Leadership Orientations Survey

To:            Potential Users of Leadership Orientations Instruments

From:       Lee Bolman

Subject:  Permissions and How to Use

I. Permission

On request, we routinely grant permission for non-commercial, research use of the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Survey Instruments. We do ask that users agree to provide us with copies of any publication, thesis or research report that they produce using data from our Instruments, and that they submit to us, if we request it, a copy of their data file.  Write to lee@bolman.com to request permission.

II. Using the Instruments

The Leadership Orientations comes in parallel versions: Self (for people to rate themselves) and  Others (for ratings from colleagues). They can be downloaded here: Ldror self and other 698. Research has  found  that the validity of self-ratings of leadership is generally low, so there is a considerable advantage in getting colleague ratings.

Both versions have three sections:

Section I:

This section contains rating scales, and the items are in a consistent frame sequence: structural (items 1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29), human resource (items 2, 6, etc.), political (items 3, 7,…), symbolic (items 4, 8…).

There are also sub-scales within each frame, again in a consistent sequence: analytic (items 1, 9, 17, 25), supportive (2, 10, 18, 26), powerful (items 3, 11,19,27), inspirational (4,12,20,28), organized (5,13,21,29), participative(6,14,22,30), adroit(7,15,23,31), charismatic (8,16,24,32). In our own research, we have primarily used the 8-item frame measures. We have primarily used the 4-item sub-scales for management development rather than research applications.

Section II.

The second section contains six forced-choice items. The options under each item are arranged in the same sequence: structural, human resource, political, symbolic.

Section III.

This section has two one-item measures: effectiveness as a manager, and effectiveness as a leader. (Expanding the number of items to measure effectiveness would be a good way to strengthen the instrument, and we encourage users to do that.)

Reliability of Leadership Orientations Scales:

Reliability statistics for Leadership Orientations (Based on approximately 1,300 colleague ratings for a multi-sector sample of managers in business and education).

Structural Frame (Section I)

Data below are based on 1309 complete cases for 8 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation: .875

Spearman Brown Coefficient .933

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .933

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .920

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .856

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .834

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Human Resource Frame (Section I)

Data below are based on 1331 complete cases for 8 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .867

Spearman Brown Cofficient .929

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .929

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .931

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .902

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .843

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Political Frame (Section I)

Data below are based on 1268 complete cases for 8 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .837

Spearman Brown Coefficient .911

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .911

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .913

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .839

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .842

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Symbolic frame (Section I)

Data below are based on 1315 complete cases for 8 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .882

Spearman Brown Coefficient .937

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .936

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .931

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .846

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .887

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Structural Frame (Section II forced-choice)

Data below are based on 1229 complete cases for 6 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .644

Spearman Brown Coefficient .783

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .780

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .841

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .743

Coefficient Alpha 9 (Even Items) .782

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Human resource frame (Section II forced-choice)

Data below are based on 1233 complete cased for 6 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .755

Spearman Brown Coefficient .861

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .856

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .843

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .626

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .792

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Political frame (Section II forced-choice)

Data below are based on 1218 complete cases for 6 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .708

Spearman Brown Coefficient .829

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .824

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .799

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .680

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .602

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)

Symbolic frame (Section II forced-choice)

Data below are based on 1221 complete cases for 6 data items.

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split Half Correlation .825

Spearman Brown Coefficient .904

Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .892

Coefficient Alpha (All Items) .842

Coefficient Alpha (Odd Items) .701

Coefficient Alpha (Even Items) .682

ITEM RELIABILITY STATISTICS (Item excluding standard total reliability this item.)