FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE MLQ 5X

Abstract

The article aims to evaluate the factor structure of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ 5x (short). The empirical apparatus is built on the theoretical model for transformational leadership, operationalized by Bernard Bass. The latest version of the questionnaire MLQ 5x, consisting of 45 items is used for this research. The analysis is carried out by the alternative of the three-factor model (three factors are correlated). The results of the analysis confirm the content of the scales of the leadership styles (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), the outcome of officers' activities, as well as the staff of their components.

Headnote

The article aims to evaluate the factor structure of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ 5x (short). The empirical apparatus is built on the theoretical model for transformational leadership, operationalized by Bernard Bass. The latest version of the questionnaire MLQ 5x, consisting of 45 items is used for this research. The analysis is carried out by the alternative of the three-factor model (three factors are correlated). The results of the analysis confirm the content of the scales of the leadership styles (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), the outcome of officers' activities, as well as the staff of their components.

Keywords: transformational leadership, MLQ 5x, questionnaire factor structure.

1. Theoretical overview

Leadership is one of the central issues, which are a subject of research in the field of Social Psychology. The great variety of approaches suggests also differences in the conceptualization of the matter of leadership, as well as the attempts for it to be defined. The achievements and outcome of scientific researches over the past century in terms of leadership demonstrate the abundance of existing psychological theories. Each of them is a product of their time and the significant - then - peculiarities.

The transformational leadership theory is a reflection and carrier of some features of the last decade of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, namely the restructuring of the political and social reality, based on the democratic values spread worldwide. A basis was provided for the development of meaningful leadership practices deriving from the authentic leadership, which is characterized by honesty, integrity, openness, ethics and professionalism. They are demonstrated through the organizational values and supported by the leaders' personal example. The transformational leadership has the potential to lead to a change in the attitude and behavior to work activities of particular groups of people, organizations and, in some cases, whole societies1. The achievement is mediated through building of meaningful work relationships and communication connections between the leader and their followers. This is the way to achieve a high level of collaboration in the teams where the responsibilities towards the development of the joint will for meeting the goals are shared.

Summarizing a number of scientific studies related to transformational leadership, Bass and Riggio2 conclude that the popularity of the theory and the ensuing empirical apparatus due to the unique combination of the inner motivation, personal and professional development of the people in the organizations. It is also essential to acquire higher levels of awareness and motivation, minimization of personal goals for the sake of the common goal, inspiration and greater activity3. The shared opinion is that the major driving force for the success of the transformational leadership is a result of the leaders' ability to change people's associations connected with the activity, developing their sense for overcoming problems.

According to Bernard Bass, this process of transforming the followers' attitude to work mainly refers to values, emotions, ethics, standards, and long-term goals4.

From a theoretical point of view, Bernard Bass5 further develops the starting positions of James Burns6. Bass examines the leadership style as a process in which the leader behavior is described as transformational, transactional and passive/avoidant.

The classic idea of transformational leadership is characterized by the added emphasis on the moral values of the followers, provoking their sensitivity to ethic problems and mobilizing their energy for reforming institutions.

The transactional style motivates the followers through their private interest.

The passive-avoidant style is specified by passivity to emerging problems and, in certain cases, even neglect in the performance of tasks. It can also occur as a lack of sensitivity in regard to the needs of others in the area of leadership impact7.

The many years' collaboration between Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio8 leads to the design and development of the relevant empirical apparatus - Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire whose latest version is MLQ 5x. The questionnaire is used to assess the leadership behavior.

Thus, three leadership constructs are set - Transformational, Transactional and Passive-Avoidant.

They are formed by nine leadership components: Idealized Influence (Attributes), Idealized Influence (Behaviors), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration; the Transactional style of Contingent Reward and Management by Exception (Active), and the Passive/Avoidant style of Management by Exception (Passive) and Laissez-Faire.

2. Research methodology

Avolio and Bass9 analyze eight factor models in working with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. A characteristic of the first three of them is reporting generally the particular components of transactional leadership. In the other five models, they derive and retain the grouping of the transformational leadership components in a separate factor. Furthermore, according to the authors, all scales assess leadership behavior, while only those relating to charisma have the character of impact.

Empirical data gathered from applying the questionnaire in various cultures and organizations rather confirm its psychometric indices10. The type of the factor models and characteristic peculiarities in grouping the items in subscales are considered.

At the beginning, Bass11 reports only the two leadership styles - transformational and transactional. They include seven leadership components-charisma,inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward, management by exception, laissez-faire.

The empirical studies show some specific features. For example, high correlation is found between the components Charisma and Inspirational, but due to the conceptual difference between them, they are in separate scales. Moreover, in assessing the five-factor version of the questionnaire, some researchers find also a high correlation between the components of the transformational leadership, but a low correlation with the results of the leaders' performance.

An essential feature relates to the structure of the components of charisma. Empirical data exists where the items of Inspirational Motivation are added to those forming Charisma. Another component derives from their combination. It is called Charismatic-Inspirational Impact12.

A separate component, called Inspirational Motivation is not differentiated in the five - and six - factor structures of the questionnaire. The components of the transformational leadership are three - charisma, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration13. Subsequently, the development in the scientific research of Bass et al. (from 1985 to 1999), as well as the studies of other scientists, only confirm the value of the initial version of the questionnaire MLQ (Form 1) from 1985 with some additions which have found their application in the latest version - MLQ 5x14.

The psychometric features of the multifactor questionnaire MLQ 5x are successfully validated by a sample of over 7000 respondents in the USA. The questionnaire is adapted in more than 22 countries in Europe, North America, Asia and Oceania. Difficulties in confirming the full nine-factor structure of the questionnaire are reported in some studies. According to the analysis of Antonakis et al.15 the discrepancies may be due to the high heterogeneity in the samples of respondents in the different cultures, organizational specifics and differences arising from organizational levels. A presence of correlation between the subscales in the leadership styles is reported which value is usually at r ≥ 0.5.

Aim

The current research aims to seek confirmation of the factor structure and internal consistency of the multifactor leadership questionnaire MLQ 5x (short) through a sample of military personnel (in a military environment).

Research tasks:

1. Through factor analysis to analyze and assess the scales and subscales of MLQ 5x questionnaire.

2. To evaluate the internal consistency (reliability) of MLQ 5x questionnaire.

Approach

At the initial adaptation of the questionnaire in 2011, a confirmation of the nine-factor model was sought16. All nine scales forming the respective components in Bernard Bass theoretical model of transformational leadership are reported present. The derivate subscale Charisma is a product of the components Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation. The components constituting the leader's performance are also successfully confirmed.

Another approach is chosen for the current research - the one of the three-factor model17. In this analysis, initially, the items forming the scales of the three leadership styles will be differentiated, namely - transformational, transactional and passive-avoidant. Next, the deeper data analysis is to lead to determining the subscales for each of the components of leadership styles in accordance with the theoretical model.

The questionnaire consists of 45 items. The first 36 refer to the leadership style and the rest 9 of them to the satisfaction with the leader performance. The items are evaluated according to a five-degree scale of Likert type.

Sample

The research covers officers in various forms of training at G.S.Rakovski National Defence Academy in 2013. The total number of respondents is 363, officers only. Of them, 90.6% are males, 9.4% - females; the average age is 38.8; senior officers - 61.4%, junior officers - 38.6%.

The used statistical package is SPSS 19.

3. Outcome

The first stage of the research is to assess whether data is one-dimensional, with no rotation analysis18. The factor analysis explained variation is of 63.06% and describes a major part of the variables. In this case, KMO and Bartlett`s Test coefficient (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) is 0.898 which indicates an acceptable sample adequacy. The values in the matrix referring to Anti-Image Correlation indicator exceed 0.779 which in turn are indicative for an acceptable inclusion of the variables. The total number of factors is 10. The leading factor is described by all items, and the weight coefficients are acceptable with values over 0.31. All data mentioned above provides the grounds to assume that one-dimensionality exists regarding the measured value leadership style.

The further detailed analysis aims to examine the assumption for the presence of several scales correlating among each other - these of the three leadership constructs - transformational, transactional and passive avoidant. Therefore, three factors are rendered an account, again with all 36 items included. Each factor matrix is a subject to a short angle rotation. The assumption is the factors which constitute the scales of the leadership styles to be in a correlation with each other. This analysis will be called primary for short.

Table 1 shows the data acquired. The first of them - Factor 1 is described by 19 of all possible 20 items. The explained variation is over 22% - a fact which emphasizes the weight of the assessed variation. Item 2 is reduced19. The content analysis of the items20 allows us to conclude that they correspond in terms of content and describe the scale of the transformational leadership style.

The acquired results for factors 2 and 3 include respectively the items of the passive avoidant and transactional leadership stiles. The items the grouping and content analyses confirm the essence characteristics of the two mentioned styles. The item location and weight are acceptable. The dispersion in the data, in total, is over 26%.

Summarizing the outcome of the primary analysis, they can be accepted as a strong indicator for confirming the identification of the three scales of the questionnaire, which respectively form the leadership styles - Transformational, Transactional and Passive-Avoidant. Most of the accounted items and their characteristic weight coefficients have values over 0.5. There are indicators confirming the reliability of the applied statistical assessment procedure.

The data in the correlation matrix gathered during the primary factor analysis supports the assumption for interdependence between the scales in the questionnaire. A low positive correlation is found (r = 0.31) between the scales of the transformational and transactional styles, as well as a low negative correlation (r = -0.35; r = -0.25) with the factor describing the passive avoidant style. The correlation coefficients correspond with the theoretical assumptions in Bass theory.

Defining the component structure of the transformational leadership style

The confirmed one-dimensionality and content of the source scales of the questionnaire are the basis for a detailed analysis of the three-factor analysis model with content assessment of the forming components in the oncoming secondary analysis. The first step is content assessment of the subscales of the transformational leadership style.

In terms of theory, charisma is a key characteristic of the transformational leadership style. In the questionnaire it is a result of a particular combination between components and the items forming them. To determine it, all constituting for the transformational leadership style items are introduced. Orthogonal rotation is applied to extract the two-factor structure. The reason is based in the primary data analysis with factors 5, 4, 3 and 2, as the last one being the most significant. An assumption is made that two non-one-dimensional factors exist, one of which is expected to contain the characteristics of charisma. The obtained outcome proves that the model is successful (dispersion 42.50%; KMO and Bartlett`s Test = 0.892). The weight coefficients of the involved items is over 0.41. The logical analysis of the included 10 items in factor 1 lead to reporting the content of the characteristics related to Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation21, as for factor 2 which contains 7 items - the characteristics of the "Individual Consideration" and "Intellectual Stimulation". Items 18 and 23 are excluded. The acquired results are a positive indicator to determine the derivative subscale Charisma. Further data analysis is expected to be in support of the assumption made.

Substructure of factor 1 - Charisma (idealized and inspirational)

The next stage requires determining the structure of factor 1 subscales (idealized and inspirational). All 10 items are included in the analysis. Short angle rotation is applied (it is assumed that the components are in correlation). The factor analysis is described by 64.59% of the dispersion, and KMO and Bartlett`s Test is 0.849.

Table no. 2 presents the main results from the item analysis and the derived factors. The identified three factors are characterized by a good, but expressed to a different extent, dispersion. The analysis of the pooled items forming the factors confirms the structure of the scales - Inspirational Motivation, Idealized Influence (behaviors) and Idealized Influence (attributes) corresponding with factors 1, 2 and 3. The items structure of the subscale Inspirational Motivation is an essential feature. It is characterized by high dispersion - 41.37% and high item weights - over 0.584, including all four items. This specific characteristic places the Inspirational Motivation component at a position of a leading feature of the Charismatic leadership.

By summarizing the obtained above results we can conclude not only the identification of the derivative subscale charisma, but also to position it as a central characteristic of the transformational leadership style.

Substructure of factor 2

The obtained results after the analysis of Factor 2 from the two-factor item structure of the transformational leadership construct are presented in Table no. 3. Short angle rotation is also set as one of the components of the transformational leadership style. The factor analysis is meant to derive two factors. In this case 58.55% of the dispersion is described, and KMO and Bartlett`s Test is 0.839. The total number of items is six.

The obtained factors` structure consists of factor 1 with approximately 45% of the data dispersion, and factor 2 - 13.99%. In turn, factor weights in Factor 1 are also with high coefficients and vary from 0.837 to 0.445, and in Factor 2 vary from 0.690 to 0.269. Item no. 15 is excluded. Interfactor correlation coefficient is moderate, at r = 0.506. Assessing the structure of items with the two factors, allows us to conclude that the first of them takes into account the characteristics of the component Individual Consideration, and the second one - of Intellectual Stimulation.

Summarizing the information provided above, we can conclude that there are reasons to consider the structure and composition of the components constituting the transformational leadership style as proved.

The acquired results are used as a basis for further assessment of the pooling character of subscales that build the Transformational leadership style. Through factor analysis further confirmation will be sought of the found above components of Charismatic leadership, as well as data to be acquired that supports the relations between the subscales of the transformational leadership. The results demonstrate acceptable analysis coefficient values: KMO and Bartlett's Test - 0.765; general dispersion - 73.21%; item weights - over 0.669. The first factor is characterized by high dispersion - 57.02%, and the second - 16.19%. Grouping the structure elements in Factor 1 rotation matrix contains the subscales of Inspirational Motivation, Idealized Influence (behavior) and Idealized Influence (attributes). Factor 2 is respectively built up by the subscales of the Individual Consideration and Intellectual Stimulation. The acquired results additionally confirm the structuring of the subscale charisma, which should be rather called charismatic-inspirational. Table 4 presents the results.

Identifying the component structure of transactional leadership style

Based on the assumption for a potential one-dimension of the scale Transactional leadership style, the short angle rotation is applied, proceeded from the presumption that the components are interrelated. The analysis includes all eight items (Table 1). The identified dispersion 51.52% and KMO and Bartlett`s Test - 0.791 are a positive indicator for an acceptable sample adequacy (Table no. 5).

The first factor indicates dispersion of 37.36%, and item weights are over 0.542. The number of structuring items is 4. The second factor is characterized by dispersion of 14.16%. The weight values are within the range from 0.379 to 0.816. The assessment of the items included in the leading Factor 1 brought to the conclusion that it is specified by the transactional leadership component" Management by Exception (active)", and for Factor 2 - Contingent Reward. The correlation coefficient between the factors is moderate, at r = 0.514. The obtained results are expected and support the assumption for an interrelation between the components of transactional leadership - Management by Exception (active) and Contingent Reward.

Identifying the subscales of Passive Avoidant leadership style

The assessment of the components of the third leadership style - Passive Avoidant, follows the same analogy as the transactional style assessment. The obtained outcome describes 56.08% of dispersion, and KMO and Bartlett`s Test is 0.856. In this case, again, Factor 1 is distinguished by well-expressed explained variation - 38.66%, and factor weights are over 0.608 (Table 6). Factor 2 is characterized by lower, but still acceptable values. Item no. 17 is excluded from the analysis. Reading the item structure of the subscales, the identified components of the passive avoidant style are the following - Laissez-Faire and Management by Exception (passive) which correspond with factors 1 and 2.

The identified correlation coefficient in the matrix is positive, rather defined as a moderate - r = 0.49 (at lower bounds). This confirms the assumption for a relation between the subscales in the leadership construct. On these grounds, we can assume that the components structuring Laissez-Faire leadership style are confirmed.

Identifying the subscales of leadership performance (extra effort, efficiency, satisfaction)

Nine items are included in the analysis. They constitute the dimension of the Leadership performance satisfaction. The acquired results after the factor analysis confirm non-one-dimensionality in the component matrix. This lead to applying orthogonal rotation, which is defined by a dispersion of 64.48%, and KMO and Bartlett`s Test is 0.892 (Table 7). The identified three factors are constructed respectively by 4, 3 and 2 items. Their content analysis allows to be recognized the corresponding subscales - Effectiveness, Extra Effort and Satisfaction.

A major fact is the high percentage of explained variation of Factor 1 at 45.88% which characterizes the component Effectiveness. This peculiarity, on the background of the other two factors which dispersion sum makes fewer than 20%, demonstrates that the respondents definitely recognize the leadership result Effectiveness. This is a quite natural result. Effectiveness at work, as a result of the used leadership practices is crucial for organizational life. In the armed forces the leadership behavior to be combined with activities that lead to a desired result for the military organization or to a new state after a successful completion of tasks is associated as being a particular indicator. In this sense, based on the integrative leadership model22, leadership influence should facilitate the improvement of acquired results (including effectiveness) of the common effort in the chain of command.

Summarizing the presented above results we accept as confirmed the scales and subscales constituting the leadership styles (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), their structure components as well as results of the leadership performance. All of them correspond with the set theory model and the application requirements prescribed by the authors of the questionnaire Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass23. Thus, we consider the first research task accomplished.

Assessment of the structural coherence among the questionnaire scales

Pirson`s correlation coefficient "r" is used for examining the structural coherence among the scales and subscales of MLQ 5x questionnaire. A moderate positive correlation between the scales of the Transformational and Transactional leadership styles is identified (r = 0.58). In turn, the correlation coefficient between the scales of the Passive Avoidant leadership style and those of the Transactional and Transformational styles is two-tailed negative -0.21 < r < -0.41, and the values are defined respectively as very low or low negative correlation. The negative correlation between the constructs of the Transformational and Transactional styles with the Passive Avoidant style is an indicator for discriminant validity among the structure forming questionnaire scales.

The secondary correlation analysis focuses on analyzing the interrelations among the components of the three leadership styles (Table 8). The assessment of correlation coefficients among the subscales of the Transformational leadership style identifies moderate positive correlation (0.57 ≤ r ≤ 0.61) between the structural components of charisma (II-A, II-B, IM), as well as between those of the Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individual Consideration (IC) (r = 0.54). The correlation dependence among the subscales of the Transactional leadership style (MbEx-A ? CR) identifies low positive correlation (at upper limits) r = 0.47. Then, among the components of the Passive Avoidant style (MbEx-P ? LF) - moderate positive (at upper limits) r = 0.66.

The presented empirical results assessing the relation among the leadership constructs Transformational, Transactional and Passive Avoidant, as well as among their components as a trend and to a great extent as a degree of presence, confirm the interrelation among the scales in the questionnaire and satisfy our expectations as a strength and direction of act.

The data in Table no. 8 provides additional opportunity for analysis of the interdependence among the components of the various leadership styles. There is a positive correlation among all components of transformational and transactional styles. It is evident that the component Contingent Reward is characterized by a low (at upper limits) to a moderate correlation with all components of Transformational style, as Management by Exception (active) - with low (at lower limits). The Passive Avoidant style components demonstrate, as we expected, negative correlations with the transformational and transactional leadership. The Management by Exception (passive) scales is characterized by less demonstrated negative correlation coefficients compared to Laissez-Faire in relation to the components of transformational and transactional leadership. Considering the available in Table no. 8 data can be concluded that there is a trend of a general decrease, in descending order, of correlation coefficient between transformational and transactional styles. On the other hand, the negative correlation with the passive avoidant style deepens.

The data analysis shown in Table no. 9 demonstrates some unison in the values of the leadership styles and their components, limited by the set samples. Leadership performance in the Bulgarian, American and European samples is a demonstrated definitive vector. The Transformational style is leading, followed by the Transactional, and the Passive Avoidant is the least presented. The most prominent leadership components are as follows: Individual Consideration, Contingent Reward and Management by Exception (passive). On the other hand, there are some differences. Charisma and its components in the foreign samples have stronger presence, as transactional components leading with average values are those in the Bulgarian sample. The selection of the groups of comparative samples is not random but driven mainly by the fact that the Bulgarian NATO membership requires not only doctrinal interoperability, but also closeness in the ensuing personal notions and attitudes towards the military leaders performance in the post-modern world, where similarity of leadership practices based on the Alliance common values matter a lot.

Assessment of internal reliability

Characteristic24fortheleadership stylesscalesis the good internal reliability. Cronbach's coefficient α has values greater than 0.74. The maximum even reaches 0.87. Most of the subscales take values higher than 0.63. The transactional component Contingent Reward and leadership performance Satisfaction subscales make exception. There the coefficients of internal reliability are respectively 0.62 and 0.51. The reported problems may due to a great extent a result of the small number of items (from 2 to 3) presented in the two subscales. We consider as a positive indicator the found correlation coefficients among the related scales and subscales which are noted as "significant" in terms of the degree of expression. This justifies the analysis results to be announced as meeting the MLQ 5x questionnaire requirements for "internal reliability" and "construct validity". Hence we consider the second research task accomplished.

Conclusion

The chosen approach to examine the factor structure of the questionnaire, namely the three-factor analysis model, proves feasible. It aims to identifying the leadership constructs, and subsequently deriving their components. The three-factor questionnaire structure of nine leadership components plus one derivative (charisma) is confirmed. The scales read the leadership styles Transformational (of 19 items), Transactional (8 items) and Passive Avoidant (8 items). The constituting components of transformational style are Idealized Influence (Attributes) (of 3 items), Idealized Influence (Behaviors) (3 items), Inspirational Motivation (4 items), Individual Consideration (3 items), Intellectual Stimulation (3 items). The additional derivative subscale Charisma (idealized-inspirational) consists of 10 items. In fact, in the Bulgarian adapted version it covers the components: Idealized Influence (Behaviors), Idealized Influence (Attributes) and Inspirational Motivation. The identified components of Transactional style are: Management by Exception (Active) (4 items) and Contingent Reward (4 items), as for Passive Avoidant style - Management by Exception (Passive) (3 items) and Laissez Faire (4 items). Leadership performance is also confirmed. The subscales are built by the components: Effectiveness (4 items), Extra Effort (3 items) and Satisfaction (2 items). The acquired results prove the research aim accomplished. The questionnaire MLQ 5x successfully can be used for scientific aims and practical application in Bulgarian military environment.

In conclusion, the Multifactor leadership questionnaire MLQ 5x demonstrates efficient psychometric qualities. Its factor structure has been proven and the theoretical assumptions, set in the transformational leadership model by Bernard Bass, have been confirmed.

Footnote

1 Bernard M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.

2 Bernard M. Bass & Ronald E. Riggio, Transformational leadership, second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 2006.

3 Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: theory and practice , sixth edition, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage, 2013.

4 Bernard M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998; Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

5 Bernard M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998

6 James M. Burns, Leadership , New York: Harper and Row, USA, 1978.

7 Bernard M. Bass & Ronald E. Riggio, Transformational leadership, second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 2006.

8 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

9 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

10 Francis J. Yammarino & Bernard M. Bass, "The effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior", in: Basic and applied social psychology, no. 11/1990, pp. 191-203.

11 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004, pp. 6-13, pp. 47-52.

12 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set. (Third edition). Mind Garden, USA, 2004, pp. 52-65; Bernard M. Bass & Ronald E. Riggio, Transformational leadership, second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 2006, pp. 21-25.

13 Bernard M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.

14 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set. (Third edition). Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

15 John P. Antonakis & Bruce J. Avolio; Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam, "Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire". In: The Leadership Quarterly, 14/3/2003, pp. 261-295.

16 Dimitar Ya. Dimitrov, Georgi S. Karastoyanov, "Adaptatsia na vaprosnik za liderski stil MLQ 5x za voenna sreda", v: Psihologichni izsledvania, no 1/2012, pp. 143-164.

17 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004, p. 49.

18 Krasimir B. Kalinov, Statisticheski metodi v povedencheskite i sotsialnite nauki , Sofia: NBU, 2010.

19 For a greater data purity, all items with weight coefficients lower than 0.25 are filtered in the factor analysis.

20 In accordance with the license agreement with "Mind Garden", Inc, the content of the items is not published.

21 Factors "idealized" and "inspirational" impact will be called Charisma for short.

22 Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine, Canada, Ottawa: DND, 2005, p. 121.

23 Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leader-ship Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

24 Source: http://www.mindgarden.com/docs/ MLQinternationalnorms.pdf, accessed on 11.12.2014.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Dimitar Ya. Dimitrov, Georgi S. Karastoyanov, "Adaptatsia na vaprosnik za liderski stil MLQ 5x za voenna sreda", v: Psihologichni izsledvania, no 1/2012.

2. Krasimir B. Kalinov, Statisticheski metodi v povedencheskite i sotsialnite nauki, Sofia: NBU, 2010.

3. John P. Antonakis; Bruce J. Avolio; Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam, "Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire", in: The Leadership Quarterly, 14/3/2003.

4. Bernard M. Bass, Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.

5. Bernard M. Bass & Ronald E. Riggio, Transformational leadership, second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, 2006.

6. Bruce J. Avolio & Bernard M. Bass, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set, third edition, Mind Garden, USA, 2004.

7. Peter J. Bycio; Rick D. Hackett; Joyce S. Allen, "Further assessments of Bass's conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership", in: Journal of Applied Psychology, no. 80/1995.

8. James M. Burns, Leadership, New York: Harper and Row, USA, 1978.

9. John P. Antonakis & Bruce J. Avolio; Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam, "Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire", in: The Leadership Quarterly, 14/3/2003.

10. Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine, Canada, Ottawa: DND, 2005.

11. Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: theory and practice, sixth edition, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage, 2013.

12. Francis J. Yammarino & Bernard M. Bass, "The effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior", in: Basic and applied social psychology, no. 11/1990.