Slides used to brief the results of the SDI Motivation to Leadership Approach research effort.

1. Army Management Staff College
Unclassified
United States Army Combined Arms Center

2. • Study Background Information
• Problem Statement
• Study Purpose
• Hypotheses and Research Questions
• Research Method and Design
• Study Results
• Central Tendencies
• DQ1: BLUE MVS to Servant Leadership
• DQ2: GREEN MVS to Transactional Leadership (Management)
• DQ3: RED MVS to Transformational Leadership
• DQ4: HUB MVS to Situational Leadership
• IQ1: BLUE MV to Servant Leadership
• Study Implications/Recommendations
• Future Research
Research Brief Agenda
2

3. •We explain things in an unlearned fashion because we are
unlearned ourselves.
•No leadership approach is assumed better than another: All can
be Highly/Moderately/Minimally effective.
•“Best-fit” assumption between an SDI MVS and associated
leadership theory. Other theories with a “better-fit” may exist.
•Response rate was 96.5% (328/340).
•Self-reported influence behavior frequency: “How often I do….”
•Identify generalities/trends: Any trend or generality can be
countered with an anecdote if one tries hard enough.
•For this research effort:
 Weak Correlation = 0 to .25
 Moderate Correlation = .26 to .50
 Strong Correlation = .51 to 1.0
Background Information
3Note: MBTI correlation significance = Any correlation above .25 is significant.

4. Problem Statement: Contemporary leader identity
development instruments focus almost exclusively on
outcomes. Although a behavioral antecedent, motivation
has not been linked to naturally occurring leader influence
approach preferences.
Independent Variable (IV): Each Army Management Staff
College IC and AC student’s SDI MVS scale score.
Dependent variable (DV): Each student's score on a
specific leadership instrument (SL7/MLQ-6S/SL II) extract.
Problem Statement/Variables
4

5. •AMSC Faculty Growth:
 Inform CES student identity development coaching/counseling.
 Improve core competency expertise (Motivation to Leadership).
 Baseline AMSC research processes and procedures/Scholarly rigor.
 Challenge established biases.
•Inform comprehensive AMSC assessment strategy.
•Scholarly knowledge production vice consumption.
•Inform future doctrine and curriculum development.
•Assess criterion validity between SDI and known
leadership measurement instruments.
Research Effort Intent
To satiate “The burning affliction of an inquisitive mind”

6. Theoretical Linkages
Study Links greater
motivation theory…
….with greater
leadership theory.
Motivation
Theories
Cognitive
Theories
Social-
Cognition
Theories
Humanistic
Theories
Behavioral
Theories
Psychoanalytical
Theories
Social-
Learning
Theories
Relationship
Awareness
Theory

7. This exploratory, quasi-experimental, quantitative,
correlational study tests for parallel relationships between
SDI MVS and leader influence approaches in order to inform
leader identity development.
Study Purpose
6

8. Approach Drives Actions
•Our approach to a process determines procedures we execute,
methods we employ, and tasks (behaviors) we perform.
•A leader’s approach drives the influence steps leaders execute, the
methods they employ, and their influence behaviors.
Servant Leadership Approach Behavior: “I make follower career
development a priority.” (SL7, Q2)
Transactional Leadership Approach Behavior: “I draw attention to
what others can get for what they accomplish.” (MLQ-6S, Q5, CR)
Transformational Leadership Approach Behavior: “I provide
appealing images about what we can do.” (MLQ-6S, Q9, IM)
Contingent Leadership Appraoch Behavior: “My team members
would say that I am flexible.” (SLII, Q9).

9. Process vs. Procedure
Process: A comprehensive internal core function performed to accomplish
an assignment or produce a product.
Reference: EM 200-1-2, USACE (2012). Technical Project Planning Process.
Procedure: The specified way or known steps an enterprise uses to execute a
process.
Method: Manner in which a procedure is executed. A procedural form:
Systematic, sequential, simultaneous, manual, automated, mechanical, etc.
Work Instruction: A “how-to” guide, which documents task performance
instructions and explains execution steps.
Approach

10. Strengths-Based Development
•Developmental ROI is better when focused
on strengths.
•Weaknesses cannot be ignored; must be
acknowledged and managed.
•Catalyze impulsions and inherent talents.
•Deep-mastery is not achieved through
“Decathlete” developmental approaches.
Identify
Strengths
Develop
Strengths
•Augment and reinforce strengths, don’t “deficit fix”.
•Manage around deficits; only 30% of people have a “fatal flaw”
•Deficit fixing prevents failure; Strength building begets mastery.
•Great strengths (not a deficit’s absence) create great leaders.
Bottom line: Don’t make a BLUE into a GREEN. Make
him or her a better BLUE.
10

11. •Hypothesis (H1): Statistically significant correlations exist
between SDI Motivational Value Systems (MVSs) and
specific leader influence approaches.
•Null Hypothesis (Ho): No statistically significant
correlations exist between SDI Motivational Value Systems
(MVSs) and specific leader influence approaches.
Hypotheses
Intent: Reject the null and adopt H1.
11

12. •Descriptive Question 1 (DQ1): To what extent does a BLUE MVS
scale score correlate with Servant Leadership?
•Descriptive Question 2 (DQ2): To what extent does a GREEN MVS
scale score correlate with Transactional Leadership (M’gmt)?
•Descriptive Question 3 (DQ3): To what extent does a RED MVS
scale score correlate with Transformational Leadership?
•Descriptive Question 4 (DQ4): To what degree are HUB MVS
inclined to practice Situational Leadership?
•Inferential Question (IQ1): To what magnitude does the Strength
Deployment Inventory (SDI) MVS relate to a specific leader
influence approach?
Research Questions
Extent = The level, size, scale, or greatness of something. Criteria: Significant/Moderate/Slight
Degree = The intensity or strength of something. Criteria: High/Medium/Low
Magnitude = The importance, consequence, vastness, or completeness of something. Criteria: Elevated/Substantial/Minimal. 12

13. SDI MVS Scores
•High Score = 42.3+
•Medium Score = 42.2 to 24.3
•Low Score = 24.2 or less
Direct Correlation
Results in…
•Quasi-experimental quantitative research effort.
•Survey-based, correlational design to gauge potential correlations
between SDI MVSs and scholarly accepted leadership approaches.
Method and Design: Macro
Compared to..
Leadership Instrument
•Multifactor leadership Questionnaire
•Servant Leadership 7
•Situational Leadership II Fitness Test
13

14. Method and Design: Micro
•MVS correlated against
Transactional Leadership
•Instrument: MLQ-6S
•# of items: 5
•MVS correlated against
Situational Leadership (SitLead)
•Instrument: SL II
•# of items: 4
•Note: Focus on Perspective
•MVS correlated against
Transformational
Leadership (TL)
•Instrument: MLQ-6S
•# of items: 9
•MVS correlated against
Servant Leadership (SL)
•Instrument: SL7
•# of items: 5
•Connecting inherent motives to inform strength-based leader
identity development.
14

15. Servant Leadership: A follower-centric participatory influence process
which seeks collaborative decision making, and enhances follower
growth while improving enterprise life quality.
Word Origin: 11th century Old French word servir, meaning “to attend to” or “to wait
upon”; originally intended to convey a foot-soldier, assistant, or helper.
Servant Leadership
According to servant
leadership theory, if we can
discern the following seven
precepts, we are in
accordance with servant
leadership instructions.
15
References: Frick, 2004; Greenleaf, 2002/2003; Liden et al., 2014a; Liden et al., 2014b; Liden et al., 2015; Liden et al., 2008; Pollard, 2010; Spears, 2005; Smith, Montagno
& Kuzmenko,2004; van Dierendonck et al., 2014; Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2006.

16. Transactional Leadership
•ADRP 6-22 uses “superior” and “subordinate” 200+ times indicating Army leadership doctrine
is grounded in transactional influence methods.
•ADRP 6-22 addresses management constructs 150+ times indicating Army leaders have
significant managerial functions to perform.
Transactional Leadership: A contractualized influence process which
employs legitimate requests, incentives, and disincentives to
influence followers.
“Leaders have
followers;
managers have
subordinates”
16
References: Bass, 1990/2008; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; McCleskey, 2014; McGuire & Kennerly, 2006; Van Eeden, Cilliers & Van Deventer, 2008; Bass,
Avolio, Jung & Berson, 1988; Bass & Aviolo, 2000; Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997; Dum dum, Lowe & Avolio, 2002; Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2006.

17. Inspirational
Motivation
•Challenge followers to achieve.
•Elevate expectations.
•Influence “stretch” goal attainment.
•Encourage toward concrete advancement.
Individualized
Consideration
•Identify particular shortfalls.
•Tailor developmental activities.
•Support by sponsoring,
obstacle removal, coaching,
teaching, and mentoring.
Idealized
Influence
•Role model desired behavior.
•“Walk the Talk”.
•Demonstrate Competency,
Character, and Commitment.
James
MacGregor
Burns’ Four I’s
•Challenge followers to be innovative.
•Demand pursuit of knowledge.
•Advance and grow educationally.
Intellectual
Stimulation
Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership: A change-centric influence process
which seeks to comprehensively modify followers and the enterprise
thereby producing enhanced functioning and performance.
ADRP 6-22
Attribute:
Presence
17
References: Aviolo & Bass, 1995/2004; Bass, 1990/1996/1998; Bass & Aviolo, 1993/1994/2000; Bass & Riggio, 2006/2010; Carless, 1998; Den Hartog, Van Muijen &
Koopman, 1997; Densten & Sarros; 1997; Dum dum, Lowe & Avolio, 2002; Gaspar, 1992; Hay, 2006; Kent, Crotts & Aziz, 2001; Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2006.

18. Situational Leadership
Situational Leadership: A conditional and adaptive influence process
where leader action is contingent on internal and external variables.
A “best-fit” philosophy, situational leadership assumes leaders possess divergent
influence capacities and adjust their approach to individual or group they are
attempting to lead.
Variables:
• Environment
• Culture
• Leader Characteristics
• Follower Characteristics
• Task structure
• Enterprise Structure
• Position Power
• Role and procedure formalization
• Rule and policy flexibility
• Work group dispersion/centralization
18
References: Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Goodson, McGee & Cashman, 1989; Graeff, 1983/1997; Hersey, 1985; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969/1977; Johansen, 1990;
McCleskey, 2014; Silverthorne, 2000; Siverthorne & Wang, 2001; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Vecchio, 1987; Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2006.

19. –Population Central Tendencies
–DQ1: BLUE MVS to Servant Leadership
–DQ2: GREEN MVS to Transactional Leadership
(Management)
–DQ3: RED MVS to Transformational Leadership
–DQ4: HUB MVS to Situational Leadership
–IQ1: Motivation to Leader Influence Approach
Results
19

20. Instrument Central Tendencies
µ =
Instrument
Mean
Instrument µ = 13.5; All Army Civilian µ = 14.87; High/True Army Civilian µ = 18.48
•Army Civilian leaders engage in generic influence behaviors moderately more often
than the general population.
Servant (SL7) Transactional (MLQ-6S) Transformational (MLQ-6S) Situational (SLII)
20
n=328

21. Overall Item Central Tendencies
Note: HUB Data is normalized
•Army Civilian leaders score 18% Higher than the general population in generic
influence behavior frequency.
•Differences become more pronounced as an Army Civilian's MVS becomes
increasingly definitive.
•Central tendencies reinforce statistical correlations. 21
n=328

22. MVS
Type
Instrument µ Army
Civilian µ
High MVS
(42.5+)
µ
µ Difference
(Score - Instrument)
SD
(σ)
SD Diff
(µ Diff/σ)
BLUE 10.00 13.59 16.82 +3.59/+6.82 3.98/3.55 +.90/+1.92
GREEN 12.00 15.12 17.38 +3.12/+5.38 6.22/6.95 +.50/+.77
RED 18.00 18.52 21.50 +.52/+3.50 6.12/6.35 +.08/+.55
MVS
Type
Instrument µ Non-HUB µ True HUB
MVS µ
µ Difference SD
(σ)
SD Diff
(µ Diff/σ)
HUB 14.00 12.24 18.20 -1.76/+4.20 3.68/2.67 -.47/+1.57
Overall Central Tendencies
High BLUE MVS = scored in the 96% in Servant influence behavior frequency
High GREEN MVS = scored in the 77% in Transactional influence behavior frequency
High RED MVS = scored in the 74% in Transformational influence behavior frequency
True HUB MVS = scored in the 92% in Situational influence behavior frequency
22
n=328

23. DQ1: To what extent does a BLUE Motivation Value System
correlate with Servant Leadership approach?
Descriptive Question 1 (DQ1)
•MVS correlated against
Servant Leadership (SL)
•Instrument: SL7
•# of items: 5
Answer: A significant extent.
Altruistic-Nurturing: Concern for
protection, growth, and welfare of others.
23

24. Single-Sample Tendencies
N Mean Std. Deviation
All BLUE 85 13.59 3.98
High BLUE 33 16.82 3.55
Ho: Sample responses from five SL7 items
= 9.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from five SL7 items
= 10.01 or more.
•Army Civilian Leaders are significantly more likely to engage in servant influence
behaviors than the general population (σ = +.90 SD).
•As one becomes more BLUE, servant influence behaviors significantly increase.
DQ1: BLUEs to Servant
Frequency
Instrument Score
High BLUE
µ = 16.82
Instrument
µ = 10
All BLUE
µ = 13.59
24

25. DQ1: BLUEs to Servant
Overall α(85)
= .708
(Positive
Strong)
SL7InstrumentScore
BLUE MVS Scale Score
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
•As an Army Civilian leader becomes more BLUE, their servant
influence behavior frequency increases significantly. 25

26. DQ1: PPMCC Correlations
Cronbach’s a = .894
Covariance = 40.67
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
PPMCC: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient
Q6: “I give followers the freedom to
handle difficult situations in the way
they feel is best.”
23

27. •If you are a High BLUE MVS (42.5+), then….
 Will score in the 96th percentile in servant leadership
behavior frequency.
 You will routinely display servant leader behaviors (µ
= 3.69).
 You will score almost two full SD (+1.92) above the
mean when it comes to servant influence behavior
frequency.
 You will exhibit a strong inclination to engage in
servant leader behaviors.
 Empathetic and self-sacrifice behaviors have
strongest relationship with BLUE MVS (α(85) = .67).
DQ1: Inferential Conclusions
27

28. •If you are a Low BLUE MVS (24.2 or less), then….
 You will display low to moderate concern for follower
protection, growth, and welfare.
 You don’t really care what your followers are doing
outside of work.
 Your followers will seek your help only in exceptional
circumstances.
 You’re most likely unwilling to fully empower your
followers (Low BLUE = Low Trustfulness).
DQ1: Inferential Conclusions
28

29. DQ2: To what extent does a GREEN Motivation Value System
correlate with Transactional Leadership approach?
•GREEN MVS correlated
against Transactional
Leadership
•Instrument: MLQ-6S
•# of items: 6
Descriptive Question 2 (DQ2)
Answer: A moderate extent.
Analytic-Logic: Concerned
things are properly thought out
and meaningful order is
established and maintained.
29

30. •Army Civilian Leaders are moderately more transactional than the general population
(σ = +.50 SD).
•As one becomes more GREEN, transactional influence behaviors moderately increase.
All GREEN
µ = 15.12
MLQ
Instrument
µ = 12.00
Frequency
GREEN MVS Scale Score
High GREEN
µ = 17.38
Single-Sample Tendencies
N Mean Std. Deviation
All GREEN 78 15.12 6.22
High GREEN 32 17.38 6.95
Ho: Sample responses from six MLQ-6S
items = 11.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from six MLQ-6S
items = 12.01 or more.
DQ2: GREENs to Transactional
30

31. DQ2: GREENs to Transactional
Subscale α Strength
MBE .524 Positive
Strong
Overall α(78)
= .458
(Positive
Moderate)
Subscale Influence Method Strength
Contingent
Reward
Pressure or Exchange α=-.265 Negative Moderate
Apprising α=.578 Positive Strong
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
MLQ-6SInstrumentScore
GREEN MVS Scale Score
•As an Army Civilian leader becomes more GREEN, their transactional
influence behavior frequency increases moderately. 31

32. DQ2: PPMCC Correlations
Cronbach’s a = .824
Covariance = 26.97
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
PPMCC: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 32
Cronbach’s a = .824
Covariance = 26.97
Correlation is significant at
the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)

33. •The more GREEN you are; the more inclined you are to practice
MBE.
MLQ Item µ: 2
MBE Item µ: 3.29
Result: High GREEN’s scored (σ = +.77).
Well above the mean in relation to
practicing MBE.
MBE Subscale Q6 Q13 Q20
α(32) =.524 .569 .578 .425
Frequency
MBE Sub-Scale Score
Instrument
MBE Subscale
µ = 6
High GREEN
MBE Subscale
µ(32) = 9.87
DQ2: Management by Exception
Ho: Sample responses from three MLQ-6S
MBE items = 5.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from thee MLQ-6S
MBE items = 6.01 or more.
33

34. Management by Exception
Behaviors:
•Identifying off-nominal practices and situational complexities.
•Influencing followers to correct deviations.
•Leader intervention as departure from the norm.
ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6 influence methods best fits:
•Legitimating (Vested authority, Hierarchical position, Structure).
•Rational Persuasion (Relevant evidence, Logic, and Expertise).
Description: An internal functioning process focused on identifying and
remediating deviations from the norm.
High GREEN α = .524 (Strong Positive)
Like!
Mission Command Principle Transactional Leadership (MBE) Principle
Mutual Trust Follower decision making authority
Shared Understanding Explicit agreements
Commander’s Intent Clear follower expectations
Mission Orders Set goals
Prudent Risk Sui generis intervention 32

35. •High GREENs don’t like using reward or coercive power to influence.
•But they will reward people when reward is justly earned.
Q5: “I tell others what to
do if they want to be
rewarded for their
work.”
Q19: “I draw attention
to what others can get
for what they
accomplish.”
Q12: “I provide
recognition or reward
when others reach their
goals.”
DQ2: Contingent Reward
n= 78
35

36. Contingent Reward
Behaviors:
•Contractualize leader-follower exchange dyad.
•Provide desired behavior impetus.
•Justly leverage legitimate power to reward/punish as deserved.
ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6 influence methods best fits:
•Exchange (Quid-pro-quo, Rewards, Punishment).
•Apprising (Why a request will benefit a follower).
•Pressure (Leader cooperates in providing resources).
Description: An influence method which employs rewards and/or
punishments to positively or negatively reinforce (un)desirable follower
performance.
So-So!
All GREEN α = -.265 (Moderate Negative)
CR Correlations
Q5 Q12 Q19
-.334 .578 -.195
36

37. DQ2: Inferential Conclusions
•If you are a High GREEN MVS (42.5+), then….
 You prefer legitimate authority, hierarchical
structure, and rules influence follower behavior.
 Your preferred influence methods are legitimating
and rational persuasion (logic).
 You will frequently, if not always practice
Management by Exception (µ = 3.29).
 You will justly reward people when you determine
they have earned it.
37

38. DQ2: Inferential Conclusions
•If you are a Low GREEN MVS (24.2 or less), then….
 You’re more likely to tailor or modify influence
behaviors.
 You’re more likely to engage in reward and coercive
power-based influence behaviors.
 Influence dyads tend to be more relative and less
uniform.
 Management by Exception is most likely not your
default oversight method.
38

39. •MVS correlated against
Transformational Leadership (TL)
•Instrument: MLQ-6S
•# of items: 9
DQ3: To what extent does a RED Motivation Value System
correlate with Transformational Leadership approach?
Answer: A moderate extent.
Assertive-Directing: Concerned with task
accomplishment, winning, or achieving results.
Descriptive Question 3 (DQ3)
39

40. All RED
µ = 18.52MLQ Instrument
µ = 18.00
•Army Civilian leaders are slightly more transformational than the general population.
•Army Civilian leaders are only marginally more inclined to engage in transformative
influence behavior than the general population.
High RED
µ = 21.50
Single Sample Tendencies
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
All RED 77 18.52 6.12
High RED 24 21.50 6.35
Ho: Sample responses from nine MLQ-6S
items = 17.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from nine MLQ-6S
items = 18.01 or more.
DQ3: REDs to Transformational
Frequency
RED MVS Scale Score
40

41. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
InstrumentScore
MVS Scale Score
DQ3: REDs to Transformational
α(77) = .438
(Positive
Moderate)
Subscale II IM IS
All RED -.267 .458 .430
High RED -.033 .568 .582
•As Army Civilian leaders become more RED, their transformational
influence behavior frequency increases moderately.
38

42. DQ3: PPMCC Correlations
Cronbach’s a = .886
Covariance = 43.46
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
PPMCC: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 39

43. DQ3: Inspirational Motivation (IM)
IM Subscale
µ = 6
High RED
IM Subscale
µ = 8.34
Result: High RED’s scored well above the (σ = +1.27)
mean in IM influence behavior frequency
•High REDs are significantly more inclined to engage in IM related
influence behaviors than the general population.
•High REDs score 90th percentile in IM behavioral frequency.
Subscale IM Strength
All RED α = .458 Positive
Moderate
High RED α = .568 Positive
Strong
Ho: Sample responses from three MLQ-6S
IM items = 5.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from three MLQ-6S
IM items = 6.01 or more.
0

44. Inspirational Motivation
Behaviors:
•Articulate a clear compelling future vision.
•Communicate elevated expectations with precision and sense of authority.
•Compel commitment to goals.
ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6 influence methods best fits:
•Inspirational Appeal (Enthusiasm, arouse emotion, strong conviction).
•Rational Persuasion (Relevant evidence, logic, and expertise).
Description: To inspire undertaking, increase sense of purpose, and
intensify incentive to act.
High RED α = .568 (Strong Positive)
Like!
41

45. DQ3: Intellectual Stimulation (IS)
IM Subscale
µ = 6
High RED
IS Subscale
µ = 7.14
Subscale IS Strength
All RED α = .430 Positive
Moderate
High RED α = .582 Positive
Strong
Ho: Sample responses from three MLQ-6S
IS items = 5.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from three MLQ-6S
IS items = 6.01 or more.
•High REDs engage in IS related influence behaviors at significantly
elevated levels.
•High RED IS behaviors occur “fairly often” (µ=2.57 per item).
n= 24
42

46. Intellectual Stimulation
Behaviors:
•Challenges status quo through skillful criticism and feedback.
•Positively influence follower intellectual growth and expansion.
•Empower follower contribution, input, and involvement.
ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6 influence methods best fits:
•Participation (Ask others to take part).
•Apprising (Why a request will benefit a follower).
•Collaboration (Leader cooperates in providing resources).
Description: To encourage follower innovation, creativity, critical
thinking, and problem-solving participation while arousing cognitive
development desires.
Like!
High RED α = .582 (Strong Positive)
43

47. DQ3: Idealized Influence (II)
•RED II-related behaviors occur once in a while.
•REDs scored in 36th percentile in providing II to followers.
•The more RED you are, the less you engage in II behaviors.
Q15: “Others are proud to
be associated with me .”
Q8: “Others have
complete faith in me.”
Q1: “I make others feel
good to be around me.”
α = -.267
n= 77
47

48. Idealized Influence
Behaviors:
•Represent the ideal.
•Looked up to as a person; referentially influential.
•Serve as an exemplar for followers.
ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6 influence methods best fits:
•Personal Appeal (Loyalty, special talents, encouragement)
Description: To serve as an ideal follower role model, embody core
values, and lead by example.
All RED α = -.267 (Moderate Negative)
(ADRP 6-22 Attribute: Presence)
48

49. DQ3: Inferential Conclusions
•If you are a High RED MVS (42.5+), then….
 You have a reasonable inclination to practice TL
 You will sometimes display transformative influence
behaviors.
 You most likely have some maladaptive attributes/traits
which impede Idealized Influence.
 You stand roughly a break-even (54%) chance of being
transformational in two areas: IM, IS.
 You‘ll score in the 90th percentile when it comes to
charisma.
 You most likely consider yourself an expert.
 Your influence actions may negatively impact trust and
impact the attribute of presence.
49

50. •Humility is pride’s absence. “The worst of all sins”, Pride stems from the comparative; to
espouse pride in something is to assess it as superior.
• Evoking images of weakness, obedience, and meekness, humility and humbleness often run
counter to contemporary leader archetypes.
• True humility requires leaders to possess mature strength, probing introspection, genuine
self-confidence, and stoic bravery.
“There is no virtue more important,
yet harder to master, than humility”
-Benjamin Franklin
“There is nothing noble in being superior to your
fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your
former self.”
-Ernest Hemmingway
Humility vs. Arrogance

51. •The pons asinorum separates novice from expert. A paucity of humility, (arrogance)
prevents the novice from crossing the bridge.
•Comes from ancient Greek belief that overcoming arrogance to cross is harder than
leading an ass over a bridge.
Pons Asinorum
“The Bridge of Asses”
Arrogance: A superiority belief manifested by a presumptuous communications
pattern and erroneous assumptions.
• First Assumption of Preeminence: “I am better than others.”
• Second Assumption of Necessity: “I am required.”
Arrogance
Novice
Expert

52. DQ3: Inferential Conclusions
•If you are a Low RED MVS (24.2 or less), then….
 You most likely question the motives of your High RED
counterpart.
 Your motives are less in question than your High RED
counterpart.
 You are most likely more humble than your High RED
counterpart.
 You provide Idealized Influence more regularly than
your High RED counterpart.
 You engage in IS and IM at a significantly reduced rate.
 You are seen as less charismatic than your High RED
counterpart.
52

53. DQ4: To what degree are HUB MVS inclined to practice
Situational Leadership?
Descriptive Question 4 (DQ4)
•MVS correlated against
Situational Leadership (SitLead)
•Instrument: SL II
•# of items: 4
•Note: Focus on Perspective
Answer: A very High degree.
Flexible-Cohering: Concern for
flexibility, adaptability and
open-mindedness
53

54. Single-Sample Tendencies
N Mean Std. Deviation
True HUB 60 18.20 2.67
Non-HUB 28 12.25 3.68
Frequency
Instrument Score
Non-HUB
µ = 12.25
Ho: Sample responses from four SLII
Fitness Test items = 13.99 or less.
Ha: Sample responses from four SLII
Fitness Test items = 14.01 or more.
SLII Fitness Test
Instrument
µ = 14
•True HUB Army Civilian leaders are Highly likely to use contingent influence
behaviors (σ = +1.57 ).
•Non-HUB Army Civilian Leaders are in the 33rd percentile in contingent
influence behaviors (σ = -.47) frequency.
True HUB
µ = 18.2
DQ4: HUBs to SitLead
54

55. InstrumentScore
Deviation
•True HUB Army Civilian deviations from situational leadership influence behaviors are low.
•Non-HUB Army Civilian deviations from situational leadership influence behaviors are High.
•As one’s HUB degree increases, situational leadership deviations decrease.
•As one’s HUB degree decreases, situational leadership deviations increase.
DQ4: HUBs to SitLead
Overall α(88)
= -.529
(Negative
Strong)
Note: Data represents deviations
between MVS and SLII Fitness
Test Score
55

56. DQ4: PPMCC Correlations
Cronbach’s a = .796
Covariance = 40.66
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 Level (2-tailed)
PPMCC: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient
Inner Area:
Low SitLead deviations
(.57 to 6.99)
Middle Area: Medium
SitLead deviations
(7.0 to 10.99)
Outer Area: High SitLead
deviations
(11.0 to 28.44)
56
Cronbach’s a = .796
Covariance = 40.66
Correlation is
significant at the 0.01
Level (2-tailed)

57. •If you are a True HUB MVS (Nearly equivalent scale
scores), then….
 You are likely to use contingent influence behaviors to
a high degree.
 You will score 92 percentile in contingent influence
behavior frequency.
 You will display Situational Leader behaviors more
than 75% of the time (µ = 4.55).
 You tend to be flexible, adaptable, and open-minded
in your influence behaviors
 You approach leadership as if there is no “one best
way” to influence.
DQ4: Inferential Conclusions
57

58. DQ4: Inferential Conclusions
•If you are a non-HUB MVS, then….
 Your influence approach will deviate in accordance
with how far you have deviated from situational
leadership.
 You intermittently (Approx. 1/3 of the time) engage in
contingent influence behaviors.
 You score 33 percentile in situational influence
behavior frequency
 You engage in non-contingent influence behaviors to
a Medium or High degree.
 You tend to believe there is a best way to influence..
58

59. IQ1: Motivation to Approach
•GREEN MVS to Transactional
Leadership (Mgmt)
•a(78) = .459
•Positive Moderate
•HUB MVS Situational Leadership
(SitLead)
•92nd Percentile
•a(88) = .-.528
•Negative Strong with deviation
•RED MVS to
Transformational
Leadership (TL)
•a(77) = .438
•Positive Moderate
•BLUE MVS to Servant
Leadership (SL)
•α(85) = .708
•Positive Strong
SDI MVS to Leadership Approach
µα(328) = .533 (Strong Correlation)
59

60. Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Optimal Acceptable Less than
Acceptable
Catastrophic
Instrument
Central Tendency
μ diff = +/- 4.0
or greater
μ diff = +/- 3.99 to
2.0
μ diff =
+/- 1.99 to 0.1
μ diff = Negative
Item Central
Tendency
μ = 3.01 to 4.0 μ = 3.0 to 2.01 μ =
2.0 to 1.01
μ = Below 1.0
Percentile 90% and up 75-89% 50-74% 49% and lower
Person’s
(PPMCC)
α = .70+ α = .50 to .69 α =
.26 to .49
α =
.25 and below
Significance
Level
p = .005 p = .01 p = .025 p = .05
Covariance cov(X,Y) = +40
and up
cov(X,Y) =
+39.99 to 20.00
cov(X,Y) =
+19.99 to 0
cov(X,Y) =
Negative

61. Criteria Analysis
Criteria Inst (µ) Item (µ) % (α) (p) cov(X,Y) Overall
BLUE: Servant O O O O A O O
GREEN: Transactional O A O A A A A
RED: Transformational A A A A A O A
HUB: Situational O O O O A O O
Overall O O O O A O O

62. Inferential Question 1 (IQ1)
To what magnitude does Strength Deployment Inventory
(SDI) MVS relate to an individual’s preferred influence
approach?
Answer: Inherent underlying motivations substantially
impact a leader’s influence approach and subsequent
behaviors.
Overall SDI MVS to Leadership
Approach
µα(328)=.533 (Strong Correlation)
“Man is lived by unknown and uncontrollable forces”
ConsequenceLevel
Elevated
Substantial
Minimal
α=.533
62

63. Hypothesis Testing
 Hypothesis (H1): Statistically significant correlations exist
between SDI Motivational Value Systems (MVSs) and
specific leader influence approaches.
Acceptable to Optimal assessment on all evaluation criteria.
Definitive central tendencies supporting parallel relationship
between motivation and leader influence behavior frequency.
Strong correlations between variables in 2 of 4 DQ’s.
Overall strong aggregated correlations: µα(328)=.533
Sizeable covariance measures between variables.
 Null Hypothesis (Ho): No statistically significant
correlations exist between SDI Motivational Value Systems
(MVSs) and specific leader influence approaches.
X
63

64. Influence Method Power Origins
Power Form
ARDP 6-22, Chap. 6
Influence Method
Referential Expert Information Legitimate Reward Coercion
Pressure
Legitimating
Exchange
Personal Appeal
Collaboration
Rational Persuasion
Apprising
Inspirational Appeal
Participation
= Predominant Power Source
= Contributing Power Source 64References: Raven, 2004; French & Raven, 1959a/1959b; Souza, 2011; Northouse, 2016.
Panel of Expert Distribution (n=39): 5 x SAMS, 17 x CSGC (DCL/Tactics), 9 x SCP, 8 x AMSC
50-50 Split
No Consensus
No Consensus
No Consensus
No Consensus

65. Influence Method Power Origins
• Response from Former Battalion Commander, SCP
• Provided with Influence Method and Power Form descriptions
• Asked to “identify which power form each method employs.”
• Not an anomalous set of responses.
Believes 75% of
influence stems from
positional authority
Sees personal influence
as having limited utility

66. Research Implications
•Theoretically, leadership and motivation are connected at a
foundational level.
•A leader’s SDI MVS shares a significant or moderate relationship with
corresponding influence behaviors.
•Criterion validity between a Motivation Value System and a
corresponding leadership approach exists (SDI MVS, Servant Leadership 7, SitLead II
Fitness test, and some MLQ-6S sub-scales serve to measure like constructs).
•SDI’s theoretical underpinnings are solidified.
•Relationship Awareness Theory uniquely informs “leadership as a
relationship” inquiries.
•SDI provides critical and necessary LID feedback. Stage 5-6 LID cannot
be accomplished without knowing one's MVS.
66
If this study’s results are valid, then….

67. Research Implications
•Motivations are preeminent; behaviors are secondary.
•Motivations determine which precepts and principles leaders embrace
when influencing others.
•The Motive-Approach-Behavior causality chain is affirmed.
•Refutes “You can be whatever you want if you only work hard at it”
notions.
•Relationship-centric leadership is more effective than process-centric
leadership.
67
If this study’s results are valid, then….

68. Motivation Implications
•Innate tendencies impel people toward discreet encoded behaviors.
•Motivations are the root cause or “whys” of behavior.
•Motivational awareness assists in assessing others’ intentions, not just
actions.
•Motivation’s genesis remains elusive; as does how much “want to” is
behind an effort level.
•Most conduct isn’t spawned by reasoned thinking.
•Natural inclinations are more likely to lead to engagement. If
engagement is desired, leaders must influence in accordance with
innate predilections.
•Leader motivations spawn organizational culture (See next slide).
68
If this study’s results are valid, then….

69. Motivation to Culture Connections
69
References: ADRP 6-22, Para 7-5 thru 7-7; Wilson, Cook & Teater, 2018; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko,2004; Smith, 2005; Deal & Kennedy, 2000)
•A leader’s inherent motivations, and philosophical approach they
adopt, are genesis of organizational culture.
•Different leadership approaches produce different cultures.
•Servant Leader = Spiritual Generative Culture
•Transformational Leader = Empowered Dynamic Culture
•Transactional Leader = Structured Contractualized Culture
•Situational Leader = Cohering Adaptive Culture
Culture: An organization's unique psychological environment and ways
of interacting which reflect a leader’s approach through
communication and reward systems.
“The way things are done around here”
Note: “Culture” is no longer defined in ADRP 6-22

70. MVS
Color
Leadership
Approach
Culture Type Culture Description
Blue Servant Spiritual
Generative
A people-centric ethos valuing personal growth
and systematically facilitates that growth.
Green Transactional Structured
Contractualized
An exchange-centric ethos grounded in
hierarchical authority valuing alignment, logic,
pragmatism and conformity.
Red Transformational Empowered
Dynamic
A achievement-centric ethos valuing high
performance, innovation, personal initiative,
and risk-taking.
HUB Situational Cohering
Adaptive
A congruence-centric organizational ethos
valuing flexibility, adaptability and open-
mindedness.
Motivation to Culture Connections
70
•Climate and culture describe the environment in which a leader leads. The leader
shapes the environment in which the leader and others operate (para 7-5).
•Climate is how members feel about the unit’s daily functioning (para 7-6).
•Culture is a longer lasting and more complex than climate. Leaders establish a climate
consistent with institutional culture (para 7-7).
References: ADRP 6-22, Para 7-5 thru 7-7; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko,2004)

71. Leadership Implications
•A leader’s motivations must be understood to adequately grasp his or
her person-to-person influence behaviors.
•“Leadership as a process” needs to be revisited. “Leadership as a
relationship-based influence dyad” is more appropriate.
•Leader motivations are definitively connected to a leader’s approach
and subsequent influence behaviors, their frequency, and intensity.
•Motivations are the origin of a leader’s traits and behaviors (attributes
and competencies).
•Trait, attribute, behavior, and competency leadership theories are
beholden to motivations.
•Trust, as the “bedrock of the Army profession” must be addressed in
future leadership definitions.
71
If this study’s results are valid, then….

72. Leadership Implications
•Most leaders are unaware of their inherent motivations and their
impact on influence behavior frequency and type.
•Understanding motivations is critical to leader identity development.
•Leaders should be made aware of their motivations at earliest
possible opportunity to inform Leader Identity Development (LID).
•Leaders are most effective when being authentic. Leaders can’t be
truly authentic unless they understand their inherent predilections.
•Transformational leadership is repudiated as “the” superior influence
form. Servant, transactional, and situation leadership are as effective.
•Transformational leadership has a dark side; one which may lead to
toxic or unproductive cultures.
72
If this study’s results are valid, then….

73. Leadership Implications
•Correct leader-follower matching is more critical to influence dyad
functioning than leader inclination alone.
•Arrogance is reaffirmed as a negative influence attribute.
•MVS balance/mix among enterprise leaders may serve to forestall
nonproductive or toxic culture development.
73
If this study’s results are valid, then….

74. Army Leader Development Implications
•Pentathlete/Decathlete wide-area expertise, deficit-fixing, leader
development models should be avoided.
•Grounding leader development initiatives with inherent predilections
narrows what must be mastered and begets harmonious growth
aligned with natural proclivities.
•Strengths-based deep-mastery development begets referential and
expert influence.
•The sooner a leader knows and understands his or her underlying
motivations the better. “Wish I had known this at 22, not 52.”
•Traditional deficit-fixing developmental approaches should be
scrapped in favor of strengths-based development.
74
If this study’s results are valid, then….

75. Army Doctrinal Implications
•“Leadership as a process” paradigms should be revisited (See next
slide).
•Underlying leader motivations as an influence behavior antecedent
should be addressed in leadership doctrine. Motivations precede
attributes, traits, behaviors, and competencies (These are
motivation's result).
•Transformational leadership as the Army ideal must be revisited.
Transformative Army leaders (High RED MVS) may spawn
unproductive or toxic cultures.
•Army Civilian leaders are more servant, transactional, and situational
than transformational.
75
If this study’s results are valid, then….

76. •As a power-based relationship, leader influence sources (power
forms) must be addressed in doctrine. Understanding power’s impact
on person-to-person influence dyads is central to leadership.
•Army Civilians have significant managerial responsibilities and
regularly practice management. Management Doctrine to compliment
Leadership Doctrine must be developed and promulgated. Leadership
and management doctrine must be distinctly different.
•Management must be taught in PME and CES.
76
If this study’s results are valid, then….
Army Doctrinal Implications

77. Army Leadership Definitions
Current: “Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing
purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve
the organization” (ADRP 6-22, Para 1-1).
Recommended: Leadership is an influence relationship which provides
purpose, direction, and inspiration to accomplish missions, improve
organizations, and builds trust.
Rationale:
•If A: Leader-follower interactions (relationships) are how people are influenced.
•If B: Leadership cannot occur unless an interpersonal dyad exists.
•If C: In order for one human (Leader) to influence another (Follower), personalized interaction must occur.
•If D: Influence power is actualized through relationships.
•If E: Influence is actualized by leveraging relationship power disparities.
•If F: If no person-to-person interaction takes place, no influence occurs; therefore, leadership is not present.
•If G: Leadership is a relationship because someone (not something) is being influenced.
•If H: Motivations are personalized mindsets which significantly impact leader and follower interaction.
•If G: Processes can be (and regularly are) executed without human interaction.
•If H: Relationships require human interaction; processes don’t.
•If I: Processes are comprehensive core functions which accomplish an assignment or produce a product. Processes are
comprised of procedures, methods, and work instructions.
•Therefore, A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I: Leadership as a relationship more aptly describes leader-follower dyads, contemporizes
leadership thought, and eradicates 19th-century era Scientific Management principles resident in “leadership as a process”
thinking.
77
“If trust is the bedrock of our profession, then a leader’s actions must produce it”.

78. Future Research
• SDI MVS to Follower Typologies.
• Motivation to behavior instrument linkages (MBTI/LSI).
• Army Officer and Civilian management proficiency
comparison.
• Expanded Sample/Population.
78
• Boundary MVS to
Leadership Approach.
• MVS conflict sequences to
TKI Conflict style
inventory.

79. Backup Slides
79

80. Shadow Structures
“Informal Socially Constructed Networks”
REDs most likely like Shadow Structures because they improve
execution
GREENs most likely dislike Shadow Structures because they challenge
the established order, legitimate structure, and don’t always follow
established procedures.
BLUEs
HUBs understand Shadow Structure utility and take a pragmatic
approach. Depnind on the situation, they can be a positive or a
negative impact.

81. Without power, there is no influence. Power is “the capacity or
potential to influence” (Souza, 2010).
Reference: Souza, 2010; ADP 6-22, Page
ii and Para 11; ADRP 6-22, Para 6-55
and 9-7; FM 6-22, Para 5-4 and 7-16.
• Referential Power: Based on followers’ identification with and liking for the
leader.
• Expert Power: Based on follower perception of leader competence and
knowledge.
• Information Power: Derived from possessing information or knowledge others
want or need.
• Legitimate Power: Stems from positional appointment; associated with having
formal job authority.
• Reward Power: Derived from capacity to reward, compensate, or incentivize
others.
• Coercive Power: Derived from ability to discipline, punish, or penalize others.
Power Sources
81
a = Leadership requires influence.
b = Influence requires a power source.
c = Leadership is a power driven influence process.
c is a function of b + a.

82. 6-5. Influence is the essential element of leadership. Influence refers to how people create and relay their messages, behaviors, and attitudes to affect the
intentions, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes of another person or group of people. Influence depends upon relationships where leaders build positive
rapport and a relationship of mutual trust, making followers more willing to support requests. Examples include showing personal interest in a follower’s
well-being, offering praise, and understanding a follower’s perspective. Army leaders have choices in methods of influence based on audience, intent, and
expected reaction.
6-6. Pressure is applied when leaders use explicit demands to achieve compliance, such as establishing task completion deadlines with negative
consequences imposed for unmet completion. This method should be used infrequently since it tends to trigger resentment from followers, especially if
the pressure becomes severe. When followers perceive that pressures are not mission-related but originate from their leader's attempt to please superiors
for personal recognition, resentment can quickly undermine an organization's morale, cohesion, and quality of performance. Pressure is a good choice
when the stakes are high, time is short, and previous attempts at achieving commitment have not been successful.
6-7. Legitimating occurs when leaders establish their authority as the basis for a request when it may not be obvious. In the military, certain jobs must be
done regardless of circumstances when subordinate leaders receive legitimate orders from higher headquarters. Reference to one’s position suggests to
those being influenced that there is the potential for official action if the request is not completed.
6-8. Exchange is an influence method that leaders use when they make an offer to provide some desired item or action in trade for compliance with a
request. Exchange requires that the leaders control certain resources or rewards valued by those being influenced. A four-day pass as reward for excelling
during a maintenance inspection is an example of exchange.
6-9. Personal appeals occur when the leader asks the follower to comply with a request based on friendship or loyalty. This may be useful in a difficult
situation when mutual trust is the key to success. The leader appeals to the follower by highlighting special talents and professional trust for
encouragement before taking on a tough mission. An S3 might ask a staff officer to brief at an important commander's conference if the S3 knows the staff
officer will do the best job conveying information
6-10. Collaboration occurs when the leader cooperates in providing assistance or resources to carry out a directive or request. The leader makes the
choice more attractive by being prepared to step in and resolve problems. A major planning effort before a deployment for humanitarian assistance would
require possible collaboration with unified action partners.
6-11. Rational persuasion requires the leader to provide evidence, logical arguments, or explanations showing how a request is relevant to the goal. This is
often the first approach to gaining compliance or commitment from followers and is likely to be effective if the leader is recognized as an expert in the
specialty area in which the influence occurs. Leaders often draw from their own experience to give reasons why some task can be accomplished because
the leader has tried it and done it.
6-12. Apprising happens when the leader explains why a request will benefit a follower, such as giving greater satisfaction in their work or performing a
task a certain way that will save time. In contrast to exchange, the benefits are out of the control of the leader. A commander may use the apprising
method to inform a newly assigned NCO that serving in a staff position, before serving as a platoon sergeant, could provide invaluable experience. The
commander points out that the additional knowledge may help the NCO achieve higher performance and possibly lead to an accelerated promotion.
6-13. Inspirational appeals occur when the leader fires up enthusiasm for a request by arousing strong emotions to build conviction. A leader may stress to
a fellow leader that without help, the safety of the team may be at risk. By appropriately stressing the results of stronger commitment, a unit leader can
inspire followers to surpass minimal standards and reach elite performance status.
6-14. Participation occurs when the leader asks others to take part in his processes to address a problem or meet an objective. Active participation leads to
an increased sense of worth and recognition. It provides value to the effort and builds commitment to execute. By involving key leaders at all levels during
planning, senior leaders ensure that their followers take stock in the vision. These subordinates will later be able to pursue critical intermediate and long-
term objectives, even after senior leaders have moved on.

83. Perspective Defined
Perspective: A predilection, viewpoint, lens, mindset, frame of reference, or
way of looking at something to discern its nature.
Leader leader .
Leader a .
“Six”“Nine”
Decision Science theory defines “mindset” as assumptions, visualizations,
or notions held by catalytic system agents.
Leader Perspective: The viewpoint, lens, mindset, or reference frame
employed by a person who influences others to accomplish goals, take
action, and change thinking.
Reference: Forsythe, G. (1992). The Preparation of Strategic leaders. Parameters, Spring 1992.
83

84. • AMSC currently employs Strength Deployment Inventory in both resident AC and IC.
• More than 2/3 of AMSC’s faculty are certified SDI administrators.
• Although informative, little scholarly evidence exists to support operationalizing a student’s SDI Motivational Value System (MVS).
• Once operationalized, a student’s SDI MVS can be used to inform AMSC student coaching.
• Better informed student coaching will enhance AMSC student leader identity development.
• If correlated, SDI MVS can be leveraged to inform a “strengths-based” approach to learner development.
• Currently, AMSC is consumer of leadership scholarly knowledge, but only a marginal contributor. SDI to leadership construct linkages will significantly contribute to the wider body of
scholarly leadership and management research.
Introduction to the Study

85. 85
•Internal motivation leads to an approach.
•An approach leads to specific leader behaviors.
Motivation to Behavior
BLUE MVS  Relationship Focus Servant Approach  Servant Behaviors
RED MVS  Self-Assertion Focus Transformative Approach  Transformational Behaviors
GREEN MVS  Logic Focus Transactional Approach  Transactional Behaviors
HUB MVS  Situational Focus Contingent Approach  Contextual Behaviors
Motivation Behaviors
Results in…Leads to…
Approach
•Stimulus
•Impulsion
•Inclination
•Drive
•Pedispostion
•Methodology
•Modus Operandi
•Mind-set
•Orientation
•Technique
•Conduct
•Actions
•Performance
•Ways
•Dealings

86. “There are as many leadership definitions as there are those who write about it”
--Bernard Bass, 1990
Theories Not Addressed:
• Self Leadership
• Collective Leadership
• Arts and Humanities Leadership
• Role Theory
• Shared Leadership
• Connective Leadership
• Machiavellian Leadership
• Integral Leadership
• Participative Leadership
• Least PreferRED Co-Worker
• Normative Leadership
• Worthy Leadership
Servant
Leadership
High
Laissez-Faire
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
Leader-Member
Exchange
Situational
Leadership
Path-Goal
Leadership
Personal Power Positional Power
Authentic
Leadership
Charisma and Maturity Low
Skills/Behavior
Leadership
Non-
Transactional
Approach
Trait/Attribute
Leadership
Transactional
(Quid-pro-Quo)
Leadership
Identity Power
3-Skill
Approach
Competency
Approach
Big 5
(5-Factor
Model)
Impoverished
Management
Country Club
Management
Authority-
Compliance
Leadership
Team
Management
Directive
Supportive
Participative
Achievement
Contingency
Leadership
Leader-
Follower
Dyad
Idealized
Influence
Inspirational
Motivation
Individualized
Consideration
Intellectual
Stimulation
Practical
Approach
Theoretical
Approach
Great Man
Theory
Leadership Spectrum

87. Operationalize: To move from theory to practical employment; to put into operation. In research
design, operationalization measures a phenomenon not directly measurable, though its existence
as indicated by other phenomena.
Motivational Value System: A constant motive and value system which serves to give purpose to
behavior, focus attention, and impact self perceptions and assessments of others. Inner stimulus
for action.
Transformational Leader: A person with the requisite power to comprehensively modify someone
or something thereby producing an enhanced appearance or utility.
Transformational Leadership: A change-seeking, achievement-oriented influence approach,
comprised of four subcomponents.
1. Intellectual Stimulation: Consistent leader-placed educational, progression, and innovative challenges requiring increased
follower performance.
2. Idealized Influence: Leader serves as an ideal role model for followers; the leader "walks the talk," and is admiRED for the
image they portray.
3. Individualized Consideration: TailoRED leader concern and personal attention to follower developmental and supportive
needs.
4. Inspirational Motivation: A leader’s charisma and ability to inspire and motivate followers. (Phipps, 2011).
Key Definitions
Not assessed due to discriminate validity concerns

88. Transactional Leader: A person who employs legitimate power to set goals and articulate
explicit agreements regarding follower expectations and rewards.
Transactional Leadership: A reward or coercive power-based influence process comprised of
Contingent Reward and Management-by-Exception (MBE) sub-factors.
• Contingent reward: An leader-led, manager-employee interaction wherein a person with reward or coercive power
supplies rewards or punishment to another dependent upon particular behaviors or results.
• Management by Exception: A management process whereby only significant deviations from plan are brought to a
manager’s attention. Only on those areas in need of action or deviate from the norm receive leader/manager attention.
Servant Leader: A dedicated or devoted person who altruistically attends to another, cause, or
belief with ethical, empowering, supportive, and empathetic behaviors.
Servant Leadership: A follower-centric, self-sacrificing, beneficent influence process which
seeks collaborative decision making and enhances follower growth while improving
organizational life quality.
Situational Leader: A person who recognizes no single best influence method and tailors his or
her leader behaviors to the internal and external situation.
Situational Leadership: An influence process whereby leaders adjust their influence methods
based on numerous internal and external variables.
Key Definitions

89. •Derived from medieval Latin word motivus which means “to impel”
•An individualized need which accounts for a person’s intensity, direction and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.
•Conscious pressure or energy toward action, motivations direct behaviors.
•Behavior's root cause, a motive prompts action in a certain way, or spurs inclination
toward specific behavior.
•Motivation begets action or is a behavior antecedent.
Motivation
Motivation
Theories
Cognitive
Theories
Social-
Cognition
Theories
Humanistic
Theories
Behavioral
Theories
Psychoanalytical
Theories
Social-
Learning
Theories
Elias Porter
1914-1987
Relationship Awareness Theory
•Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI)
• Strength’s Portraits (SP)

90. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
•Developed in 1986 by Bruce Aviolo and Bernard Bass.
•Identifies presence and strength of Full Range of Leadership.
•Points to leader approach and directions toward being a more
effective leader.
•Comes in four (rate, rater, team, and organizational
development) versions.
•Has evolved over last 30 years in response to numerous
investigations.
•Until mid-2000’s, most leadership theory research involved
MLQ.
•Although organized studies have openly criticized MLQ 5X TL
presence identification, its capacities have yet to be
disproved. (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011)
•Vast preponderance of evidence suggests MLQ is the most
mature, most inspected, and most critiqued leadership
instrument in the field.

91. Servant Leadership 7
•Developed as a 28-item instrument in 2008 to operationalize
Robert GREENleaf’s Servant Leadership theory.
•Focuses on combatting negative outcomes associated with
promoting one's self-interest.
•Although relatively immature, multiple CFA ad Meta-analyses
provide strong support.
•Correlations between SL-7 and SL-28 scales range from .78 to .97
•Internal consistency reliabilities over .80
•Significant criterion-related validities for SL-7 parallel those found
with SL-28.
•Captures how often leaders put followers first, promote helping
the larger community, and provide meaningful help to followers.
•Reliably and validly measures Servant Leader identity.
•SL7 serves as an overall servant leadership instrument which
captures SL dimensions while providing additional validation of the
full 28-item measure.
Robert GREENleaf
1904-1990

92. SL II Fitness Test
•Fifth generation instrument measuring Ken Blanchard
and Paul Hersey’s 1970’s-era Situational Leadership
approach.
•Developed by Blanchard as a successor to Leader
Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD)
instrument.
•Intended to identify leader adaptability and fluidity in
goal setting, diagnosing, and matching. However,
scoring (construct) validity are often questioned.
•Psychometric testing indicate acceptable instrument
reliability through test-retest methods, but insufficient
internal consistency (.61 to .81)
•Ascertains how well leaders align tasks, assess
follower competencies, and employ an appropriate
leadership approach to fit the situation.
•Determines how often leaders employ telling, selling,
participating, and delegating behaviors.
Paul Hersey
1931-2012
Ken Blanchard
1936-

93. •Binary Decision. Yes-No, Go-NoGo, This-That, and Either-Or
selections.
•Polychotomous Decision. Selecting from among three or
more options or alternatives.
•Contingent Decisions. When conditions are uncertain; An
alternative selected once some condition is met.
•Analytical Decision: A scientific, quantitative, metric-driven
approach requiring situational certainty and accuracy to
achieve an “optimal” solution.
•Intuitive Decision: A pattern-recognition approach
whereby the decision maker selects an “acceptable”
alternative susceptible to heuristic induced bias.
Decision Types
Decision Choices

94. Resistance: Active opposition to influence. Stems from perceived
threats associated with possible reduction in personal freedoms.
Occurs in instances when heavy pressure is applied. Measured by
degree of Defiance.
Reference: ADRP 6-22, Para 6-2, 6-18, and 7-11; ATP 6-22.6; TC 6-22.6.
Compliance: Follower conformance to a requirement or demand.
MeasuRED by degree of Acquiescence.
Commitment: Willing follower dedication or allegiance to a cause or
organization. MeasuRED by degree of Dedication.
Engagement: Elevated follower eagerness comprised of inspired
action, dauntless effort, and loyal devotion. Measured by degree of
Intensity.
Follower Motivations
94

95. Referential Power Coercive Power
Reward Power
Expert Power Knowledge Power Legitimate Power
Power Source
Engagement ResistanceCommitment Compliance
Increasing Motivation
Increasing Compulsion
Star
Followers
Disaffected
FollowersPassive FollowersPragmatic Followers
Conformist Followers
Pressure
Legitimating
Apprising
Rational Persuasion
Personal Appeal
Exchange
Collaboration
Participation
Inspirational Appeal
Willingness: The readiness, desire, or inclination to do something. (Merriam-Webster, 2017)
Compulsion: Forcing or being forced to do something using pressure, intimidation, or coercion. (Merriam
Webster, 2017)
Willingness Continuum
Reference: ADRP 6-22, Chapter 6; TC 6-22.6 (2017). Employee Engagement
95

96. 96
38% 61%
1%
Approach 1: “My leader focuses
on my strengths or positive
characteristics.”
Approach 2: “My leader focuses
on my weakness or negative
characteristics.”
22%
33%
45%
3%
57%
40%
Engaged Followers Unengaged Followers Alienated Followers
Approach 3: “My leader ignores
me.”
Reference: US Army Office of Business Transformation (2017).
Follower Engagement
“A Leader’s approach matters…”

97. Management: An impersonal functioning process which
controls and synchronizes internal structures, processes,
procedures, and systems.
Followership: A reciprocal process of leadership, refers to
the capacity or willingness to follow within a team or
organization. (ADRP 6-22, Para 1-16)
Leadership: An influence process which provides
purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the
mission and improve the organization. (ADRP 6-22, Para 1-5)
Definitions: Processes
97

98. Leader
Follower
Manager
Referential Power
Expert Power
Legitimate Power
Reward Power
Coercive Power
Information Power
Influence Path References: Souza, 2010; ADP 6-22, Page ii and Para 11; ADRP 6-22, Para 6-
55 and 9-7; FM 6-22, Para 5-4 and 7-16.
Power Connections
98

99. Construction Slides
99

100. Positive Correlation Negative Correlation
+1 0 -1
Perfect
Negative
Correlation
Perfect
Positive
Correlation
Both Variables Rise One Variables Rises; Other Falls

101. Follower
Attributes
Leader
Attributes
Relationship Factors
Competence
Friendliness
Meticulousness
Self Evaluation
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Humility
Character
Empathy
Expertise
Sound Judgement
Professionalism
Mental Agility
Fitness
Confidence
Discipline
Tact
Similarity
Liking
Ingratiation
Self-Promotion
Assertiveness
Trust
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Antecedents

102. CESL
Pay Band Equivalent
GS-1/5 GS-6/9 GS-10/12 GO/SESGS-14/15GS-13
Advance Course (AC)
Intermediate
Course (IC)
Basic Course (BC)
Supervisor Development Course (SDC/SDC-R)
Action Officer Development Course (SDC/SDC-R)
Foundation Course (FC)
Organizational Leader
Development Course (OLDC)
Executive
Supervisor
Development
Course
(SDC-EX)
Manager Development
Course
102

103. Stage 1: Purposively selected course students. Purposively selected courses during February
and March 2018.
Stage 3: Randomly selected MVS Color Questionnaire
Advanced Course
Intermediate Course
Both Courses
Advanced Course
Intermediate Course
Both Courses
Intermediate Course
Stage 2: randomly selected classes chosen as participants.
103

104. HALLWAY
HALLWAY
HALLWAY
AMSC STAFF AND FACULTY
CR 373
SR 17
CR 376
SR 19
CR 378
SR 20
CR 375
SR 18 (Not Used)
CR 366
SR 13
CR 371
SR 16
CR 370
SR 15 (Not Used)
CR 367
SR 14
CR 360
SR 10
CR 361
SR 11
CR 357
SR 15 (Not Used)
CR 364
SR 12
CR 350
SR 6 (Not Used)
CR 344
SR 4 (Not Used)
CR 340
SR 2
CR 347
SR 5
CR 351
SR 7
CR 354
SR 8
CR 343
SR 3
CR 339
SR 1

105. Theoretical Linkages
Servant
Leadership
Laissez-Faire
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
Leader-Member
Exchange
Situational
Leadership
Path-Goal
Leadership
Authentic
Leadership
Leadership Spectrum
Skills/Behavior
Leadership
Trait/Attribute
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership
Motivation
Theories
Cognitive
Theories
Social-
Cognition
Theories
Humanistic
Theories
Behavioral
Theories
Psychoanalytical
Theories
Social-
Learning
Theories

106. •First articulated in 1976 by Elias Porter.
•Independent rediscovery which paralleled Freud’s seven normal personality types.
•Validated self-awareness and meaningful inter-personal dialogue enhancement
theory.
•Supports Q-sort subjectivity research to study participant viewpoints and investigate
participant perspectives or thinking on an issue.
•Practical application in study of confronting problems.
•Two parts: Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI) and Strengths Portrait (SP).
•SDI: Motivational typology
•Strength’s Portrait: Personality and behaviors
Relationship Awareness Theory
Elias Porter
1914-1987
Anchor and buoy

107. Rational thinking either occurs, partially occurs, or fails to occur between motive
and action bounded by one’s ethical underpinnings. Either consciously, pseudo-
consciously or unconsciously, a leader assumes an approach which in turn, drives
influence behavior intensity and actions taken.
Motivation to Behavior
Influence
Behavior
Leadership Approach
Assumed
Ignition
Stimulus
Conscious Functioning
Subconscious Functioning
Pseudo-Conscious Functioning
Motivation
Servant
Situational
Transformative
Transactive
Character: A leader’s ethical habits.

108. Leader Identity Development
References: Komives et al., 2005; Komives, et al., 2006; Komives, Lucas & McMahon, 2006; Renn & Ozaki, 2010.
Not the “doing” of a leader; but “being” a leader.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6
Positional Influence Personal InfluenceKey
Transition
Point
Awareness
Others are
leaders; I am not.
Generativity
I influence IAW a
philosophy
(Principles and
Precepts)
Exploration &
Engagement
I’d Like to/Want to
be a leader, I
think.
Identification
I am leader
because I have
been appointed
the leader.
Differentiation
Leadership is a
relationship and
happening
everywhere.
Integration
I lead with a
higher purpose
within an
enterprise.
Feedback and Interpretation

109. Transformational
Leadership
Individualized
Consideration
Intellectual
Stimulation
Inspirational
Motivation
Idealized
Influence
Meta-Competencies
“TheFourIs”

111. DQ2 General Conclusions
Management by
Exception (MBE)
α(32) = .524
Contingent Reward (CR)
Apprising
α(78) = .578
Transactional Leadership
α(78) = .459
All GREENs
Contingent Reward (CR)
Pressure or Exchange
α(78) = -.265
Perfect Positive
Correlation
+.5-.5
Perfect Negative
Correlation
High GREENs
Positive CorrelationNegative Correlation +10-1
No Correlation

112. DQ3 General Conclusions
Perfect Positive
Correlation
+.5-.5
Perfect Negative
Correlation
Inspirational
Motivation (IM)
α(77) = .458
Intellectual
Stimulation (IS)
α(77) = .430
Transformational Leadership
α(77) = .438
Idealized
Influence (II)
α(77) = -.267
Inspirational
Motivation (IM)
α(24) = .568
Idealized
Influence (II)
α(24) = -.033
Intellectual
Stimulation (IS)
α(24) = .582
All REDs
High REDs
Positive CorrelationNegative Correlation +10-1
No Correlation

113. DQ1 General Conclusions
All BLUEs
Servant Leadership (SL)
α(85) = .708
Positive CorrelationNegative Correlation +10-1
Perfect Negative
Correlation
Perfect Positive
Correlation
+.5-.5
No Correlation

114. DQ4 General ConclusionsTrue HUB
Situational Leadership
Deviations
α(88) = -.529
HUBs
Positive CorrelationNegative Correlation +10-1
Perfect Negative
Correlation
Perfect Positive
Correlation
+.5-.5
No Correlation
Non-HUB
Situational Leadership
Deviations
α(28) = .049
Positive CorrelationNegative Correlation +10-1
Perfect Negative
Correlation
Perfect Positive
Correlation
+.5-.5
No Correlation

115. MVS
Type
Instrument
µ
Army
Civilian µ
High MVS
(42.5+)
µ
µ Difference SD SD Diff
BLUE 10.00 13.59 16.82 +3.59/+.6.82 3.98/3.55 +.90/+1.92
GREEN 12.00 15.12 17.38 +3.12/+5.38 6.22/6.95 +.50/+.77
RED 18.00 18.52 21.50 +.52/+3.50 6.12/6.35 +.08/+.55
MVS
Type
Instrument
µ
Non-HUB
µ
True HUB
MVS µ
µ Difference SD SD Diff
HUB 14.00 12.24 18.20 -1.76/+4.20 3.68/2.67 -.47/+1.57
115

116. Positive Monotonic Negative Monotonic 116
Servant Leader
Spiritual Generative
Culture
EthicalAltruism
FollowerGrowth
SelfSacrifice
Follower
Empowerment
ConceptualSkill
HolisticApproach
toWork
ServicetoOthers

117. Overall Central Tendencies
Note: HUB Data is normalized
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Blue Green Red HUB
All
High
All
High
All
High
Non-HUB
TrueHUB
Instrument
Item
µ = 2.00
µ=2.72
µ=3.69
µ=2.52
µ=2.90
µ=2.06
µ=2.39
µ=1.71
µ=3.23
117

119. Instrument Central Tendencies
0
5
10
15
20
25
Blue Green Red HUB
All
High
All
High
All
High
Non-HUB
TrueHUB
µ=13.59
µ=16.82
Instrument
Instrument
Instrument
Instrument
µ=10
µ=15.12
µ=17.38
µ=12
µ=18.52
µ=21.50
µ=18
µ=12.25
µ=18.20
µ=14
119

120. 13 Conflict
Sequences
3 “boundary”
MVS
Motive to
Behavior
Expanded
Sample/
Population
Follower
Motivations
Officer vs
Civilian
Management
Avenue of Inquiry

121. DQ2: GREENs to Transactional
•As an Army Civilian leader becomes more GREEN, their transactional
influence behavior frequency increases moderately. 121
Subscale α Strength
MBE .524 Positive
Strong
Subscale Influence Method Strength
Contingent
Reward
Pressure or Exchange
α=-.265
Negative
Moderate
Apprising α=.578 Positive Strong