Expanding the Circle: Patrick Vermeren and colleagues on the 'leadership circumplex'
Patrick Vermeren,
leadership consultant
leadership consultant
Expanding the Circle: Patrick Vermeren, Marleen Redeker and Reinout de Vries on the ‘leadership circumplex.’
Patrick Vermeren, leadership consultant, Belgium
Dr. Marleen Redeker, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Dr. Reinout de Vries, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
There are many commercial models of leadership advocated by ‘practitioners’. These models are both used to give organizational advice and in leadership training and coaching. All of these models are claimed to be ‘true’ without much or even any research evidence to back up these claims. Leadership is also one of the most studied topics in work and organizational psychology (Yukl, 2010). Almost 20% of the papers published in top journals on organizational behavior include leadership (Morrison, 2010). Most models either describe the positive side of leadership or only deal with the darker side of leadership, failing to measure a complete range of leadership styles (Avolio & Bass, 1991; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Hogan & Hogan, 2001). A second issue in this debate is the lack of theoretical grounding of leadership. Most definitions of leadership refer to influencing others as the core characteristic of leadership (Vroom & Jago, 2007; Yukl, 2010). Influencing others presupposes interpersonal interaction between the leader and the people being led.
Dr. Marleen Redeker,
VU University Amsterdam,
the Netherlands
VU University Amsterdam,
the Netherlands
A group of practitioners (from the company PerCo in Begium) was
confused about the plethora of leadership models, especially since many seemed
to contradict each other. These consultants were already familiar with the
Interpersonal Circle, popularly known as ‘Leary’s Rose’ amongst practitioners.
Upon comparing some descriptions of leadership styles in popular books (e.g.
Goleman et al., 2002) with the descriptions in Leary’s interpersonal circle
(1957), the idea of exploring leadership as having a mainly interpersonal
nature was raised. They hypothesized that leadership could also be summarized
by the two main dimensions of agency/social dominance and communion. They also
hoped it would be possible to build a better leadership test, measuring the
full range of leadership behaviors, because many academic tests showed low
reliability [e.g. the coefficient alpha reliabilities of the Dutch Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X) are between 0.41 and 0.66, with only one
construct – laissez-faire, showing an a = 0.72; Mindgarden, 2002 – results of others
studies showed the same coefficient alpha reliabilities; (e.g., Vinkenburg et
al., 2011)].
Dr. Reinout de Vries,
VU University Amsterdam,
the Netherlands
VU University Amsterdam,
the Netherlands
In the first stage of the development of a new
leadership measure based on interpersonal theory (2003), the consultants
contacted a circumplex specialist, Danny Rouckhout (University of Antwerp,
Belgium) to investigate the possibility of a ‘leadership circumplex’. A group
of 5 practitioners (average age = 44.8; average experience = 15 years) created
a set of 418 items in the third person singular. Scholars from the University
of Antwerp revised the 418 items – for example, they made two items in
instances where the originally created items represented more than one
behavior. The final item set consisted of 442 Dutch items. 203 participants
holding a leadership position participated in the study (age ranged from 24 to
64 years; M = 46.4, SD = 8.53; one unknown). Participants were invited to
assess their own leadership style, providing scores on the 442 leadership
descriptive items, using a 5-point Likert Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis
revealed 13 dimensions, consisting of two big factors and 11 very small
factors. Next, Multi Dimensional Scaling (MDS) was used to test the true circumplex nature of the items, by
using criteria most scholars agree upon (Fabrigar et al., 1997). Several
dimensions were tested, but a two-dimensional solution gave the best fit. The
hypothesized circumplex nature of (interpersonal) leadership was confirmed and
a first questionnaire (the the Circumplex Leadership Scan 360 degree - or
abbreviated the CLS360) was constructed, containing 125 items. Several analysis
(MLDF = Maximum Likelihood Discrepancy Function, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation, GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit
Index) and comparisons with other circumplex tests (the IAS-R, N-IAS, IMI-C)
were conducted (Rouckhout, De Fruyt, & Vermeren, 2007, unpublished data),
indicating good circumplex properties.
Based on these positive outcomes, the
consultants soon realized that more research was needed (e.g. to investigate
test-retest stability and convergent validity) and they contacted Reinout de
Vries of the VU University Amsterdam, who had worked on leadership and the
interpersonal circumplex (De Vries, 2008) and who proposed to do doctoral
research on the leadership circumplex and the further refinement of the CLS360.
In August 2008, Marleen Redeker was selected for the position. In a first
study, she investigated the circumplexity and item selection once again. In
total, 5 studies on the CLS properties were conducted, providing evidence of an
integrative model of leadership (called ‘The Leadership Circumplex), which was
valid and reliable.
Because this article is directed towards scholars familiar with the interpersonal circumplex, we will not further go into technical details. Let us summarize this research by mentioning that the Leadership Circumplex complied with the circumplex criteria or assumptions most researchers agree upon (e.g. Fabrigar et al., 1997). The relations could be summarized by two orthogonal dimensions (agency and communion), items were equally spaced on the circumference of a circle, with equal vector lengths measured from the origin of the circle. CIRCUM analysis (Browne & Cudeck, 1992) showed the goodness of fit of this version of the CLS as a circumplex.
Because this article is directed towards scholars familiar with the interpersonal circumplex, we will not further go into technical details. Let us summarize this research by mentioning that the Leadership Circumplex complied with the circumplex criteria or assumptions most researchers agree upon (e.g. Fabrigar et al., 1997). The relations could be summarized by two orthogonal dimensions (agency and communion), items were equally spaced on the circumference of a circle, with equal vector lengths measured from the origin of the circle. CIRCUM analysis (Browne & Cudeck, 1992) showed the goodness of fit of this version of the CLS as a circumplex.
Study 3 found that subordinates’ ratings of their
leaders showed the same circumplex structure as the leaders’ self-ratings. The high congruence
indicates that individual comparison between self and other-ratings is possible
and that there is potential for the CLS to be used as a 360° measurement
instrument.
Study 4 showed high convergent validity of the
eight octant scales with leadership styles and behaviors from other
questionnaires. Furthermore, in this study, 80 leaders participated in an
examination of the test-retest reliability. Correlations between the same
scales at Time 1 and Time 2 (for instance, coaching at Time 1 and coaching at
Time 2) ranged from .75 to .87, indicating high test–retest reliability. Study
5 examined the predictive validity of the questionnaire. Our research has shown
that some styles were related to leadership effectiveness criteria
(inspirational, coaching and participative) and the styles opposite to them,
and especially those low in agency (yielding, withdrawn, distrusting) were
negatively related to leadership effectiveness. Styles high in communion and
agency are also positively related to two other leadership outcome variables,
identification with the organization and commitment.
Conclusion
Interpersonal theory provides a powerful framework to discuss and measure leadership from different perspectives (leader, subordinate, peer…). The CLS360 (v3) now contains 116 items and is already used by practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia. The leadership model is now conceptualized using three colors, used as a traffic light metaphor and referring to research outcomes linked with the styles. Green color means those styles are in general producing positive outcomes and are related to effectiveness, performance and effort. Amber color means these styles should be used with caution because of the possible negative outcomes. Red color (“stop and reflect”) is used to indicate styles that have shown in past research to be related to negative outcomes (such as lower employee satisfaction and productivity). One of the authors (Patrick Vermeren) has written an extensive book on leadership, with an exhaustive description of the leadership circumplex and other related research findings. The English version of this book (‘Around Leadership. Bridging the Scientist – Practitioner Gap’) will appear in 2014. The doctoral dissertation by another author (Marleen Redeker) also contains studies on the influence of hierarchical level and gender on perspectives of leadership, how leader’s sex and behavior determine perceived effectiveness and a final chapter studied the facial characteristics of the leader and the inability of individuals to accurately assess someone’s behaviors from facial characteristics alone.
Conclusion
Interpersonal theory provides a powerful framework to discuss and measure leadership from different perspectives (leader, subordinate, peer…). The CLS360 (v3) now contains 116 items and is already used by practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia. The leadership model is now conceptualized using three colors, used as a traffic light metaphor and referring to research outcomes linked with the styles. Green color means those styles are in general producing positive outcomes and are related to effectiveness, performance and effort. Amber color means these styles should be used with caution because of the possible negative outcomes. Red color (“stop and reflect”) is used to indicate styles that have shown in past research to be related to negative outcomes (such as lower employee satisfaction and productivity). One of the authors (Patrick Vermeren) has written an extensive book on leadership, with an exhaustive description of the leadership circumplex and other related research findings. The English version of this book (‘Around Leadership. Bridging the Scientist – Practitioner Gap’) will appear in 2014. The doctoral dissertation by another author (Marleen Redeker) also contains studies on the influence of hierarchical level and gender on perspectives of leadership, how leader’s sex and behavior determine perceived effectiveness and a final chapter studied the facial characteristics of the leader and the inability of individuals to accurately assess someone’s behaviors from facial characteristics alone.
The full details of this research can be found
in the open access article published in the European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology via this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.738671
Scholars interested in using the instrument or the database for research purposes, please contact Patrick Vermeren ([email protected]). The authors of this article form a ‘scientific committee’ that will decide what projects they will support, granting free use of the CLS360 or the database. Practitioners or organizations wishing to consider using the CLS360 are kindly referred to Quentin Jones (e-mail: [email protected])
References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 27, 269–300.
De Hoogh, A. H. B, & Den Hartog, D. N.(2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.
De Vries, R. E. (2008). What are we measuring? Convergence of leadership with interpersonal and non-interpersonal personality. Leadership, 4, 403-417.
Fabrigar, L. R., Visser, P. S., & Browne, M. W. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in testing the circumplex structure of data in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 184-203.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002) Primal Leadership. Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality; a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
Mindgarden (2002). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. Research Edition Translation performed by Claartje Vinkenburg and Marloes van Engen, June 27, 2002, by special permission of the publisher, Mindgarden Inc., Redwood City, CA 94061, USA, www.mindgarden.com.
Morrison, E. (2010). What is hot and what is not. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 932 - 936.
Redeker, M., de Vries, R.E., Rouckhout, D., Vermeren, P., & de Fruyt, F. (2012) Integrating leadership: The leadership circumplex. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Online first publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.738671 (open access).
Vinkenburg, C. J., Van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10-21.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17-24.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7nd Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear
Scholars interested in using the instrument or the database for research purposes, please contact Patrick Vermeren ([email protected]). The authors of this article form a ‘scientific committee’ that will decide what projects they will support, granting free use of the CLS360 or the database. Practitioners or organizations wishing to consider using the CLS360 are kindly referred to Quentin Jones (e-mail: [email protected])
References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 27, 269–300.
De Hoogh, A. H. B, & Den Hartog, D. N.(2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.
De Vries, R. E. (2008). What are we measuring? Convergence of leadership with interpersonal and non-interpersonal personality. Leadership, 4, 403-417.
Fabrigar, L. R., Visser, P. S., & Browne, M. W. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in testing the circumplex structure of data in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 184-203.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002) Primal Leadership. Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality; a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
Mindgarden (2002). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. Research Edition Translation performed by Claartje Vinkenburg and Marloes van Engen, June 27, 2002, by special permission of the publisher, Mindgarden Inc., Redwood City, CA 94061, USA, www.mindgarden.com.
Morrison, E. (2010). What is hot and what is not. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 932 - 936.
Redeker, M., de Vries, R.E., Rouckhout, D., Vermeren, P., & de Fruyt, F. (2012) Integrating leadership: The leadership circumplex. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Online first publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.738671 (open access).
Vinkenburg, C. J., Van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10-21.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17-24.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7nd Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear