Nancy L. Mary DSW a a Department of Social Work, California State

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de los Andes] On: 18 August 2015, At: 11:52 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG Administration in Social Work Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Transformational Leadership in Human Service Organizations Nancy L. Mary DSW a a Department of Social Work, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA Published online: 02 Oct To cite this article: Nancy L. Mary DSW (2005) Transformational Leadership in Human Service Organizations, Administration in Social Work, 29:2, , DOI: / J147v29n02_07 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

2 expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 Transformational Leadership in Human Service Organizations Nancy L. Mary, DSW ABSTRACT. Continuing interest in social work leadership is occurring in the 21st century. This study examines leadership in human service organizations. Members of ACOSA and the National Network for Social Work Managers were asked to consider an organization, and then to assess the leadership style of a leader using the MLQ-5R (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire), along with characteristics of the organization within which the leader worked. A transformational (vs. transactional or laissez-faire) leadership style was most often attributed to the leaders by respondents. The transformational leadership style and the democratic (vs. authoritarian ) organization were correlated with successful leadership outcomes. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: HAWORTH. address: Website: < by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] KEYWORDS. Transformational leadership, social services INTRODUCTION Increasing interest in social work leadership is occurring in the 21st century. A recent study of leadership within the profession (Rank and Hutchison, 2000) examines the forces driving this renewed interest and the difficulties Nancy L. Mary is Professor, Department of Social Work, California State University, San Bernardino, CA ( Administration in Social Work, Vol. 29(2) by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: /J147v29n02_07 105

4 106 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK confronting today s social work leaders. Most importantly, it clarifies the definition of social work leadership from the point of view of leaders in NASW and professional social work educators. Social work leadership is the communication of vision, guided by the NASW Code of Ethics, to create proactive processes that empower individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities (Rank and Hutchison, 2000). This recent analysis offers concepts of leadership for the social work profession. First is the notion that social work leaders should embody, as role models, the values of the profession. Secondly, leadership involves an empowerment approach in influencing individuals as well as systems to improve their circumstances. Third is the importance of visualizing the future. And finally, there is a preference of a participatory leadership style. All of these elements are congruent with an approach to leadership that has emerged since the early 1980s called the transformational approach. The primary purpose of this study was to examine social workers views of their leaders in human service organizations. Specifically, the objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which leaders were perceived to use transactional and transformational leadership behaviors and (2) identify which leadership styles relate to leadership effectiveness and satisfaction. The paper will first define social work leadership and the transformational leadership approach. Then, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is discussed as a measure of leader behaviors. Results of a study of leadership as perceived by social workers sampled from the membership of the Association of Community Organization and Social Administration (ACOSA) and the Social Work Manager Network will be reported. And finally, implications for further research and education will be discussed. LITERATURE REVIEW What Is Leadership? Before embarking on leadership theory, a distinction is drawn between leadership and management. Many scholars have argued that these are distinct constructs. Bennis and Nanus (1985) have asserted that managing means to accomplish activities and manage routines, usually within a set of contractual exchanges. Leadership, on the other hand, involves influencing others and creating visions for change, or, empowerment. Their frequently quoted phrase is, Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing (p. 221).

5 Nancy L. Mary 107 Brilliant (1986) points out that managers are connected to an official designated position of authority. Those managers may be leaders, but leadership may also be exercised by those informal leaders who, because they have various forms of power such as referent or expertise power, may influence the direction of a group of people or organization. Northouse (2001) has made a similar distinction between assigned leaders those with titles in the organization and emergent leaders, who exercise a process of influence, regardless of their formal title in the organization. While there is certainly overlap between management and leadership in terms of the desire to accomplish goals, Kotter (1990) argues that management is about seeking order and stability, while leadership is about seeking adaptive and constructive change. What Is Transformational Leadership? In his book Leadership (2001), Northouse suggests two kinds of theories or models of leadership. One group, predominant until the mid-1970s, focuses on the characteristics or behaviors of the leader or the follower and the context of leadership. Examples of the former are the trait and style approaches, and of the latter, contingency or path-goal theory. The second group focuses on the interaction and the relationship between leaders and followers, such as leader-member exchange theory, team leadership, transactional and transformational leadership. The emergence of the transformational approach to leadership began with a work by James MacGregor Burns entitled Leadership (1978). In it he attempts to link the motivation of leaders and followers in a process whereby both are transformed with a higher set of moral values and commitment to common goals. At the same time House (1976), building upon Weber s earlier writing on charisma (1947), put forth five key characteristics of charismatic leaders : (1) They serve as strong role models; (2) they appear competent to their followers; (3) they set ideological goals; (4) they communicate high expectations for followers; and (5) they arouse motives of power, self-esteem and affiliation to the tasks. Finally, Bass (1990) and Avolio (1999) provide a more extended and refined version of transformational leadership. They provide a continuum of leadership approaches, starting at the noneffective laissez-faire approach, then moving to the more active transactional approach, and finally at the other end to the transformational approach. The basic distinctions are as follows: The laissez-faire leader makes little attempt to help followers satisfy their needs, but rather takes a hands off approach, The transactional leader rewards efforts through contingencies or provides intervention by exception when something goes wrong. Transformational leadership is concerned with the de-

6 108 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK velopment of the fullest potential of individuals and their motivation toward the greater good vs. their own self-interests, within a value-based framework. Bass and Avolio s model of transformational leadership (1990) involves five factors: charisma, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2001). Table 1 defines the factors in the continuum of leadership approaches. A Measure of Transformational Leadership: The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Little empirical work is found in social work literature on the concepts of leadership and organizational performance. Bargal and Schmid (1989) suggest themes important to social work leadership, such as vision and transformational leadership. Austin (1989) suggests an interactive model of TABLE 1 Leadership Style/Factor Definition 1. Laissez-Faire Style The absence of leadership, after the French hands-off 2. Transactional Style* Leaders and followers exchange things, resulting in subordinate compliance A. Contingent Reward Factor Leader obtains agreement from followers on what needs to be done; then rewards followers for doing it B. Management by Exception Factor (Two Kinds): Active Passive Leader watches for mistakes; quickly corrects Leader intervenes only after performance has not been met 3. Transformational Leadership Style A. Charisma** Leader has high moral standards and a vision for the organization B. Idealized Influence Leaders are strong ethical role models; followers want to emulate C. Inspirational Motivation Leaders motivate followers to have high expectations and commit to the organization D. Intellectual Stimulation Leaders challenge followers to be creative, innovative and to challenge the norm E. Individualized Consideration Leaders provide a supportive climate to assist followers to be fully actualized *For earlier research on transactional style, see Kuhnert (1994) and Kuhner and Lewis, (1987). **For earlier work on the concept of charisma, see Weber (1947) and House (1976).

7 Nancy L. Mary 109 leadership, and the importance of the life cycle of an organization in its management is discussed by Hasenfeld and Schmid (1989). Patti, Poertner and Rapp (1987) discuss proactive leadership and principles in the use of persuasion. These works, however, have been theoretical in nature. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is an instrument that operationalizes leadership behaviors. Gellis (2001) utilized the instrument with a sample of 187 clinical social workers employed in hospitals. The purpose was to test two types of leadership, transactional and transformational, within social work practice. The results indicated that all five transformational factors and 1/4 of the transactional factors correlated with leader outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. Kays (1993) examined the applicability of transformational and transactional leadership style to employees in children s aid societies and mental health centers. Results indicated a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, commitment, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader. This relationship between leader effectiveness and transformational behaviors, as perceived by social workers, echoes numerous earlier studies of other populations (see Avolio,1999; Bass, 1998, for reviews of the literature). Three recent meta-analyses of the military, and broader organizational psychology literature have confirmed the relationship between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness, as rated and objectively measured performance were stronger and more positive than the transactional and less active laissezfaire leadership (Gaspar, 1992; Patterson, Fuller, Kester and Streger, 1995; Lowe, Kroek and Swasukramiam, 1996; Hatter and Bass, 1988). In summary, the relationship between perceived effectiveness of leaders and a transformational leadership style, vs. management by exception or laissez-faire, has been established in studies using the MLQ in various kinds of organizations, e.g., colleges, businesses, health care organizations, political organizations, and not-for-profits (Bass and Avolio, 2000). Research Question This study posed the following research question: How do social workers who are members of macro social work organizations perceive leaders in formal positions of authority with whom they have worked, with respect to their leadership style and effectiveness? Given the literature, the author hypothesized a positive relationship between a transformational style of leadership and positive leadership outcomes in the MLQ 5X-Short, as well as a positive relationship between a transformational style of leadership and a perceived democratic vs. autocratic organizational style.

8 110 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK THE STUDY Sample/Method Social workers with particular interest in and knowledge of organizations and management and, one assumes, leadership, were sampled form two nationwide groups. The 340 membership of the National Network for Social Work Managers and the 495 membership of Association of Community Organizations (ACOSA) served as the sampling frame, for a total sample of 835. Permission to acquire these membership lists was obtained from the leadership of the organizations, and a five-page questionnaire was sent with an enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope, informed consents and debriefing explanations. The Instrument Leadership style and effectiveness were measured by the MLQ Form 5x-Short (available from Bass and Avolio, Mind Garden Inc., bibliography). This instrument was developed in response to substantive criticisms of the earlier MLQ 5R. There are 12 subscales of the instrument. Five subscales or factors measure the construct of transformational leadership mentioned above in Table 1 are, idealized influence, charisma, inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Three subscales/factors measure the construct of transactional leadership style. They are contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive). The laissez-faire approach to leadership is measured by one factor. Finally, 3 subscales measure the outcomes that have been found to correlate with transformational leadership style: Perceived effectiveness of the leader, satisfaction with the leader, and perception of extra effort that the leader inspires in the employee/follower. The MLQ 5x-Short has been tested across nine samples for construct validity and reliability (see technical report of Bass and Avolio, 2000). Reliabilities for the total items and for each leadership factor ranged from.74 to.94. In the current study, the cover letter asked the respondent to NOT name the individual rated, but rather to have in mind a human service organization and a particular person in a formal position of leadership within the organization with whom they have worked. In addition to the leadership questionnaire, respondents were asked to provide some demographics on (1) the leader being rated, i.e., educational background of the leader, (2) themselves, i.e., age, gender, and educational level, and (3) characteristics of the organization with which the leader being rated was associated, i.e., public vs. private, field of

9 Nancy L. Mary 111 practice and the agency s organizational style on a continuum from autocratic to democratic. RESULTS Demographics of the Respondents, Leaders and Their Organizations Of the 835 members sampled, 177 completed questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 21%. Participants in the study were primarily female (118), educated at the master s level (109), and averaged 48 years of age, with a range form 22 to 83 years of age. Two-thirds of them rated a leader at a higher level them themselves. Sixteen percent (29) rated someone at the same level, and 9% (16) rated someone at a lower level. Of the leaders that were rated, 54% (95) had a social work background, while 16% (28) were educated in business or public administration and 11% (19) had degrees in education. The remainder was educated in psychology (11), divinity (8), law (7), public health (6) and medicine (3). Two-thirds (108) of the agencies with whom the leaders were connected were private nonprofit, one-third (58) was public and 5% (8) was private for-profit. Sixty percent of the agencies were spread evenly over the fields of mental health, education, and child welfare. The remaining organizations delivered the following kinds of services (in descending order of occurrence): community organizing, health, housing, multiservice, domestic violence, developmental disabilities, aging and other non-specified. How Were Leaders Perceived in Their Style and Effectiveness? Overall, leaders were seen as more transformational than transactional in their leadership style. Table 2 indicates how respondents rated the leaders. The exception was the use of contingent reward. That is, though leaders more often were perceived as fitting a transformational profile, they also were seen as leading through clarifying their expectations of followers and what they would receive if expectations were met. Leaders were seen as effective fairly often (x = 2.7). Sixty percent (105) of 175 respondents gave their leader an effectiveness rating of Similarly, leaders were seen as putting forth extra effort ; sixty percent rated them from on this factor. Raters were more split in their assessment of overall satisfaction, with 54% (95) rating them between , and 46% rating them from

10 112 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK TABLE 2. Mean Scores in Leadership Style and Effectiveness Factors (MLQ 5X-Short Form) (n = 177) Leadership Style/Factor Mean Score SD Transformational Style/Factors: Charisma Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Motivation Individualized Consideration Transactional Style/Factors: Contingent Reward Management by Exception (Active) Management by Exception (Passive) Laissez-Faire Style/Factor Outcome Factors: Effectiveness Extra Comfort Satisfaction Scores ranged from 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, to 4 = frequently, if not always. Is Transformational Leadership Related to Positive Outcomes? There is a strong relationship, in this sample, between a perceived transformational leadership style of the leader and positive leader outcomes. Table 3 displays the correlations between the leadership style factors and outcomes Indeed, transformational characteristics correlate strongly with leadership success. Using contingent reward, as well, is strongly related to positive outcomes. Managing by intervening with negative reinforcement patterns, actively or passively, is not correlated with positive outcomes. Notable is the significant negative relationship between a perceived laissez-faire or hands off approach to leadership and positive leader outcomes. Do Rater Characteristics Affect Perceived Leader Outcomes? The MLQ 5X-Short Form asks respondents to choose a leader above them, below them, or at the same organizational level as themselves. Though the majority

11 Nancy L. Mary 113 TABLE 3. Pearson Correlations: Leadership Factors and Outcomes (n = 177) Factors (MLQ 5X-Short) Effectiveness Extra Effort Satisfaction (Transformational) Charisma.74*.84*.83* Idealized Influence.65*.72*.70* Inspirational Motivation.58*.67*.68* Intellectual Stimulation.66*.74*.71* Individual Consideration.75*.82*.83* (Transactional) Contingent Reward.75*.81*.82* Management by Exception (Active) Management by Exception (Passive) (Laissez-Faire).22*.30*.33* * =.01 level chose to rate someone above them, they did not rate those leaders highly; leadership success was perceived in leaders at a level lower than themselves. Mean ratings of the lower level employees on their effectiveness, effort and satisfaction were 3.39, 3.27 and 3.31, respectively. These scores were significantly higher than ratings of leaders at the same level or at a level above the respondent, with scores ranging from (F = 3.6, df = 2, at.02 level). A trend was noted, though not a statistically significant one, related to the educational level of the respondent and the overall satisfaction rating of their leader. The higher the level of education of the rater, the lower they rated satisfaction with their chosen leader (BA x = 3.7, MSW/MA x = 2.7, PhD x = 2.5) (F = 2.1, df = 2). Rater characteristics of age and gender were examined and found unrelated to leader outcomes. Nor did the educational background of the leader make a difference in how they were rated; people with a social work background were not rated differently than those with degrees in business or other areas. Do Organizational Characteristics Relate to Perceived Leader Effectiveness? A relationship was hypothesized between effective leaders and an overall democratic organizational style. Organizational style was measured solely by asking the rater to place the organization on a continuum; the data is as follows:

12 114 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK Organizational Style (n = 175, x = 4.5) autocratic bureaucratic democratic laissez-faire 3% 10% 10% 16% 17% 16% 18% 6% 2% 1% (5) (18) (17) (29) (31) (28) (32) (10) (3) (2) This hypothesis was borne out. The mean scores in all three of the outcome variables ( effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction ) were significantly higher in the agencies perceived to be democratic on the continuum than the agencies perceived to have autocratic, bureaucratic or laissez-faire organizational styles (effectiveness x = 3.1, extra effort x = 3.0 and satisfaction x = 3.1) (F = 10.78, 11.87, and 12.42, df = 3, sig at.000 level). The scores on the other styles ranged from , with scores decreasing from bureaucratic to autocratic to laissez-faire. In addition, the lowest leadership outcome means (from 1.9 to 2.8) were connected to those leaders found in agencies in child welfare, education, and mental health, while the highest leadership outcome scores (from 3.8 to 4.1) were found in leaders connected to agencies in aging (n = 3). Though these findings were statistically significant, the numbers are extremely small, and the findings inconclusive with respect to leadership outcomes related to fields of practice. Finally, there was no difference in perceived leader effectiveness related to work in private vs. public organizations. DISCUSSION The leaders that respondents chose to rate were perceived as predominantly typifying a transformational style of leadership. This supported the author s hypothesis. This style is congruent with concepts of social work leadership recently defined and reported on in the 2000 (Rank and Hutchison) study of leadership within the profession. That is, the principles of participatory leadership, empowerment, proaction and vision outlined in that study are consistent with a transformational approach. The overall findings regarding leadership in a variety of settings in this study are similar to the findings in Gellis s study (2001) of 187 practicing social workers in hospital settings. The four transformational factors of idealized influence, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation were correlated with positive leadership outcomes, at a moderate to strong level, in both Gellis s and the current study. It is signifi-

13 Nancy L. Mary 115 cant, also, that the transactional leadership style of contingent reward was also highly correlated with positive leadership outcomes in both studies. In addition, the more reactive (vs. proactive) transactional leadership styles, management by exception and the laissez-faire approach were both negatively associated with positive leadership, in a similar pattern in both studies. The least effective style, in both studies of social workers, was the hands off or laissez-faire approach. The negative correlations of this style with three outcomes measures in the Gilles study were 52, 69 and 66. In the current study they were 22, 30 and 33. As the hands off approach was perceived as more negatively related to leadership success in the Gilles study than in the current study, one wonders if the difference is related to the settings of these two studies. Perhaps a fast paced, complex and highly specialized hospital environment, with a good deal of life and death decision making, is less conducive to a looser, hands off approach than the range of settings reported in the current study. The finding that a perceived democratic organizational style is correlated with successful leadership outcomes is not surprising either, given that the most successful leaders were perceived to have a transformational style, which is characteristically democratic in nature. However, organizational style, in this study, was measure solely by one question. This minimal indicator only hints at a possible relationship, and cannot be said to firmly measure a characteristic of an organization. Limitations of the Study With respect to methodology, one could argue that more direction could have been given to the respondent to choose an effective or an ineffective leader. However, the open-ended instruction to choose a leader you have worked with was an attempt to gain a range of responses on the MLQ with respect to positive leadership outcome measures of extra effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness. The 21% response rate is a severe limitation of the study. The membership of the National Network for Social Work Managers is made up of middle and upper level managers who come from 38 states and two countries outside the U.S., who work in educational institutions, service agencies and a variety of private organizations. Similarly, ACOSA is a membership organization of community organizers, planners, activists, administrators, policy practice specialists, students, and professors, and its members represent a variety of disciplines and professional fields. The degree to which one can say that the sample represents the range of members is minimal at best. In addition, the leaders rated were not a homogeneous group in terms of educational background; a lit-

14 116 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK tle over half were social workers. One-fifth of the respondents rated leaders in the field of education. Indeed, a significant number of both respondents and leaders in this study may be professors in higher education. A deliberate examination of social work professor s ratings of other social work faculty might be useful to pare down the sample and then, perhaps, compare these results with practitioners ratings of other practitioner leaders. Finally, the extent to which generalizations can be made regarding the influence that field of practice or organizational style has on perceived leadership is extremely limited. Rather, these organizational variables may be items to examine more thoroughly and systematically in future research on the effect of context on leadership. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY AND EDUCATION Findings related to leader and rater characteristics suggest a need for further research. Those raters with higher levels of education were more critical of their leaders. And, those rating leaders ranked above them or at the same level were also more critical of them. Are human service employees, in general, more sympathetic to those below them than their peers or those in higher levels of authority? If so, why? A review of job satisfaction literature would be a place to start. And, if we find this to be a reasonable hypothesis, qualitative studies involving interviews and/or focus groups of workers at various levels of a specific organization would be useful. Some questions would be: What are your perceptions of the leadership style and outcomes of your peers? Those above you? Are there differential expectations of leadership at different levels of the organization? What are they and why? Organizational characteristic were only briefly explored in this study. Positive leader outcomes (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) were lowest in those ratings of leaders in child welfare, mental health, and educational organizations. And, as one-fifth of the leaders rated were in educational institutions, they may be overrepresented in this sample of human service organizations, which may have affected the ratings. But finding no difference in the ratings of leaders in public vs. private agencies did not enlighten us much. Context is complex. What is needed is a closer look at the kind of organization in which leadership is demonstrated and the factors that might contribute to positive leadership outcomes. For example, one could first limit the setting of the study to public child welfare, and then measure some construct of bureaucracy. We could then examine transformational leadership and positive outcomes in relation to this construct. One hypothesis is that the more

15 Nancy L. Mary 117 bureaucratic the organization, the less its leadership is perceived to be transformational in style. In addition, qualititative studies should be pursued, again specific to an organizational setting, to understand more about how employees define and perceive the leadership style of their leaders and how they define leader satisfaction and effectiveness. One could begin with open-ended questions in an interview format regarding perception of leadership, and then use the MLQ for a more qualitative measure of leadership styles therein. Perhaps we could then better understand how these leadership styles and positive outcomes operate within the bounds of a specific setting. In our role as educators, as we help social work students learn how to become leaders, we can assist them in an examination of these leadership styles in light of both their goodness-of-fit with the individual student s own style as well as data on their effectiveness. Transformational leadership should be one of these that warrant further educational exploration. CONCLUSION This study offers some preliminary data indicating that a transformational style of leadership is related to perceived positive leadership outcomes in a study of social service leaders. This supports congruence between transformational leadership and the most current definition of social work leadership within the profession. It poses questions for further study of these constructs and relationships among social work leaders with different roles in different settings. More and more graduating social work students are being asked to take positions of leadership in human service organizations. This prospect of leadership is a challenging venture. Continued examination of how social workers meet these challenges and how their environments impact service delivery and leadership are critical to both professional research and the education of social work students. REFERENCES Austin, M. J. (1989). The human service executive. Administration in Social Work, 13, Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Bargal, D., and Schmid, H. (1989). Recent themes in theory and research and their implications for management in the human services. Administration in Social Work, 13,

16 118 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational learning: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Questionnaire technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Brilliant, E. (1986). Social work leadership: A missing ingredient? Social Work, Sept-Oct, Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Gaspar, S. (1992). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the Literature. Doctoral dissertation, Western Kalamazoo, MI. Gellis, Z. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), Hasenfeld, Y. & Schmid, H. (1989). The life cycle of human service Organizations: An administrative perspective. Administration in Social Work, 13, Hatter, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior s evaluations and subordinate s perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, House, R. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge ( ), Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Kays, D. (1993). An investigation of transformational and transactional leadership styles in personal social service organizations. Wilfred Laurier University, DSW Dissertation. Kuhnert, K. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhnert, K. & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review, Leadership Quarterly, 7, Northouse, P. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Patti, R. J., Poertner, J. & Rapp, C. A. (1987). Managing for service effectiveness in social welfare organizations. Administration in Social Work, 11(3/4), Rank, M., & Hutchison, W. (2000). An analysis of leadership within the social work profession, Journal of Social Work Education, 36 (3), Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Free Press.