Organizational Culture & Leadership

Organizational Culture & Leadership An Examination of Authentic Leadership in Non-Profit and For-Profit Organizations Rupert A. Hayles, Jr. Draft Unpublished Working Paper

ABSTRACT

S

ignificant differences exist in the daily operations and cultures of for-profit businesses compared to those of non-profit organizations. The purpose of this study is to explore these differences as they relate to the authenticity of top officials at both types of organizations, and to the levels of job satisfaction among employees in each category. An ex post facto design was used to survey 182 participants within the stated organizational type to determine levels of authenticity within the leadership ranks of both organizations, and to further identify the effects of authentic leadership upon job satisfaction. Findings include: (a) Differences between the self-perceived authentic leadership of non-profit leaders and those of for-profit leaders; (b) Differences in two of the sub-components (internal moral perspective and balanced processing) of authentic leadership in non-profit leaders compared to for-profit leaders; (c) No differences in two (self-awareness and relational transparency) of the remaining four subcomponents of authentic leadership in non-profit and for-profit leaders; (d) Regression model proved to be not significant to predict levels of job satisfaction in non-profit leaders based upon self-perceived authentic leadership, and (e) Regression model proved to be significant to predict levels of job satisfaction in for-profit based upon self-perceived authentic leadership, and (f) Only one element of the for-profit regression model is proven to be significant.

KEYWORDS: organizational culture, non-profit, job satisfaction, leadership, authentic leadership,

INTRODUCTION

F

inancial misappropriations have been the downfall of corporate leaders such as Bernard Ebbers (WorldCom), Kenneth Lay (Enron), Dennis Kozlowski (CIT) and John Rigas (Adelphi Communications) (Tasini, 2009). All these executives once headed for-profit businesses. Misuse of funds by leaders at non-profits also may be common. An article in the Washington Post (2013) reports that more than 1,000 non-profit organizations have experienced a “significant diversion” of assets within a recent five-year period. These victimized non-profits include prominent organizations such as the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York in 2011; Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in 2011; American Association of Retired Persons in 2010; Elwyn Charitable Organization in 2011; Boy Scouts of America in 2008; St. John of God Health Care Services in 2011; Faith Ministry Miniseterio De Fe in 2010; and International Orthodox Christian Charities Inc. in 2008.

Failures in leadership were common to both non-profit and for-profit entities, and had far-reaching effects on organizational performance and employee satisfaction. But while the consequences of failed leadership were similar in each sector, these unfortunate outcomes were produced by executives from very

different backgrounds. In examining the circumstances that led to their failures, it is important to identify major differences between For-Profit and Non-Profit organizations, and to determine how their respective operations may have contributed to negative outcomes.

The differences between non-profit and for-profit organizations are intrinsic. Expectations and levels of performance differ at each. The level of leadership expectation differs because the ultimate for-profit goals of a business are not the same as those of non-profit entities. A non-profit organization by its very title suggests its purpose (Pervez & Daudi, 2005), which is to achieve a community’s goals and enhance the quality of life of its citizens.

Profit-making organizations also are defined by their main objective, which is to maximize profits and shareholder value (Pervez & Daudi, 2005). Shareholders may either distribute all profits among themselves or reinvest in terms of retained earnings to the business (McNamara, 1999).

Recognizing that there are differences between non-profit and for-profit organizations leads to the question of whether different kinds of leadership should be

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. implemented within each category. Specifically, Newman & Wallender (1978) tried to find a difference in these organizations which could make the concept of management and leadership different. Farrow, Valenzi, & Bass (1980) conducted a study to compare situational characteristics and leadership between the two types of organizations. The hypothesis driving the study was that there would be different leadership behaviors in profit and non-profit organizations. The study was conclusive in its findings that non-profit organizations benefit from a larger number of functioning leader-follower relationships, as well as more volunteers that increase employee power, but that they also typically lack dynamic leadership.

The study by Pervez & Daudi (2005, p.44) concluded “on a basis of data analysis, it is found that in non-profit organizations leaders use more participative and supportive behaviors, while in for-profit organizations they use more directive and less participative." This indicates that the leader-follower relationships and interaction with more workers to perform “tasks” rather than “missions” leads in a way that requires support.

Therefore, higher levels of authenticity are needed in the execution of leadership.

Despite the differences between non-profit and for-profit organizations found in the manner in which each operates, additional research indicates that the outcomes of the operation of the both types of organizations are similar. This leads us to define broadly the problem statement by asking if the method or execution of leadership may differ from a non-profit to a for-profit, based on the level of authenticity. Clearly, the research indicates that these organizations operate in a similar vein, but the cultures are different in terms of execution of their work. As the focus of this study, it is imperative to understand what differences exist between non-profits and for-profits. The differences are wide and varied, but this study focuses on determining if the level of authenticity in leadership at both for-profit and non-profit entities affects job satisfaction.

Significance of the Study The current study is significant because it explores potential differences between for-profit and non-profit organizations as they relate to the level of authenticity of its leaders. The study addresses differences related to authentic leadership in for-profit and non-profit organizations, while analyzing the specific scale constructs of job satisfaction in relationship to authentic leadership. Leaders in for-profit companies have a specific task, personnel, process, and resources that differ from those in non-profit organizations (Yukl, 2006; Rowold & Rohman, 2009). However, it is expected that researchers will attempt to identify specific variables in order to show effective empirical differences arriving at adequate conclusions can be employed to elevate theoret-

2

ical and practical thinking to improve leadership and management of the stated organizational types.

The findings of this study will advance further work done by significant pioneers in the field such as Yukl (2006), Rowold and Rohman (2009), Uzonwanne (2014) and others. In addition, this study provides a basis for further expansion of knowledge about leadership development and effective management in the stated organizations. Finally, it identifies possible failures within non-profit or for-profit organizations, which until now were not considered different qualitatively in a general sense, but only in their mission and direction.

Research Question The purpose of this research is to explore the possibility of differences between for-profit and non-profit cultures in the realm of authenticity and job satisfaction. Addressing the research problem specifically leads to the following research questions: (a) Is there a difference between non-profit and for-profit organizations in the subscales of authentic leadership, namely self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced perspective, and relational transparency? (b) Do the subscales of authentic leadership differ in for-profit and non-profit organizations? (c) Is it possible to predict based on sub-scales and overall scale of authentic leadership by determining whether the employee indicated overall job satisfaction?

Following the introduction, the next section provides a theoretical base and helps define concepts that connect with (a) authentic leadership and (b) cultural impact within non-profit and for-profit organizations.

After providing the theoretical framework, the next section outlines the research design, detailing methodology, and quantitative insight into the perspective of understanding the authentic leadership survey, along with an excerpt from extremely well- validated and reliable extracts of employee satisfaction surveys. The third section presents the sample population. The fourth section outlines the data analysis. The fifth section outlines the findings. The discussion of the findings is presented in the sixth section. The final section will detail the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of the study.

Definition of Terms A critical component of research is the definition of key terms relevant to the study. Terms may be easily understood and grasped when presented as a common language. The difficulty in using common language is that many may not be easily understood from a reader’s viewpoint. In quantitative research, defining key terms will help us understand potential cause and effect within our research.

Organizational Culture & Leadership Culture. The collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the member of one group from another (Hofstede, 1983) Self-Awareness refers to the ability to understand how one’s view of self over time interacts with how one makes sense of the world (Kernis & Goldman, 2006).

Balanced Processing refers to leaders who show they neutrally and independently analyze all relevant data before reaching a decision (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) Relational transparency is a way of exhibiting one's sincere self. It shows and demonstrates to others that an individual is who he says he is.

Internalized moral perspective refers to a cohesive and holistic form of self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2006)

LITERATURE REVIEW

T

here are two main goals of the literature review according to (Galvan, 2009). These goals are to provide (a) detailed command of the field of study and (b) a comprehensive review of the topic. (Hart, 2005, p.13) stated, “the literature review is the selection of available documents (unpublished and published) on the topic, which contain information, ideas, data and evidence written from a particular standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views on the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated, and the effective evaluation of these documents in relation to the research being proposed.” (Creswell, 2014, p.27), reiterated that “the literature review shares the results of other studies that relate to the current study; provides a benchmark for comparing the results of the current study with other findings, and provides a framework for establishing the importance of the current study.”

Therefore, this literature review section provides a detailed analysis of the books, theories, and evidence that determine whether there are differences in organizations’ authentic leadership and their possible effect on employee job satisfaction. It is important to look at the review through a lens of emotional awareness to better determine levels of interpersonal relationships; neutral and independent analysis of data; self-regulation; and job satisfaction. Then, all these salient points can be used to address this pertinent research question: “Are there differences between for-profit and non-profit organizations in the realm of authenticity and job satisfaction?”

In the next section, the theoretical foundation of the variables is defined. It includes discussion of leadership, culture, the historical and theoretical foundations of authentic leadership, non-profit and for-profit organizations, and job satisfaction.

Leadership by definition and task varies widely.

Leadership is “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led, and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation.” (Moore, 1927, p.124) "Leadership is personality in action under group conditions…it is interaction between specific traits of one person and other traits of the many, in such a way, that the course of action of the many is changed by the one" (Bogardus, 1934, p.3). Leadership is “the activity of influencing people to cooperate toward some goal which they come to find desirable” (Tead, 1935, p.20). Effective leadership is interaction among members of a group that initiates and improves group expectations and competence in solving problems or attaining goals (Bernard M. Bass & Bass, 2008). Leadership is a process whereby one individual influences a group of associates to achieve a common goal (Northhouse, 2015). Understanding the historical context of leadership enables this study to determine if there are effective leadership components within organizations that affect organizational functions in different organizational type.

(Hofstede, 1983, p.76) asserted that “culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the member of one group from another.” Culture deals with a set of values, ways of relating and ways of looking at the world shared by members of a particular group or region, and provides the framework for meaningful communication (DaSilva, 2004). Social Identity refers to a person’s sense of “us”, or belonging to a group. It is defined as the part of an individual’s self-concept derived from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups), together with the values and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel, 1978).

In order to be culturally adept, one must have intercultural competence. Based on research by Moodian (2008), key features that relate to intercultural competence are: (a) Vision and alignment—aligning the organization with the team; (b) Trust and openness – according to Childress and Senn (1995), high trust and openness among employees and associates is a major characteristic found in high performing organizations; (c) Communication that creates motivation (Robbins, 1996); (d) Decision making – allowing decisions to be made at appropriate levels; (e) Respect and value – feeling valued and appreciated (Childress & Senn, 1995); (f) Emotional intelligence – an array of non-cognitive (emotional and social) capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence an individual’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures (Bar-On, 1997).

Harris and colleagues (2004) went further in identifying differences that can be attributed to culture. They include: (a) sense of self and space; (b) communication and language; (c) dress and appearance; (d) food and feeding habits; (e) time and time consciousness, (f) relationships, (g) values and norms, (h) beliefs and attitudes, (i) learning and (j) work habits and practices.

3

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. Hypothesis 5. There is a difference in job-satisfaction of leaders in non-profit organizations and for-profit organizations.

Hypothesis 6. There is a difference in self-perceived authentic leadership of leaders in non-profit organizations and for-profit organizations.

The following hypotheses are to determine the linear predictability of job satisfaction within either of the organizational types: (a) non-profit and (b) for-profit.

Hypothesis 7a. Self-Awareness, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and balanced processing are a linear predictor of job satisfaction within nonprofit organizations.

Hypothesis 7b. Self-Awareness, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and balanced processing are a linear predictor of job satisfaction within for-profit organizations.

METHOD

T

he study employed a quantitative non-experimental approach and an ex post facto design approach (Silva, 2010). Chapin (1946) posits ex post facto experimental design starts research with outcome observed or recorded, then traces back to an earlier date to discover if factors of cause are associated with the experimental group. This approach is well-suited for removing simultaneous effects of multiple contexts and conditions. The study used theory that functions with the primary objective of testing theoretical proposition by examining data on the possible relationship between variables (Creswell, 2014). Kerlinger and Lee (2000, p. 558) define non-experimental research as “a systematic empirical inquiry in which the scientist does not have direct control of independent variables because their manifestations have already occurred or because they are inherently not manipulated. Inferences about relationships are made without direct intervention, from the concomitant variation of independent and dependent variables."

The purpose of the quantitative approach is to provide empirical evidence of the existence of relationships between variables in a manner that establishes the plausibility of prediction (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Tacq, 2011). Tacq (2011) suggested that causality in qualitative research flows from "experimental logic" (p.278), which means the presence of "necessary condition" before deducing causal inference. An independent variable is a necessity in predicting the dependent variable.

This section discusses measures used to test the study’s hypothesis. Finally, the population and sampling technique, instrumentation and the collection of data are presented here.

6

Research Design The current study will follow a quantitative nonexperimental approach and an ex post facto design approach (Silva, 2010). This design is considered as after-fact research in which investigation begins after the fact has happened, without interference from the research (Silva, 2010). This design does not contain any form manipulation or measurement before an occurrence, as is the case in what is considered true experimental design. Silva (2010) posits that this approach is a substitute for true experimental research. It tests the hypothesis about cause and, ultimately, the effect and relationship. This design method is widely used in social, behavioral and biomedical sciences.

According to Sapsford (2007), in its broadest sense survey research is defined as “the collection of quantified data from a population for purposes of description or to identify covariation between variables that may point to a causal relationship or predictive patterns of influence. It introduces the notions of representative sampling and of inference from the comparison between groups” (p.1).

The research design which utilizes a quantitative research method answers questions such as: (a) Is the research at all feasible in these circumstances? (b) Is research by survey the right way to approach the problem in order to obtain answers that are required? (c) Is a survey feasible—would it yield valid conclusions? (d) Is it ethically appropriate to use survey methods rather than some other approach? (e) Is it ethically and politically appropriate to carry out any form of research, given the research question and the social context?

Population and Sample A purposive sampling design was utilized. Prepositive sampling requires using one’s own judgment to select a sample (Greener, 2008). Cabanda, Fields, and Winston (2011) posit that purposive sampling has to meet predetermined criteria. This sampling strategy requires that data for the study has to meet the following criteria: (a) Respondents must be executives and managers; (b) Multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization; (c) Two or more leaders had to be obtained from at least one type of organization; (d) At least two types of organizations must be represented.

The intent is to measure the self-perception of the leader in the realm of authentic leadership and job satisfaction. Kerlinger and Lee (2000) state that sample sizes greater than 100 tend to be sufficient. However, Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) posit that there is a dependency on the desired power, alpha levels, and effect size on the minimum sample required. Correlation studies must utilize a formula to determine sample size which is 100 + m, where m refers to the total number of independent variables (Tabaachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Given the number of independent variables in this

Organizational Culture & Leadership study, the total needed would be 105. However, based on (Hair et al., 2010) a participant-to-predictor ratio of 15:1 or 20:1 is required. Utilizing Hair et al. (2010) criteria, our sample size will be 180-200 surveys completed if the multiple regression will be instituted.

A sampling was taken of 725 individuals across each type of organization from the Northeast United States.

Most non-profit organizations are based in Northeast region of the country that includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Connecticut. The decision was made to focus on organizations characterized as non-profits in their bylaws and for-profit firms whose focus is on profitability. There was contact made to a group of non-profit and for-profit leaders inclusive of pastors and other non-profit organizations in the New York City region. These leaders have churches with as few as 25 members, as well as some with thousands of members. In addition, the researcher is a senior executive at a church of over 1,300 people. The request was sought to solicit and survey the two populations referenced above. The for-profit organization was selected based on the relational connection the researcher has with an associate of the firm. The surveyed organizations included leaders from organizations such as Microsoft, IBM, Crown Castle, APP Para Medical Services, Level 5 Corporation, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and smaller for-profit organizations. The firm distributed the survey to the sample size of 396 individuals to gather information as to the level of authenticity and job satisfaction within the company.

Questionnaires were administered to each group within a specific timeframe. Data from the surveys was collected and analyzed for information.

Instrumentation The intent of the instruments is to measure the self-perception of the leader in the realm of authentic leadership and job satisfaction. According to Creswell (2014), rigorous data collection and analysis in quantitative design requires the use of reliable and valid scale instruments. There will be two instruments that comprise the following: (a) the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008), and (b) the Job Satisfaction Index (Schriesheim & Tsui, 1980). They will be used to collect information and data to assess differences in authentic leadership and job performance within non-profit and for-profit organizations:

Authentic Leadership Questionnaire: ALQ To measure authentic leadership, the study will utilize the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The instrument is used to capture, explore, and validate assumptions relative to the theory of authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Northhouse, (2015) posits instrument validation from samples in Kenya, the United States, and China. It was

found to be positively related to organizational commitment, citizenship, and satisfaction with overall performance and the supervisor (Northhouse, 2015).

Reliability factors (Cronbach’s alpha) for the major component of the instrument includes: (a) self-awareness, .92; (b) relational transparency, .87; (c) internal moral perspective, .76; and (d) balanced processing, .81. (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Job Satisfaction: JSI To ascertain the level of job satisfaction from each manager, the six-item Job Satisfaction Index (Schriesheim & Tsui, 1980) will be used. Job satisfaction has a positive relationship with an employee's commitment to the organization (Tsui, Egan, & Reilly, 1992).

The measure captures overall job satisfaction and assesses the degree of satisfaction with pay, promotion activities, supervision, co-worker interaction, and the job itself (Fields, 2013). Reliability indicates the coefficient alpha ranges from .73 to .78. (Tsui et al., 1992; Cohen, 1997). Validity indicates that job satisfaction is impacted negatively in areas of job levels, absenteeism, and conflict between work and non-work roles (Tsui et al., 1992; Cohen, 1997). Tsui et al. (1992) indicates a positive correlation of job satisfaction with age, commitment, coping ability, and tenure. Table 3 describes the composition of the instrument.

Data Collection The purpose and intent of the survey was made known to all participants. The survey sent to the selected population included a description of the survey and the process. The candidate participants were asked to confirm their intent to participate in the survey. According to Gall, Borg and Gall (1996), the conclusion can be made that the response rate of participants increases if they are contacted prior to survey distribution.

A cover note was developed requesting that the survey be completed within one month from the time of receipt. One week prior to the due date, the participant was reminded to complete the survey. The bases for the data collection are the following: (a) It allows participants to receive advanced notice of the intent to survey; (b) It ensures there is adequate follow up posting the implementation of the survey, and (c) if the survey is received within the environment of work, it ensures there is some camaraderie between participants as they participate in the survey.

All surveying was done via email protocols. Informed consent was provided explaining the reason for the research. Also, participants were given an opportunity to have questions directed to the researcher prior to initiation of the survey. The research literature on the topic was provided to the participants post the survey as reference material to bolster the participants

7

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. understanding of the direction of the study. The timeframe for the surveys did not exceed ninety days.

Data Analysis Upon receipt of the completed surveys, data was coded and entered into Microsoft Excel/SPSS statistical package for analysis. This is consistent with Creswell (2014) process for data analysis with a quantitative method approach by which this study analyzed response rate, descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing utilizing t-test and regression analysis. Descriptive statistics were presented for all variables contained in the study. These statistics included means, standard deviation, and frequency for both organizational types. The following information was calculated: 1. Pre-work with Analysis data includes scrubbing the data by eliminating any duplicates or any incomplete data 2. An overview of the participant’s position within the organization, demographic and organizational employment information 3. Utilizing SPSS, Pearson r, t-test, and regression analysis was done with the data to ascertain and test the hypothesis concerning authentic leadership in non-profits, authentic leadership in for-profits and job satisfaction.

4. Statistics included mean, standard deviation and constant for each authentic leadership and job satisfaction calculated in total, and by the associate’s tenure in the organization.

5. The Transpose Compute function of SPSS was used to calculate the following independent variable based on specific response questions: a. Self-Awareness b. Internalized moral perspective c. Relational transparency d. Balanced processing e. Authentic Leadership Score 6. Job satisfaction was developed using the Transpose Compute function of SPSS to calculate a total summary of the response from the job satisfaction index survey. The higher the number, the greater the job satisfaction.

7. Hypothesis Testing a. Hypothesis 1 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable self-awareness specific to non-profit and for-profit organizations. b. Hypothesis 2 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable internalized moral perspective specific to non-profit and for-profit organizations.

8

c. Hypothesis 3 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable relational transparency specific to the non-profit and for-profit organization. d. Hypothesis 4 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable balanced processing specific to the non-profit and for-profit organization. e. Hypothesis 5 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable job satisfaction specific to the non-profit and for-profit organization. f. Hypothesis 6 was tested by utilizing the t-test function of SPSS with independent variable mean authentic leadership specific to the non-profit and for-profit organization. g. Hypothesis 7a was tested by utilizing the multiple linear regression function within SPSS with the independent variable self-awareness, internalized moral perspectives, relational transparency, and balanced processing as a linear predictor of job satisfaction within the non-profit organization. h. Hypothesis 7b was tested by utilizing the multiple linear regression function within SPSS with the independent variable self-awareness, internalized moral perspectives, relational transparency, and balanced processing as the linear predictor of job satisfaction within the for-profit organization.

FINDINGS

T

he result of this research is related to the t-test and regression testing that relied upon gathered data from two organizational types: (a) non-profit and (b) for-profit organizations. There was a sampling of 725 individuals across each type of organization from the Northeast United States. Most non-profit organizations are based in the Northeast region of the country that includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Connecticut. The for-profit organization leaders were selected based on the relational connection the researcher has with an associate of the firm.

The surveyed organizations included leaders from organizations such as Microsoft, IBM, APP Para Medical Services, Level 5 Corporation, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and smaller for-profit organizations This purposive sample included a total of 725 individuals (349 from non-profits and 376 from for-profit entities). This represented 48.1% to 51.9% ratio of non-profit to for-profit leaders. From a response rate perspective, 30.1% were for non-profit leaders and 23% were for-profit leaders. A total of eleven responses in the sample contained missing, incomplete and errone-

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR. Table1: Key Differences of For-Profit vs. Non-Profit Organizations

FOR-PROFITS

NON PROFITS Mission Mission Important Mission extremely important

Financial results matter Cash loss generator could be key product/service Nonfinancial metrics important nonfinancial metrics of misison performance extremely important

Finance Financial metrics are key: P&L, stock price and cash Financial metrics for meeting budget and cash flow flow projects are important Funds come from operations and financial capital Funds come from oeprations, debt, grants, and charity markets Short-term focus Indepth focus on long term goals

Executive Small board that is paid Large board of volunteers Limited board committees Many board committes Chair/CEO plus lead director Nonexecutive volutneer chair, plus a CEO Source: Epstein, M. J., & McFarlan, F. W. (2011). Joining a Nonprofit Board: What You Need to Know. New York, NY: JosseyBass.

Table 2: Authentic Leadership Questionnaire Instructions: This questionnaire contains items about different dimensions of authentic leadership. There are no right or wrong responses, so please answer honestly. Use the following scale when responding to each statement by writing the number from the scale below that you feel most accurately characterizes your response to the statement.

Key

1 = Strongly disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neutral

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly agree

Sample item by copyright restriction and research permission

Questions

Responses

1. I can list my three greatest weaknesses.

1

2

3

4

5

2. My actions reflect my core values.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I seek others' opinions before making up my own mind.

1

2

3

4

5

16. I admit my mistakes to others.

1

2

3

4

5

Scoring 1 Sum the responses on items 1, 5, 9, and 13 (self-awareness).

2 Sum the responses on items 2, 6, 10, and 14 (internalized moral perspective).

3 Sum the responses on items 3, 7, 11, and 15 (balanced processing).

4.Sum the responses on items 4, 8, 12, and 16 (relational transparency).

Copyright 2007 Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) by Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, & Fred O. Walumbwa. All rights reserved in all medium. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

16

Organizational Culture & Leadership Table 3: Job Satisfaction Instructions: This questionnaire contains items about different levels of job satisfaction. There are no right or wrong responses, so please answer honestly. Use the following scale when responding to each statement by writing the number from the scale below that you feel most accurately characterizes your response to the statement.

Key

1 = Strongly disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neutral

4 = Agree

Questions

5 = Strongly agree

Responses

1

How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you perform ?

1

2

3

4

5

2

How satisfied are you with the person who supervises you-your organizational superior?

1

2

3

4

5

3

How satisfied are you with your relations with the others in the organizaon with whom you work-your co-workers or peers?

1

2

3

4

5

4

How satisfied are you with the pay you receive for your job?

1

2

3

4

5

5

How satisfied are you with the opportunities which exist in this organization for advancement or promotion?

1

2

3

4

5

6

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your current job situation?

1

2

3

4

5

Source: Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & Reilly, C. A. O. (1992). B+K186:R202eing different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549-579.

All instruments utilize a 5 point Likert scale.

17

RUPERT A. HAYLES, JR.

REFERENCES Bar-On, R. (1997). EQi, Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: A Measure of Emotional Intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2008). Solutions out of context: Examining the transfer of business concepts to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(2), 153–171.

Bogardus, E. S. (1934). Leaders and Leadership. New York: Appleton-Century.

Cabanda, E., Fields, D., & Winston, B. (2011). Quantitative research methods. Available from https://create. mcgraw-hill.com/shops/.

Chapin, F. S. (1946). An application of ex post facto experimental design. Sociometry, 9(2/3), 133.

Childress, J. R., & Senn, L. E. (1995). In the eye of the storm: Reengineering corporate culture. New York: Leadership Press.

Cohen, A. (1997). Non-work influences on withdrawl cognitions: An empirical examination of an overlooked issue. Human Relations, 50(12), 1511–1537.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between non-profit and for-profit.

Society, 40(4), 16–27.

Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization, 17(4), 437–459.

Epstein, M. J., & McFarlan, F. W. (2011). Joining a Nonprofit Board: What You Need to Know. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Farrow, D. L., Valenzi, E. R., & Bass, B. M. (1980). A comparison of leadership and situational characteristics within profit and non-profit organizations.

Academy of Management Proceedings, 8(1), 334–338. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1980.4977898 Fields, D. (2013). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. 6th Edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

18

Galvan, J. L. (2009). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences.

Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Girden, E. R., & Kabacoff, R. I. (2011). Evaluating research articles: From start to finish. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Greener, S. (2008). Business Research Methods.

Frederiksberg, Denmark: Ventus Publishing Aps. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Vectors. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.02.019 Hart, C. (2005). Doing literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.

Johnson, E. (2015). Striving for no difference: Examining effective leadership between nonprofit and for-profit contexts. Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy, 1(December 2012), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.

Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. http://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2601(06)38006-9 Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A positive development approach. In K.S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.

McNamara, C. (1999). Free Management Library: Complete, highly integrated library for nonprofits and for-profits. http://doi.org/http:// www.managementhelp.org Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Hercovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up?

Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441–457. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.006

Organizational Culture & Leadership Moodian, M. A. (2008). Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics Within Organizations. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Moore, B. V. (1927). The May conference on leadership.

Personal Journal, 6, 124–128.

Newman, W. H., & Wallender III, H. W. (1978). Managing not-for-profit enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 24–31.

Northhouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership, theory and practice. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Pervez, S., & Daudi, P. (2005). Leadership in Organizations A Comparative study of Profit and Non-Profit Organizations. University of Kalmar, Baltic Business School, (June).

Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). Validating Measures of Leader Authenticity: Relationships Between Implicit/Explicit Self-Esteem, Situational Cues, and Leader Authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 214–231. http:// doi.org/10.1177/1548051812464780 Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Bormann, K. (2014). Which leadership construct are important for predicting job satisfcation, affective commitment, and perceived job performance in profit versus nonprofit organizations? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(2), 147–164. http://doi.org/10.1002/nml Rowold, J., & Rohman, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles, followers’ positive and negative emotions, and performance in german non-profit orchestras. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(1), 41–59.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1585.

Salamon, L. A. (1999). America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer, 2nd ed. New York: New York Foundation Center.

Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey Research. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Schepers, C., de Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., DuBois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (2005). How are employees of the nonprofit sector motivated? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 191–208.

Schriesheim, C., & Tsui, A. (1980). Development and validation of a short satisfaction instrument for use in survey feedback interventions. Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management meeting.

Silva, C. N. (2010). Ex post facto study. In Salkind, N.J., Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 465–466).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Tabaachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Tacq, J. (2011). Causality in qualitative and quantitative research. Quality and Quantity, 45(2), 263–391.

Tasini, J. (2009). The audacity of greed: Free market, corporate thieves and the looting of america. New York: Ig Publishing.

Tead, O. (1935).

The New York: McGraw Hill.

Art

of

Leadership.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & Reilly, C. A. O. (1992). Being different : Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–580.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913 Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. 6th ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

R

upert A. Hayles, Jr. is the President of The Center for Emotional and Spiritual Development and Executive Pastor of TLCC.org. He is certified in many emotional intelligence instruments and has coached ordained as well as lay leaders. He has over two decades of leadership experience with corporations such as Prudential Financial, Merck and Cytec Industries. Currently a Ph.D. candidate at Regent University focusing on Emotional Intelligence and Fruit of the Spirit, Rupert has a MBA from Wharton School and undergraduate degrees from Seton Hall University. His book includes: “The Church and Emotional Intelligence”, “The leader’s and student guide to the Church and Emotional Intelligence” and a secular business book- “Practical Strategy, Aligning Business with Information Technology. He is an organizational strategist, author, lecturer and adjunct professor.

19