.
References
Adler, N.J. (1983a), ``A typology of management
studies involving culture'', Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 29-47.
Adler, N.J. (1983b), ``Cross-cultural management
research: the ostrich and the trend'', Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 226-32.
Adler, N. (1991), International Dimensions of
Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., PWS-
KENT, Boston, MA.
Alban-Metcalfe, B. (1985), ``What motivates
managers in the public and private sectors'',
Public Administration, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 95-
108.
[ 293 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, B. and Nicholson, N. (1984), The
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe Career Development of British Managers,
The transformational British Institute of Management, London.
leadership questionnaire
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995), ``An investigation of
Leadership & Organization female and male constructs of leadership and
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296 empowerment'', Women in Management
Review, Vol. 10, pp. 3-8.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B.M. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J.
(2000), ``The Transformational Leadership
Questionnaire (Local Government Version)
(TLQ-LGV); a factor analytic study''. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology (accepted for publication).
Avolio, B.J. (1995), ``Transformational
leadership'', Leadership Review Quarterly,
Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 4.
Ayman, R. (1993), ``Leadership perception: the
role of gender and culture'', in Chemers, M.M.
and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 137-66.
Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M.M. (1968), The
Evaluation of Personal Constructs, Academic
Press, London.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance
Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of
Leadership: Theory, Research and
Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), ``Does the transactional-
transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national
boundaries?'', American Psychologist, Vol. 52
No. 2, pp. 130-9.
Bass, B.M. (1998a), Current Developments in
Transformational Leadership: Research and
Applications, invited address to the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco,
CA, August.
Bass, B.M. (1998b), Transformational Leadership:
Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990a), Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990b),
Transformational Leadership Development:
Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993),
``Transformational leadership: a response to
critiques'', in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R.
(Eds), Leadership Theory and Research,
Academic Press, London, pp. 49-80.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994a), Improving
Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994b), ``Shatter the
glass ceiling: women may make better
managers'', Human Resource Management,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 549-60.
[ 294 ]
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996),
``The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women'', International
Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 5-34.
Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in
Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Bryman, A. (1996), ``Leadership in organizations'',
in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Organizational Studies, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 276-92.
Carless, S.A. (1998), ``Assessing the discriminant
validity of transformational leader behaviour
as measured by the MLQ'', Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 71, pp. 353-8.
Chelmers, M. and Ayman, R. (Eds) (1993),
Leadership Theory and Research, Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Conger, J.A. (1998), ``Qualitative research as the
cornerstone methodology for understanding
leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 107-21.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), ``Towards
a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988),
``Behavioural dimensions of charismatic
leadership'', in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo,
R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership: The
Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 78-97.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), ``What is coefficient alpha?
an examination of theory and applications'',
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 98-104.
Den Hartog, D.N., van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman,
P.L. (1997), ``Transactional versus
transformational leadership: an
observational field study'', Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Druskat, V.U. (1994), ``Gender and leadership
style: transformational and transactional
leadership in the Roman Catholic Church'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of
Complex Organizations, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gronn, R. (1999), ``Substituting for leadership: The
neglected role of the leadership couple'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
Hollander, E.P. (1978), Leadership Dynamics: A
Practical Guide to Effective Relationships,
Free Press, New York, NY.
House, R.J. (1977), ``A 1976 theory of charismatic
leadership'', in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L.
(Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL,
pp. 189-207.
Howell, J.P. (1997). ``Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and measurement ± an
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
historical assessment'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 113-16
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, J.W. and Kerr, S. (1986),
``Moderator variables in leadership
research'', Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 88-102.
Hunt, J.G. (1996), Leadership: A New Synthesis,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Hunt, J.G. (1999), ``Transformational/charismatic
leadership's transformation of the field: an
historical essay'', Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
Hunt, J.G. and Peterson, M.F. (1997), ``Two
scholars' views of some nooks and crannies in
cross-cultural leadership'', Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 343-54.
Jermier, J.M. and Kerr, S. (1997), ``Substitutes for
leadership: their meaning and measurement ±
contextual recollections and current
observations'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social
Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., J. Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Kelly, G.A. (1955), Psychology of Personal
Constructs, Vols 1 and 2, Norton, New York,
NY.
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. (1978), ``Substitutes for
leadership: their meaning and
measurement'', Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 22, pp. 374-403.
Kline, P. (1986), Handbook of Test Construction:
Introduction to Psychometric Design,
Methuen, London.
Komives, S.R. (1991), ``The relationship of hall
directors' transformational and transactional
leadership to select resident assistant
outcomes'', Journal of College Student
Development, Vol. 32, pp. 509-15.
Liem, K. (1962), Statistical Tables: Documenta
Geigy, Geigy, Macclesfield.
Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), ``Grounded
theory and organizational research'', Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 141-57.
Parry, K.W. (1998), ``Grounded theory and social
processes: a new direction for leadership
research'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 85-105.
Peterson, M.F. and Hunt, J.G. (1997),
``International perspectives on international
leadership'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 203-31.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), ``Kerr
and Jermier's substitutes for leadership
model: background, empirical assessment,
and suggestions for further research'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-25.
Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person,
Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Rosenbach, W.E. and Taylor, R.L. (Eds) (1993),
Contemporary Issues in Leadership, Westview
Press, Oxford.
(The appendix follows overleaf.)
Rosener, J. (1990). ``Ways women lead'', Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68, November-
December, pp. 119-225.
Sashkin, M. (1988), ``The visionary leader'', in
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds),
Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in
Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 122-60.
Shamir, B. (1995), ``Social distance and charisma:
Theoretical notes and an exploratory study'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social
Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and
Perspectives, Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA.
Sparrow, J. and Rigg, C. (1993), ``Job analysis:
Selecting for the masculine approach to
management'', Selection and Development
Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-8.
Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C. and D'Hoore, W.
(1999), ``An examination of substitutes for
leadership within a Belgium nursing
context'', paper presented to the Sixth
European Conference on Organizational
Psychology and Health Care, University of
Ghent and Jan Palfijn Hospital, Ghent.
Strong, P.M. (1984), ``On qualitative methods and
leadership research'', in Hunt, J.G., Hosking,
D.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and Stewart, R.
(Eds), Leaders and Managers: An
International Perspective on Managerial
Behavior and Leadership, Pergamon, New
York, NY, pp. 204-8.
Triandis, H.C. (1990), ``Cross-cultural industrial
and organizational psychology'', in Triandis,
H.C., Dunnette, M.C. and Hough, L.M. (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 103-72.
Triandis, C.H. (1993), ``The contingency model in
cross-cultural perspective'', in Chemers, M.M.
and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research Perspectives and Directions,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 167-88.
Turner, B.A. (1983), ``The use of grounded theory
for the qualitative analysis of organizational
behavior'', Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 333-48.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.N. (1973), Leadership
and Decision Making, University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wright, P.L. (1996), Managerial Leadership,
Routledge, London.
Yagil, D. (1998), ``Charismatic leadership and
organizational hierarchy: attribution of
charisma to close and distant leaders'',
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 161-76.
Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations,
3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Yukl, G.A. (1989), ``Managerial leadership: A
review of theory and research'', Journal of
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 251-89.
[ 295 ]
Robert J. Alban-Metcalfe and
Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe
The transformational
leadership questionnaire
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
21/6 [2000] 280±296
Appendix
Table AI
The nine scales
1 Genuine concern for others Genuine interest in me as an individual; develops my strengths
2 Political sensitivity and skills Sensitive to the political pressures that elected members face;
understands the political dynamics of the leading group; can work
with elected member to achieve results
3 Decisiveness, determination, self- Decisive when required; prepared to take difficult decisions; self-
confidence confident; resilient to setback
4 Integrity, trustworthy, honest and open Makes it easy for me to admit mistakes; is trustworthy, takes
decisions based on moral and ethical principles
5 Empowers, develops potential Trusts me to take decision/initiatives on important issues;
delegates effectively; enables me to use my potential
6 Inspirational networker and promoter Has a wide network of links to external environment; effectively
promotes the work/achievements of the department/organization to
the outside world; is able to communicate effectively the vision of
the authority/department to the pubic community
7 Accessible, approachable Accessible to staff at all levels; keeps in touch using face-to-face
communication
8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in Defines boundaries of responsibility; involves staff when making
decisions decisions; keeps people informed of what is going on
9 Encourages critical and strategic thinking Encourages the questioning of traditional approaches to the job;
encourages people to think of wholly new approaches/solutions to
problems; encourages strategic, rather than short-term thinking

Table AII
Factor names; number of items; means, standard deviations and coefficients of variation; alpha
coefficients and range of inter-item correlation coefficients
Range of
Number of Standard Coefficient Alpha inter-item
Factor name items Mean deviation of variation coefficient coefficients
1 Genuine consideration for others 17 70.48 18.63 26.43 0.97 0.52 ± 0.81
2 Political sensitivity and skills 6 30.04 4.92 16.38 0.92 0.47 ± 0.79
3 Decisiveness, determination, self-
confidence 8 38.52 7.05 18.30 0.90 0.37 ± 0.67
4 Integrity, trusted, open and honest 9 39.94 9.72 24.34 0.93 0.48 ± 0.69
5 Empowers, develops potential 8 38.30 7.05 18.41 0.91 0.37 ± 0.73
6 Inspirational networker and promoter 10 43.89 9.78 22.28 0.93 0.42 ± 0.74
7 Accessibility, approachability 6 26.16 5.89 22.52 0.85 0.43 ± 0.65
8 Clarifies boundaries, involves others in
decisions 5 20.77 4.98 23.98 0.85 0.43 ± 0.61
9 Encourages critical and strategic
thinking 7 29.83 6.98 23.40 0.89 0.44 ± 0.66

[ 296 ]