Reid, Wilbur A - Regent University Dissertation

Development of an Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership
Submitted to Regent University
School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership
Wilbur A. Reid III December 2012
Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership
ii
iii
Abstract In Good to Great, one of the best-selling business books in history, Jim Collins (2001) evaluated companies whose stock market performance rose from good to great and found they were all led by a CEO with a surprising blend of personal humility and professional will. These leaders became known as Level 5 leaders. Although the concept has gained great acceptance in the business community and popular press, a validated instrument to measure Level 5 leadership has not yet been developed. The objective of this research project is to develop a validated scale utilizing the attributes that Collins (2001) used to describe these leaders. This study began with 99 attributes from Collins (2001) which an expert review committee refined to 74. An online survey was developed that included the 74 attributes, and 349 subjects evaluated their bosses on a 10-point semantic differential scale for each attribute. Literature has suggested that Level 5 is the same as servant leadership, and Collins (2006) proposed eight untested questions to determine if an individual is Level 5. To test these items, the survey also included a 10-item validated servant leadership scale and Collins (2006) eight questions. The results showed that there are two very distinct constructs within the 74 attributes that match Collins (2001) proposed personal humility and professional will constructs and explain 55.2% of the variance within the attributes. The final scale contains five attributes of personal humility and five attributes of professional will. Reliability is very good with Cronbachs alpha of .833 and .845 respectively. The analysis also showed that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the Level 5 attributes, servant leadership, and Collins (2006) eight questions. The results of this research open up the doors for implementation in organizations to identify Level 5 leaders and for a wealth of future research on this important leadership construct.
iv
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the first two Wilbur Reids on whose shoulders I stand. My dad and my grandfather have been the embodiment of Level 5 leadership: personal humility based on the servant leadership modeled by Christ and an intense professional will to do whatever it took to advance His kingdom. My grandfather once wrote to me and said: You wear my name with honor. For this, I am very pleased. I pray that this dissertation and my life will bring honor to our name and to His name.
Acknowledgements The process of earning a Ph.D. requires support from a variety of sources, and it is appropriate to acknowledge and thank four specific groups of people who have provided valuable support throughout the past 4 years. First, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to sit and learn at the feet of the professors of the School of Business and Leadership at Regent University. Specifically, Dr. Bruce Winston, Dr. Corne Bekker, Dr. Dail Fields, Dr. Paul Carr, and Dr. Mihai Bocarnea exemplify the personal humility and professional will of Level 5 leadership. Special thanks for the coaching and guidance of Dr. Winston as the chair of this dissertation as well as Dr. West and Dr. Wood as committee members who provided valuable insight. The journey throughout this Ph.D. process has been immeasurably more enjoyable due to my fellow members of the 2009 cohort. We studied hard together, dialogued online, and truly enjoyed each others company. Though not practical to list everyone, there are several, mostly from Group 3, who deserve special mention: John Wilson, David Peltz, Andrea Ramirez, David Oginde, Laurel Emory, and Heidi Frederick. The support of friends, notably at Journey Christian Church, SP Richards, and on Facebook, has been a great encouragement to continue forward. Finally, my family has been awesome. When I told my beautiful wife Chris that I wanted to go back to school to get a Ph.D., her first reaction was, You are nuts! When she realized that I was serious, she was very supportive and encouraging. My teenage daughters Chelsea, Kerri, and Kayleigh were understanding and patient when I retreated to the mancave for hours at a time to work on papers. Dad and mom, Wilbur and Linda Reid, Jr., have shown their pride in what I am doing, which has also been an encouragement.
vi
Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................v List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................... viii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................1 Theory of Level 5 Leadership .............................................................................2 Method and Analysis ..........................................................................................4 Research Goals....................................................................................................6 Limitations of Study ...........................................................................................6 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................7 Personal Humility ...............................................................................................8 Professional Will...............................................................................................10 Servant Leadership............................................................................................12 Charisma ...........................................................................................................15 Secondary Literature .........................................................................................16 Summary of Characteristics ..............................................................................18 Chapter 3 Method ..................................................................................................22 Determine Clearly What it is You Want to Measure ........................................22 Generate an Item Pool .......................................................................................22 Determine the Format for Measurement ...........................................................23 Expert Panel Review .........................................................................................23 Consider Inclusion of Validation Items ............................................................28 Administer Items to a Development Sample ....................................................29 Evaluate the Samples ........................................................................................29 Reliability and Validity .....................................................................................30 Chapter 4 Results ..................................................................................................32 Demographic Variables ....................................................................................32 Factor Analysis .................................................................................................34 Defining Variables ............................................................................................42 Discriminant Validity Tests ..............................................................................46
vii
Final Instrument ................................................................................................54 Summary ...........................................................................................................56 Chapter 5 Discussion ............................................................................................57 Evaluation of Findings ......................................................................................57 Implications of Research...................................................................................58 Limitations of Study .........................................................................................59 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................59 Summary ...........................................................................................................60 References ................................................................................................................61 Appendix A Survey Summary ..............................................................................67 Appendix B Human Subjects Review Board Application ....................................79
viii
List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Professional Will and Personal Humility Results ........................................5 Table 2: Positive and Negative Terms Describing Personal Humility and Professional Will (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins & Hanson, 2001; Collins & Rose, 2009) ..............................................................19 Table 3: Expert Panel for Instrument Verification ...................................................24 Table 4: Average Scores of Relevance from Expert Panel ......................................25 Table 5: Reliability as Measured by Cronbachs Alpha ..........................................31 Table 6: Gender and Age of Subjects ......................................................................32 Table 7: Gender of Participant and Boss..................................................................33 Table 8: Age of Participant and Boss .......................................................................33 Table 9: Boss Position and Type of Organization ...................................................34 Table 10: Religious Affiliation and Religious Commitment of Boss ......................34 Figure 1: Scree plot for principal component analysis.............................................35 Table 11: Total Variance Explained ........................................................................36 Table 12: Structure Matrix of Two Components .....................................................40 Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Four Key Variables for Each Leader (N = 349)42 Table 14: Reliability of Scales .................................................................................43 Figure 2: Professional will and personal humility results (N =349). .......................44 Table 15: Collins (2006) Eight Questions Total Variance Explained ....................44 Table 16: Tests of Normality ...................................................................................45 Table 17: Correlation Coefficients Using Spearmans Rho .....................................46 Table 18: Leaders Identified as Level 5 Compared to Individual Constructs .........47 Table 19: Levenes Test for Equality of Variances to Determine if Responses are Normally Distributed ........................................................................................47 Table 20: Independent Samples Test of L5 Within Key Variables .........................48 Table 21: Demographic Comparisons Between Level 5 and non-Level 5 Leaders .49 Table 22: Significance of Level 5 Leader by Demographic Variable .....................51 Table 23: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Religious Commitment of Level 5 Leaders ...........................................................................................................................52 Table 24: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Organization Type of Level 5 Leaders ....53
ix
Table 25: Level 5 Leadership Scale Attributes ........................................................54 Table 26: Final Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS) Attributes ..................................55 Table A1: Level 5 Leadership ..................................................................................68 Table A2: Servant leadership ...................................................................................72 Table A3: Collins Eight Questions .........................................................................73 Table A4: Demographics .........................................................................................76
Chapter 1 Introduction Jim Collins is a business consultant, professor, and author who has studied the rise and fall of organizations and sold more than 10 million books with observations and conclusions regarding the drivers of success and failure (Collins, 2012; Woolridge, 2011). Collins first two books, Built to Last (Collins & Porras, 1994) and Good to Great (Collins, 2001), became seminal publications for this generation of business leaders. They were both listed among the top 20 most influential business books by Forbes Magazine (Ackman, 2002) and occupied positions on the Businessweek best-seller list for over 6 years each, selling millions of copies in dozens of languages (Bennett, 2011). The books have made a worldwide impact on management and leadership practice and research (Caulkins, 2008, p. 217). The books peculiar terms and phrases have become part of the lexicon of American business: getting the right people on the bus, facing the brutal facts, big hairy audacious goals (BHAGs), first who. . . then what, the flywheel and the doom loop, the hedgehog concept, clock building and time telling, and Level 5 leadership (Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1994). Of all the ideas that Collins has shared in his books, perhaps the most surprising and meaningful concept is Level 5 leadership. Collins found that companies that rose from good to great were all led by humble CEOs who had an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition for the organization (Collins, 2009, 1:15). Collins identified this as Level 5 leadership. There are, however, no instruments to measure Level 5 leaders (Liccardo, 2007). May (2006) summarized this problem in a book review: Level 5 leadership is vague. The only trait people seem to agree on is that level 5 leaders have humility. Humble leaders can be a good thing, but if Jim Collins cant even tell whether or not Jack Welch was a level 5, what chance do the rest of us have? Isnt Collins supposed to be the expert on Level 5 leadership? Hasnt more been written about Jack Welch than about most other CEOs? And Collins cant tell? Hes either being diplomatic and refusing to say no, Welch wasnt or Level 5 leadership is business jibber jabber. (para. 8)
The purpose of this dissertation is to develop a scientifically validated instrument to measure Collins (2001) Level 5 Leadership. Collins theorized that there are many people who have the seed of Level 5 leadership but have not achieved the higher titles of leadership such as CEO because the ambition and egoistic needs that often drive people into leadership stand at odds with the humility and servanthood that is required for Level 5 leadership. Collins (2001) stated, I believealthough I cannot provethat potential Level 5 leaders are prevalent in our society. The problem is not, in my estimation, a dearth of potential Level 5 leaders. They exist all around us, if we just know what to look for. (p. 37) In a recent speech, Collins (2011) added that our problem is not a lack of Level 5 leadership. Our problem is the lack of wisdom to put Level 5 at the top (0:01). Collins organization, ChimpWorks LLC, confirmed, however, that there is no research data in this area (S. B. Toll, personal communication, February 28, 2012). An instrument to identify the complementary presence of professional will and personal humility in individuals provides an actionable tool to identify the seeds of Level 5 leadership. Theory of Level 5 Leadership An overview of the literature from Collins provides the foundational concepts to research and understand the levels of leadership. Collins and his research team examined the stock performance of 1,435 corporations over a period of 40 years, looking for companies that had a history of being good but then became great. They identified 11 corporations as having a period of sustained growth and success, far outpacing the market and industry. The company's fifteen-year cumulative stock returns had to be at or below the general stock market, punctuated by a transition point, and then cumulative returns had to be at least three times the market value over the next fifteen years. (Collins, 2001, p. 6)
The good-to-great company performance had to be independent of its industry. These good-to-great companies were benchmarked to a comparable company from the same industry that did not achieve greatness. One of the key characteristics that separated these good-to-great companies from comparison companies in the same industry that did not become great was the leadership style of the CEO. Collins identified a hierarchy of five levels of people in an organization: 1) highly capable individual, 2) contributing team member, 3) competent manager, 4) effective leader, and 5) level 5 executive (Collins, 2001, p. 20). Descriptions of Level 3 and Level 4 leaders are brief because Collins (2001) indicated that they are discussed extensively by other authors (p. 21). A Level 3 leader is a competent manager who organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives (Collins, 2001, p. 20). A Level 4 leader is an effective leader who catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision, and stimulates the group to high performance standards (Collins, 2001, p. 20). Since it took 15 years of great performance to identify Level 5 leadership, it is difficult to recognize these valuable leaders quickly. Level 5 leadership is unique. Collins (2001) defined a Level 5 leader as one who builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will (p. 20). This is the highest and most effective level of leadership. Level 4 leaders are often charismatic and egocentric and do not set up their successors for success, whereas Level 5 leaders are more plow horse than show horse (Collins, 2001, p. 39). They are self-effacing and understated and make sure that those around them are set up for success. They defer praise and share it with their team; however, this meekness and servant approach should not be misinterpreted as weakness. Level 5 leaders have a fierce stoic resolve and are ambitious first and foremost for the organization. The study of Level 5 leaders must utilize two distinct constructs. Level 5 leaders are a study in duality: modest and willful, humble and fearless (Collins, 2001, p. 22). The first construct is one of a humble, servant leader. Collins used the following words to describe this characteristic of Level 5 leaders: modest, servant, shy, awkward, humble, quiet, reserved, placid persona, gracious, mild-mannered,
self-effacing, and understated. A Level 5 leader demonstrates a compelling modesty, shunning public adulation and never boasting. A Level 5 leader acts with quiet, calm determination and relies principally on inspired standards rather than charisma to motivate. He or she channels ambition into the company, not the self, and sets up successors for even greater success in the next generation. Collins (2001) described how Level 5 leaders look out the window, not in the mirror, to apportion credit for the success of the company, attributing the success to other people, external factors, and good luck. In trying to decide on a term to describe these Level 5 leaders, the research team considered using the term servant leader (Collins, 2001). They decided against it, however, because it was not a comprehensive description that accounted for the idea of professional will, and the research team was afraid people would perceive that these leaders were meek or weak. Despite this concern, servant leadership may be a valid description of the first construct of Level 5 leadership. The second construct of Level 5 leadership is professional will. Collins (2001) also described this as ferocious and unwavering resolve, inner intensity, stoic resolve, ambition first and foremost for the company, and an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition for the organization (Collins, 2009, 1:25). The leader with a strong personal will creates superb results, a clear catalyst in the transition from good to great . . . . Demonstrates an unwavering resolve to do whatever must be done to produce the best long-term results, no matter how difficult. . . . Sets the standard of building an enduring great company; will settle for nothing less . . . . Looks in the mirror, not out the window, to apportion responsibility for poor results, never blaming other people, external factors, or bad luck. (Collins, 2001, p. 36) Method and Analysis An instrument to measure Level 5 leadership required an online survey with a list of leadership characteristics compiled from a review of the literature, interviews, and presentations from Collins regarding Level 5 leadership and all of
the relevant keywords and synonyms. Subjects were asked to think of their current or most recent boss and to what extent their boss exhibits the characteristics of the various Level 5 traits (e.g., To what extent does your boss exhibit humility?). The subjects chose from a 10-point semantic differential scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (exactly). Factor analysis determined the number of latent variables that exist in the original pool of terms that describe personal humility and professional will. The items were condensed so that the variation was accounted for by the smallest number of items that best describe the variation. Cronbachs alpha of at least .70 insures reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). The results were tested for content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity. DeVellis (2012) developed a methodology for scale development that functioned as a guide for developing a scale to measure Level 5 leadership. The personal humility and professional will responses were summed for each leader to determine two separate scores for humility and will. These scores were then benchmarked against the aggregate score for each attribute to determine if each leader was either above average or below average in each category. The leaders were assigned to one of four categories: (a) weak leadership, below average in both categories; (b) humble, above average humility but below average will; (c) strong will, above average professional will but below average humility; and (d) Level 5, above average humility and above average will (see Table 1).
Table 1: Professional Will and Personal Humility Results Professional will weak Humility weak Humility strong Weak leadership Humble Professional will strong Strong will Level 5
In addition to this list of characteristics to determine humility and will, there are two instruments that have been suggested as possible measures of Level 5
leadership. Patterson, Redmer and Stone (2003) and Drury (2004) suggested that servant leadership may be the same as Level 5 leadership and recommended empirical research to determine the relationship between the two. In addition, Collins (2006) suggested that there are eight questions that can be asked to determine if a person is a Level 5 leader. These eight questions and a validated servant leadership scale were added to the extensive list of factored and validated leader traits to determine if there is a relationship between the leadership characteristics of servant leadership, Collins Level 5 questions, and the characteristics of Level 5 leaders. The literature review in Chapter 2 articulates the specific details of this theory. The survey was administered through Survey Monkey to a wide variety of subjects who were reached using social media. Research Goals The core research problem is that there is no way for leaders to measure Level 5 leadership within their organizations. This study will answer three research questions: (a) Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? (b) Is the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership? (c) Do Collins (2006) eight questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he used to describe Level 5 leadership? The goal of this study is to provide an accurate and effective instrument to measure Level 5 leadership within individuals. Limitations of Study There are a number of applications of an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership that are not addressed in this study. For example, how does Level 5 leadership compare to John Maxwells (2011) five levels of leadership or Likerts System 5 leadership (Likert & Likert, 1976)? Common method variance and social desirability response bias are minimized because (a) this is not a self-reporting survey and (b) responses are evaluated relative to each other instead of a comparison to an established benchmark.
Chapter 2 Literature Review Jim Collins (2001) provided the primary literature surrounding Level 5 leadership. In addition to the introduction of the term in Good to Great (Collins, 2001), Collins either authored or was extensively quoted in diverse journal and popular press articles published in Harvard Business Review (Collins, 2005), Strategy and Leadership (Finnie & Abraham, 2002), and Newsweek (McGinn & Silver-Greenberg, 2005). In addition, he published three videos and 16 audio clips regarding Level 5 leadership on his website (www.jimcollins.com) and provided interviews and presentations that are available on his YouTube channel (Collins, 2009, 2011; Collins & Rose, 2009). Secondary literature sources come from a variety of sources from a diverse pool of authors. Collins embarked on the good-to-great project with a team of researchers and a tremendous amount of data. Once the research team identified the 11 goodto-great companies and the comparison companies, they began to pour through the data to identify the characteristics that distinguished the great company from the good company. Collins specifically instructed the team to ignore leadership as a factor because he believed it was a general answer that was often used to explain anything that researchers did not understand. To his surprise, he walked into the research room one day and found that the research team had locked arms and stated Today is the day, Jim, that we have decided to tell you that you are wrong (Collins & Rose, 2009, 4:22). The research team had discovered that, although there was strong leadership in both the great and comparison companies, the great companies were led by people who were cut from the same cloth (Collins, 2001, p. 22). They were different than that of the comparison leaders. To illustrate the difference between these leaders who presided over the change from good to great, Collins (2001) presented stories about three of the leaders: Darwin Smith from Kimberly-Clark, Colman Mockler from Gillette, and David Maxwell from Fannie Mae. Smith was Kimberly-Clarks in-house attorney who did not feel qualified to take the reins of the paper giant. He and his leadership team decided that K-Cs core business of paper was doomed to mediocrity and made the stunning decision to sell the paper mills and reinvest the proceeds in the
consumer business to develop brands like Kleenex, Huggies, Kotex, Depends, and Cottonelle. Mockler was a quiet gentleman who displayed fierce resolve to stave off a hostile takeover bid and retain control of the company that he guided to greatness. Maxwell displayed a commitment first and foremost for the company when he gave up $5.5 million in bonuses at retirement for the good of Fannie Mae (Collins, 2001). The following sections provide an overview of the literature regarding the two constructs of Level 5 leadership: personal humility and professional will. Personal Humility The first construct of Level 5 leadership is personal humility. Collins (2001) defined this idea of humility by first describing the characteristics of some of the 11 good-to-great leaders. Darwin Smith of Kimberly-Clark was described as a shy man who had a lack of any pretense or air of self-importance. He felt unqualified to accept the job of CEO. At his retirement 20 years later, he said that he never stopped trying to become qualified for the job (Wicks, 1997, p. 10). Though Smith was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, he avoided the spotlight and was an ordinary man who usually associated with people that society would not consider important. Colman Mockler was described as a quiet, reserved, courteous, gracious, gentleman with a placid persona. David Maxwell was highlighted because his ambition was first and foremost for the company and not himself. Ken Iversons lifestyle was described as simple, humble, and modest. The Level 5 leaders did not talk about themselves; when others talked about them they said that it wasnt just false modesty. Those who worked with or wrote about the good-to-great leaders continually used words like quiet, humble, modest, reserved, shy, gracious, mild mannered, self-effacing, understated, did not believe his own clippings; and so forth (Collins, 2001, p. 27). In addition to these three good-to-great CEOs, Collins (2001) also featured Abraham Lincoln as a Level 5 leader and cited his personal modesty, shy nature, and awkward manner. Level 5 leaders are selfless and servant leaders. In the research interview, Alan Wurtzel of Circuit City was asked to describe the difference between himself and his Level 4 counterpart at the
comparison company. He stated that it was the difference between the show horse and the plow horsehe was more of a show horse, whereas I was more of a plow horse (Collins, 2001, p. 33). Although people in the organization and outside observers credited the Level 5 leaders as the key to elevating the company from good to great, these leaders do not accept the credit and often credit luck. Level 5 leaders look out the window to apportion credit to factors outside themselves when things go well (and if they cannot find a specific person or event to give credit to, they credit luck). At the same time, they look in the mirror to apportion responsibility, never blaming bad luck when things go poorly. (Collins, 2001, p. 35) In contrast, the Level 4 leaders of the comparison company did just the opposite, taking credit for success and blaming bad luck for failures. The Level 5 leaders of the good-to-great companies were contrasted with the Level 4 leaders in the comparison companies like Lee Iacocca of Chrysler and Al Dunlap of Scott Paper. The Level 4 CEOs were described as charismatic, egocentric, tyrannical, celebrated, personally ambitious, and larger-than-life celebrities. They had gargantuan personal egos and were seekers of fame, fortune, adulation, and power. These leaders were boastful and concerned with their own personal greatness, loudly beating their own chest and bragging about their accomplishments. Level 4 leaders do not set up successors for success. Iacocca was described as treating successor candidates the way Henry the VIII treated wives (Taylor, 1992, p. 1). In contrast to the Level 4 leader, the Level 5 leader can be summarized as one who demonstrates a compelling modesty, shunning public adulation and never boastfing. He or she acts with quiet, calm determination, relying principally on inspired standards, not inspiring charisma, to motivate. He or she channels ambition into the company, not the self, and sets up successors for even greater success in the next generation. The Level 5 leader looks out the window, not in the mirror, to apportion credit for the success of the company, crediting other people, external factors, and good luck (Collins, 2001). Collins (as cited in Serfontein & Hough, 2011) concluded that humility is key to successful leadership: we cannot
10
see something from the perspective of another if we do not have deep humility, because without it we impose our own perspective or analyze things from our own perspective only; we will not see the other persons viewpoint (p. 396). Leaders, therefore, must reassess their role regarding practice and power within the organization, and the organization must consider whether their leaders recognize and appreciate the implications of their power (Goleman, 2000). Professional Will The second construct of Level 5 leadership is professional will. Ten years after Good to Great was published, Collins acknowledged that his description of Level 5 leadership focused heavily on the humility aspect of Level 5 leaders (Collins & Hanson, 2011, p. 32) but said the most important trait of Level 5 leaders is that they are incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the company, for the work, not themselves (Collins & Hanson, 2011, p. 32). Although Collins and secondary writers seem to have dwelled more on the concept of personal humility in leaders because it seems to be a novel concept in the corporate world, Level 5 leadership is equal parts humility and ferocious resolve, an almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great (Collins, 2001, p. 30). Collins (2009) described this professional will in Level 5 leaders as an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition that was not about them (1:15). After describing Darwin Smiths personal humility previously referenced, Collins (2001) stated that if you were to think of Darwin Smith as somehow meek or soft, you would be terribly mistaken. His awkward shyness and lack of pretense was coupled with a fierce, even stoic, resolve toward life (p. 18). This intense, ferocious resolve was coupled with an incredible work ethic (Collins, 2001). Colman Mockler was described as a strong and tireless fighter with an inner intensity to make whatever he touched the best that it could be. David Maxwell was ambitious for the company, not himself. Level 5 leaders are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results (Collins, 2001, p. 30). Level 5 leaders are fearless and not afraid to draw a line in the sand (Collins, 2005, p. 8). They have a workmanlike diligence, are a clear catalyst in the
11
transitions from good to great, and set the standard of greatness. They will settle for nothing less. Although the term professional will has not been utilized in academic research, there are other terms that Collins (2001) used to describe professional will that are supported by academic research. Three of the more prominent terms that have been utilized in research are intrinsic motivation, self-determination, and work ethic. Like the professional will of a leader who is focused intently on the organization, motivation is about energy and direction of behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Maslow (1946) stated that man is a perpetually wanting animal (p. 370) and defined a hierarchy of needs that man seeks to fulfill (Maslow, 1954). However, there are varying levels of motivation within each person based on innate and social influences (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence, and equifinalityall aspects of activation and intention. Motivation has been a central and perennial issue in the field of psychology, for it is at the core of biological, cognitive, and social recognition. Perhaps more important, in the real world, motivation is highly valued because of its consequences: Motivation produces. It is therefore of preeminent concern to those in roles such as manager, teacher, religious leader, coach, health care provider, and parent that involve mobilizing others to act. (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 69) Intrinsic motivation does not rely on exterior sources of influence but is a persons natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Since it is often difficult to differentiate between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, self-determination theory has gained widespread attention as a theory of work motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Self-determination theory is concerned with the intrinsic motivation behind the choices that people make and identifies three innate needs that must be satisfied for optimum growth: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals with high levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination are more likely to succeed in their work (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A leader who exhibits intrinsic motivation and self-
12
determination to perform at a high level on the job will likely meet the definition of professional will that is found in Collins literature (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2009). Within the construct of professional will, Collins (2001) identified Level 5 leaders as exhibiting a strong work ethic. Work ethic has been described as the complete and relentless devotion to ones economic role on earth (Lim, Woehr, You, & Gorman, 2007, p. 319). Although the term work ethic has been used for centuries, it was popularized and connected to religion in the 20th century by Weber (1958) in his seminal publication titled The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Miller, Woehr, & Hudspeth, 2001). The religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means to asceticism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward life which we have here called the spirit of capitalism. (Weber, 1958, p. 172) Protestants in early America adopted scriptural commands such as the following: Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col 3:17, New International Version), Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up (Gal 6:9), and The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat (2 Thess 3:10). The concept of professional will, therefore, may have some relationship to religious commitment. Servant Leadership A common perception among business leaders is that Level 5 leadership is just another name for servant leadership (Lichtenwalner, 2010). Additionally, in academia, Patterson et al. (2003) and Drury (2004) suggested that Level 5 leadership may be the same as servant leadership. Wong and Davey (2007) concluded that servant leaders are more likely to be Level 5 leaders, van Dierendonck (2011) stated that there is a clear overlap between Level 5 and servant leadership, and Morris, Brotheridge, and Urbanski (2005) found that there are
13
marked similarities between the behavior of those termed Level 5 leaders and the servant or humble leader (p. 1323). Greenleaf (1970, 1977) introduced the concept of servant leadership in the modern era. The focus of servant leadership is on the development and performance of the follower (Winston & Fields, in press). Greenleaf (1977) described the motivation behind the desire to lead: The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serveafter leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. . . . The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other peoples highest priority needs are being served. (p. 13) As Collins research team was searching for a term to describe this new type of leadership seen in the good-to-great companies, there was some discussion regarding calling it servant leadership. According to Collins (2001), however, Members of the team violently objected to these characterizations. Those labels dont ring true. . . . It makes them sound weak or meek, but that is not at all the way that I think of Darwin Smith or Colman Mockler. They would do almost anything to make the company great. (p. 30) The modern idea of servant leadership is particularly popular in Christian cultures as a result of the teachings of Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. Although Jesus did not use terms that are translated as leader or leadership, he described the positions, characteristics, and actions of people in leadership such as teacher, lord, and great. An example of the teachings of Jesus on servant leadership followed a mothers request to exalt her sons: Jesus called them together and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you
14
must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve. (Matt 20:2527) Jesus put his teachings into actions in the upper room before the Passover shortly before his death. There was no servant to wash the feet of the group. The custom was that the lowest ranked non-Jewish slave would wash the feet of the dinner guests upon arrival; however, the Messiah, son of God, put a towel around his waist and proceeded to wash the feet of each individual disciple. When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. Do you understand what I have done for you? he asked them. You call me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one anothers feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. (John 13:12-17) In his letter to the Philippians, Paul captured the significance of the humility of Jesus and exhorted his readers to follow His example. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to deatheven death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:3-11)
15
Following the introduction of servant leadership into modern leadership research by Greenleaf (1970, 1977), studies have sought to define measures to quantify the attributes of a servant leader (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson, 2003; Winston, 2003; Winston & Fields, in press). Winston and Fields identified 10 essential servant leader behaviors: 1. Practices what he or she preaches; 2. Serves people without regard to their nationality, gender, or race; 3. Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others; 4. Genuinely is interested in employees as people; 5. Understands that serving others is most important; 6. Is willing to make sacrifices to help others; 7. Seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity; 8. Is always honest; 9. Is driven by a sense of higher calling; and
10. Promotes values that transcend self-interest and material success.
Winston and Fields behaviors help determine the relationship between personal humility and Level 5 leadership. Based on a review of the key attributes of servant leadership, it seems that servant leadership does not account for the professional will element of Level 5 leadership, but it may be the same as the construct part of personal humility within Level 5 leadership. Charisma Charismatic leaders have been notably successful in political, religious, and societal contexts and are now being studied more in the context of business, military, and educational contexts (Bass, 2008). Because charismatics exude confidence, dominance, a sense of purpose, and the ability to articulate the goals and ideas for which followers are already prepared psychologically (Bass, 2008, p. 576), it was quite a surprise in Good to Great (Collins, 2001) when the comparison companies were the ones that were led by charismatic leaders and the good-to-great companies were not. The fact that the findings fly in the face of our modern business culture and will, quite frankly, upset some people (Collins, 2002, p. 1).
16
The idea of charisma and charismatic leadership is scarcely mentioned in Good to Great (Collins, 2001), but the reader response to this surprising conclusion of Level 5 leadership led Collins to address the topic in subsequent speeches, interviews, and publications. In a 2009 speech, Collins said that some of the great Level 5 leaders seemed to have a charisma bypass and that we should never confuse charisma for leadership (0:21) . In an interview, Collins stated that charisma is negatively correlated to leading a company from good to great, and a leader must overcome the handicap of charisma to be successful (Collins & Rose, 2009). Charisma is considered to be a handicap because, if you are a charismatic leader, you can convince everyone you are right to the power of your personality (Collins, 2009, 3:08); however, leaders without charisma must lead by the merit of their ideas and strong team support. Sam Walton is recognized as a great leader who overcame his charisma to build a strong team and become a Level 5 leader (Collins & Rose, 2009). Collins and Porras (1994) described the difference between a time teller and a clock maker. A time teller is a great visionary leader who can look out on the horizon, determine what time it is, and then communicate the discovery to the rest of the organization. When the time teller is no longer there, however, nobody else in the organization can determine the time. Time tellers are not Level 5 leaders and may be referred to as a genius with a thousand helpers (Collins & Rose, 2009, 1:46). Lee Iacocca is an example of a charismatic time teller who led Chrysler to greatness for a few years; but, he was not able to sustain the greatness by himself, and the company slipped back to mediocrity (Collins & Rose, 2009). In contrast to the time teller leader, clock makers build a clock so that others in the organization can determine the time long after the clock maker is gone. Level 5 leaders are clock makers who surround themselves with quality individuals and strive to develop them into leaders. Secondary Literature Since the publication of Good to Great (Collins, 2001), interest in the concept of Level 5 leadership has remained popular in press and literature around
17
the world. The majority of the secondary references simply pass along descriptions of Level 5 leadership as Collins (2001) described it, without adding value to the discussion other than educating readers to the concept. Although professional will seems to be accepted as a given for effective leadership, and humility in leadership is not a new concept in American leadership, the idea of effective leadership being driven by personal humility seems to resonate with leadership experts around the world (Baale, 2011; Ling, 2009; Taking Russia From Good to Great, 2012; Pimolsaengsuriya, 2012; Smith, 2005). Many leadership books now include references to Level 5 leadership (Fullan, 2004; Ogden & Meyer, 2007; Tokunaga, 2003; Williams, 2005). The Schumpeter column in The Economist bemoaned the lack of flamboyant and colorful leaders in business across the globe and blamed Collins as one of the reasons: Facelessnessor at least humilityis also the height of fashion among management consultants and business gurus. Corporate headhunters are helping firms find humble bosses. Jim Collins, one of America's most popular gurus, argues that the best chief executives are not flamboyant visionaries but humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls. Business journalists have taken to producing glowing profiles of self-effacing and self-denying bosses such as Haruka Nishimatsu, the boss of Japan Airlines, who travels to work on the bus and pays himself less than his pilots, and Mike Eskew, the former boss of UPS, who flew coach and shares an administrative assistant with three other people. (Woolridge, 2009, p. 1) Despite the desire of some for a star CEO, Malmendier and Tate (2008) found that CEOs who have won prestigious business awards subsequently underperform both their own previous performance and the performance of CEOs who do not win awards. Our results suggest that the ex-post consequences of media-induced superstar status for shareholders are negative (Malmendier & Tate, 2008, p. 1593). A common question regarding Level 5 leadership is: Can you learn to become Level 5? (Collins, 2001, p. 35). Collins understanding of the answer to this question has evolved with him now seeing Level 5 leadership as more
18
learnable than he used to believe (Bisoux, 2007). Yet, he cautioned that the truth is that Level 5 leadership is painfulnot everyone is up to it (Bisoux, 2007, p. 18). There are two primary criticisms of the research that led to Level 5 leadership: lack of disconfirming research (May, 2006) and evidence of leaders who are successful and clearly do not exhibit Level 5 characteristics. The lack of disconfirming evidence suggests that there may be numerous Level 5 leaders who are not successful. Collins team looked at the companies that went from good to great and said What do all these have in common? They never went back and said are there any companies that have these traits that did not make the leap from good to great? And I understand why they didnt. Because these principles are vague and it would be hard to debate whether or not an unsuccessful company was doing these good-to-great things. (May, 2006, p. 1) Some critics have pointed to great leaders like Lee Iacocca, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch, and Donald Trump who have tremendous egos and, yet, are considered great leaders. Collins readily admitted that there are egocentric leaders who demonstrate great results for a period of time, but Level 5 leaders build a strong team around them so the organization remains great when they are no longer there. Summary of Characteristics A simple 2x2 grid summarizes the characteristics the literature review captures. There were originally a total of 99 items: (a) 55 describing personal humility and (b) 44 describing professional will. Personal humility and professional will can be described with both positive and negative terms. For example, positive attributes such as humble describe the Level 5 leader, while negative attributes such as egocentric describe a leader who is not Level 5. Table 2 summarizes the terms that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins & Hanson, 2001; Collins & Rose, 2009) has used to describe Level 5 leaders.
19
Table 2: Positive and Negative Terms Describing Personal Humility and Professional Will (Collins, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011; Collins & Hanson, 2001; Collins & Rose, 2009) Positive Negative Personal humility Humble Set up others for success Genuine Lack of pretense Gives others credit for success Accepts responsibility when things dont go well Modest Authentic Team player Sets up successors for success Talks about themselves a lot Does not set up successors for success Large personal ego Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and power Self-effacing Gracious Unpretentious Courteous Understated Servant attitude Doesn't seek spotlight Reserved personality Placid persona (pleasantly calm or peaceful) Selfless (puts the needs of others first) Unassuming Low-key Brash Confident Personal ambition Boastful Self-serving (at the expense of others) Acts superior Large ego Air of self-importance Rude Snooty Seeks personal greatness Charismatic leadership Egocentric Arrogant Overbearing Condescending Patronizing Pretentious
20
Positive Reserved Quiet Associates with unimportant people Shy Simple Mild-mannered May feel unqualified for the job
Negative Larger-than-life Gutsy Big personality Socially awkward
Professional will Resolve Inner intensity Gets results Self-motivated Ferocious resolve Intense resolve Drive Self-control Strength of character Courageous Bold Builds strong team Strong work ethic Clear catalyst in achieving results Ambitious for organization Fearless Results oriented Self-determination (determination not influenced by outsiders) Enthusiastic desire to produce results Unafraid to take risk Unmotivated Lazy Undisciplined Weak leader Afraid to take a chance Surrounded by yes-men Cowardly Motivated by financial gain
21
Positive Intense personality Will settle for nothing less than the best Pride in the organization Dedication to the organization Willpower (able to control one's impulses and actions) Backbone Daring: willing to take a chance Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred based on emotional ups and downs Fanatically driven to achieve results Stoic determination Desire for organization Will Gutsy Workmanlike diligence Obsession for organization Fanatically driven
Negative
22
Chapter 3 Method With the lack of an instrument to measure this important concept of Level 5 leadership, the characteristics of Level 5 leadership were explored to develop a parsimonious scale to identify the Level 5 traits of leaders. Three research questions were asked: (a) Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? (b) Is the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership? and (c) Do Collins (2006) eight questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he used to describe Level 5 leadership? This study provides an accurate and effective instrument to measure Level 5 leadership within individuals. This chapter outlines the steps utilized to develop the Level 5 leadership instrument. The literature review in the previous chapter identified 99 attributes in the item pool that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) highlighted to describe Level 5 leaders. DeVellis (2012) defined eight steps for scale development: (a) determine clearly what it is you want to measure, (b) generate an item pool, (c) determine the format for measurement, (d) have initial item pool reviewed by experts, (e) consider inclusion of validation items, (f) administer items to a development sample, (g) evaluate the samples, and (h) optimize scale length. Determine Clearly What it is You Want to Measure The research task is to develop an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as described by Collins (2001). Since there are no empirically tested tools currently to identify Level 5 leaders within organizations, the constructed tool will be necessarily new and unique. Servant leadership was also measured to determine if there is a relationship between servant leadership and Level 5 leadership, as has been suggested by Patterson (2003) and Drury (2004). Generate an Item Pool The researcher identified 99 unique attributes and characteristics that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) utilized in literature as well as video
23
interviews and speeches. There is some redundancy in the list, but DeVellis (2012) pointed out that redundancy enhances reliability and is not bad: At this stage of the scale development process, it is better to be more inclusive (p. 78). A key objective in this task is to ensure that items will be clear and unambiguous to the person responding to the survey. The items selected have a blend of positive and negative characteristics. Determine the Format for Measurement The semantic differential scaling method was utilized to collect the responses of subjects to the attributes and characteristics describing Level 5 leaders. This method is highly compatible with theoretical models like the researcher is addressing in this study (DeVellis, 2012). Subjects were asked the following question: On a scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do the following characteristics describe your boss? 1 indicates that this characteristic does not describe your boss at all, while a 10 indicates that it describes him/her exactly. Not At All Expert Panel Review After identifying the attributes and characteristics that Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) used to describe Level 5 leaders, it is necessary to determine which of these characteristics is the most relevant for further consideration. This was effectively accomplished by engaging a panel of experts. Four authors who have published on the topic of Level 5 leadership or scale development of servant leadership agreed to participate in the study (see Table 3). Collins organization, ChimpWorks LLC, declined to participate in the expert panel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Exactly
24
Table 3: Expert Panel for Instrument Verification Expert Dr. Kathleen Patterson, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA Dr. Douglas Caulkins, Grinnell University, Grinell, Iowa Dr. Dail Fields, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA Dr. Sabrina Liccardo, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Level 5 Leaders and the Romance of Leadership Construct (2007) Seeking the Essence of Servant Leadership (Winston & Fields, in press) Relevant publication titles Transformational Leaders to Servant Leaders versus Level 4 Leaders to Level 5 LeadersThe Move from Good to Great (2003) Re-theorizing Jim Collinss Culture of Discipline in Good to Great (2008)
An online survey was created using Survey Monkey that listed the 99 attributes Collins (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011) has used to describe Level 5 leaders. The experts were asked to rate each of the attributes as either highly relevant, somewhat relevant, or not at all relevant. In addition, a comment box was provided by each attribute to allow the expert to expand on the rating by indicating when an attribute was ambiguous, confusing, or required context. The results were quantified by assigning a score of 3 to highly relevant attributes, 2 to somewhat relevant, and 1 to not at all relevant. An average score of at least 2 indicates that the experts believe the attribute has relevance for measuring Level 5 leadership. Twenty-five attributes received a score of less than 2 and were removed from the final survey. Some of the items removed included items that were ambiguous such as low-key or big personality, and others were removed because they were not clear without additional context, including gutsy and simple. Table 4 shows the 99 attributes reviewed by the expert panel, including the average score that the panel
25
rated the relevance of the item (1.00 to 3.00) with an indication that a score of less than 2.00 was to be removed from the list. The outcome of the feedback from the expert team was a list of 74 attributes to be tested.
Table 4: Average Scores of Relevance from Expert Panel Attributes Average score Positive attributes of humility Humble Set up others for success Genuine Lack of pretense Gives others credit for success Accepts responsibility when things dont go well Modest Authentic Team player Sets up successors for success Self-effacing Gracious Unpretentious Courteous Understated Servant attitude Doesn't seek spotlight Reserved personality Placid persona (pleasantly calm or peaceful) Selfless (puts the needs of others first) Unassuming Low-key 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.67 REMOVE REMOVE Action
26
Attributes Reserved Quiet Associates with unimportant people Shy Simple Mild-mannered May feel unqualified for the job Socially awkward
Average score 1.67 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.00 Negative attributes of humility
Action REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE
Egocentric Arrogant Overbearing Condescending Patronizing Pretentious Talks about themselves a lot Does not set up successors for success Large personal ego Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and power Boastful Self-serving (at the expense of others) Acts superior Large ego Air of self-importance Rude Snooty Seeks personal greatness Charismatic leadership Brash
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.67 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.67 REMOVE
27
Attributes Confident Personal ambition Larger-than-life Gutsy Big personality
Average score 1.67 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 Positive attributes of will
Action REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE
Resolve Inner intensity Gets results Self-motivated Ferocious resolve Intense resolve Drive Self-control Strength of character Courageous Bold Strong work ethic Clear catalyst in achieving results Ambitious for organization Fearless Results oriented Self-determination (determination not influenced by outsiders) Enthusiastic desire to produce results Unafraid to take risk Intense personality Will settle for nothing less than the best Pride in the organization
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.67 2.50 2.50 2.50
2.50 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.25
28
Attributes Dedication to the organization Willpower (able to control one's impulses and actions) Backbone Daring: willing to take a chance Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred based on emotional ups and downs Fanatically driven to achieve results Stoic determination Desire for organization Will Gutsy Workmanlike diligence Obsession for organization Fanatically driven
Average score 2.25 2.00
Action
2.00 2.00 2.00
2.00 1.75 1.75 1.67 1.67 2.67 1.50 1.33 REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE
Negative attributes of professional will Unmotivated Lazy Undisciplined Weak leader Afraid to take a chance Surrounded by yes-men Cowardly Motivated by financial gain 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.67 1.67 REMOVE
Consider Inclusion of Validation Items DeVellis (2012) recommended utilizing validation items for scales, particularly when they are self-assessments, because some individuals are strongly
29
motivated to present herself or himself in a way that society regards as positive (p. 101). A scale measuring social desirability can help eliminate this error. However, since this instrument is not based on self-assessment, validation items would not be meaningful. Administer Items to a Development Sample The online survey created for the experts on Survey Monkey contained four sections: (a) the 74 attributes of Level 5 leaders taken from Collins literature, speeches, and interviews; (b) the 10 items from the servant leadership scale (Winston & Fields, in press); (c) the eight questions that Collins (2006) claimed can identify Level 5 leaders; and (d) demographic information. The survey was disseminated through the snowballing technique utilizing email and the social media platforms Facebook and LinkedIn. Nunnally (1978) recommended 300 subjects for scale development, and DeVellis (2012) confirmed that 300 should be sufficiently large to eliminate subject variance as a significant concern (p. 102). Evaluate the Samples The researcher constructed three different components of the survey: Level 5 attributes, servant leadership, and Collins (2006) eight questions for Level 5 leadership. The objective of developing this scale was to identify items highly correlated to a true score of Level 5 leadership. However, since the true score is not known, the next best option is to identify the scale items that are highly intercorrelated (DeVellis, 2012). The first step of analysis is to determine the number of latent variables that underlie this set of 74 items. This was accomplished utilizing principal component analysis for factor analysis in SPSS. In the factor analysis, rotation increased interpretability by identifying clusters of variables that can be characterized predominantly in terms of a single latent variable (DeVellis, 2012, p. 133). Direct Oblimin rotation is more effective when the factors are correlated (DeVellis, 2012). By condensing the information so that the variation can be accounted for by the fewest number of variables, the instrument becomes more desirable and usable for respondents. Since the number of factors is not known prior to the research, the researcher relied on existing theory and literature
30
that indicated that one or more factors will comprise personal humility and one or more factors will comprise professional will. To determine the items that load on each factor, a .30 level is considered to be an acceptable minimum factor loading because it shows that about 10% of the variance for a corresponding variable has been explained by a factor (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). The length of the scale was optimized to balance the desired reliability of lengthy surveys and the desirability of shorter surveys that reduce the burden of the respondents. The responses from the validated Winston and Fields (in press) servant leadership instrument were summed into one servant leadership score per participant, so that a higher score indicates a higher level of servant leadership. Likewise, responses from Collins (2006) eight questions were summed into a single score per participant, so that a higher score indicates a higher level of Level 5 leadership. The servant leadership scores were then compared to the personal humility attribute scores using paired-samples t tests to determine if servant leadership is the same as the humility construct of Level 5 leadership. The results from Collins (2006) eight questions were then compared to the list of Level 5 leaders who were determined using the attributes of personal humility and professional will. The leader designations from the Level 5 attributes were dichotomous; the leader is either Level 5 or is not Level 5. The scores from Collins (2006) eight questions are continuous. Therefore, a biserial correlation was utilized. A biserial correlation is simply a special case of a Pearson product moment correlation and is used when one variable is artificially dichotomous and the other is truly continuous (IBM, 2012). Reliability and Validity The reliability of a scale is the measure of how accurately the scale represents the true score of the latent variable in a consistent and predictable manner (DeVellis, 2012). If the items of a scale have a strong relationship to their latent variable, they will have a strong relationship to each other (DeVellis, 2012, p. 34). The internal consistency reliability of the Level 5 leadership scale was
31
measured using Cronbachs alpha. The guidelines provided by DeVellis were used to determine the acceptability of Cronbachs alpha (see Table 5).
Table 5: Reliability as Measured by Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs alpha Below 0.60 .60 to .65 .65 to .70 .70 to .80 .80 to .90 Above .90 Unacceptable Undesirable Minimally acceptable Respectable Very good Consider shortening scale Acceptability
Note. From Scale Development. Theory and Applications (p. 109), by R.F. DeVellis, 2012, Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Copyright 2012 by DeVellis. Adapted with permission.
Once the reliability of the scale has been determined to be consistently and reliably describing the latent variable, one must determine if that variable being described is actually Level 5 leadership. There were three different types of validity considered: content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity (DeVellis, 2012). Content validity reflects the accuracy that the items in the scale reflect the latent variable. Since the original item set contained all of the descriptions that Collins (2001) used for Level 5 leaders, the scale achieved content validity. Construct validity reflects the relationship between the theoretical and actual behavior of the construct.
32
Chapter 4 Results To establish a scientifically validated instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, 349 subjects evaluated their bosses in an online survey. Four key variables were analyzed: (a) personal humility, attributes derived from Collins (2001); (b) professional will, attributes derived from Collins (2001); (c) Collins (2006) eight questions to determine Level 5 leadership; and (d) servant leadership. The scores from the personal humility and professional will results were utilized to define a new Level 5 variable. The new Level 5 variable was then compared to Collins (2006) eight questions and servant leadership to determine if all of these constructs are actually the same, as literature has suggested. Demographic Variables The sample size of 349 exceeds the 300 recommended by Nunnally (1978) and DeVellis (2012). Participation was solicited through email and social media platforms, and responses were collected between September 26 and October 6, 2012. Demographic questions were included to better understand the subjects and the bosses being evaluated. The demographic questions identified the gender and age of the participant, the gender and age of the boss, the position of the boss in the organization, the type of organization, and the religious affiliation and commitment of the boss (See Tables 6-10).
Table 6: Gender and Age of Subjects Age 24 or younger Gender Total Male Female 2 2 4 25-34 16 19 35 35-44 63 28 91 45-54 81 46 127 55-64 44 19 63 65 or older 16 11 27 222 125 347 Total
33
Table 7: Gender of Participant and Boss Boss gender Male Subject gender Total Male Female 201 88 289 Female 21 37 58 Total 222 125 347
Table 8: Age of Participant and Boss Boss age 25-34 Subject age 24 or younger 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Total 11 69 156 89 19 344 5 2 3 1 0 8 28 16 14 2 10 41 69 27 7 10 20 35 17 7 1 0 5 3 9 34 91 128 62 25 0 35-44 1 45-54 2 55-64 0 65 or older 1 4 Total
34
Table 9: Boss Position and Type of Organization Organization type Fortune 500 Boss position Executive Officer Director Manager Supervisor Total 17 31 36 30 2 116 Public 9 19 14 9 1 52 Private 36 16 16 4 1 73 Nonprofit 37 38 23 4 4 106 Total 99 104 89 47 8 347
Table 10: Religious Affiliation and Religious Commitment of Boss Religious commitment Not Leader Committed Somewhat Religious affiliation Catholic Evangelical Mainline Christian other Other religion Nonreligious Total 1 70 0 81 1 35 14 43 16 229 0 3 1 8 12 4 55 8 2 17 37 18 6 8 12 9 4 committed 9 6 1 5 Total 38 110 36 17
Factor Analysis The first step in analyzing the data was to determine if the 74 attributes of Level 5 leaders that were derived from Collins (2001) literature can be factored
35
into meaningful scales. Negative attributes such as arrogant were recoded so that the scores correspond with the positive attributes such as humble. Therefore, a boss who was rated a 10 in arrogance was recoded as a 1 so that the negative attributes could be scored with the positive attributes. Principal component analysis in SPSS showed that the significant majority of variability in the data could be explained in two components (see Figure 1). As detailed in Table 11, 55.24% of the total variance is explained in the first two components. Since the factors are correlated with one another, direct oblimin rotation was used.
Figure 1: Scree plot for principal component analysis.
Table 11: Total Variance Explained Initial eigenvalues Component Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19.21 7.85 1.64 1.29 1.24 .99 .98 .89 .87 .74 .72 .68 .63 .58 % of Variance 39.21 16.03 3.34 2.63 2.53 2.03 1.99 1.82 1.77 1.52 1.48 1.39 1.29 1.19 Cumulative % 39.21 55.24 58.58 61.20 63.73 65.76 67.75 69.57 71.34 72.89 74.33 75.72 77.00 78.19 Total 19.21 7.85 % of Variance 39.21 16.03 Cumulative % 39.21 55.24 Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadingsa Total 18.06 11.12
Initial eigenvalues Component Total 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 .58 .56 .51 .50 .47 .46 .44 .43 .42 .41 .38 .37 .34 .33 .33 % of Variance 1.18 1.13 1.04 1.02 .97 .94 .90 .87 .85 .84 .78 .74 .69 .68 .66 Cumulative % 79.37 80.50 81.54 82.56 83.53 84.46 85.36 86.23 87.08 87.91 88.70 89.44 90.14 90.82 91.48
Extraction sums of squared loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Rotation sums of squared loadingsa Total
Initial eigenvalues Component Total 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 .32 .29 .28 .27 .26 .26 .24 .24 .22 .21 .21 .20 .19 .18 .16 % of Variance .65 .60 .57 .55 .54 .52 .50 .49 .45 .44 .43 .40 .39 .36 .32 Cumulative % 92.12 92.72 93.30 93.85 94.39 94.91 95.41 95.90 96.35 96.79 97.21 97.61 98.01 98.37 98.69
Extraction sums of squared loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Initial eigenvalues Component Total 45 46 47 48 49

a
Extraction sums of squared loadings Cumulative % 98.10 99.27 99.54 99.80 100.00 Total % of Variance Cumulative %
% of Variance .31 .28 .27 .26 .20
.15 .14 .13 .13 .10
When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
40
As was expected from literature and theory, the two components of the attributes match the two constructs of Level 5 leadership: personal humility and professional will. Values below .50 and crossloaded items were removed from the analysis. Component 1 consists of 30 of the attributes that describe the humility of the leader. Component 2 consists of 19 of the attributes that describe the professional will of the leader (see Table 12).
Table 12: Structure Matrix of Two Components Attributes 1 Arrogant Acts superior Egocentric Large personal ego Air of self-importance Genuine Pretentious Condescending Humble Talks about themselves Overbearing Self-serving Modest Boastful Seeks fame Snooty Gracious Rude Selfless .88 .84 .84 .82 .84 .81 .80 .80 .80 .78 .78 .78 .77 .77 .77 .77 .75 .74 .73 Component 2
41
Attributes 1 Team player Patronizing Unpretentious Courteous Does not set up successors Placid Will power Self-control Servant attitude Doesnt seek spotlight Surrounded by yes men Drive Intense resolve Courageous Catalyst Gets results Will Not Settle Backbone Resolve Bold Fearless Results oriented Strong work ethic Self-motivated Inner intensity Charismatic Dedication to the organization Fierce resolve .73 .72 .72 .70 .64 .64 .58 .58 .55 .54 .53
Component 2
.81 .76 .78 .78 .77 .76 .76 .75 .72 .71 .69 .68 .68 .65 -.61 .59 .56
42
Attributes 1 Fanatically driven Intense personality
Component 2 .53 .50
Since Collins believed that charisma is negatively correlated to Level 5 leadership (Collins & Rose, 2009), charisma scores were recoded to reflect this belief. However, the recoded charisma attribute is now negatively correlated to the other Level 5 leadership attributes, meaning that charisma is, in fact, positively correlated to Level 5 leadership attributes. Defining Variables In order to simplify the scales for analysis and further measure the Level 5 attributes, a new score for each leader was created by summing the scores of the top 10 factor-loaded items for personal humility and the top 10 for professional will. The four key scales are now personal humility, professional will, servant leadership, and Collins (2006) eight questions. Table 13 presents descriptive statistics for the four scales. Cronbachs alpha is very high with at least .92 on each (see Table 14).
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Four Key Variables for Each Leader (N = 349) Scale Humility Will Servant leadership Collins (2006) eight questions M 69.69 73.12 37.34 30.17 SD 24.38 17.54 9.05 7.49
43
Table 14: Reliability of Scales Scale Servant Collins Humility Will Cronbachs alpha .95 .93 .95 .92
To derive a score for Level 5 leadership, leaders were divided into four categories based on their humility and will score. Each leader was identified as having either an above average or below average score for humility, and above or below average score for professional will. Based on those identifications, the leaders were then assigned to one of four leadership identifiers: (a) weak leadership, below average in both categories; (b) humble, above average humility but below average will; (c) strong will, above average professional will but below average humility; and (d) Level 5, above average humility and above average will. The results showed that 31% of the leaders were categorized as Level 5 (see Figure 2). The scores from the 10-item, validated servant leadership scale from Winston and Fields (in press) and the eight questions from Collins (2006) were also summed. A component factor analysis of Collins (2006) eight questions showed that the questions factored into one component that explained 68.73% of the variance (see Table 15).
44
Professional will weak Humility weak Bad leaders n =102
Professional will strong Strong will n =71
n =173
Humility strong
Humble n =67 n =169
Level 5 n =109 n =180
n =176
Figure 2: Professional will and personal humility results (N =349).
Table 15: Collins (2006) Eight Questions Total Variance Explained Extraction sums of squared Initial eigenvalues % of Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total 5.50 .55 .42 .41 .34 .32 .26 .22 Variance 68.73 6.83 5.22 5.09 4.23 3.98 3.20 2.72 Cumulative % 68.73 75.56 80.78 85.87 90.10 94.08 97.28 100.00 Total 5.50 loadings % of Variance 68.73 Cumulative % 68.73
45
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shaprio-Wilk tests measure the normality of a dataset. Shaprio-Wilk is the most effective for datasets of less than 2,000 items. Both Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov show a significance less than .05, so the data are not normally distributed (see Table 16). This is consistent with the observation that most subjects identified their bosses in a positive manner and the median on the personal humility and professional will scores were 7.5, indicating that the distribution of responses was negatively skewed. Since the data of all four scales are not normally distributed, nonparametric analysis is used when applicable.
Table 16: Tests of Normality Scale Servant Collins Humility Will

a
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Statistic .09 .11 .12 .11 df 349 349 349 349 p .000 .000 .000 .000 Statistic .95 .93 .92 .94
Shapiro-Wilk df 349 349 349 349 p .000 .000 .000 .000
Lilliefors significance correction.
Spearmans Rho was used to show the convergent validity between the four variables (see Table 17). The strongest correlation is between Collins and servant leadership, but all correlations are statistically significant at the .01 level.
46
Table 17: Correlation Coefficients Using Spearmans Rho Servant Servant Collins Humility Will
**p < .01.
Collins
Humility
Will
.83** .75** .52** .68** .65** .34**
Discriminant Validity Tests In his literature, Collins (2001) did not usually refer to leaders along a continuum to Level 5 or as weak, just humble, or just strong will. He referred to them as either Level 5 or not Level 5. Therefore, the leaders in this study were separated into the group of 109 Level 5 leaders and 240 non-Level 5 leaders. Discriminant validity tests were run to determine if these designations were consistent with the new Level 5 scale, servant leadership, and Collins (2006) eight questions (see Table 18). The various scores of Level 5 leaders (L5) were consistently higher than the scores of leaders who were not Level 5 (Not L5). Levenes test for equality of variances was used on the variables together and shows that equal variances between the means cannot be assumed (see Table 19). An independent samples t test shows that the difference between means is statistically significant (see Table 20).
47
Table 18: Leaders Identified as Level 5 Compared to Individual Constructs Variables Servant Not L5 L5 Not L5 L5 Not L5 L5 Not L5 Will L5 109 87.12 6.86 .66 N 240 109 240 109 240 109 240 M 34.03 44.62 27.40 36.28 60.09 90.83 66.77 SD 8.74 4.14 7.18 3.44 23.39 6.94 17.23 SE .56 .40 .46 .33 1.51 .67 1.11
Collins
Humility
Table 19: Levenes Test for Equality of Variances to Determine if Responses are Normally Distributed F Servant Collins Humility Will Level 5 39.38 45.03 145.93 55.32 380.05 p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Table 20: Independent Samples Test of L5 Within Key Variables 95% Confidence interval of Scale t df p M SE the difference Lower Servant Collins Humility Will -15.36 -15.61 -18.63 -15.75 346.41 346.02 314.47 342.62 .000 .000 .000 .000 -10.59 -8.88 -30.74 -20.35 .69 .57 1.65 1.29 -11.95 -10.00 -33.99 -22.89 Upper -9.23 -7.76 -27.49 -17.81
Note. Equal variances not assumed.
49
Overall, 31% of bosses were considered to be Level 5 leaders. Table 21 shows the percent of Level 5 bosses by demographic category. ANOVA was performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the Level 5 leaders and non-Level 5 leaders within a demographic category.
Table 21: Demographic Comparisons Between Level 5 and non-Level 5 Leaders non-Level 5 Subject gender Male Female Boss gender Male Female 69% 67% Participant age 24 or younger 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Boss age 24 or younger 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Boss position Executive 64% 36% 0% 45% 70% 72% 66% 53% 0% 55% 30% 28% 34% 47% 50% 77% 67% 75% 62% 52% 50% 23% 33% 25% 38% 48% 31% 33% 68% 70% 32% 30% Level 5
50
non-Level 5 Officer Director Manager Supervisor 67% 74% 70% 75% Boss religious affiliation Catholic Evangelical Mainline Christian - Other Other Religion Nonreligious 74% 59% 74% 86% 54% 84% Boss religious commitment Leader Committed Somewhat Not Committed 48% 63% 86% 88% Organization type Fortune 500 Public Private Nonprofit Total 78% 81% 70% 52% 69%
Level 5 33% 26% 30% 25%
26% 41% 26% 14% 46% 16%
52% 37% 14% 13%
22% 19% 30% 48% 31%
Religious commitment and organization type are statistically significant variables in identifying Level 5 leaders. Other demographic variables do not have a statistically significant impact on the data (see Table 22).
51
Table 22: Significance of Level 5 Leader by Demographic Variable SS df Gender Between groups Within groups Total .02 79.95 79.97 1 345 346 .02 .23 .09 .761 MS F p
Boss gender Between groups Within groups Total .01 48.32 48.33 Age Between groups Within groups Total 3.23 425.76 428.99 1 346 347 Boss age Between groups Within groups Total .17 274.06 274.23 1 342 343 .17 .80 .22 .642 3.23 1.23 2.62 .106 1 346 347 .01 .14 .07 .797
Boss position Between groups Within groups Total 2.09 414.01 416.10 1 346 347 2.09 1.20 1.75 .187
Religious affiliation Between groups Within groups Total 3.90 498.77 502.68 1 251 252 3.90 1.99 1.96 .162
Religious commitment Between groups Within groups Total 30.38 252.43 282.81 1 235 236 30.38 1.07 28.28 .000
52
SS
df Organization type
MS
Between groups Within groups Total
26.98 503.71 530.69
1 345 346
26.98 1.46
18.48
.000
Bonferroni post hoc tests show that Level 5 leaders are more likely to be leaders in their religious community or at least committed to their religion and that they are more likely to work for a nonprofit organization than any other type of organization (see Table 23).
Table 23: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Religious Commitment of Level 5 Leaders M (I-J) 95% Confidence interval SE p Lower bound Leader Committed Somewhat Not committed .59 1.51* 1.56* .29 .37 .34 .255 .000 .000 -.18 .53 .69 1.36 2.50 2.47 Upper bound
Committed Leader Somewhat Not committed -.59 .92 .99* -1.51* -.92 .07 .29 .36 .33 .255 .067 .015 Somewhat Leader Committed Not committed .37 .36 .40 .000 .067 1.000 -2.50 -1.88 -.99 -.53 .04 1.13 -1.36 -.04 .13 .18 1.88 1.86
53
M (I-J)
95% Confidence interval SE p Lower bound Not committed Upper bound
Leader Committed Somewhat

*p < .05.
-1.56* -.99* -.07
.34 .33 .40
.000 .015 1.000
-2.47 -1.86 -1.13
-.69 -.13 .99
Table 24: Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Organization Type of Level 5 Leaders M (I-J) 95% Confidence interval SE p Lower bound Fortune 500 Public Private Nonprofit .13 -.31 -1.03* .30 .27 .24 1.000 1.000 .000 Public Fortune 500 Private Nonprofit -.13 -.44 -1.16* .30 .33 .31 1.000 1.000 .001 Private Fortune 500 Public Nonprofit .31 .44 -.72 1.03* 1.16* .72 .27 .33 .28 1.000 1.000 .056 -.41 -.43 -1.45 1.03 1.31 .01 -.93 -1.31 -1.97 .67 .43 -.34 -.67 -1.03 -1.67 .93 .41 -.38 Upper bound
Nonprofit Fortune 500 Public Private

*p < .05.
.24 .31 .28
.000 .001 .056
.38 .34 -.01
1.67 1.97 1.45
54
Final Instrument The final step in developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership is to select the attributes that will provide a parsimonious scale with sufficient reliability. Principal component analysis identified 30 attributes of personal humility and 19 attributes of professional will (see Table 12) with a Cronbachs alpha of .951 and .923, respectively. For a Cronbachs alpha greater than .900, DeVellis (2012) recommended shortening the scale (see Table 5). To shorten the scale, negative attributes that would require recoding were removed. This left 13 attributes for personal humility and 18 attributes for professional will. From the personal humility list, placid was removed because many subjects may not know the meaning of the word, and will power and selfcontrol were removed because Collins (2001) used them to describe professional will, not personal humility. The remaining 18 professional will attributes were narrowed to 10 by removing duplicate concepts with lower factor loadings. For example, intense resolve was retained, and resolve and fierce resolve were removed. Likewise, clear catalyst for results was retained, and gets results and results oriented were removed. The remaining top 10 factor-loaded attributes for personal humility and professional will were retained to create a 20-item scale (see Table 25).
Table 25: Level 5 Leadership Scale Attributes Personal humility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Humble Genuine Modest Selfless Gracious Courteous Unpretentious Drive Intense resolve Courageous Clear catalyst for change Will not settle Bold Strong work ethic Profession will
55
Personal humility 8 9 10 Team player Placid Self-control
Profession will Self-motivated Dedication to the organization Gets results
Cronbachs alpha is .929 for personal humility and .918 for professional will. DeVellis (2012) recommended reducing the number of items if Cronbachs alpha is over .900. Again, duplicate concepts with lower factor loadings were removed. For example, humble was retained, and modest was removed. In addition, concepts that Collins did not use often to discuss Level 5 leaders, such as courteous and courageous, were also removed. The final 10-item instrument to measure Level 5 leadership contains 5 items that capture personal humility and 5 items that capture professional will (see Table 26). Cronbachs alpha is .833 for personal humility and .826 for professional will. This exceeds the threshold of .800 that DeVellis established to be considered very good reliability. This scale will be referred to as the Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS). In this research study, a score of more than 37 for BOTH personal humility and professional will were considered to identify a Level 5 leader.
Table 26: Final Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS) Attributes Personal humility
1 2 3 4 5 Genuine Humble A team player Servant attitude Doesnt seek spotlight
Profession will
Intense resolve Dedication to the organization A clear catalyst in achieving results Strong work ethic Self-motivated
56
Summary In order to address the questions regarding Level 5 leadership, this chapter presented findings from the responses of 349 subjects who described their bosses. Three research questions were proposed in Chapter 1: (a) Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? (b) Is the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership? (c) Do Collins (2006) eight questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he used to describe Level 5 leadership? To answer the first question, principal component analysis confirmed Collins (2001) claim that there are two primary components of the Level 5 construct: personal humility and professional will. Therefore, a statistically validated instrument can be used to measure Level 5 leadership. The second question was answered by the statistically significant correlation between the personal humility score and the servant leadership score. Finally, the third question was also answered positively with the statistically significant correlation between Collins (2006) eight questions and the Level 5 leadership scores derived from the personal humility and professional will scores.
57
Chapter 5 Discussion This study explored Collins (2001) concept of Level 5 leadership to determine if, in fact, the attributes described in the literature could be developed into a statistically validated instrument. This research shows that Level 5 is a construct of leadership that can be measured with a valid instrument to identify Level 5 leadership. This chapter discusses the findings of the research, the implications of the research, the limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research. Evaluation of Findings The research findings were consistent with expectations established from existing literature. Although Collins research team wanted to stay away from the term servant leadership to describe this new breed of leader that had been identified as taking organizations from good to great (Collins, 2001), Patterson, Redmer, and Stone (2003) and Drury (2004) were correct in suggesting that they are actually the same leaders. Although the data show that servant leaders and Level 5 leaders are the same people, the qualities of servant leadership align most closely with the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership and do not seem to account for the idea of professional will. Therefore, a scale that measures equal parts personal humility and professional will provide the most robust measure of Level 5 leadership. Since the eight questions from Collins (2006) were shown to identify the same Level 5 leaders, it might seem reasonable to utilize those questions instead of a new scale. However, there is an advantage to using the new Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS). By separating the two constructs of Level 5 leadership, a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of Level 5 leadership can be ascertained. The eight questions from Collins are focused more on the personal humility attributes. When a principal components analysis encompasses all of the attributes and the eight questions together, all eight questions factor with the personal humility attributes. None of the questions factor with the professional will attributes. By balancing the personal humility and professional will attributes
58
evenly, both factors are given equal weight so that the scale does not favor humble leaders who may not have professional will to outperform their peers. Implications of Research Collins (2001) identified at least two practical implications of this research: (a) identifying CEOs to lead organizations from good to great and (b) finding the seeds of Level 5 leadership within organizations and developing them. There is now a validated two-factor instrument so that organizations can identify Level 5 leaders. The premise of Good to Great (Collins, 2001) is that organizations that grew from good to great were led by CEOs who were Level 5 leaders. Therefore, a board of directors searching for their next CEO should utilize the L5LS to determine which candidates are Level 5 leaders. This process may also be utilized in the process of hiring leaders who are below the CEO level. The greatest challenge may be finding objective subjects who will provide an unbiased assessment of a candidates attributes. Within organizations, Level 5 leaders must be identified and developed. Collins (2001) stated: I believealthough I cannot provethat potential Level 5 leaders are prevalent in our society. The problem is not, in my estimation, a dearth of potential Level 5 leaders. They exist all around us, if we just know what to look for. (p. 37) The use of 360-degree performance ratings is growing to more organizations and to more people within the organizations (DeVito, 2012). This simple 10-item scale can be included in a 360-degree evaluation so that individuals, peers, subordinates, and superiors can identify Level 5 leaders within their organization. Once the Level 5 leaders are identified within the organization or in the interview process, they should be developed through mentoring. In American corporations, mentoring is correlated with increased job satisfaction, higher salary, faster promotion, firmer career plans, and the increased probability that the protg will also become a mentor (Wright & Wright, 1987, p. 204). One of the characteristics of Level 5 leaders is that they surround themselves with strong
59
leaders and develop them into stronger Level 5 leaders so that the organization remains healthy and vibrant, regardless of the individual at the helm (Collins, 2001). Limitations of Study This research effort forwards the body of literature on Level 5 leadership by providing the first instrument to measure Level 5 leadership. However, there are limitations. By utilizing a snowball methodology to gain participation in the survey, the subjects fit a demographic profile similar to the researcher: middle-aged, evangelical Christian men. Though the questions were not asked on the survey, anecdotal feedback would indicate that most of the subjects are also Caucasians who live in Georgia and Tennessee. Recommendations for Future Research The next step in the utilization of the L5LS to measure Level 5 leadership could be to compare the actual results and accomplishments of leaders and potential leaders to their Level 5 scores. Theory would indicate that Level 5 leaders should be more effective in their outcomes. This research would utilize success criteria within the organization such as sales growth or a 360-degree performance review compared with L5LS results to determine if, in fact, Level 5 leaders are more effective. It is possible that good leadership is being identified with the L5LS, but there may not be much difference between Level 5 leadership and a variety of other types of good leadership such as authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) as measured by the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) or transformational leadership as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1990, 2008). This study has already shown the similarity between Level 5 leadership and servant leadership; therefore, future research should evaluate the differences between these various leadership constructs to confirm that they are not all measuring the same concepts. Collins (2009) described professional will in Level 5 leaders as an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition that was not about them (1:15).
60
The results of this research show a correlation between personal humility and dedication to the organization, a relationship that should be explored further. There also seems to be a correlation between religious commitment and subjugating the desires of self in leadership to a greater good, as evidenced in personal humility and dedication to the organization. Future research in the area of Level 5 leadership is also recommended across a variety of cultural settings. As noted in the section with regards to limitations, this research was performed on a fairly homogenous population. Additional research in a variety of cultures and nationalities would provide assurance that these concepts are universally valid. Summary This study explored the concept of Level 5 leadership from an academic perspective to develop an instrument to accurately measure the concept of Level 5 leadership. Research has confirmed that the constructs of personal humility and professional will that Collins (2001) proposed in Good to Great are valid and separate constructs. Research also has confirmed that Level 5 attributes, Collins (2006) eight questions, and servant leadership are statistically the same. A simple 10-item scale (the L5LS) was developed that now can be utilized to identify these leaders.
61
References Ackman, D. (2002, September). The 20 most influential business books. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/30/0930booksintro_2.html Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315338. Baale, L. (2011, October 22). Nigeria: Humility as a great attribute of true leadership. Africa News. Retrieved from http://allafrica.com/stories/ 201110220126.html Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Bass, B. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bennett, D. (2011, August 11). Business bestseller. Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/tom-rath-08112011.html Bisoux, T. (2007, January-February). Thinking big. BizEd, 6(1), 16-21. Retrieved from http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/58065/17 Caulkins, D. (2008). Re-theorizing Jim Collins culture of discipline in Good to Great. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(3), 217-232. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others dont. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Collins, J. (2002). Reading guide: Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Collins, J. (2005). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76. Collins, J. (2006). Where are you on your journey from good to great? Good to Great diagnostic tool. Retrieved from http://www.jimcollins.com/tools/diagnostic-tool.pdf Collins, J. (2009, September 21). From good to great: What defines a Level V leader? [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKyQ90XByY
62
Collins, J. (2011, March 25). Our problem is not a lack of Level 5 . . . [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9-u8xv4vE Collins, J. (2012). About Jim. Retrieved from http://www.jimcollins.com/aboutjim.html Collins, J., & Hanson, M. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Collins, J., & Rose, C. (2009, March 4). Level 5 Good to Great [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature =endscreen&v=wfaZ4pw99hc Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human bebavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Dennis, R., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 600-615. DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeVito, A. (2012, October 25). Performance management specialists echoSpan discuss 360-degree reviews getting longer, more widely used. Retrieved from http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/903908 Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University. Finnie, W., & Abraham, S. (2002). Getting from good to great: A conversation with Jim Collins. Strategy and Leadership, 30(5), 10-14. Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Goleman, D. (2000, March-April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review , 79-90.
63
Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader. Retrieved from http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/ Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. IBM. (2012, September). Point-biserial correlations in SPSS. Retrieved from http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21476004 Liccardo, S. (2007). Level 5 leaders and the romance of leadership. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Witwatersrand. Lichtenwalner, B. (2010). Servant leadership lessons: Jim Collins at Chick-Fil-A leadercast. Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servantleadership/servant-leadership-lesson-jim-collins-at-chick-fil-a-leadercast/ Likert, R., & Likert, J. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book. Lim, D., Woehr, D., You, Y., & Gorman, C. (2007). The transalation and development of a short form of the Korean language version of the multidimensional work ethic profile. Human Resource Development International, 10(3), 319-331. Ling, T. (2009, December 12). Bland CEOs versus raging egomaniacs: Are the worlds best leaders flamboyant visionaries or self-effacing individuals. The Business Times Singapore. Retrieved from http://a1preview.asia1.com.sg:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/ index.jsp?vgnextoid=4fc4c0d825b85210VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD &vgnextchannel=73873060b6822110VgnVCM100000bd0a0a0aRCRD&vg nextfmt=print Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Superstar CEOs. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1593-1638. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
64
Maslow, A. (1946). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personailty. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Maxwell, J. (2011). The 5 levels of leadership. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group. May, R. (2006, January 31). Why Good to Great isnt very good. Retrieved from http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/ McGinn, D., & Silver-Greenberg, J. (2005, December 19). A Great second act: Biz guru Jim Collins has advice for do-gooders. Newsweek, 146(25). Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/12/11/agood-to-great-second-act.html Miller, M., Woehr, D., & Hudspeth, N. (2001). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1-39. Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Ogden, G., & Meyer, D. (2007). Leadership essentials: Shaping vision, multiplying influence, defining character. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect. Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University. Patterson, K., Redmer, T., & Stone, A. (2003). Transformational leaders to servant leaders versus Level 4 leaders to Level 5 leadersThe move from good to great. CBFA Annual Conference. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University. Pimolsaengsuriya, A. (2012, May 13). Taking leadership to the next level. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Coach-Talk-Column-Takingleadership-to-the-next-le-30181862.html
65
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitaion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Serfontein, K., & Hough, J. (2011). Nature of the relationship between strategic leadership, operational strategy, and organizational performance. SAJEMS NS, 14(4), 393-406. Smith, F. (2005, July 19). Great companies know a humble truth. Australian Financial News, 53. Taking Russia from good to great. (2012, June 3). Moscow Times. Retreived from http://www.investmentclimate.ru/en/invest-climate-in-media/1421/ Taylor, A. (1992, April 20). Iacoccas last stand at Chrysler: His anointed successor must launch new models, shore up a shaky balance sheet, and find the controls of the company fast. But is Chairman Lee ready to give them up? Fortune. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ fortune_archive/1992/04/20/76315/index.htm. Tinsley, H., & Tinsley, D. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424. Tokunaga, P. (2003). Invitation to lead: Guidance for emerging Asian American leaders. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management , 37(4), 1228-1261. Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Scribners. Wicks, W. (1997). Shared values: A history of Kimberly-Clark. Greenwich, CT: Greenwich. Williams, M. (2005). Leadership for leaders. Oxfordshire, UK: Thorogood.
66
Winston, B. (2003). Extending the servant leadership model: Coming full circle. Paper presented at Regent Universitys Servant Leadership Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Winston, B., & Fields, D. (in press). Seeking the essense of servant leadership: Identifying core servant leader behaviors. Wong, P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Paper presented at Regent Universitys Servant Leadership Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Woolridge, A. (2009, November 12). The cult of the faceless boss. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/14844995 Woolridge, A. (2011, November 26). Built to last: Jim Collins has stayed at the top by practicing what he preaches. The Economist. Retreived from http://www.economist.com/node/21540219 Wright, C., & Wright, C. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of young professionls. Family Relations, 36(2), 204-208.
67
Appendix A Survey Summary Informed Consent Statement: I would appreciate your assistance with this research project on developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined by Jim Collins in Good to Great. The project is being conducted by Wilbur Reid for a dissertation for Regent University. All you need to do is complete this survey, which should take approximately 15 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary, so you have the option to skip questions or to stop participating at any time. If you do not wish to participate, simply exit from the web site. Responses will be completely anonymous; your name will not appear anywhere on the survey. By completing and returning the questionnaire you are acknowledging that you are 18 years of age or older and are consenting to participate in this study. If you have any questions regarding the research, contact Wilbur Reid at wilburreid3@gmail.com or 404-202-1924. Thank you again for your help.
Table A1: Level 5 Leadership

On a scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do the following characteristics describe your boss? A 1 indicates that this characteristic does not describe your boss at all, while a 10 indicates that it describes him/her exactly. Answer options Humble Set up others for success Genuine Lack of pretense Gives others credit for success Accepts responsibility when things dont go well Modest Authentic Team player Sets up successors for success Self-effacing Gracious Unpretentious Courteous Understated Servant attitude Doesn't seek spotlight Reserved personality 1 Not At All 26 24 12 27 7 16 22 9 8 24 40 8 22 6 31 52 29 52 2 26 18 11 26 13 9 27 14 11 22 28 21 21 9 34 35 32 56 3 34 21 13 30 16 22 23 8 15 15 44 20 25 19 42 25 37 43 4 27 13 17 27 13 16 42 18 16 28 24 17 26 18 34 33 35 33 5 36 31 20 47 20 24 29 31 26 30 46 34 31 31 40 28 28 27 6 22 21 21 21 19 20 30 29 24 24 35 35 22 23 27 21 24 20 7 33 36 30 23 27 39 37 21 33 34 34 31 26 29 31 28 27 21 8 43 60 51 49 56 62 50 55 64 55 39 61 42 66 38 33 52 34 9 55 61 77 42 85 61 41 71 63 46 27 53 58 55 30 38 37 27 10 Exactly 40 56 88 37 83 61 43 88 79 39 16 59 63 83 22 48 45 31 N/A 6 5 8 13 8 16 4 4 8 30 12 8 7 8 8 7 3 3 Rating average 6.05 6.74 7.52 5.89 7.61 7.07 6.09 7.47 7.41 6.31 5.16 6.87 6.55 7.38 5.27 5.50 5.83 4.80 Response count 348 346 348 342 347 346 348 348 347 347 345 347 343 347 337 348 349 347
Answer options Placid persona (pleasantly calm or peaceful) Selfless (puts the needs of others first) Egocentric Arrogant Overbearing Condescending Patronizing Pretentious Talks about themselves a lot Does not set up successors for success Large personal ego Seeks fame, fortune, adulation, and power Boastful Self-serving (at the expense of others) Acts superior Large ego Air of self-importance Rude Snooty Seeks personal greatness Charismatic leadership
1 Not At All 23 24 89 109 79 95 91 95 82 96 83 90 89 114 75 79 75 149 148 44 21
10 Exactly 41 42 20 16 17 12 13 15 20 20 26 22 12 14 22 28 24 5 9 27 38
N/A
Rating average 5.96 6.13 3.88 3.72 3.99 3.61 3.72 3.59 3.96 3.90 4.21 4.00 3.72 3.42 4.27 4.38 4.46 2.82 2.88 5.22 6.02
Response count
31 19 76 68 63 85 70 74 66 53 62 59 68 76 59 59 59 67 60 51 23
41 39 41 33 52 32 44 46 45 36 39 42 50 41 49 41 41 38 41 35 42
21 21 15 15 21 23 21 19 18 22 23 23 23 16 24 24 12 17 24 18 29
39 34 25 19 25 21 29 23 38 23 25 33 23 21 23 18 27 23 16 30 27
27 30 18 24 24 18 21 26 17 19 16 18 28 13 21 22 25 16 11 28 33
24 44 24 22 26 21 22 18 22 13 24 22 20 16 24 17 25 13 21 31 38
53 53 20 24 23 19 19 11 17 22 25 16 16 19 25 33 29 8 5 42 54
45 38 17 15 13 17 14 15 17 18 20 20 16 16 23 23 26 11 9 35 39
3 4 2 4 5 3 3 4 7 23 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 1 4 6 2
348 348 347 349 348 346 347 346 349 345 347 347 348 348 349 348 347 348 348 347 346
Answer options Resolve Inner intensity Gets results Self-motivated Ferocious resolve Intense resolve Drive Self-control Strength of character Courageous Bold Builds strong team Strong work ethic Clear catalyst in achieving results Ambitious for organization Fearless Results oriented Self-determination (determination not influenced by outsiders) Enthusiastic desire to produce results Unafraid to take risk Intense personality
1 Not At All 8 7 5 4 20 10 1 9 7 5 7 15 9 8 7 10 2 9
2 7 8 2 5 18 8 6 4 7 10 9 20 4 13 9 13 4 7
3 10 11 8 3 20 19 9 13 9 12 18 13 7 13 12 19 9 19
4 7 19 11 3 17 16 3 16 13 20 17 15 5 18 9 19 10 17
5 28 29 24 18 38 29 22 33 22 24 28 30 15 26 16 40 16 20
6 24 30 25 10 42 36 26 27 18 36 40 25 10 29 18 31 22 21
7 46 49 41 31 47 43 43 41 43 59 49 41 31 36 34 52 28 41
8 69 62 71 53 50 62 59 62 47 68 74 62 48 77 70 77 54 60
9 80 70 93 102 53 76 88 73 80 58 61 55 83 63 88 53 102 88
10 Exactly 60 56 61 109 34 42 84 65 90 47 43 66 122 54 77 28 96 59
N/A 5 5 4 10 5 4 7 3 10 7 2 3 13 7 8 6 5 7
Rating average 7.55 7.29 7.77 8.38 6.41 7.06 7.99 7.40 7.78 7.16 7.05 6.99 8.27 7.19 7.78 6.70 8.15 7.40
Response count 344 346 345 348 344 345 348 346 346 346 348 345 347 344 348 348 348 348
3 20 21
3 11 29
8 24 32
11 10 24
21 32 35
17 27 30
34 48 45
67 69 38
79 66 42
101 38 46
2 2 5
8.08 6.78 6.09
346 347 347
Answer options Will settle for nothing less than the best Pride in the organization Dedication to the organization Willpower (able to control one's impulses and actions) Backbone Daring: willing to take a chance Fierce resolve to life that is not deterred based on emotional ups and downs Fanatically driven to achieve results Unmotivated Lazy Undisciplined Weak leader Afraid to take a chance Surrounded by yesmen Cowardly
1 Not At All 8 4 4 5 8 13
2 12 2 2 11 11 14
3 10 2 5 19 10 19
4 13 6 7 19 18 17
5 39 19 10 30 22 29
6 27 14 9 26 32 30
7 44 28 30 44 37 51
8 76 59 55 55 65 71
9 71 78 80 73 80 59
10 Exactly 43 124 136 59 62 44
N/A 5 9 9 7 5 1
Rating average 7.16 8.41 8.54 7.22 7.40 6.88
Response count 348 345 347 348 350 348
16
12
15
19
42
28
45
49
60
49
12
6.79
347
29 173 204 136 107 79 82 143
23 92 60 75 67 80 59 81
26 46 36 57 40 59 52 47
19 7 7 24 19 31 32 27
31 8 11 14 18 25 27 12
45 2 7 10 21 20 19 11
44 3 4 5 26 15 19 3
53 6 5 8 14 14 20 7
42 7 5 9 16 12 9 7
31 3 6 6 16 8 21 3
4 2 3 2 3 6 6 5
6.05 2.12 2.12 2.68 3.64 3.47 3.87 2.49
347 349 348 346 347 349 346 346
72
Table A2: Servant leadership

To what extent does each of these statements describe the behavior of your boss? Answer options Practices what he/she preaches Serves people without regard to their nationality, gender, or race Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others Genuinely interested in employees as people Understands that serving others is most important Willing to make sacrifices to help others Seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity Is always honest Is driven by a sense of higher calling Promotes values that transcend self-interest and material success Definitely no 11 No 33 Neutral 45 Yes 156 Definitely yes 105 Rating average 3.89 Response count 350
17
28
127
172
4.26
350
12 19 18 13 23 16 17 16
52 26 56 41 44 44 45 51
72 60 92 86 49 49 104 81
123 126 118 132 122 128 92 125
91 119 65 78 112 112 91 76
3.65 3.86 3.45 3.63 3.73 3.79 3.56 3.56
350 350 349 350 350 349 349 349
Table A3: Collins Eight Questions

How does your boss exemplify the following characteristics? A = Exemplifies this trait exceptionally wellthere is limited room for improvement. B = Often exemplifies this trait, but has room for improvement. D = Little evidence that this trait is exemplified, and there are obvious contradictions.
Answer options
C = Some evidence of this trait, but record is spotty.
F = Operates almost entirely contrary to this trait.
Not applicable
Response count
Is ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the organization, the worknot themselves and they have an iron will to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. Displays an ever-improving track record of making decisions that prove best for the long-term greatness of the company and its work. Practice the window and the mirror. They point out the window to people and factors other than themselves to give credit for success. When confronted with failures, they look in the mirror and say, I am responsible.
111
133
56
30
17
348
97
139
66
22
16
346
84
126
65
39
26
346
Answer options
A = Exemplifies this trait exceptionally wellthere is limited room for improvement.
B = Often exemplifies this trait, but has room for improvement.
D = Little evidence that this trait is exemplified, and there are obvious contradictions.
Not applicable
Response count
Although he or she might be charismatic, this is not the primary source of their effectiveness. They inspire others primarily via inspired standardsexcellence, hard work, sacrifice, and integrity not with an inspiring public persona. Values substance over style, integrity over personality, and results over intentions.
113
109
62
36
24
348
131
136
39
31
11
349
Dialogues and debates in search of the best answer (not for the sake of looking smart or winning a point) up until the point of decision. Unifies behind a decision to ensure successeven if disagreed with the decision.
120
113
61
31
23
348
84
142
69
33
17
348
Answer options
A = Exemplifies this trait exceptionally wellthere is limited room for improvement.
B = Often exemplifies this trait, but has room for improvement.
D = Little evidence that this trait is exemplified, and there are obvious contradictions.
Not applicable
Response count
Cultivate leaders who are highly capable individuals, strong contributing team members, competent managers, and effective leaders.
91
137
62
34
22
348
76
Table A4: Demographics Answer options % What is your gender? Male Female 64.1% 35.9% What is the gender of your boss? Male Female 83.4% 16.6% What is your age? 24 or younger 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 1.1% 10.0% 26.1% 36.7% 18.3% 7.7% What is the approximate age of your boss? 24 or younger 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older .0% 3.2% 19.8% 45.0% 25.5% 5.4% Which level best describes your boss position? Executive, C-level (i.e., CEO, COO, CIO, president, senior pastor, etc.) Officer of the company (i.e., vice president, dean, principal, etc.) 29.8% 104 28.9% 101 0 11 69 157 89 19 4 35 91 128 64 27 291 58 223 125 n
77
Answer options Director/senior manager Manager Supervisor/team leader
% 25.5% 13.5% 2.3%
n 89 47 8
Which of the following best describes your boss religious affiliation? Christianity - Catholic Christianity - Evangelical (Christian church, Church of Christ, Baptist, etc.) Christianity - Mainline Protestant (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) Christianity - Other Other religion (Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) Nonreligious (atheist, agnostic, secular) Dont know 5.5% 27.0% 19 94 3.7% 13 6.3% 22 11.2% 39 33.0% 115 13.2% 46
To the best of your knowledge, which description best describes the religious commitment of your boss? A leader: involved in leadership and is very committed Committed (attends services regularly) Somewhat committed (attends services occasionally) 10.1% 35 23.9% 83 20.7% 72
78
Answer options Not committed Dont know
% 13.8% 31.6% What type of organization do you work for?
n 48 110
Large, Fortune 500 corporation Small to medium-sized corporation (publicly traded on a stock exchange) Privately owned company (not publicly traded on a stock exchange) Nonprofit organization
33.3%
116
14.9%
52
21.3%
74
30.5%
106
79
Appendix B Human Subjects Review Board Application

Please submit one electronic copy of this form and any supporting documents to your dissertation chair or to the SBL IRB representative, Dr. Emilyn Cabanda at: ecabanda@regent.edu .
1.
PROJECT REVIEW
New Project (The HSRB will assign an ID#) ___________________________ Revised Project (Enter ID#) Renewal (Enter ID#) ___________________________ ___________________________
2.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR _____Wilbur Reid______________________
Address_2936 Summitop Road, Marietta, GA 30066_ Phone __404-202-1924____ E-Mail _wilburreid3@gmail.com_________________ Date __Nov. 10, 2012____ List of all project personnel (including faculty, staff, outside individuals or agencies) Wilbur Reid, Dr. Bruce Winston (chair)_______________________ __________________________________________________________
If you are a student, please provide the following additional information: This research is for Dissertation Thesis Independent Study Other ___________________________________________ Faculty Advisors Name: ____Dr. Bruce Winston_______________________________
3.
TRAINING: The National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research
offers free self-paced online training at phrp.nihtraining.com. I have completed human subjects research training. Training Date: _9/30/12__
4.
PROJECT TITLE Development of an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership
5.
IS THIS RESEARCH BEING SUBMITTED AS PART OF A FUNDED RESEARCH PROPOSAL? Yes No
80
If yes, please identify the funding source: ________________________________
6.
ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF HUMAN SUBJECTS CONTACT:
Beginning Date Sept 2012___________ Ending Date __Nov. 2012_________
7.
DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS:
Number __349_____
Age Range ___18-90________
Briefly describe subject population Participants are a diverse group of adults working at a variety of levels in a variety of organizations solicited through snowballing in social media. The majority of participants were male (70%), between the ages of 35 and 64 (81%), Christian (87%) and/or work for a for-profit organization (70%). Though the survey did not include questions regarding geography, anecdotal evidence and feedback indicates that the majority of participants are likely from the states of Georgia and Tennessee.
8.
INDICATE THE REVIEW CATEGORY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING.
Further information about each review category can be found at http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/IRB/guidelines.cfm I am applying for an exempt review, based on one or more of the following categories (check all that apply): Note: Exempt review cannot be claimed for any research involving prisoners and most research involving children. Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings and involving normal educational practices such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods Research involving the use of survey procedures, educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), interview procedures or observation of public behavior, if information from these sources is
81
recorded in such a manner that participants cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation Note: This category cannot be used for research involving children Research involving the use of survey procedures, educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), interview procedures, or observation of public behavior, if (i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of federal department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs
I am applying for an expedited review, based on meeting all of the following conditions (check all that apply): Note: Expedited review cannot be claimed for research involving prisoners. Research poses no more than minimal risk to subjects (defined as "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.") Research limited to one or more of the following data collection procedures: Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice Research involving materials (data, documents, records, or specimens) that have been collected, or will be collected solely for nonresearch purposes Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication,
82
cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies Note: Some research in this category may be classified as exempt; this listing refers only to research that is not exempt. Continuing review of research previously approved by the convened HSRB as follows: (a) where (i) the research is permanently closed to the enrollment of new subjects; (ii) all subjects have completed all research-related interventions; and (iii) the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of subjects; or (b) where no subjects have been enrolled and no additional risks have been identified; or (c) where the remaining research activities are limited to data analysis.
I am applying for full board review. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Briefly describe (or attach) the methodology and objectives of your research (including hypotheses and/or research questions), the data collection procedures, and any features of the research design that involve procedures or special conditions for participants, including the frequency, duration, and location of their participation. The description should be no longer than 3 pages single space. Attach addendums for materials and detailed descriptions of the research if more space is needed. Please note that complete chapters of thesis/dissertation proposals will not be accepted.
There is currently no instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined by Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001).Therefore, an exploration of the characteristics of Level 5 leadership was conducted to develop a parsimonious scale to identify the Level 5 traits of leaders. The three research questions that were answered were: Utilizing the attributes and characteristics from literature, can a statistically valid instrument be developed to measure Level 5 leadership? Is the personal humility construct of Level 5 leadership the same as servant leadership? Do Collins eight questions to test Level 5 leadership correlate with the attributes and characteristics that he uses to describe Level 5 leadership? The goal of this
83
study is to provide an accurate and effective instrument to measure Level 5 leadership within individuals. To accomplish this objective, a 92 item survey was administered to 349 adults representing a diverse set of organizations and work experiences. Responses were collected via Survey Monkey online and are anonymous. Each participant completed one survey, which took about 15 minutes. Reliability was very high, with Cronbachs alpha of at least .92 on all components.
HSRB Project Description Checklist a) Is your data completely anonymous, where there are no possible identifications of the participants. b) Will you be using existing data or records? If yes, describe in project description (#9 above) c) Will you be using surveys, questionnaires, interviews or focus groups with subjects? If yes, describe in #9 and include copies of all in application. d) Will you be using videotape, audiotape, film? If yes, describe in #9 e) Do you plan to use any of the following populations? Regent students, Regent employees, Non-English speaking, cognitively impaired, patients/clients, prisoners, pregnant women? If yes, describe which ones in #9 f) Do you plan to use minors (under 18)? If yes, describe in #9 and give age ranges g) Are sites outside of Regent engaged in the research? If yes, describe in #9 and give consent letter or their IRB information h) Are you collecting sensitive information such as sexual behavior, HIV status, recreational drug use, illegal behaviors, child/elder/physical abuse, immigrations status, etc? If yes, describe in #9. i) Are you using machines, software, internet devices? If so describe in #9 j) Are you collecting any biological specimens? If yes, describe in #9 k) Will any of the following identifying information be collected: names, telephone numbers, social security number, fax numbers, email addresses, medical records numbers, certificate/license numbers, Web universal resource locators (URLs), Internet protocol (IP) address numbers, fingerprint, voice recording, face photographic image, or any other unique identifying number, code or characteristic other than dummy identifiers? If yes, describe in #9 l) Will there be data sharing with any entity outside your research team? No No No Yes Yes Yes
No No
Yes Yes
No No No
Yes Yes Yes
No No No
Yes Yes Yes
No
Yes
84
If so, describe who in #9 m) Does any member of the research team or their family members have a personal financial interest in the project (for commercialization of product, process or technology, or stand to gain personal financial income from the project)? If yes, describe in #9. n) As applicable, do you plan to provide a debriefing to your participants? If written, include in application as addendum o) Will there be any inducement to participate, either monetary or nonmonetary? If there is inducement please describe how the amount is not coercive in #9. p) Will there be any costs that subjects will bear (travel expenses, parking fees, professional fees, etc. If no costs other than their time to participate, please indicate)? If yes describe in #9 q) Will subjects be studied on Regent University campus? If yes, please describe where the study will be done in #9 r) Will subjects be obtained by internet only? If yes, please describe what internet forums or venues will be used to obtain participants in #9 s) Are you using the Regent University consent form template? Whether using the template or requesting an alternate form, you must include a copy in your submission.
No
Yes
No No
Yes Yes
No
Yes
No No No
Yes Yes Yes
10.
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT Describe the sources of potential participants, how they will be selected and recruited, and how and where you will contact them. Describe all relevant characteristics of the participants with regard to age, ethnic background, sex, institutional status (e.g., patients or prisoners), and their general state of mental and physical health. Participants are a diverse group of adults working at a variety of levels in a variety of organizations solicited through snowballing in social media. The majority of participants were male (70%), between the ages of 35 and 64 (81%), Christian (87%) and/or work for a for-profit organization (70%). Though the survey did not include questions regarding geography, anecdotal evidence and feedback indicates that the majority of participants are likely from the states of Georgia and Tennessee. Each of the participants is employed and the state of physical and mental health of the participants is believed to be sound.
11.
INFORMED CONSENT
85
Describe how you will inform participants of the nature of the study. Attach a copy of your cover letter, script, informed consent form and other information provided to potential participants.
Informed Consent Statement: I would appreciate your assistance with this research project on developing an instrument to measure Level 5 leadership, as defined by Jim Collins in Good to Great. The project is being conducted by Wilbur Reid for a dissertation for Regent University. All you need to do is complete this survey, which should take approximately 15 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary, so you have the option to skip questions or to stop participating at any time. If you do not wish to participate, simply exit from the web site. Responses will be completely anonymous; your name will not appear anywhere on the survey. By completing and returning the questionnaire you are acknowledging that you are 18 years of age or older and are consenting to participate in this study. If you have any questions regarding the research, contact Wilbur Reid at wilburreid3@gmail.com or 404-202-1924. Thank you again for your help.
** EXEMPT APPLICATIONS SKIP TO QUESTION 17: ATTACHMENTS **
12.
WRITTEN CONSENT
I am requesting permission to waive written consent, based on one or more of the following categories (check all that apply): The only record linking the subject and the research would be the consent document, and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.
86
I will be using a written consent form. Attach a copy of the written consent form with this application.
13.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA What procedures will be used to safeguard identifiable records of individuals and protect the confidentiality of participants?
__________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
** EXPEDITED APPLICATIONS SKIP TO QUESTION 17: ATTACHMENTS **
14.
RISKS AND BENEFITS Describe in detail the immediate or long-range risks, if any, to participants that may arise from the procedures used in this study. Indicate any precautions that will be taken to minimize these risks. Also describe the anticipated benefits to participants and to society from the knowledge that may be reasonably expected to result from this study.
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
15.
DEBRIEFING STATEMENT The two major goals of debriefing are dehoaxing and desensitizing. Participants should be debriefed about any deception that was used in the study. Participants also should be debriefed about their behavioral response(s) to the study. Please describe your debriefing plans and include any statements that you will be providing to the participants.
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
87
__________________________________________________________________
16.
DISSEMINATION & STORAGE OF RESULTS a) How and where do you plan on disseminating the results of your study? b) For electronic data stored on a computer, how will it be stored and
secured (password, encryption, other comparable safeguard)? c) For hardcopy data, how will it be stored (locked office or suite, locked cabinet, data coded by team with master list secured separately, other)? d) What are your plans for disposing of data once the study is ended (give method and time)?
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
17.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attach copies of all relevant project materials and documents, including (check all that apply): A copy of your training certificate (required for principal investigator) Surveys, questionnaires, and/or interview instruments Informed consent forms or statements Letters of approval from cooperative agencies, schools, or education boards Debriefing statements or explanation sheet 18. AFFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE:
By submitting this application, I attest that I am aware of the applicable principles, policies, regulations, and laws governing the protection of human subjects in research and that I will be guided by them in the conduct of this research. I agree to follow the university policy as outlined in the Faculty & Academic Policy Handbook (available online at http://www.regent.edu/academics/academic_affairs/handbook.cfm) to ensure that the rights and welfare of human participants in my project are properly protected. I understand that the study will not commence until I have received approval of these procedures from the Human Subjects Review Board. I further understand
88
that if data collection continues for more than one year from the approval date, a renewal application must be submitted.
I understand that failure to comply with Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46, available online at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html ) can result in confiscation and possible destruction of data, suspension of all current and future research involving human subjects, or other institutional sanctions, until compliance is assured.
89

Reid, Wilbur A - Regent University Dissertation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Reid, Wilbur A - Regent University Dissertation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Development of an Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Submitted to Regent University

School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

Wilbur A. Reid III December 2012

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Negative Larger-than-life Gutsy Big personality Socially awkward

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Action REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Attributes Confident Personal ambition Larger-than-life Gutsy Big personality

Action REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE

2.50 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.25

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Average score 2.25 2.00

2.00 2.00 2.00

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership

Figure 1: Scree plot for principal component analysis.

Extraction sums of squared loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Rotation sums of squared loadingsa Total

Extraction sums of squared loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Rotation sums of squared loadingsa Total

.83 .75 .52 .68 .65 .34