The contribution of personality type (preference) and selected situational factors to visionary leadership behavior

Material Information

The contribution of personality type (preference) and selected situational factors to visionary leadership behavior
Sanchez, Anita Louise
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xii, 148 leaves : forms ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public Affairs
Committee Chair:
Gage, Robert W.
Committee Co-Chair:
Boss, R. Wayne
Committee Members:
Isgar, Tom
Overman, E. Sam
Zammuto, Raymond F.


Subjects / Keywords:
Leadership ( lcsh )
Leadership -- Testing ( lcsh )
Leadership ( fast )
Leadership -- Testing ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-133).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate School of Public Affairs.
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Anita Louise Sanchez.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
19687701 ( OCLC )

Full Text
Anita Louise Sanchez
B.A., University of Colorado, 1975
M.P.A., University of Colorado, 1977
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate School of Public Affairs

Copyright by Anita Louise Sanchez 1988
All Rights Reserved

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Anita Louise Sanchez
has been approved for the
Graduate School
of Public Affairs

Sanchez, Anita Louise (Ph.D., Public Administration)
The Contribution of Personality Type (Preference) and Selected
Situational Factors to Visionary Leadership Behavior
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Robert W. Gage
This study recognizes the centrality of leadership to
organizational success and survival, and investigates an expanded
framework of leadership. The leadership framework is
organizational in focus, with the aim of transforming whole
organizations, such that the leader's vision becomes reality.
This transformational activity is termed visionary leadership
(Sashkin, 1984).
Within this framework, the author investigated the
relative contribution of personality type/preference to visionary
leadership behavior. She also looked at situational factors and
examined to what extent personality variables and situational
factors interact to inpact visionary leadership behavior.
The sample is comprised of 249 Executive Directors and
Presidents of YWCAs and YMCAs throughout the U.S.A. who completed
a survey questionnaire composed of the following instruments: the
Leadership Behavior Questionnaire, the Myers- Briggs Type
Indicator, the Likert Profile of Organizational Characteristics,
and demographic questions.
Multiple regression analyses and analysis of variance
were used to test seven hypotheses regarding the relationships of
personality and situational factors to visionary leadership
scores. The statistical results of this analysis were significant
for key relationships between personality preference and visionary

leadership behavior. The significance of the relationship of
situational factors, specifically task type and organizational
characteristics, to visionary leadership behavior disappeared when
regressed with all independent variables. Both personality
preference and tenure ejqplained a significant amount of the
variation in visionary leadership behavior. When controlling for
all other significant individual and situational factors,
personality preference continued to explain the largest amount of
variation in visionary leadership behavior.
environment fit approaches to understanding visionary leadership
behavior was given by the study's results. Finally the study
underscored the Lewinian notion of the importance of investigating
both personality and situation factors in studying leadership
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I jrecommend
its publication.
Support for the utility of cognitive and person-

This thesis is dedicated to Kit Tennis and Frances Sanchez
who retaught roe to trust in my dreams and to work for my dreams -
for these can help us with any challenge that life presents!

I am grateful to my colleagues, Robert Gage, Wayne Boss, Sam
Overman, Ray Zammuto, each of whom taught me to appreciate the
majesty of knowledge and held the door wide open so that I could
attain this doctoral degree. To Tam Isgar I give a special thanks
for his time, patience, critical thought, and willingness to share
his wealth of knowledge and skill while encouraging me to build my
own treasury.

imiroducticn.................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study.......................................... 1
Problem Statement............................................. 3
Significance of the Study....................................... 4
Definition of Terms ............................................ 7
Managerial Leadership......................................... 8
Visionary Leadership.......................................... 8
Leader Effectiveness.......................................... 9
Limitations of the Study........................................ 9
Relevant Questions of External Validity....................... 9
General Methodological Limitations........................... 10
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................................... 12
Models of Leadership........................................... 12
Lewin's Classic Paradigm....................................... 13
Visionary Leadership and Individual Factors.................... 15
Demographic Factors ......................................... 16
Personality Factors.......................................... 18
Use of power............................................... 19
Cognitive style........................................... 20
Application of Jungian Theory................................ 22
Sensing-intuiting preference............................... 23

Thinking-feeling preference................................ 24
Introverting-extroverting preference....................... 25
Leadership and Situation....................................... 33
Organization Characteristics................................. 34
How groups affect individuals............................. 35
Key organizational processes............................... 36
Measurement of process..................................... 38
Task Factors................................................. 40
Leader authority......................................... 40
Task Structure............................................. 40
Leadership and Behavior........................................ 42
Visionary Leadership Behaviors............................... 44
Focused leadership......................................... 45
Communication leadership................................... 46
Trust leadership........................................... 46
Self-leadership......................................... . 47
Risk leadership............................................ 48
Follower-centered leadership............................... 49
Interaction of Personality and Situational
Factors with Visionary Leadership Behavior................. 50
Research Questions............................................. 51
RESEARCH METHODS............................................... 53
Overview....................................................... 53
Population and Sample.......................................... 54
Characteristics of the Sample................................ 55

Measures................................................... 57
Demographic variables...................................... 57
Personality preference (MBIT).............................. 57
Situation factors.......................................... 62
Likert profile............................................. 62
Leadership behavior questionnaire ......................... 64
Method of Analysis........................................... 65
RESULTS....................................................... 67
Overview...................................................... 67
Support for Hypothesis Number One.............................. 71
Support for Hypothesis Number One-A, One-B. ......... 76
Support for Hypothesis Number Qne-C............................ 78
Non-support for Hypothesis Number Two ......................... 81
Partial Support for Hypothesis Number Two-A.................... 82
Support for Hypothesis Number Three............................ 85
General Results................................................ 89
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY....................................... 97
Overview....................................................... 97
Discussion of Results.......................................... 98
Hypothesis Number One........................................ 98
HI: Visionary leadership................................... 98
Hypothesis Number Qne-A......................................100

HI-A: Those who preferred perceiving process
is thinking .............................................100
Hypothesis Number Qne-B......................................102
Hl-B: Those who preferred judging process
is thinking..............................................102
Hypothesis Number Qne-C......................................104
Hl-C: Those who combined preferred perceiving
and judging processes....................................104
Hypothesis Number TVro ..................................... 107
H2: Demographic factors.................................. 107
Hypothesis Number Two-A..................................... 108
H2-A: Situational factors, organizational
characteristics and task type............................108
Hypothesis Number Three..................................... Ill
H3: Controlling for situational and
demographic factors......................................Ill
Implications of the Findings...................................114
Practical Implications.......................................114
implications for Future Research...............................117
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................... 121
A. QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER.................................134
B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.......................................136

1- 1 Toward A Theory of Organizational Leadership:
A Framework............................................... 5
2- 1 A Framework for Visionary Leadership..................... 14
2-2 Illustrative Traits Separating Leaders
from Non-Leaders........................................ 18
2-3 Pour Preferences of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . 26
2-4 Preference Combinations of the Middle Two
Jungian Scales........................................... 30
2- 5 Research Questions....................................... 52
3- 1 Sample Characteristics................................... 56
3-2 Frequency & Distribution of Personality Types............ 59
3- 3 Alpha Coefficient Reliabilities for Likert Profile
of Organizational Characteristics........................ 63
4- 1 Results of Tests of Hypotheses Regarding the
Contribution of Personality Type and Situational
Factors to Visionary Leadership Behavior................. 70
4-2 Analysis of Variance: Visionary Leadership Behavior
on MBIT Personality Preference Variables................. 71
4-3 Regression Results for Visionary Leadership Behavior
on MBIT Personality Preference Scales.................... 72
4-4 Analysis of Variance: Total Visionary Leadership
Behavior Score on 16 Personality Types (MBIT).......... 74
4-5 Multiple Classification Analysis: Visionary Leadership
Behavior Total Score on 16 Personality Types (MBIT) . 75
4-6 Results of Independent Regressions for Visionary
Leadership Behavior on SN & TF Preference Scales. . .

4-7 Results of Independent Regressions for Visionary
Leadership Behavior on Sensing, Intuiting, Thinking,
And Feeling (SNTF) Preference Combinations............. 79
4-8 Regression Results for Visionary Leadership
Behavior on Demographic Variables...................... 82
4-9 Regression Results for Visionary Leadership
Behavior on Task Type Variable......................... 83
4-10 Regression Results for Visionary Leadership
Behavior on Organizational Characteristic Variables . 84
4-11 Tests of Variance Separately Explained by
Demographic, Task, and Organizational Variables .... 87
4-12 Tests of Additional Variance Explained in the
Presence of All Relevant Variables..................... 88
4-13 Variable Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies. ... 90
4-14 Correlation Matrix............................... 92
4- 15 Regression Results for Visionary Leadership
Behavior on All Variables.............................. 95
5- 1 Summary of Judging and Perceiving Style
Intuitive-Thinker (NT) and Sensing-Feeler (SF)

Purpose of the Study
Today the need for visionary leadership in society and
organizations is increasingly recognized and pressing (Bennis &
Nanus, 1985; Gelinas & Levine, 1986; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Peters,
1987; Sashkin & Burke, 1987; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986). One need only
read local newspapers to see that at all levels of society
community, state, national, and internationalthe challenges and
opportunities of the twenty-first century are on the shoulders of
leaders in our public and private institutions. In recognition of
the centrality of leadership to organizational success and survival,
practitioners and theorists have made concerted efforts over
* to define a "leadership" construct,
* to specify appropriate models in which to ground a
leadership construct,
* to specify leadership determinants,
* to explore leadership manifestations and outcomes,
* and to try to mold individuals into leaders through
training and development programs.
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the
relative contribution of personality type to the practice of

visionary leadership. A secondary purpose is to examine the
relative contribution of demographic factors (age, sex, tenure in
the organization, tenure in the position, education, marital status,
race) and situational factors (task type, leadership, motivation,
communication, decision making, goal setting, and control) to
visionary leadership behavior. A third objective of the study is to
investigate whether personality and situational factors interact to
contribute to the experience of visionary leadership behavior.
The fourth objective of this study is to attempt to respond
to the immediate and practical concerns of two of the oldest and
largest male and female private, non-profit organizations in the
world. The respondents are leaders of the affiliate organizations
of the National Young Women's Christian Association of the United
States and the National Young Men's Christian Association of the
United States (both of which are regional units of a world-wide
organization of YWCAs and YMCAs). Ihe top leadership of these
organizations, the President and the Executive Director, have many
varied roles and responsibilities. These executives are caught
between two sometimes conflicting needs: first, as managers they
strive to maintain the balance of operations, and second, as
visionary leaders they strive to create new approaches and identify
new areas to explore through which to achieve their visions.
Zaleznik (1977) suggests that because leaders and managers are
basically different type of people, the conditions favorable to the
growth of one may be unfriendly to the other. However, the

objective of these executives has been to fulfill the challenge of
being both manager and visionary leader.
No prior systematic, or empirical, analysis has been done in
either organization to examine personality and leadership
characteristics of executives who carry both roles.
Problem Statement
Many leadership theories center on managerial leader-
follower relationships derived from classic lab studies (Bales,
1950) and field studies at Ohio State (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) and
the more recent work of Fiedler (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). These
theories have disregarded Kurt Lewin's dictum that behavior is a
function of the individual and the situation (Lewin, 1951):
Behavior = Function (Person, Situation)
Many early researchers looked only at personality traits and
found generally positive, but rarely large, correlations with
leadership (Gibb, 1954; Stogdill, 1948). Stogdill and Coons (1957)
examined leader behavior in the Ohio State studies. In his "Theory
of Leadership Effectiveness" Fiedler (1967) incorporates
personality and situational variables but not leader behavior, while
House (1971) disregards personality variables but includes behavior
outcomes and situation. This study proposes that for a leadership
theory to be adequate it must include: (1) all three Lewinian

factors and (2) an organizational focus, which incorporates
visionary leadership in addition to managerial leadership.
This study's objectives are examining in a sample of male
and female non-profit executives (1) the concept of visionary
leadership behavior in organizational leadership theory, (2) the
relationship of personality type to visionary leadership behavior,
(3) the relationship of situational factors to visionary leadership
behavior, (4) the interaction of personality type and situation
factors to visionary leadership behavior. These objectives are
directed toward expanding a framework for leadership, largely based
on research by Sashkin and Fulmer (1985). This framework is
operationalized in Sashkin's Leadership Behavior Questionnaire, a
fifty-item instrument that measures and distinguishes between
managerial and visionary leadership.
Sigrrifinanne of the SHirty
This exploratory study used Sashkin's and Fulmer's (1985)
framework outlined in Table 1-1 and went beyond previous research
which has investigated individual, situational, or behavioral
factors individually. The simultaneous investigation of key
personality, situational, and behavioral factors makes this
framework more realistic and comprehensive in its study of

TAHTfi 1-1 Toward a Bleary of Organizational Leadership
Demographic Factors Task: authority, structure
Personality Factors: power, cognitive style Culture: change, goals, people Organizational Characteristics
Managerial Leadership Visionary Leadership
Goal Oriented Focused leadership
Task-Centered Management Communication leadership
Supportive Management Trust leadership
Team Management Self-leadership Risk leadership Follower-centered leadership
Adapted in part on research by Sashkin & Fulmer (1985)
lhe general belief in the centrality of leadership to the
success of organizations has resulted in a continuous stream of
books and articles that review leadership theory and research
(Brcwne & Cohn, 1958; Bellows, 1959; Cartwright, 1959; Bass, 1960a,
1961c; Bennis 1961b; Hare, 1976; Fetrullo & Bass, 1961; Tannenbaum,
Weschler & Massarik, 1961; Mann, 1966; Gibb, 1968,1969; Stogdill,
1974). To better understand leadership, Sashkin (1987) and Sashkin
and Fulmer (1985,1986) suggest that future development of an
organizational leadership theory must be embedded in an expanded
framework as shown in Table 1-1 that:

1. takes into account specific individual leader factors
(demographics, personality factors),
2. takes into account specific situational factors (task,
culture, organizational characteristics),
3. straws hew personality and situation interact to determine
appropriate leadership behavior, and
4. integrates research of visionary and managerial
leadership in terms of common underlying themes.
Sashkin & Fulmer (1985) suggest that there are two basic types of
leadership: visionary and managerial. Managerial leadership,
according to Sashkin & Fulmer (1985), is focused on carrying out the
application of rules, policies, and standard procedures, and
translating one's ideas into hew to make policies work. Visionary
leadership is viewed in this framework as organizational in focus,
with the purpose of transforming whole organizations, such that the
leader's vision becomes reality. Current trends in leadership
research are only now tending to emphasize the organizational focus
of leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sashkin
& Fulmer, 1985; Schein, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
This research project is exploratory rather than
experimental, with the purpose of examining more closely certain
personality, work, and behavioral characteristics of executives in
human service organizations as well as the patterns of relationship
between those characteristics. In the process, the author will be

testing some of the visionary leadership concepts outlined in Table
1-1, and developing a set of norms for "the visionary leader," as
measured by the Leader Behavior Questionnaire developed by Sashkin
(1984,1985), based on Bennis' (1984,1985) work on organizational
Definition of Terms
Despite the extent of research on "leadership," its
definition, diagnosis, and focus is still unwieldy. Consequently,
there is no universally accepted definition of leadership. "Decades
of academic analysis has given us more than 350 definitions of
leadership" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p.4).
What distinguishes leaders from non-leaders? What
distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective leaders? Bennis
and Nanus (1985) define leader as "one who commits people to action,
who converts followers into leaders, and who may convert leaders
into agents of change" (ibid, p.3). They refer to this type of
leadership as "transformative." Bums (1978) defined the leader as
one whose goal is designing and carrying out a basic change in the
organization. Bass (1980) talks about two types of leaders, both of
wham have goals to motivate followers. The "transactional" (Bums,
1978) leader motivates followers by exchanges with them (rewards for
services rendered), while "transformational" leaders motivate
followers to work for transcendental goals rather than their
immediate self-interest. It follows that both the "transactional"

leader and the "tranformational" leader, respectively, which Sashkin
and Fulmer (1985) term "managerial" leader and "visionary" leader
plan to design and carry out a basic change in the organization but
their levels of focus are different.
Managerial leadership
For purposes of this study, there are two basic types of
leadership: managerial and visionary. Sashkin and Fulmer (1985)
incorporate the works of Katz and Kahn (1966, 1978) to define these
two types of leadership as follows. Managerial leadership, as
formal head of a group, unit, division, or organization, is focused
on getting things done with and through people; on carrying out the
application of rules, policies, and standard procedures; and on
translating one's ideas into hew to make organizational policies
work. Katz and Kahn (1966, 1978) refer to the managerial focus
described above as carrying out administration and interpolation
functions. These functions are most typically carried out by
leadership in mid-level and lew-level managerial ranks.
Visionary T<=^aArship
Visionary leadership is organizational in focus, with the
goal of transforming the whole organization such that the leader's
vision becomes reality. The visionary leader defines the vision and
takes action at the organizational and individual level to change
and create values, beliefs, and norms that will shape the
organizational culture such that the leader's vision is realized

(Sashkin, 1987). The function of "originating" (Katz & Kahn
1966,1978) policies and programs is a means by which the vision is
put into practice. This originating function is described as the
focus of visionary leadership at the executive level.
Tfifyfer- EffectiypnpRc;
Effective leaders are identifiable by sustained high
performance from their subordinates (individually and as an
aggregate) and by sustained high performance from their organization
(profits, return on investments, growth). Effective leaders are
personally successful as measured by advancement, salary, and other
extrinsic rewards; by a positive self-concept; and by seeing
themselves as "self-actualizing" or achieving their ideals (Sashkin
& Fulmer, 1985).
T.imitations of the* 53t-nrty
Itelgwianh niPsHms of Tbrtemal Validity
The sample includes 185 of 800 Executive Directors and
Presidents from private, non-profit VWCAs and 73 of 900 Executive
Directors from YMCAs throughout the USA. The sample population is
exclusively executive-level leaders and includes both males and
females. In this regard the setting and sample offer a limited
range of potential populations for generalization. However, insofar
as Stogdill (1957) suggests that there is no robust association
between demographic variables and the phenomenon of leadership

behavior, the demographic peculiarities of the sample may not
provide severe threats to generalizability.
A second limitation imposed by the study is the fact that
participation in the sample was based on self-selection. In 1986,
246 Executive Directors and Presidents from YWCAs throughout the USA
attended one of three regional meetings held in various parts of the
country; 185 of the 246 present (71%) participated in the study. In
October of 1986, 94 Executives from YMCAs throughout the United
States attended meetings in New Orleans; 73 or 77% participated in
the study. This limitation would also not appear to severely
constrain the generalizability of the results.
Another possible limitation to this study is the fact that
it used a self report measure. It was not possible to verify the
degree to which the individual's actual, visionary leadership
behavior (VIB) was accurately represented in the questionnaires.
General Methodolncriral T.imitations
In general the use of a correlational design does not answer
the issue of causation and leaves open the question of whether
personality and situation cause specific leadership behavior or
whether the opposite is true.
This study is prompted by a belief that the primary
direction of influence, in accordance with the Lewinian model, is
that personality and situation influence leadership behavior.
Hie use of correlational design, although failing to answer
questions of causation, is often the sole approach available in

analyzing data gathered at the outset of an extended program of
organization development interventions (Argyris, 1980). In this
instance, discovery of strong associations between the personality
factors and leadership behavior will directly influence subsequent
design of leadership training in both organizations.
For the purposes of this investigation, the limitations
imposed by a correlational design were balanced by the opportunity
to use extensive data frcro a very large sample of non-profit,
female- and male-led organizations, an opportunity not normally
available outside of the applied research setting.

Hrrtela nf TflarigrKhip
Leadership has been studied since ancient times, but only
recently have studies attempted to be more integrative and
organizational in focus. The "great man" theory was one of the
earliest models of leadership. According to this theory, leaders
were bom into their role. It was their destiny. Research focused
on attempts to define the qualities or personality traits
that were part of a leader's inheritance (Gibb, 1954; Stogdill,
Another early theory was the situational or environmental
theory. Leadership arose to meet the demands of the situation. The
person who performed the leadership role was considered to be a mere
instrument through which the needs of the situation were met. Great
events made leaders of ordinary people. This theory is sometimes
called the "Big Bang" (Bennis, 1985) concept of leadership. A third
approach is typified by the classic Ohio State studies which
examined only leadership behavior, without considering traits or
situation, in samples of air force flight crews, superintendents and
foremen in manufacturing plants, and ROIC cadets (Stogdill & Coons,

These one-factor theories (traits theory, situational
theory, and behavior theory) have been found, through research, to
be inadequate, (Mann, 1959). As a result, more interactive models
of leadership developed, linking personality and situational factors
(Fiedler, 1967) or linking behavior and situation factors (House,
1971). An adequate theory of leadership must take a
broader view, as well as incorporate all three factors (individual,
situation, and behavior).
Tgwin'ci fnaggir* Paradigm
A simple, yet useful, framework for studying visionary
leadership can be found in Kurt Lewin's classic paradigm, which
states that behavior is a function of individual factors in
interaction with certain important aspects of situations: Behavior
= function (Person, Situation). This framework was used in Table 1-
1 to outline Sashkin's (1984) model of organizational leadership.
This Lewinian framework, which includes individual, situation and
behavioral factors, is used (Table 2-1) to outline a model of
visionary leadership that was investigated in this research.

A Framework fcar Visionary Leadership
Demographic Personality
Factors: Factors:
Task Organization
Variables: Characteristic:
Perceptions and
Authority Leadership
Structure Motivation
Decision making
Goal setting
v v
v v
Focused Leadership
Communication Leadership
Trust Leadership
Follower-centered Leadership

This literature review is organized around the three
variables shown in Table 2-1: individual, situation, and behavior.
Each of these areas will be discussed in light of its implications
for visionary leadership. This treatment allows for presentation of
some new concepts regarding "visionary" leadership (Bennis, 1985;
Sashkin, 1984, 1985). In addition this review
attempts to develop connections between variables associated with
the study of managerial leadership and variables associated with
visionary leadership (Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985).
Vigirrwry Tfiartefrahip and Individual Wartinrs
Studies have been conducted that look for individual
differences between leaders and followers, and between effective and
ineffective leaders. Stogdill (1948) reviewed the results from 124
such studies conducted from 1904 to 1948 and concluded that
individual factors failed to correlate with leader effectiveness in
a strong or consistent manner. In recent years, the investigation
of leaders' individual characteristics has been more productive.
This progress can be attributed to the inclusion of more relevant
characteristics in the research, use of better measures, use of
longitudinal studies, and examination of patterns of individual
factors. Although a number of researchers have argued that task and
other situational variables largely determine the kind of specific
knowledge necessary for effective leadership, the general pattern
of skills, motives, and other characteristics appears to be largely

the same for most leaders in large hierarchical organizations.
Detailed reviews of this literature have been made by a number of
authors (Bass, 1981; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981). According to
these reviewers, research into individual antecedents of leadership
has generally investigated two different types of individual
factors: demographic characteristics and personality factors (which
include traits, cognitive style in judgment, and perception).
Demographic Factors
This author's survey of the literature indicated there are
few demographic variables that consistently correlate with
managerial or visionary leadership. Other research studies have
shewn some consistent but minor differences: leaders are a bit
taller, a bit heavier, a bit more intelligent (Hare, 1976). Bennis
and Nanus (1985), in studying 60 CEOs from Fortune's top 200 list,
found there were no demographically distinct characteristics of
these leaders. Hcwever, the authors found that 25% possessed
advanced degrees and almost all were married to their first spouse.
As in earlier studies, almost all of the subjects were white males
(90%); the lack of female subjects has limited the ability to
generalize the research on leadership for the total population
(Heller, 1982; Snyder, Verderber, et al., 1987; Yammarino, 1987).
Despite serious design problems and the lack of an adequate
theoretical base, research on work-related gender differences
continues to proliferate. Deaux (1985) reported that nearly 20,000
articles have been written about potential gender differences that

may or may not be critical in today's organizations, if they exist
at all. She concluded that the most heavily researched issues
included potential differences in preferences for job attributes,
work-related self-evaluations, organizational commitment, and job
satisfaction. Snyder, Verderber, et al. (1987) reviewed several
hundred empirical studies dealing with gender differences in
attitudes, job satisfaction, and job performance. These authors
found that few overall gender differences have been found when
potentially confounding variables (age, level, position, and tenure)
are controlled. In the most comprehensive five- year longitudinal
study of gender differences in attitudes and job performance, the
Management Continuity Study at AT&T reported in Howard, 1985, found
.. .across a variety of measures administered to 344 managers
over a three day assessment period, differences between the
sexes tended to be small. Where differences did exist they
tended to be small. Where differences did exist, they
usually favored the women... .
In sum, the empirical studies covered by these authors point
to no reliable gender differences in the examined individual and
organizational factors. Because of the dearth of leadership studies
using matched samples of male and female executives, the question of
gender and other demographic influences on leadership behavior has
not been fully explored. This study hypothesized that selected
demographic factors, sex, acre, tenure, marital status, education,
and race would not have a significant relationship to visionary

leadership behavior among this population of YWCA and YMCA
Personality Fatrtnrg
Since 1950, personality theorists have argued that
traditionally conceived personality traits are not effective in
predicting leadership (Zaleznik, 1977). Early studies looked at
traits such as those illustrated in Table 2-2.
tohtj: 2-2 Illustrative Traits finch Researchers Considered in Separating Leaders from Non-Leaders
Knowledge Judgment and Decision
Insight Originality
Adaptability Dominance
Fluency of Speech Initiative
Intelligence Persistence
Scholarship Ambition Self-Confidence
Source: Ralph M. Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership (New
York: The Free Press, 1974), Chapter 5.
More recently, Sashkin and Fulmer (1985) have suggested that
recent research on the personality factors included in Figure 2.1
are highly consistent with Stogdill7s (1974) synthesis. Stogdill
reported five basic themes identified by personality research as
important for effective leadership:
1. capacity (intelligence, judgment),
2. achievement (scholarship, knowledge),

3. responsibility (dependability, aggressiveness,
self-confidence, desire to excel),
4. participation (activity, sociability, cooperation,
5. status (position, popularity).
Sashkin and Fulmer (1985) state that two of these themes are
directly reflected in their framework: (1) cognitive style and (2)
desire for power.
According to Sashkin & Fulmer (1984, 1985) desire for power
and cognitive style are personality factors that apply to both
managerial and visionary leadership. As stated earlier, effective
leaders are identifiable by sustained high performance from their
subordinates as well as by sustained high performance from their
organizations. Effective leadership, at any level, derives from the
same basic personality variables (Sashkin, 1984).
Use of power. The first personality factor that affects
leadership is the need to have an impact on the organization through
the use of power. McClelland and Burnham (1976) believe that
effective leaders had a strong need for achievement. They were
surprised to discover that those with the stronger need for
achievement were not the most effective. In fact, managers' strong
need for achievement was a hindrance. These managers were so
committed to achievement they would sometimes actually do their
employees' work rather than working through employees to get the job

done. In contrast, effective leaders had a strong need for power
and a noderate need for achievement. Personality research is
consistent in identifying a stronger than average need for power,
"dominance," or aggressiveness, on the part of leaders (House, 1977;
McClelland et al., 1972; Stogdill, 1948; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
Successful leaders used their strong need for power to influence
others to attack goals that benefit their subordinates and the
organization, not just the leader (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; McClelland,
et al., 1972; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Bennis and Nanus (1985)
regard power as the basic energy needed by leaders to initiate and
sustain action; vision is the commodity of leaders, and power is
their currency. A leader's wise use of power results in empowerment
rather than dominance of others. People feel empowered when they
find meaning in their work, when they feel significant, and when
they are making a contribution that is rewarded and recognized.
Likert (1967) describes the type of organization that cultivates
empowerment as "participative" leadership, motivation, decision-
making, goal-setting, and control functions are shared by
organization members. Likert's theory of organization
characteristics is more fully discussed later in the literature
review section on "Leadership and Situation."
Cognitive style. A second category of personality factors
impacting leadership builds on the notion of cognitive style, which
is consistent with but broader than Stogdill's synthesis of
judgment: decision reached after insight into situations. Recently

there has been increasing interest by organizational management
researchers in studying managerial cognitive styles and their
relationship to numerous managerial activities (Benbasat & Taylor,
1978; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1980; Hoy & Hellriegel, 1982; Kilmann &
Mitroff, 1976; McKenney & Keen, 1973; Mintzberg, 1976; Mitroff &
Killmann, 1975; Slocum, 1978). Cognitive style is defined in this
study as the characteristic, or habitual processes, by which
individuals gather and evaluate information. This definition is
generally accepted by cognitive style theorists from a variety of
disciplines (Goldstein & Blackman, 1978). Many dimensions of
cognitive style exist. Psychologists and managerial researchers
have focused primarily on the two dimensions of perceiving and
judging. Empirical leadership studies have found individual
differences in styles of gathering information (perceiving) and in
styles of evaluating information (judging) (Bieri, 1961; Henderson &
Nutt, 1980; Kiersey & Bates, 1978; Kogan, 1976; Messick, 1970; Myers
& Briggs, 1975; Myers & McCaulley, 1986; Witken, Goodenough & Karp,
1967). These cognitive style studies support the hypothesis that
perceiving and judging moderate leadership behavior. Specifically,
Zaleznik (1966,1977) emphasizes cognitive style as an important
individual variable contributing to leadership. Zaleznik posits
that each of us is both the beneficiary and the victim of our own
psychological history, which suggests the individual variables
making a difference in leadership often have to do with expectations
and styles of perceiving and judging the environment.

Cognitive style has been shewn to be a key personality
factor in understanding visionary leadership (Jacques, 1985; Sashkin
& Fulmer, 1985).
A vision is an ideal and unique image of the future, (Kouzes
and Posner, 1987) based on an individual's perceptions and judgment
(Zaleznik, 1977). Hie vision becomes real and influences present
operations as it is communicated in concrete terms to followers
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & Devanna,
1986). Hie relationship of perceiving and judging to leadership may
offer the most fruitful approach to looking at the impact of
individual factors on leadership behavior, in particular "visionary"
leadership behavior. Hie most thoroughly documented approach for
examining the relationship of perceiving and judging to leadership
may be found in the work of Carl Jung as extended by Isabel Myers
and Katherine Briggs (Isenberg, 1984; Kiersey & Bates, 1978;
McKenney & Keen, 1973; Moore, 1987; Nutt, 1986; Robbey & Taggart,
1981; Schein, 1985; Schweiger, 1982, 1985).
appiiraftion of Junqian Tfrpnry
Building on the work of Freud, Jung (1921, 1971) offered a
bridge between drive and cognitive theories of human behavior. Jung
suggested that individual differences are a function not only of
heredity and environment but also a function of the way people use
their minds. He argued that basic differences among individuals are
due not only to differences in basic life orientation (extraversion-
introversion) but also to the way they perceive and the way they

judge. Perceiving includes the process of becoming aware of things.
Judging includes the process of coming to decisions about what has
been perceived.
Myers (1980) suggests that perceiving and judging, which
make 15) a large portion of people's mental activity, govern much of
their external behavior. Thus, basic differences in perceiving and
judging should result in corresponding differences in behavior.
Using Jung's theory, Myers (1980) suggested that the
seemingly random variation in behavior is actually quite orderly and
consistent. It can be explained by basic differences in the way
individuals prefer to use their perceiving and judging function.
Myers (1980) shows that personality is structured by four
preferences concerning the vise of perceiving and judging.
Sensincf-intuitina preference. Perception involves the ways
of becoming aware of things. Individuals are equipped with two
distinct and contrasting ways of perceiving. One way of perceiving
is through the five senses: sight, sound, touch, smell..., and
tastecollectively or individually they can be termed (sensing).
Sensing verifies what exists. The other way of perceiving is
through the indirect or non-sensing unconscious (intuiting).
Intuiting involves incorporating ideas that the unconscious (Jung,
1921) attaches to insights from the external world into conscious
thought. Intuiting refers to perception of possibilities by way of

McCaulley (1981) states that persons who are oriented to
life primarily through sensing perception typically develop acute
powers of observation, a memory for facts and detail, a capacity for
realism, and an enjoyment of the
pleasures of the immediate moment, in contrast, persons who are
oriented to life primarily through intuiting perception typically
are attuned to future possibilities, often creative ones, and
develop the abilities to see patterns at theoretical and abstract
levels and to enjoy the play of imagination.
Thinking-feeling preference. Myers also suggests that human
beings use two contrasting methods of coming to conclusions. One is
linking ideas together by a logical process (thinking). Thinking
relies on principle of cause and effect and tends to be non-personal
in conclusions.
The second way of judging is through feeling. The feeling
method is more subjective. Conclusions are arrived at by weighing
what matters most to people. Feeling relies on an understanding of
personal and group values.
Again, McCaulley (1981) suggests that persons who are
oriented to life primarily though thinking typically develop strong
analytical ability and an orientation to time that is concerned with
connections from the past through the present and toward the future.
Persons oriented toward feeling make decisions by attending to what
matters to others. They have an understanding of people, a concern
for the human as opposed to the technical, a desire for harmony, a

need for affiliation, and a time orientation that includes a desire
to preserve the values of the past.
Introvert infr-g-ytTovertina preference. Perceiving and
judging are oriented either to the interior world of the introvert,
the world of the psyche or to the outside environment of the
extravert (Myers, 1962). Jung's (1921, 1971) Theory of
Psychological Types largely dealt with the history and description
of extraversion and introversion. He referred to these as
fundamental human attitudes. In his view individuals have a
introverting preference in their focus on the internal world of
ideas or a extroverting preference in their focus on the external
world of objects and a preference for using either perceiving or
judging to deal with the outer world.
As discussed above, Table 2-3 outlines the basic framework
for the four preferences of Myers' (1980) theory based on Jungian
This theory suggests that people act out their personality
type through exercising their individual perceiving and judging
preferences. The interests, values, and needs resulting from any
set of preferences produce a recognizable set of traits and
potentialities. Thus, individuals can be categorized by their four
preferences in regard to extroverting-introverting (El), sensing-
intuiting (SN), thinking-feeling (TF), and judging-perceiving (JP).
For example, a person may have a preference for extroverting (E),
intuiting (N), thinking (T), and judging (J). That individual would

TAKT.E 2-3
The Four Preferences of the MEPIT
Index Preferences
El E Extraversion or
I Introversion
SN S Sensing perception
N Intuitive perception
TF T Thinking judgment
F Feeling judgment
JP J Judgment
P Perception
Affects Choices as to:
Whether to direct perception
judgment mainly on the outer
world (E) or mainly on the
world of ideas (I)
Which kind of
perception is preferred
when one needs or wishes to
Which kind of judgment to
trust when one needs or
wishes to make a decision
Whether to deal with the
outer world in the judging (J)
attitude (using T or F) or in
the perceptive (P) attitude
(using S or N)
Source: Myers and McCaulley, A Guide to the Development and
Use of the Myers-Briaos Type indicator. 1985, p. 2.

be typed as an ENTJ. Individual preferences on the four scales lead
to sixteen distinct combinations of these preferences or sixteen
different personality types.
Kiersey and Bates (1978) and Myers and McCaulley (1985)
summarize the effects of these preferences on leading. They suggest
that extroverts like variety and action; tend to work quickly?
dislike complicated procedures; are impatient with long, boring
jobs; are more interested in results than the conceptual framework
behind jobs; don't mind interruptions; like to have people around;
and usually communicate freely.
On the other hand, introverts; like quiet for concentration;
tend to be careful with details, dislike generalizations; have
trouble remembering names and faces; tend not to mind working on one
project for a long time; are interested in the idea behind their
job; dislike interruptions and intrusions; like to think for a
period before they act; work contentedly alone; and have some
problems communicating with others.
Myers and McCaulley point out that sensers dislike new
problems unless there are standard ways to solve them; like
established ways of doing things; enjoy using skills already learned
more than learning new skills; tend to have realistic sense of how
long work will take and keep a steady pace; usually reach
conclusions, step by step; are patient with routine details; get
impatient with complicated details; are not often inspired, and

rarely trust inspiration when they are; seldom make errors of fact,
and tend to be good at precise work.
In contrast intuitives like solving new problems; dislike
doing the same thing repeatedly; enjoy learning a new skill more
than using it; work in bursts of energy, powered by enthusiasm;
reach a conclusion quickly; are impatient with routine details; are
patient with complicated situations; follow their inspirations, good
or bad; frequently make errors of fact; and dislike taking time for
Thinkers (Kiersey & Bates, 1978; McCaulley, 1985) do not
show emotion readily and often are uncomfortable dealing with
people's feelings; may hurt other's feelings without knowing it;
like analysis and putting things into logical order; can get along
without harmony; tend to decide things impersonally; sometimes pay
insufficient attention to people's wishes; need to be treated
fairly; are able to reprimand people or fire them when necessary;
and tend to be firm minded.
On the other hand, feelers tend to be very aware of other
people and their feelings; enjoy pleasing people, even in
unimportant things; like harmony, their efficiency gets severely
disrupted by conflict; often let their decisions be influenced by
their own or other people's personal likes and dislikes; need
occasional praise; dislike telling people unpleasant things; respond
more easily to people's values than objective arguments; and tend to
be sympathetic.

Myers and MoCaulley suggest that iuderers work best when
they can plan their work and follow the plan; like to get things
settled and finished; may decide things too quickly; may dislike to
interrupt what they are working on for something more urgent; may
not notice new things that need to be done; want only the essentials
needed to begin their work; and tend to be satisfied once they reach
a conclusion on a thing, situation, or person.
In contrast, perceivers adapt well to changing situations,
do not mind leaving things open for alteration; may have trouble
making decisions; may start too many projects and have difficulty in
finishing them; may postpone unpleasant jobs; want to know all about
a new job before starting it; and, tend to be curious and open to
new information.
Individuals' differences in perceiving and judging
preferences are the focus of this study. As mentioned above,
perception through sensing or intuiting is the process of gathering
information. Judgment through thinking or feeling is the process
used to make a decision. These two independent scales combine to
form four distinct cognitive styles (Jung, 1970):
NT Intuition plus thinking
NF Intuition plus feeling
ST Sensing plus thinking
SF Sensing plus feeling.
Each combination has qualities all its own arising from the
interactions of the preferred way of perceiving and judging (Jung,

Preference Ocmtnnaticns of the Middle Two
Jungian Scales
concerned with rationality
concerned with theories
Sensing Intuiting
* careful * lives in future
* concerned detail ST NT * generalist
* lives in present * hypothetical
* specialist SF NF * vague
* factual * idealistic
* poetic
* passionate
* warm
* personal
* concerned with people's feelings
Adapted from R. H. Kilmann, Social Systems Design (New York:
North Holland, 1977).

1970; Kilmann, 1977; Myers & IfcCaulley, 1985; White K.B., 1984).
Table 2-4 displays the characteristics of the four preferences
(sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling) and the combinations of
these four preferences. Kilmann (1977) successfully applied this
framework in examining individual team members' perspectives for
integrative problem solving, While White (1984) examined the
performance ability of project teams with various personality
preference combinations.
These authors found that in information gathering the
intuitive was inclined to look at the total problem and determine
future possibilities while the sensor type looked at hard facts. If
information was evaluated by a thinker, the information was symbolic
and devoid of almost any empirical content, while information
evaluated by a feeler related to humanistic issues. These findings
concerning combinations of personality preferences confirm the
characteristic predispositions of the various personality types
described earlier in this review (Jung, 1923, 1970; Myers, 1975;
Myers & IfcCaulley, 1985). Based on the preferences of these type
combinations one might expect an intuitive-thinker to be most
predisposed to visionary leadership behavior (VLB).
In summary, researchers have suggested that leadership is
moderated by perception and judgment (Bass, 1985; Johnson, 1977;
Kiersey & Bates, 1978; Schein, 1985; Zaleznik, 1977). The Lewinian
based visionary leadership model presented in Table 2-1 incorporates
this approach. Jung's theory of personality types provides a

framework by which to explain the influence of perceiving and
judging on visionary leadership behavior (VLB). His approach
provides a theoretical base for researching personality factors
behind the phenomena of visionary as well as managerial leadership.
It also provides a potentially useful way of integrating both the
individual trait and expectancy approaches to the problem. Building
on Jungian theory, David Kiersey and Marilyn Bates (1978) and Isabel
Myers and Katherine Briggs (1962, 1980) provide a possible
explanation for the bewildering array of personality factors that
have been found to contribute to leadership behavior.
Therefore, this approach to individual factors implies that
the span of vision (Jacques, 1966, 1985) required at a given
leadership level in the organization (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Katz &
Kahn, 1966; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985) would be significantly
influenced by the individual's personality type (preference). In
visionary leadership roles where a span of vision is ten or more
years, to effectively carry out the function of "originating"
policies and programs (Katz & Kahn, 1966) one would hypothesize the
following: Cl^ visionary leadership varies significantly by-
personality preference. (2) Those whose preferred perceiving
process is intuiting are more likely to exhibit visionary leadership
behavior than those whose preferred perceiving process is sensing,
f Intuitives prefer to be the architect of organization systems
versus sensers who prefer to deal with facts and details.) (3)
Those whose preferred judging process is thinking are more likely to


exhibit: visionary leadership behavior than those whose preferred
process is feeling. (Hie thinker who prefers complexity will
systematically link ideas together by making logical connections to
reach the goal while the feeler prefers to deal with subjective
values.) (4) The intuitive-thinker is significantly more likely to
exhibit visionary leadership behavior than any other combination of
perceiving and judging preferences. (The intuitive-thinker prefers
to gather information into the future through intuiting and then
translate that information into logical order through thinking.)
leadership and Situation
As identified in the Visionary Leadership Framework in Table
2-1, two situational variables were investigated in this research:
organization characteristics and task type factors. Sashkin &
Fulmer (1985) also identified organizational "culture" as important
in working toward a theory of organizational leadership. Deal and
Kennedy, 1982; Hofstedt, 1986; Sashkin, 1985; Schein, 1985; and
Zammuto and Krakower, 1987 view organizational culture, the patterns
of values and ideas in organizations that shape human behavior, as a
potentially powerful explanatory variable in organization analysis.
Zammuto and Krakower (1987) stated that the concept of
organizational culture has not yet fulfilled its preanise, in part,
because organizational researchers have not resolved the issue of
how to study it. The examination and measurement of these "symbolic-
meaning systems" (Parsons, 1958) may be fruitful in working toward a

more comprehensive theory of organizational leadership but is beyond
the scope of this present study. Instead this study focuses on
organizational characteristic and work place processes. The
situational approach to leadership research in general emphasizes
the organizational aspects of the work environment, and social-
psychological and organizational elements of the work place as they
relate to managerial leadership. Various organizational processes
have been reported to affect leadership. The work setting is a rich
source of potential influences on leadership behavior. The role of
organizational processes in effective, leadership has been studied by
many researchers (Bass, 1981; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Blake & Mouton,
1986; Boss, 1978; Burke, 1986; Rums, 1978; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984;
Geis, 1985; Hare, 1976; House, 1971; McGregor, 1960; Schriesheim &
Kerr, 1976; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; White & Lippitt, 1953). Because
the stream of investigation of organization processes is not limited
to leadership research, and due to the limited number of studies on
the relationship between visionary leadership and organizational
work place processes, this topic area will be covered next.
Organizational fWQrk Place Processes)
Much of what we know about organizations and working life
comes from the theoretical and research-based analysis of
individuals and groups in working situations. There is a strong
theme in this literature that suggests that elements of work place
interactions have significant impacts on the functioning of the
individual. Research into group processes has significant

implications for the study of VLB, but the relationships remain
relatively unexplored.
How groups affect -individnaiR. Same of the earliest
contemporary literature on organizational and work place processes
grew specifically out of an interest in the effects of work on
individuals. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1954), for instance,
suggests that individuals bring a constellation of needs to the work
place which they feel impelled to satisfy. Herzberg (1968) trans-
lated the hierarchy of needs into a classification of satisfiers and
dissatisfiers based on satisfaction of needs. Dissatisfaction, or
the thwarting of need satisfaction, was associated with such
environmental factors as company policy, administration,
supervision, and interpersonal relations.
Similarly, McGregor's (i960) work on Theory X and Theory Y
was largely concerned with the managerial assumptions that
facilitate or hinder personal and organizational potential for
individual growth. His concern with pessimistic assumptions about
human nature was that it leads to organizational structures,
policies, and practices that are characterized by use of coercion,
threats of punishment, tight controls, and close supervision.
Argyris (1957), however, goes beyond the premise that
organizations can frustrate human beings in the realization of their
needs and argues that organizations may be the cause and source of
human problems. His premise is that organization processes that are
characterized by a preoccupation with structure and controls are

driven by an excessively mechanistic view of man and cause the
member to feel submissive, subordinate, and dependent. These
feelings are antithetical to the individual's mature,
self-actualizing growth needs. The result is that the individual's
psychological energy is directed toward personal dissatisfaction, or
overt subversion of the organization's objectives. According to
Argyris, when such "unintended consequences" became characteristic
of the organization, the entire organization and its membership may
be labeled as "sick." Argyris suggests that changes in values and
process are required for such an organization to become healthy.
Kev anaaniratimal prooesp- There are numerous ways in
which group processes may be categorized, based on different
perspectives of the nature of group behavior. Schein (1969)
approaches the issue from his experience in process consultation and
provides six classes of group processes: communication, roles,
problem solving/decision making, norms/group growth, lead-
ership/authority, and intergroup cooperation/competition. Bradford
(1978) examines process from the point of view of the individual's
socio-emotional concerns, including acceptance, influence,
participation, norms, trust, leadership, interpersonal warmth, and
Several of Schein's and Bradford's categories have been
linked with negative inpacts on individuals. Gibb and Gibb (1978),
for instance, state that certain levels of group growth are
associated with lew trust, poor communication, and that a preoc

cupation with controls, leadership behavior gave rise to member
anxieties, tensions, and fears about behavioral outcomes. This is
supported by Bradford, Stock, and Horowitz (1953) in their analysis
of group problems and the process-based frustrations, fears of
punishment, and feelings of pcwerlessness, which cause the problems
in organizational settings.
The issue of interpersonal trust is raised again by Zand
(1972), who reports that managers faced with working in low-trust
environments experience feelings of frustration, discouragement, and
despair. Boss (1978b) similarly links lack of trust to a negative,
unhealthy organizational environment. McConkie (1975) provides a
synopsis of the research on trust and argues convincingly for the
centrality of trust in driving other aspects of group behavior in
either a self-heightening or downward-spiralling process.
Leader relationships and their impact on followers have been
reported by White and Lippett (1953), who found that certain
leadership styles could be associated with problems of self-esteem
and conflict with group members. Tanneribaum and Schmidt (1958)
likewise associate leadership style with a range of subordinate
freedoms or limitations. In addition, incongruency between personal
and group goals has been linked to high levels of personal
dissatisfaction (Zander, Natsoulas & Thomas, 1978).
As can be seen from the foregoing review, there is evidence
that various elements of organizational characteristics and work
place processes could be associated with visionary leadership

behavior. Examination of that possible linkage, however, requires
some method of measuring the status of such organization processes
in the work place.
Measuranrart nf process. Numerous procedures and systems for
measuring individual elements of organization and group process have
been designed. For example, Bales (1950) and Strodtbeck (1954)
created extensive communication and interaction analysis systems.
Hie simultaneous measurement of multiple characteristics of work
place process, however, presents a challenge which has been met by
only a few researchers, among them, Likert and Likert (1967).
The Likert Profile of Organizational Characteristics (POC)
was constructed by the Institute for Social Research at the Univer-
sity of Michigan to examine the general patterns of management used
by high-producing managers in contrast with that used by other
managers. The results of several hundred studies by the Institute
indicate that, on the average, the same principles for managing
human activities are used by the managers who achieve the highest
production, lowest cost, and most financially successful operations
(Likert & Likert, 1976).
Those principles and management approaches are reflected in
Likert's (1967) System 4 concept of management and represent the
preferred end on a scale of organizational characteristics and
processes which the Profile measures. Research indicates that
movement toward the System 4 end of the scale is associated with
more effective and successful organizations (Bowers & Seashore,

1963; Seashore & Bcwers, 1967; Caplan, 1971; Rensis Likert Asso-
ciates, 1971; Likert, 1973). For this reason, the System 4 concept
of organizational improvement is often a key element of organization
development efforts, and offers a useful framework for examining
organizational characteristics and processes which may be
significantly related to the practice of visionary leadership. It
is hypothesized that a significant positive relationship exists
between visionary leadexship behavior and organization processes
characterized by Likert's System 4.
Specifically, the POC measures six characteristics of the
organization, based on three questions related to each of the
1. Leadership is assessed through employee perceptions of
confidence and trust shewn by supervisors toward employees,
supervisory willingness to listen to employees, and elicitation and
use of employee ideas.
2. Motivation reflects use of fear versus involvement,
commitment to goals, and presence of cooperative teamwork.
3. Hie direction of communication flow, acceptance of down-
ward communication, and accuracy of upward communication are
reflected in the communication factor. ,
4. Decision-making processes are measured by supervisor
understanding of employee problems, the level at which decisions are
made, and participation in decision making.

5. 'Ihe aoal-settim processes, resistance to goals, and
motivational value of goals make up the goals element.
6. The locus, utilization, and resistance to control
comprise the characteristic termed control.
TVrek Ffrfrfrnrs
An approach to conceptually modeling leadership tasks is
that of Sashkin & Fulmer (1985), who identified two task variables
that are important to understanding organizational leadership.
Tt*aA=r authority. Based on the work of Fiedler (1967) and
House (1971), Sashkin & Fulmer (1985) have theorized that formal
authority determines important extrinsic motivators that a leader
could bring to bear in a situation. Further, the leader can
delegate responsibilities for action to subordinates only to the
extent that she/he has the authority to do so. As a result, the
executive's authority to fulfill leadership tasks is assumed to be
significant in understanding the measured variance in visionary
leadership behavior (Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985).
Task structure is the second task variable that Sashkin and
Fulmer (1985) identify as related visionary leadership behavior
(VLB). Task structure represents the continuum from highly
structured to relatively ambiguous tasks. The Path-Goal Theory
(House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) was developed to explain how a
leader's behavior affects the motivation and satisfaction of
subordinates, depending upon the situation. Fiedler (1967), in

particular, emphasizes the impact of the leader's ability to
manipulate task structure. Sashkin and Fulmer (1985) postulate
that greater situational freedom to manage task structure is
positively related to VLB. Although there is support for Fiedler's
contingency theory, there are difficulties in testing it, due in
part to confusion caused by multiple versions of the theory
(Schriesheim & Kerr, 1976; Yukl, 1981). As a result, task
structure is not directly tested in this research.
The two key leadership tasks in the YWCA and YMCA are the
volunteer President of the Board of Directors and the paid, full-
time Executive Director (E.D.). Applying the concepts of leadership
authority and task structure to these two task types, it would
appear that the role of Executive Director contains greater day-to-
day authority to develop and implement policies to realize their
vision. Further the Executive Director's position as a line superior
allows for greater responsibility and opportunity to manipulate task
structure. Board Presidents, by contrast, lead primarily through
developing policy in partnership with the E.D. and through insuring
financial solvency of the organization.
Therefore, it is hypothesized, in accordance with Sashkin &
Fulmer (1985), that task type is significantly related to visionary
leadership behavior and further, that the task of Executive Director
will be more positively associated with VLB than that of Board


In summary studies of leadership and situational variables
cover a large field with wide definitional variance. For purposes of
this investigation, the framework of visionary leadership (Sashkin &
Fulmer, 1985) focused the inquiry into organizational process
characteristics, as measured by the Likert (1967) Profile of
Organizational Characteristics and the task type of the executive
respondents in this sample.
T<=gyte?rFdiip and Behavior
Leadership behavior has been an important area in the study
of organizations, especially during the last 50 years. From Yukl's
(1981) review, research inquiries have emphasized a range of
variables from personality traits to leadership styles to the two-
factor approach of initiation and consideration. Research indicates
that the most widely used and highly respected approach to the study
of leadership behavior is the two- factor approach (Jenkins,
DeFrarik, & Speers, 1984). However, Van Fleet and Yukl (1986), in
their summary of "100 Years of Leadership Research" (special volume
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Academy of Management),
identified the study of leadership behavior which is
"transformational" or, as termed in this study "visionary"
(Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987) as an emerging area
of interest. Of seven areas Fleet and Yukl (1986) expect will be
researched in the near future, "visionary" leadership heads the

While Selznick (1957) provides same of the roots of
transformational leadership, more recent attention to this approach
was sparked by Bums (1978), who suggested there is another type of
leadership not "transactional" in style but "transformational."
Transactional leadership, motivating followers by exchanges with
them (rewards for services rendered), has been most frequently
emphasized as a sign of effective leadership. On the other hand,
superior leadership performance and the resultant superior
organization performance are seen by others as occurring when
leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their followers,
increase the general awareness and commitment of individuals to the
purpose and mission of the organization, and enable subordinates to
transcend their own self-interests for the betterment of the
organization (Bums, 1978). Transformational leaders can achieve
high levels of subordinate performance and satisfaction in a number
of ways: by being charismatic by responding to the individual needs
of each subordinate and by intellectually stimulating their
subordinates. The effect of this transformation is "performance
beyond expectation" (Bass, 1985b).
To understand transformation for the organization as a
whole, Tichy and Devanna (1986) show organization transformation as
a drama that can be thought about in terms of a three act play: the
first act is revitalizing or recognizing the need for change, the
second act is creating the vision, and the third act is
institutionalizing the change. The visionary leader, who designs

organizational functions that promote organizational effectiveness,
is the key actor in this play (Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985; Schein,
1985). According to Parsons (1960), the visionary leader acts to
define and implement his or her vision she/he transforms the
organizationshe/he creates a modified set of values, beliefs, and
norms that will sustain a pattern of adaptation, goal attainment,
and integration characteristic of high performing systems.
Sashkin (1986) offers three explicit ways in which the
vision is expressed. First, a clear and brief statement of the
vision must be made that identifies basic values and beliefs in
three critical areas: (1) what the organization does; (2) how the
organization is structured, managed, and coordinated; and (3) how
the organization is seen by its environmentits employees and
Second, the philosophy must be put into action through
policies, programs, and a commitment of resources. The third
critical factor concerns the personal actions of the leader. The
visionary leader must communicate the vision in a way that inspires
employees to get involved in implementing the vision. When a leader
is successful in communicating a vision, she/he is effective (Bass,
1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bums, 1978; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985;
Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
Visdnnary leadership Behavior
Visionary leadership behavior (VLB) is discussed in the
remainder of this literature survey. These behaviors, as outlined

earlier in Table 2-1 the Framework for Visionary Leadership, are
focused leadership, communication leadership, trust leadership,
self-leadership, risk leadership, and follower-centered leadership.
Based on Bennis' (1984) work, Sashkin (1984) identified these six
behaviors as important aspects of effective visionary leadership.
Focused leadership. Focused leadership is described by
Sashkin (1984) as focusing attention on specific issues of concern,
concentrating communication on key points, and involving others in
analysis, problem solving, and action planning.
The concept of focusing behaviors supports the idea of
vision. Bennis and Nanus (1985) defined vision as "a desired future
state." Bums (1978) referred to these preferred end states as
values that serve as "both calls to action and guides to behavior."
Boles and Davenport (1983) used the term "preferred outcome" to
describe this same concept of focused leadership. An example of a
preferred outcome was Kennedy's desire for having Soviet missiles
removed from Cuba and Margaret Thatcher's desire to retake the
Falkland Islands from Argentina. "Institutional embodiment of
purpose" (Selznick, 1957) takes place when the preferred outcomes of
the leader become the desired end-states of the organization.
Peters and Waterman (1982) gave several examples of the focusing
behaviors of leaders. The chief executives of the "excellent"
companies had a concise articulation of their goals and focus for
their companies; for example, for IBM "customer service" and for GE
"progress is our most important product."

onmmmi ration leadership- Ccfiranunication leadership is
described by Sashkin (1984) as comraunicating skillfully, with
understanding and empathy, and ensuring that effective two-way
corranunication takes place throu^i the use of active listening and
feedback skills. Boles (1975) stated there is no way that
influence, authority, or power can be utilized without same form of
communication. Selznick (1957) pointed out that upper-level
executives have a responsibility to communicate the system
perspective which is the overview of the organization from her/his
unique position. Infusing a belief in a common purpose is an
essential executive function (Barnard, 1938).
According to Bennis and Nanus (1985) three processes need to
occur for a successful transformation of the norms and values in any
organized setting to be achieved. The three processes are:
1. to create a new and compelling vision,
2. to develop ocmmitment for the new vision, and
3. to institutionalize the new vision.
Use of effective communication skills is required for the successful
completion of these three steps.
Trust leadership. Leadership behavior that demonstrates
consistency and trustworthiness (openly expressing positions and
maintaining them) and follows through on action commitments is
defined as trust leadership (Sashkin, 1984). Leadership through
trust building behaviors is supported by others as an effective
leader strategy (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boss, 1978 Burke, 1986;

Friedlander, 1970; Hare, 1976; Likert, 1967; Schein, 1969, 1985;
Stogdill, 1984). Friedlander and Marguiles (1969) found that
motivation and involvement of research personnel were maximized by
high management trust. Sashkin & Fulmer (1985) suggest that
visionary leaders have the responsibility for modeling trust.
Caring about people and trusting them to be creative are described
as catalysts in the growth and development of effective
organizations (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Self-lftadershi p- Self-leadership is expressing active
concern for people, including one's self. Modeling self-regard and
reinforcing feelings of self-worth in others by action (involving
others in important decisions and activities) as well as words
(Sashkin, 1984) are self-leadership. According to the
psychotherapist Bugenthal (1965) each of us is like a person who
pays blackmail to keep feared reality from materializing. He stated
that while no one is fully authentic, the less blackmail one pays,
the more authentic that person is. Authenticity consists of being
as fully aware as one can be, choosing values to which one commits
effort and allegiance; talcing responsibility for each choice, and
all the while recognizing the imperfection of one's awareness and
the inherent risk, unmitigated by good intentions (Bugenthal, 1965).
Self-leadership is a function of authenticity and a precursor to the
effective leadership of others (Boles, 1983). Boles describes the
self-leadership concept in his summary of the implications of
authenticity in leaders:

Leaders and would-be leaders must have a sense of identity
that does not depend on status, they must have values which
are so integral to their natures that they cannot be denied,
they must know their cultural prejudices and the limitations
that those prejudices impose, and they must know how far
they can go in trying to be like others without compromising
their cwn standards. (Boles, 1983, p. 268)
wirfc leadership. Risk leadership involves taking risks, but
only on the basis of careful calculation of the chances of success,
and in ways that create opportunities for others to join (Sashkin,
1984). Attempts to lead and success in leading are higher among
those willing to take greater risks. High-risk takers are more
influential in discussions than lew-risk takers (Walach, Kogan, and
Bern, 1962). Researchers observed that high-risk takers are more
persuasive than the lew-risk takers in a group (Marquis, 1962). To
account for these results researchers suggest that high-risk takers
tend to score higher in self-confidence, which in turn led them to
influence the group to follow their lead (Bumstein, 1969; Clausen,
1965). However, taking action under uncertainty may or may not be
effective or satisfying to organization members. Bass, Burger, et
al. (1979) failed to find any association between rate of
advancement of 1,044 managers in an international sample and their
self-rated actual and preferred risk taking under uncertainty. Any
aspiring leader must understand that risk comes with the position
(Boles, 1983). If a group has only one choice or if members have no
ego involvements, no leader is needed.

Follower-centered leadership. Bennis found that the
behaviors of visionary leaders, as measured by the first five
visionary leadership behaviors described above, seem consistently to
generate a set of positive feelings in followers. Followers felt
that their work became more meaningful and that they were the
"masters" of their own behavior. They felt competent and had a
sense of community with their colleagues and coworkers. Finally,
they reported that they enjoy working for this person, the effective
visionary leader. Sashkin (1984) labeled the leader's concern for
followers as "follower-centered" leadership. Iacocca (1984) stated
the above sentiments as follows:
In the end, all business operations can be reduced to three
words: people, product, and profits. People come first.
Unless you have a good team, you cannot do much with the
other two (p.167).
Schutz (1961) said much the same in his statement: the good
king is cme whose subjects prosper. Management literature calls for
the optimum use of persons within the organization. In studies on
the effects of participation on productivity (Ivancevich, 1979;
Lawrence & Smith, 1955; Likert, 1959), group decision quality, and
manager's rate of advancement (Hall & Donnell, 1979), high positive
correlations were reported. However, Bass (1960) found that the
group decision may not be as good as that of the best member in the
group. There is no guarantee, however, that the leader is the best
member of the group, which supports the leader's use of follower-
centered behavior as an effective strategy.

In summary, the six visionary leadership behaviors (focused,
communication, trust, self, risk, and follower-centered) are
described as important behaviors expressed by effective visionary
leaders (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Sashkin & Fulmer, 1985).
Interaction of Personality and Sitivrhinnal FafTtors
with Visionary TaariPfrship Behavior
In keeping with the Lewinian model (behavior is a function
of person and situation), this literature review investigated
visionary leadership behavior in light of the potential contribution
of individual factors (personality type and demographics) and
situation factors (task and organizational process characteristics).
This review of the literature on leadership reflects the
continuing debate and diverse foci within the field. The research
best supports a position that embraces both individual and
environmental factors as antecedents to visionary leadership
behavior. Despite the fact that a number of potential antecedents
to managerial leadership behavior are being gradually eliminated,
there still remain questions about which individual and
environmental factors impact the VLB. As already mentioned,
cognitive style is clearly central to understanding individual
differences; therefore, a valid theory for the analysis of these
phenomena is Jung's (1923) because it takes into account both the
cognitive and emotional components (Schein, 1985). The Jungian-
based Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a valid approach to measuring

individual personality differences in understanding the amount of
variation in measured VLB.
Wpsoarrh OutqgHnns
This study will test the contribution of selected individual
and situational factors to visionary leadership behavior as framed
by Lewin's dictum. This study is primarily concerned with the degree
to which differences in visionary leadership behavior could be
related to differences in personality type, while controlling for
the contribution of demographic, task, and organizational
characteristics. Thus, this research will test the hypotheses
stated in Table 2-5.
These hypotheses were designed to increase our understanding
of the personality preference, task type, and organizational
characteristics that are associated with visionary leadership
behavior. The following chapter, Chapter Three, details the
research methodology used to test these hypotheses.

Research Questions:
Hypotheses Regarding the Contribution of Personality
Type and Situational Factors to
Visionary leadership Behavior
HI: Visionary leadership varies significantly by personality
type (preference).
HIA: Those whose preferred perceptive process is intuiting are
more likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior than
those whose preferred perceiving process is sensing.
H1B: Those whose preferred judging process is thinking are more
likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior than those
whose preferred judging process is feeling.
H1C: Those whose combined preferred perceiving and judging
processes are intuiting and thinking are significantly more
likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior than any
other combination of judging and perceiving processes.
H2: Demographic factors (age, sex, tenure-organization, tenure-
position, education, married, race) will not have a
significant positive relationship to visionary leadership
H2A: Situational factors, organizational characteristics
(leadership, motivation, communication, decision making,
goal setting, control) and task type (President and
Executive Director) will have a significant positive
relationship to visionary leadership behavior.
H3: Controlling for situational and demographic factors,
personality type (preference) will account for a significant
percentage of variance in visionary leadership behavior.

This study sought to test the impact of the hypothesized
relationships between personality preference, task type,
organizational characteristics, and visionary leadership behavior
(VLB). The data were collected as a part of a professional
development effort for YWCA and YMCA executive leaders who attended
one of four meetings in 1986. The large number of YWCAs and YMCAs
represented, and the perceived value of the data to the organization
members, served to provide a large sample of executives who
responded to a lengthy data collection instrument.
The survey questionnaire utilized three standardized
instruments (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Leadership Behavior
Questionnaire, and the Profile of Organization Characteristics) and
included a number of questions about demographic and environmental
The selection and characteristics of the population, sample
studies, data collection procedures, instrumentation, and
statistical methods are described below.

Population and Sample
Hie sample used for this research consists of 249 Executive
leaders from a large number of YWCAs and YMCAs throughout the USA.
There are approximately 400 YWCAs in the USA; the executive leaders
in this sample represent about 23% of them. There are 907 YMCA
Executive Directors in the United States; this sample represents
17.2% of them. The YWCA and YMCA are the oldest women's and men's
membership organizations in the world, with representation in 86
different countries.
The data was collected as part of voluntary, professional
development efforts. In 1986, 249 Executive Directors and
Presidents from YWCAs throughout the USA attended one of three
regional meetings held in the east, mid-states and western region of
the country; 185 of the 249 present, or 71%, participated in the
study. In October of 1986 94 Executives from YMCAs throughout the
USA attended professional development meetings in New Orleans; 73,
or 77%, participated in the study. Questionnaires were distributed
at the meetings; individuals completed the questionnaires and mailed
their response in stamped return envelopes. Instructions for each
of the four meetings were identical, and the questionnaires were
self-explanatory. To reduce hesitancy, confidentiality of response
was guaranteed. In accord with the contract, respondents expect the
information gathered through the questionnaire to be fed back to
them in individual form and the aggregated information to be used to

address their concerns about professional development and
organizational effectiveness.
Respondents represent the executive level of the
organization, the top paid and/or non-paid executive officer,
specifically the Executive Director and the President of the Board
of Directors.
rtwrafTtorighins nf the Sanmlf?
Table 3-1 presents selected characteristics of the sample.
Frequency analysis of the respondents' characteristics reveals that
the average age was 39 years; 92% were Caucasian, 6% were Black, 1%
were Asian and Hispanic.
Twelve percent of the sample reported they had finished high
school or taken some college courses, 41% indicated they had
received a. technical school diploma or bachelor's degree, while an
additional 47% reported obtaining a master's or doctoral degree.
The average length of service to the organization was 11 years. The
average length of service in the position of executive was 4 years.
Sixty-seven percent of the executives were married.

TABLE 3-1 Sample Characteristics
Average Age 39.05 years (S.EN 11.88)
Gender 73% female
Married 67%
Number of Children
None 51%
One to Two 39%
Educational Level (frequency)
Less Than High School 0
High School Graduate 5
Same College 26
Technical School (diploma) 2
Bachelor's Degree 100
Master's Degree 99
Ph.D., J.D. or M.D. degree 19
Tenure in Organization (frequency)
Less Than One Year 12
Between One to Two Years 17
Between Three to Five Years 43
Between Six to Ten Years 72
Between Eleven to Fifteen Years 28
More Than Fifteen Years 80
Tenure in Position (frequency)
Less Than One Year 61
Between One to Two Years 66
Between Three to Five Years 48
Between Six to Ten Years 48
Between Eleven to Fifteen Years 16
More Than Fifteen Years 13
Race (frequency)
Asian 3
Indian 0
Black 15
Caucasian 230
Hispanic 3
Task Type (frequency)
President 93
Executive Director 156

The entire questionnaire consisted of 323 numerically coded
items. The data collection instrument contained four standard
instruments; the responses to three of these are the primary focus
of this study. In addition, the questionnaire included demographic
and role/task questions.
Demographic factors. The demographic questions sought to
determine respondent age, sex, marital status, education, race,
number of children, and tenure. The demographic variables were
selected because they approximate the demographic characteristics
reviewed in the leadership literature.
Personality preference (MBEEI). Personality preference is
the primary information to be used to assess individual factors that
contribute to visionary leadership behavior. The study utilizes the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBIT (Myers, 1962, 1975). The MBIT is
an instrument designed to identify, from self-report, the
preferences of people in regard to perceiving and judging. The MBIT
seeks to provide a practical means to incorporate Jung's theory of
psychological type (Jung, 1923, 1971).
The MBIT contains four bipolar scales: (1) extraversion-
introversion [EE], (2) sensing-intuiting [SN], (3) thinking-feeling
[TF], and (4) judging-peroeiving [JP]. The scales reflect one of
eight basic preferences, which according to Myers and Briggs (1981)
direct the use of perceiving and judging. As mentioned previously,

individual preferences affect not only what people pay attention to
in any given situation but also hew they draw conclusions about what
they perceive.
The MBTI has evolved through a number of different forms
since its beginnings in the 1940s. Form F was the instrument used
in this sample. Form F was validated for use in research through
the 1960s publication of the Educational Testing Service. The
instrument consists of 166 items and has a number of scoring scales
(overall raw score, word pairs, phrases). Scores on each of the
four indices are combined to indicate a person's designation of one
of sixteen possible types; the precise method of scoring involves
proprietary information. A person's scores indicate a preference
for extroversion or introversion, sensing or intuiting, thinking or
feeling, and, judging or perceiving. For a full list of all of the
possible sixteen types see Table 3-2 belcw. Reliability of overall
scores can be checked against scores on the subscales to measure
both spontaneous and socialized responses to the questionnaire

Frequencies and Distribution of Personality Types
Type* Frequency** Distrib. Distrib.*** Normal ****
ti Sample % Samole % Manaaers Distrib. % Population
1. ESTP 2 0.08 2.94 13 %
2. ESFP 6 2.45 3.07 13 %
3. ENFP 12 4.91 6.44 5 %
4. ENTP 13 5.32 4.92 5 %
5. ESTJ 29 11.88 17.54 13 %
6. ESFJ 15 6.14 6.58 13 %
7. ENFJ 19 7.78 4.11 5 %
8. ENTJ 52 21.31 10.14 5 %
9. ISTP 4 1.63 3.05 3 %
10. ISFP 5 2.04 2.80 5 %
11. INFP 5 2.04 4.30 1 %
12. INTP 10 4.09 4.05 1 %
13. ISTJ 36 14.75 15.88 6 %
14. ISFJ 6 2.45 6.12 6 %
15. INFJ 11 4.50 2.69 5 %
16. INTJ 19 7.78 5.38 1 %
TOTAL 244 100 % 100 % 100 %
* E= extravert I = introvert S = sensate N = intuitive
T= thinking F = feeling J = judging P = perceiving
**How types are distributed in study sample YWCA & YMCA
***How types are distributed in sample of Managers &
Administrator (MBIT data bank, 1983)
****Hdw types are distributed in random sample of over
50,000 United States citizens. Most samples tend to vary from this
overall average in so far as particular types tend to select
different occupations.

Myers and McCaulley (1985) suggest that it is useful when
conducting correlational research with the MBIT to treat the
dichotomous preference scores of each of the scales, i.e.,
extraversion-introversion scale (El scale), as if they were
continuous scales. Continuous scores are obtained through a linear
transformation of preference scores using the following convention.
For E,S,T, or J preference scores the continuous score is 100 minus
the numerical portion of the preference score. For I, N, F, P
preference scores, the continuous score is 100 plus the numerical
portion of the preference score.
The reliability of the MBIT has been extensively researched.
Myers & McCaulley (1985) have summarized this research. Working
with a sample of 55,971, and utilizing the Spearman-Brown prophecy
formula correction, they report internal consistency scores for the
four scales of no less than .83. Myers & McCaulley also offer a
comparison of internal consistency of type categories using
estimates from Phi coefficients and Tetrachoric correlations
(Guilford & Fructer, 1973) which do not substantially differ from
the Spearman-Brown figures. Their examination of 14 studies of
test-retest reliabilities suggests that the MBIT test-retest
reliabilities show consistency over time of .92. When subjects do
report a change in type, it is most likely to occur in only one
preference and in scales where the original preference was low. In
8 of 14 comparisons the test-retest reliability coefficient of the
T-F scale was the lowest of the four scales, but never lower than

.73. Throughout the development of the MBIT, all item analyses were
computed separately for males and females. In early item analyses
it was discovered that some questions were valid only for one sex
and also sex differences in item validity were found. Later MBTT
forms including Form F used in this study items were only retained
that were valid for both sexes. Further item popularity and
prediction ratios were comparable for both sexes on three preference
scales (Extrovert-Introvert, Senser-Intuitive, Judger-Perceiver).
Analyses showed that females, even those who in their behavior and
attitudes indicated a preference for thinking, had a greater
tendency to give certain feeling responses than did males. This
difference was ascribed either to the possibility that certain
feeling responses were more socially desirable for females than
males, of to the effect of social training. Thus separate weights
were assigned to thinking-feeling items for each sex, based on the
prediction ratios for each item, with checks that the criterion
groups were assigned the correct thinking-feeling preference.
Numerous studies in the 1950s through the mid 1970s confirmed the
weightings on the TF scale.
Designed to implement Jung's theory of psychological type,
MBIT'S validity is determined by its ability to classify persons
according to their "true" type. Although noting that correlations
have their limitations as evidence for construct validity, Myers &
McCaulley (1985) compared the MBIT with 18 other instruments that
appear to be tapping the same constructs. The results showed

positive correlations between the MBIT continuous scores and these
other measures. For a complete list of correlations see Myers &
McCaulley (1985, p. 177-206).
Carskadon (1975,1982) compared MBIT results with self-
assessment of type preference. The reported type was identified
correctly by 35% of the students in the first study, and 50% in the
second. Other studies comparing self-estimates of type and the type
reported by the MBIT include Cohen, Cohen and Cross (1981) and Anast
Situation factors. Task types performed by the respondents
were categorized according to the executive-level position held in
the organization. Those two classification categories are: (1)
Presidentthe chairperson of the Board of Directors, the top
volunteer leader in the YWCA, (2) Executive Directorthe highest
paid administrator and chief executive officer in the organization.
The T.ikCT-t profile of organization rfiarantorigtics fPOC).
form S consists of 18 items describing six organizational factors.
As can be seen by examining the instrument in Appendix B, higher
scores on the POC are indicative of more positive organizational
characteristics, such as greater participation and goal acceptance.
The FOC yields six major factors: leadership, motivation,
communication, decision making, goal setting, and control. In the
literature review these six major factors are discussed in detail.
Table 3-3 reports the Spearman-Brown split-half reliabilities for

Alpha Coefficient Reliabilities fear Likert Profile
of Organizational Characteristics
Variable This Sample Alpha Standard Alpha
Leadership .92 .92
Motivation .75 .77
Cramnunication .91 .91
Decision making .89 .89
Goal setting .80 .80
Control .82 .82
the Likert Profile of Organization Characteristics total score was
a.97 alpha reliability; Table 3-3 reports the alpha coefficient
reliabilities for the six factors in this sample.
Investigations of relationships between improvements in the
Profile and improvements in organizational performance have produced
a rank order correlation (rho) of .61 between POC scores and
performance data for a U.S. manufacturing firm, and POC scores have
accounted for 86% of the variation among districts in their sales
volume for 37 sales districts of a Swedish firm (Likert & Likert,
The System 4 concept of organizational improvement, which is
associated with the POC instrument, continues to be a key element of
the organization development efforts in the YWCA and the YMCA.
Further, the system concept offers a useful framework for exploring
organization factors which may be associated with visionary
leadership behavior.

leadership behavior. The Leadership Behavior Questionnaire
(LBQ) consists of 50 items resulting in two measures of leadership
behavior: a visionary leadership behavior total score and a
managerial leadership behavior total score. Based on Bennis'
(Bennis, 1984) in-depth interviews with 67 primarily male chief
executive officers, Sashkin (1984,1985) developed a visionary
leadership behavior survey which identified six basic behavior
patterns characteristic of leaders who were successful and inspired
followers in a visionary manner. The initial development of the LBQ
did not include any reference to female visionary leadership
behavior and/or the potential gender bias in its index or contents.
Subsequent studies using the LBQ include female leader respondents
allowing for future tests of potential gender differences in the
items. The five visionary leadership behaviors which make 15) the
LBQ scale include both traditionally described male and female
behavior. Male behaviors include focused, self and risk leadership
behaviors; and female behaviors include ocmmunication, trust, and
follower-centered leadership behaviors (Heller, 1982).
Scores relating to VLB are the result of individual
responses to 30 of the 50 items, using five question indices that
yield scores ranging from 5 to 25. Using a five-point Likert scale
(Appendix B Questionnaire) each statement is presented as a measure
of the extent to which the leader engages in certain behaviors or
generates feelings related to visionary leadership. Six conceptual
domains are included in the total VLB score; they are focused

leadership, cxaramunication leadership, trust leadership, self-
leadership, risk-leadership, and follower-centered leadership. The
total visionary leadership behavior, including its six factors, were
discussed in detail in the literature review.
The Leader Behavior Questionnaire has been used as a
research tool in several settings: 18 mid-level managers in a rural
electric utility; 21 "fast-track" plant managers in an international
manufacturing corporation (consumer and industrial products); 24
executive MBA students in a large urban university in the
southeastern United States; 30 evening MBA students in a large
metropolitan area in the mid-Atlantic United States (Sashkin &
Fulmer, 1985); 80 Seventh-day Adventist pastors and first elders in
a four mid-state area (Valley, 1987); and 129 managers and 340
subordinates of a large international corporation, a lessor and
remarketer of computer equipment (Stoner, 1988). Factor analysis of
the self-report data provides support for the total visionary
leadership behavior scale. In this sample the visionary leadership
behavior scale reliability (as measured by Cronbach's alpha) was
.77. The total visionary leadership behavior scale reliability
compares favorably to those reported by Stoner (1988) of .79 and to
those reported by Valley (1987) of .78.
Method of Analysis
The primary focus of this study was an investigation of the
relationships between personality type, as represented by results of

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, organization factors, as
represented by the POC, and visionary leadership behavior, as
represented by scores on the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire.
All analysis was performed using the SPSS-X program on the
University of Colorado at Boulder VAX computer system. Insofar as
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Profile of Organization
Characteristics, and the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire yield
interval results, regression analysis was used to investigate the
research questions. Certain of the task and demographic variables
are not measurable on an interval basis, notably gender, race, and
task type. These variables were dummy-coded for entry into the
regression equation. For hypothesis testing, the level of
significance was set at .05.
The results and overall findings of the stuffy are presented
in Chapter Four.

This chapter discusses the results of the study. The major
intent of the study was to explore the relationship between
visionary leadership behaviors and specific individual and
situational variables.
The first section, Overview, presents a brief overview of
the results of the tests of hypotheses.
The second section, Results of each of the hypotheses,
provides specific results of each of the hypotheses that explore the
relationship between visionary leadership behaviors, as measured by
the LBQ, and personality and situation variables, as measured by the
MBIT, POC, task type, and demographics.
The third section, General results, presents the means and
standard deviation for all variables used in the regressions. They
include the dependent variabletotal visionary leadership behavior
(LBQ-Vision)and the independent variablesMyers-Briggs
personality preferences (MBTI), Profile of Organization
Characteristics (POC), task type, and demographics.
The central hypothesis of the study, that visionary
leadership behavior (VLB), as measured by the LBQ-Vision, will vary

significantly by personality preference, as measured by the MBIT,
was supported. The result of analysis of variance for the total
LBQ-Vision with the MBIT scales was significant and of moderate
strength (r square =.215, p<.00). Several subordinate hypotheses
relating to personality preference were supported and significant
(p<.05) as follows:
* those whose preferred perceiving process was intuiting
rather than sensing shewed a significant relationship to VLB.
* those who preferred thinking to feeling as a judging
process were significantly more likely to exhibit VLB.
* the thinking preference was significantly associated with
* those whose personality type was a combination of the
intuiting and thinking preferences were most likely to exhibit VLB
over the other preference combinations.
Independent regression analyses shewed that visionary
leadership behavior was most closely associated with the intuitive-
thinker versus the other three combinations (intuitive-feeler,
senser-thiriker, senser-feeler). The intuitive-thinker was the only
preference combination that had a positive (Beta .258) and
significant relationship with visionary leadership behavior.
As a group demographic factors contributed significantly
(p<.05) to measured visionary leadership behavior. However, length
of time in the current position was the only significantly positive
(p=.002) individual. demographic factor.

The positive contribution of situational factors to
visionary leadership behavior was only partially supported. As a
group, the profile of organization characteristics did not have a
significant positive relationship to VLB. However, decision-making
style in the organization proved to be positively related to VLB.
The second situation factor, task type, had a significant
positive associated with visionary leadership behavior (p<.05).
However, task type explained the least amount of variation (r square
=.033) of all the individual and situation antecedents considered.
Controlling for demographic factors, task type, and
organization characteristics, personality preference explained the
most variance in visionary leadership behavior. Personality
preference variables (MBIT) increased R square by .179 for total
VLB. The relationship between measured VLB and MBTT was
significantly (p<.00) affected by three of the four preference
scales, extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuiting, and thinking-
feeling. Regression results shewed betas that indicated that
personality preferences for extraversion, intuiting, and thinking
were most strongly associated with visionary leadership behavior.
A summary of these results is presented in Table 4-1. These
hypotheses were designed to increase our understanding of the
personality type, task type, and organizational characteristics that
are associated with visionary leadership behavior.

Results of Tests of Hypotheses Regarding the Contribution of
Individual and Situational Factors to Visionary leadership
Visionary leadership varies significantly by personality
type (preference).
Hl-A: Those whose preferred perceiving process is intuiting
are more likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior
than those whose preferred perceiving process is
Hl-B: Those whose preferred judging process is thinking are
more likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior
than those whose preferred judging process is feeling.
Hl-C: Those whose combined preferred perceiving and judging
processes are intuiting and thinking are significantly
more likely to exhibit visionary leadership behavior
than any other combination of judging and perceiving
H2: Demographic factors (age, sex, tenure-organization,
tenure-position, education, married, race) will not have
a significant relationship to visionary leadership
H2-A: Situational factors, organizational characteristics
(leadership, motivation, communication, decision-
making, goal-setting, control) and task type (President,
Executive Director) will have a significant positive
relationship to visionary leadership behavior.
H3: Controlling for situational and demographic factors,
personality type (preference) will account for a
significant percentage of variance in visionary
leadership behavior.

Support far Hypothesis fftmiTgr One
The first hypothesis regarding personality preferences and
their relationship to visionary leadership behavior was investigated
through analysis of variance and multiple regression. The impact of
personality preferences (MBIT) on total visionary leadership
behavior (IBQ-Vision) score may be seen in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3.
Analysis of Variance
Visionary Leadership Behavior by MBIT
Personality Preference Scales
Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares df Square F Sicr
Main Effects
Preference 1842.809 3 12.6328 .0000
Residual 6710.217 184
Total 8553.026 188
Multiple R Squared = .2154

Multiple Regression
Visionary Leadership Behavior cn MBIT
Personality Preference Scales
Variable B SE B
El scale* -.0742 .0179
SN scale .0699 .0160
TF scale -.0593 .0204
JP scale -.0249 .0186
R Square Adjusted R Square
F Change
Signif. of F Change
BETA Pch** Sicr F
-.2727 17.072 .0001
.3014 18.901 .0000
-.1953 8.382 .0042
-.0947 1.798 .1816
= .2154
= .1984
= 12.6328
*The four scales were constructed so that a positive beta
indicates visionary leadership behavior was correlated with I
(introversion), N (intuiting), F (feeling), P (perceiving), and a
negative beta indicates that visionary leadership behavior was
correlated with E (extroversion), S (sensing), T (thinking), and J
**Listed F changes result from a step-wise regression, the
results from a forced entry procedure.

Analysis of variance (Table 4-2) with the four preference
scales as the independent variables accounted for 21.5% of the
variation among individuals on the total visionary leadership
behavior measure. An examination of the Multiple Regression
Analysis of the four preference scales (Table 4-3) clarify what the
specific impact of personality preferences are on VLB. Three of the
four preference scales reported significant F scores of under .05;
specifically, the extravert-introvert, sensing-intuiting, and
thinking-feeling scales were significantly associated with visionary
leadership behavior. As mentioned below Table 4-3, the scales were
constructed so that a positive beta score indicated that the
preferences for introversion, intuiting, feeling, and perceiving
were correlated with VLB; and a negative beta score indicated that
the preferences for extraversion, sensing, thinking, and judging
were correlated with VLB. The regression analysis confirmed more
specifically what was evident from the analysis of variance
visionary leadership behavior does vary significantly by personality
Additional support for Hypothesis 1 can be found in Table 4-
4. Analysis of variance with 16 personality types as the
independent variable accounted for almost 14% of the variation among
individuals on the visionary leadership behavior measure. The
Multiple Classification Analysis (Table 4-5) shows what the specific
impact of the 16 personality types are on VLB.

Analysis of Variance
16 Personality Types (MEET)
by Total Visionary Leadership Behavior Score
Source of Sura of Mean
Variation Squares DF Square F Sia F
Main Effects
Type 1656.928 15 110.462 2.397 .003
Residual 10506.035 228 46.079
Total 12162.963 243
Miltiple R Squared = .136

TAHITI 4-5 Multiple Classification Analysis Visionary Leadership Behavior Dotal Score
uy id rersGnau.iy [non)
Variable* Cateaorv N unadjusted Dev'n Eta Adjusted for Independents Beta
ENTP 13 3.28 3.28
ENFJ 19 3.09 3.09
ENFP 12 2.35 2.35
ISTJ 36 1.93 1.93
ENTJ 52 1.67 1.67
INFJ 11 .06 .06
ESFJ 15 -1.69 -1.69
iwtp 10 -1.79 -1.79
INTJ 19 -2.07 -2.07
ISTP 4 -2.24 -2.24
INFP 5 -2.69 -2.69
ESTJ 29 -2.90 -2.90
ESTEP 2 -2.99 -2.99
ISFP 5 -3.69 -3.69
ESFP 6 -5.32 -5.32
ISFJ 6 -6.82 -6.82
.37 Multiple R Squared .136 Multiple R .369 .37
Ordered from most likely to least likely to exhibit
visionary leadership behavior: E^extraversicm, I=introversion,
S=sensing, ^intuiting, T^thinking, F=feeling, J= judging,

Although Tables 4-4 and 4-5 give additional support for
hypothesis 1, the inadequate sample size for each of the 16 types
(range from 2 to 52) weakens the strength of the results of this
type of analysis. The analysis of variance and multiple
classification analysis with the 16 MBIT personality types were
included as an area of interest for further investigation, but it is
outside of the scope for this specific investigation due to the
sample size.
Support far Hypotheses 1-A and 1-B
The results of the two independent regressions of the total
visionary leadership behavior score on the sensing-intuiting scale
and the thinking-feeling scale showed support for hypothesis 1-A and
hypothesis 1-B (Table 4-6).

Results of Independent Regressions
of Visionary Leadership Behavior
Total Score on Sensing-Intuiting Scale
and Blinking-Peeling Scale
Variable* B SE B BETA R Sqr AdiRSa F Sia F
SN scale TF scale .0716 -.0608 .016 .0217 .3089 -.2004 .0954 .0401 .0906 .0350 19.731 .0000 7.825 .0057
*The scales were constructed so that a positive beta
indicates visionary leadership behavior was correlated with N
(intuiting) and F (feeling), and a negative beta indicates that
visionary leadership behavior was correlated with S (sensing) and T
Hypothesis 1-A predicted that those whose preferred
perceiving process is intuiting versus sensing were more likely to
exhibit visionary leadership behavior. This hypothesis is directly
supported by the regression presented in Table 4-6. The regression
result shows that the preference for intuiting that is
significantly associated with VIS to the .0000 level has a positive
BETA. As mentioned in Table 4-6, the scales were constructed so
that a positive beta score indicates that the preferences for
intuiting and feeling are correlated with visionary leadership
behavior. Thus those individuals with a personality preference for
intuiting are more likely to exhibit VIE than those whose preferred
perceiving process is sensing.

Hypothesis 1-B, which predicted that those whose preferred
judging process is thinking versus feeling were more apt to exhibit
visionary leadership behavior, was supported (Table 4-6). The
independent regression results presented shows that the thinking
preference which has a negative beta was significantly associated
with visionary leadership behavior at the .0057 level. In addition,
the independent regressions shewn in Table 4-6 indicate that the
intuiting preference (adjusted r square = .09) is more closely
associated to VLB than the thinking preference (adjusted r square=
Support for 1-C
Results of independent regressions (Thble 4-7) of the four
combinations of sensing, intuiting, thinking, feeling (SNTP)
preferences indicated support for hypothesis 1-C. Table 4-7 shows
that those whose combined preferences are intuiting and thinking
(NT) are significantly more likely to exhibit visionary leadership
behavior than any other combination of judging and perceiving

Results of Independent Regressions
Visionary leadership Behavior Total Score on
SNTF Preference Gcx>inaticns
Variable* B SE B BETA R Sqr AdiRSa F Sia F
NT Preference 4.6196 1.1108 .2582 .0667 .0628 17.2975 .0000
NF Preference 1.9744 1.2469 .1012 .0102 .0061 2.5075 .1146
ST Preference -1.8785 1.1109 -.1080 .0116 .0075 2.8594 .0921
SF Preference -6.0458 1.3080 -.2848 .0811 .0773 21.3647 .0000
Ordered from most likely to least likely to exhibit
visionary leadership behavior: S=sensing; N=intuiting; T=thinking?
Positive beta indicates visionary leadership behavior was
correlated with SNTF; negative beta indicates visionary leadership
behavior was negatively correlated with SNTF preference.

Examination of the BETA scores suggests that the intuiting-
thinking (NT) preference combination was more positively associated
with visionary leadership behavior than the intuiting-feeling (NF)
preference, the sensing-thinking (ST) preference, or the sensing-
feeling (SF) preference combinations. As stated above in Table 4-7,
the four SNTF preference combinations were constructed so that a
positive beta indicates that visionary leadership behavior was
correlated with the specific SNIF preference variable, and a
negative beta indicates that visionary leadership behavior was
negatively correlated with the specific SNTF preference variable.
Although the magnitude of variance accounted for by the intuitive-
thinker (NT) was 6.6 percent; the NT was the only preference with a
significant, positive relationship to VLB. On the other hand, the
senser-feeler (SF) was the only preference with a significant,
negative correlation to VLB.
Appendix C, an analysis of variance and a multiple
classification analysis of the 16 personality types (MBIT), shows
partial support for the results of the independent regressions
above. The four preference combinations, NT, NF, ST, and SF,
explained 5% of the variation among individuals on the total
visionary leadership behavior score; results were significant at the
.006 level. Further the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA)
supported the negative relationship between VLB and those with the
combined preferences, sensing-feeling (SF) and sensing-thinking
(ST). Contrary to the stronger test results of the independent

regressions in Table 4-7, the MCA (Appendix c) reported that the
intuitive-feeler (NF) had the strongest association with VLB.
Secondly, the intuitive-thinker was positively associated with
visionary leadership behavior.
Ncr^-Supoactjfar-Hypothesis 2
Research hypothesis two stated that the group of demographic
variables would not have a significant association with visionary
leadership behavior (VLB). However, the results of the multiple
regression analysis in Table 4-8 suggested that there is a
significant relationship between VLB and the group of demographic
factors, which explained 9.3% of the variance. Seven demographic
variables were used in the regressions: age, sex, tenure-
organization, tenure- position, education, marital status, and race.
The length of tenure-position variable was the only demographic
variable of significance (.0021).

Multiple Regression
Visionary Leadership Behavior Total Score
On Demographic Factors
Variable B SE B Beta Sia F
Tenure position 1.2909 .4139 .2733 .0021
Tenure organization -.7794 .4371 -.1687 .0763
Age -.0760 .0448 -.1260 .0920
Sex 1.6572 1.3509 .1093 .2215
Education -.2799 .4446 -.0452 .5297
Married 1.1520 1.1281 .0819 .3085
Race -2.1080 1.8906 -.0820 .2663
R Squared = .0937
Adjusted R Squared = .0586
F =2.6736
Significance F = .0117
Partial Support far Hypothesis 2-A
Hypothesis 2-A predicted that the situational factors, task
type and organizational characteristics, will have a significant
positive relationship to visionary leadership behavior. This
hypothesis was only partially supported; the regression of VLB on
task type was significant to the .0111 level.

Regression Visionary Leadership Behavior Total Score
On Tfesk (Role) Type
Variable B SE B BETA Sicr F
Task type 2.6529 1.0341 .1843 .0111
R Squared = .0339 Adjusted R Squared = .0288 F = 6.5806 Significance = .0111
Although the amount of variance accounted for by the task
type was small (3.39%), theory supports the finding of significance
of task type. Two categories of job task type exist in this sample:
President and Executive Director.
Table 4-10 shows the results of regressing total visionary
leadership behavior scores on the group of organizational
characteristics measured by the Likert Profile of Organization
Characteristics. Contrary to the hypothesis, this group of
situational factors (leadership, motivation, communication, decision
making, goal setting, control) does not show a significant
contribution to VLB (p>.05). The amount of variation explained for
individual scores on VLB was 5.9%.

TABI£ 4-10 Multiple Regression Visionary Leadership Behavior Total Score on Organizational Characteristics
Variable B SE B BETA F Sia F
Decision making .62 .31 .350 3.98 4.0474
Motivation .47 .28 -.279 2.912 .0896
Leadership .03 .26 .022 .018 .8920
Communication .04 .36 .023 .014 .9066
Goal setting .30 .29 .171 1.059 .3047
Control .20 .28 -.118 .533 .4661
R Square = .0592 Regression df = 6
Adjusted R Square = .0282 Total df = 188
F = 1.9095
Significance F = .0815
POC Total .01 .00 .154 4.786 .0299
R Square = .0240
Adjusted R Square = .0190

Additionally, Table 4-10 shows that the decision-making
variable is the only significant (p<.05) organizational
characteristic to visionary leadership behavior. However, the
moderately high intercorrelations of the independent organization
characteristic variables indicate that the dimension may not be
independent as the theory suggests, and that multioollinearity would
be a problem if they were entered into a regression. To resolve
this concern a total POC score, computed as the arithmetic sum of
the six POC factors, was entered in a regression equation. Hie
total POC variable does show a statistically significant
contribution to visionary leadership behavior (p=.029). However,
the amount of variation explained for individual scores on VLB was
practically insignificant (rsq=.02).
Support far Hypothesis 3
The final research question results supported that
controlling for organizational situation factors and demographic
factors, personality type accounted for a significant percentage of
variance in visionary leadership behavior. This hypothesis was
designed to test the strength and independence of the relationship
between VLB and personality preference. If the relationship was
obscured by the concomitant use of specific task, organizational
situation, and demographic variables in visionary leadership
behavior regressions, then the use of personality preference to
suggest propensity to exhibit VLB would be questioned.

Table 4-11 presents the results of regressions in which the
entire set of demographic variables, task type variables, and
organizational characteristic variables were entered into
regressions on the visionary leadership behavior total score.
These regressions were performed to test for the strength of the
association of each category by itself.
Table 4-11 seven demographic categories, age, sex, tenure-
organization, tenure-position, education, marital status, and race
were used in the regression. The task type includes the two
executive positions of President and Executive Director. Six
categories of organizational characteristics (POC) were entered into
the regression: leadership, motivation, communication, decision
making, goal setting and control. As can be seen in Table 4-11, two
sets of these independent variables, demographics and task type,
provide significant (p<.05) positive explanation of visionary
leadership behavior. The situational factors, organization
characteristics, do not provide significant explanation (p>.05).
Table 4-12 provides clear support for Hypothesis 3.

TABLE 4-11
Tests of Variance Separately Explained by
Demographic, Task, and Organizational variables
Independent Visionary Leadership Behavior
Variables Total Score
R Square .0937
Adjusted R Square .0586
F 2.6736
Sig F .0117
Task Type
R Square .0339
Adjusted R Square .0288
F 6.5806
Sig F .0111
Organization Characteristics
R Square .0592
Adjusted R Square .0282
F 1.9095
Sig F .0815