The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire generates a psychological inventory from propositions that aim to assess leadership styles and leadership outcomes: it is a multi-rater (or 360-degree) instrument, which means that its output—the MLQ 360 Leader's Report—interprets and compares a leader's self-assessment with ratings contributed across the same items by associates. This presentation reflects on a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire exercise conducted in May 2020.

1. Reflections on a Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire 360 Leader's Report
Olivier Serrat
2020

2. The Full Range Leadership Model: Three Leadership Styles
Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced the Full Range Leadership Model to shine light on the
ability and behavior of leaders in different work situations. The model owes much to Burns's
(1978) trait-based approach to leadership, from whose work Bass (1985) drew heavily.
The Full Range Leadership Model condenses all leadership approaches into motivation,
stimulation, and influencing (transformational leadership); management-by-exception and
contingent reward (transactional leadership); and de facto denial of responsibility for
leadership (passive–avoidant or laissez-faire behaviors) (Avolio & Bass, 1991).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire borne out of Avolio and Bass (1991) is used to
assess leadership ability and behavior across many cultures and types of organizations—with
a view to training and coaching but also selection, transfer, and promotion activities—and is
much referenced in organizational studies (Mind Garden, n.d.).

3. The Full Range Leadership Model: Categories & Associated
Behaviors
Transformational
Leadership
• Builds Trust
• Acts with Integrity
• Encourages Others
• Encourages Innovative Thinking
• Coaches & Develops People
Transactional
Leadership
• Rewards Achievement
• Monitors Deviations & Mistakes
Passive–Avoidant
(or Laissez-Faire)
Leadership
• Fights Fires
• Avoids Involvement

4. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Rater Population
Organizational
Level
Number of Raters Gender
Male Female
Above 2 2 0
Same 4 3 1
Lower 2 0 2
Other 6 3 3
Total 14 8 6
Note. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire survey was launched in the second week of May 2020. My MLQ 360
Leader's Report was issued on May 19, 2020. Ten of the 14 raters are former colleagues, associated with my work in
environmental management, evaluation, information and communication technology, project design and administration,
public relations, and strategic planning; one worked with me from a different organization; and three are students at
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

5. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Summation (1)
All the aggregates scores for transformational leadership in my MLQ 360 Leader's
Report were above the ideal frequency by 0.2–0.4 points.
The aggregate score for constructive transactional leadership is above the ideal
frequency range by 0.3 points.
The aggregate core for corrective transactional leadership is outside the ideal
frequency range by only 0.1 points.
All aggregate scores for passive–avoidant behaviors are within the ideal
frequency range.
The aggregate scores for outcomes of leadership are below the ideal frequency
range by 0.3 points in two out of three scales. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report does
not flag this as an area for development but the matter assuredly demands
attention in the future.

6. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Summation (2)
Feedback from raters at same (aka Same) and lower (aka Lower) organizational
levels, or 10 of 14 individuals who took part in the survey and offered feedback,
is here and there higher, sometimes by as much as 0.6 points, than that of raters at
higher (aka Above) and other (aka Other) organizational levels.
The aggregate scores recorded in my MLQ 360 Leader's Report show that my
behaviors as perceived by the raters are in every instance higher than the
universal norm (N=3,755). Even so, my MLQ 360 Leader's Report flags two areas
for development.
My MLQ 360 Leader's Report does not suggest areas that the raters but not I see
leadership strengths in. That said, I deemed myself—across all scales—as being
stronger than my raters see me. "Ambition is not what man does … but what man
would do," Robert Browning was reinterpreted as saying. Then again, one should
not hang on miracles.

7. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Aggregate Scores
Category Scale Score (Rater's Average) Ideal Frequency
Transformational Leadership* Builds Trust 3.3 ≥3.0
Acts with Integrity 3.3 ≥3.0
Encourages Others 3.4 ≥3.0
Encouraged Innovative
Thinking
3.4 ≥3.0
Coaches & Develops People 3.2 ≥3.0
Transactional Leadership Rewards Achievement 3.3 2.0 – 3.0
Monitors Deviations & Mistakes 2.1 1.0 – 2.0
Passive–Avoidant Behaviors Fights Fires 0.5 0.0 – 1.0
Avoids Involvement 0.1 0.0 – 1.0
Outcomes of Leadership Generates Extra Effort 3.2 ≥3.5
Is Productive 3.2 ≥3.5
Generates Satisfaction 3.5 ≥3.5
* The average score of my transformational leadership is 3.3. Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 =
Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.

8. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Feedback by Rater Level
Category Scale Score
(Rater's
Average)
Above Same Lower Other
Transformational
Leadership
Builds Trust 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.2
Acts with Integrity 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2
Encourages Others 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3
Encouraged Innovative Thinking 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.3
Coaches & Develops People 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.1
Transactional Leadership Rewards Achievement 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.1
Monitors Deviations & Mistakes 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.7
Passive–Avoidant
Behaviors
Fights Fires 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6
Avoids Involvement 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1
Outcomes of Leadership Generates Extra Effort 3.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.1
Is Productive 3.2 2.3 3.5 3.4 3.3
Generates Satisfaction 3.5 3.0 3.6 3.5 3.5
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.

9. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Style Strengths*
Score (Rater's
Average)
Scale Item
3.9 Encourages Others I articulate a compelling vision of the future.
3.9 Encourages Others I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
3.6 Encourages Innovative Thinking I get others to look at problems from many different angles.
3.6 Acts with Integrity I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
3.6 Builds Trust I act in ways that build others' respect for me.
3.5 Encourages Innovative Thinking I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate.
3.4 Encourages Others I express confidence that goals will be achieved.
3.4 Encourages Innovative Thinking I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
3.4 Coaches & Develops People I treat others as individuals rather than just as members of the
group.
3.4 Builds Trust I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
* These style strengths cut across all five scales of transformational leadership. Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in
a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.

10. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Areas for Development
Score (Rater's
Average)
Scale Item
2.3 Encourages Others* I talk optimistically about the future.
2.8 Builds Trust I instill pride in others for being associated with me.
3.0 Encourages Innovative Thinking I seek differing perspectives when solving problems.
3.1 Coaches & Develops People I spend time teaching and coaching.
3.1 Coaches & Develops People I help others to develop their strengths.
3.1 Acts with Integrity I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
3.1 Builds Trust I display a sense of power and confidence.
3.3 Coaches & Develops People I consider each individual as having different needs, abilities, and
aspirations from others.
3.4 Acts with Integrity** I talk about my most important values and beliefs.
3.4 Acts with Integrity** I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
* My MLQ 360 Leader's Report identified that the highest strengths relate to (a) Scale: Encourages Others: I
articulate a compelling vision of the future; and (b) Scale: Encourages Others: I talk enthusiastically about what needs
to be accomplished. ** Oddly, the scores for these two scales are equal to the two lowest scores in my style strengths.
Note. 0.0 = Not at all; 1.0 = Once in a while; 2.0 = Sometimes; 3.0 = Fairly often; 4.0 = Frequently, if not always.

11. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Rater Feedback to Open-
Ended Questions (1)
I found unexpected value in the rater feedback to open-ended questions. Pell-mell, some
advice was to:
• "Be a better listener, be less intense".
• "Don't try to be right all the time and try different, less confronting pathways to achieve
your goal[s]".
• "[Be] more understanding of those who may not meet [your] own productivity standards,
more empathetic, and less inclined to criticize or draw attention to weaknesses".
• "[Be] more inclusive, accepting other people's limits".
• "Tak[e] on board the views of supervisors".
References to "Perfectionism" and "Intolerance or lack of understanding of those who fail to
satisfy his high standards" cropped up too, with words of caution about:
• "Occasionally applying to others the sometimes unrealistically high expectations [I have
of myself]".

12. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Rater Feedback to Open-
Ended Questions (2)
I probably need to manage "upwards" better: rater feedback to open-ended questions drew
attention to:
• "[My] tendency to assume everyone understands [me]".
• "Assumptions that everyone understands the nuances of what [I] try to implement".
• "[My] relationship with authority".
• [The fact that] "[C]onfrontation is not always the right path. Build more coalitions. Don't
theorize too much but stay practical".
Common themes in rater feedback on what was admired were confidence, dedication, moral
standards, passion, self-reflection, tenacity, transparency, trustworthiness, and vision and
strategy. Here is one representative example of a repartee:
• "Strong vision of the future, strong intuition and tension to accomplishment".

13. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning & Goal
Setting (1)
Scale Score
(Rater's Average)
Item Outcome
Encourages Others 2.3 I talk optimistically
about the future.
My associates are motivated by meaning
and challenge.
Changing Myself:
• Communicate a clear scenario of the organization's potential.
• Create a positive and enthusiastic work climate that will energize associates.
• Speak openly about the kinds of rewards I receive from my job.
• Expect resistance to change: anticipating this normal reaction, I will include requisite strategies in the
change process.
• Frequently consider how what I am doing now and plan to do in the future may affect associates.
• Talk about the future.
• Volunteer to lead and help to motivate a group that is struggling with low morale.
• Respond to challenges with optimism and show energy to get them solved. (Bass & Avolio, 2015)

14. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning & Goal
Setting (2)
Scale Score
(Rater's Average)
Item Outcome
Encourages Others 2.3 I talk optimistically
about the future.
My associates are motivated by meaning
and challenge.
Changing How I Relate to Others:
• Communicate clearly with associates and define changes that are being planned.
• Work to encourage the commitment of associates to the organization.
• Build the expectation among associates that money is not the only recognition for high performance.
• Meet with associates to point up how their inputs help deliver the goals of the organization.
• Help associates maintain enthusiasm for their jobs by being enthusiastic myself.
• Motivate employees to take on added responsibility to develop and use their skills to fullest potential.
• Offer support and advice to associates when they are faced with obstacles.
• Recognize early successes, respond with encouragement, and showcase the achievements of my work
unit. (Bass & Avolio, 2015)

15. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning & Goal
Setting (3)
Scale Score
(Rater's Average)
Item Outcome
Builds Trust 2.8 I instill pride in
others for being
associated with me.
My associates have a positive, team-
oriented approach.
Changing Myself:
• Become the "best" representative of associates by volunteering for initiatives.
• Be more relaxed so associates do not feel inhibited by my opinions.
• Recall a person from my past (e.g., an athletic coach, a cultural hero, a fictional character, a mentor, a
supervisor, a teacher) who acted admirably in difficult circumstances. Behave as that person would in
my situation.
• Think of people with whom I am proud to be associated and reflect on why I feel that way.
• Whenever I fear I may act inappropriately, I will consider how I would like associates to behave in
similar circumstances and I will model their behavior.
• Upon meeting someone, I will show a friendly face and display an optimistic attitude. (Bass & Avolio,
2015)

16. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Individual Planning & Goal
Setting (4)
Scale Score
(Rater's Average)
Item Outcome
Builds Trust 2.8 I instill pride in
others for being
associated with me.
My associates have a positive, team-
oriented approach.
Changing How I Relate to Others:
• Focus still more on the qualities of associates.
• Look for opportunities to build relations with associates (e.g., small talk and informal lunch invitations).
• Recognize associates on the occasion of milestones (e.g., birthdays, project completions, promotions,
and years of service). (Bass & Avolio, 2015)

17. My MLQ 360 Leader's Report: Something to Think About
The issue that principally challenged my thinking is well
encapsulated in Mind Garden's (n.d.) remark that leaders must
manage what others believe as well as the reality. If so, shock,
anger, and rejection are both meaningless and unprofitable; one
had better accept as many of the ratings as one can and
determine a course for action because real hope lies there.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the
same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the
development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time,
danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may
develop," said Churchill (1939).

18. The Full Range Leadership Model: Caveats (1)
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire does not take in other dimensions of leadership (e.g.,
authentic, autocratic, democratic, paternalistic). And, it ignores leadership modes (i.e.,
administrative, enabling, and adaptive) (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007)
Marion and Gonzales (2014) noted the difficulty of spotting pseudo-transformational leaders
who are later found to have worked for their self-interest.
The centered leadership approach advocates that leaders should first lead themselves (Barsh,
Mogelof, & Webb, 2010).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ignores the interplay between the external
environment and organizational configuration and the impact that has on organizational
culture and related organizational ideology, thence on leadership and associated behaviors.

19. The Full Range Leadership Model: Caveats (2)
The Multifactor
Leadership
Questionnaire
suffers from the
inherent
limitations of
questionnaire
surveys.
Questionnaires are affordable, easy, and practical ways to gather
quantitative data from a large (and often anonymous) audience, data that
one can then—comfortably and without time constraint—analyze,
compare, and contrast with other results to, say, examine trends or devise
strategies.
But, respondent bias can be an issue; respondents may not understand
questions fully, may interpret them differently, or may leave them
unanswered; respondents may not be entirely truthful; questionnaires
cannot capture emotions or feelings; open-ended questions cannot be
quantified and must be reviewed by a person, not an algorithm; survey
fatigue or lack of accessibility can lead to low completion rates; and lack
of personalization can put off potential respondents.
Other personality inventory tools can amplify, counterpoint, and supplement the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire.

20. Annex: References (1)
Avolio, B, & Bass, B. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced
manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.
Barsh, J., Mogelof, J., & Webb, C. (2010). How centered leaders achieve extraordinary results.
McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 78–88. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/how-centered-leaders-achieve-extraordinary-results
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2015). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader's Workbook. Mind
Garden, Inc.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Churchill, W. (1939, January 7). The British people would rather go down fighting. New
Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/archive/2013/12/british-
people-would-rather-go-down-fighting

21. Annex: References (2)
Marion, R., & Gonzales, L. (2014). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the
practitioner (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Mind Garden. (n.d.). Mind Garden: Tools for positive transformation. Retrieved from
https://www.mindgarden.com/
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 298–318.

22. Quick Response Codes
@Academia.edu
@LinkedIn
@ResearchGate
@Scholar
@SlideShare
@Twitter