ERIC EJ840183: Preferred Leadership Style of Agricultural Education Teachers: An Expression of Epistemological Beliefs about Youth Leadership Development

2007·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

PREFERRED LEADERSHIP STYLE OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION TEACHERS:
AN EXPRESSION OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ABOUT
YOUTH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Bradley C. Greiman, Assistant Professor
Leah S. Addington, Graduate Assistant
University of Minnesota
Timothy G. Larson, Agricultural Education Teacher
Medford High School
Keith R. Olander, Agricultural Education Teacher
Long Prairie-Grey Eagle High School

Abstract

Supported by Bandura’s social cognitive theory, this study examined the preferred leadership
style of agricultural education teachers, and determined if preferred leadership style and
leadership factors differed on selected personal characteristics. The accessible sample consisted
of agricultural education teachers (N = 234) who taught in Minnesota during the 2005-2006
school year, and a 75.2% response rate was achieved. Data were collected using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and this study concluded that agricultural education teachers
are more transformational in their preferred leadership style in contrast to transactional and
laissez-faire styles. Teachers exhibited individualized consideration the most often as a
transformational leadership factor, and used contingent reward the most often as a transactional
leadership factor. A statistically significant difference was not found in preferred leadership
style on gender, years of teaching experience, and highest academic degree earned. However,
two statistically significant differences were found pertaining to the factors comprising
transformational leadership: male and female teachers differed on individualized consideration,
and teachers with bachelor’s degrees and those with master’s degrees differed on intellectual
stimulation.

Introduction successful careers and a lifetime of informed
choices in the global agriculture, food, fiber
Leadership is a respected and highly and natural resources systems” (National
sought after commodity by individuals and FFA Organization, 2006, p. 5). In support of
organizations (Northouse, 2004). Employers this mission, community leaders credited
value leadership (van Linden & Fertman, their experiences in agricultural education
1998), and Maxwell (1998) argued that a with having assisted their leadership
person’s career effectiveness was connected development and career success (Brannon,
to his or her ability to lead and influence Holley, & Key, 1989).
others. Bennis and Nanus (1985) contended Agricultural education teachers have
that all people have leadership potential, been identified as having a major impact on
while Hersey and Blanchard (1993) students’ leadership development (Butters &
recognized that leadership looks different in Ball, 2006). However, little is known about
various situations. In agricultural education, teachers’ personal beliefs on youth
youth leadership development has been leadership development and their preferred
acclaimed as one of the three primary leadership style. Adding further support for
components of a total program, along with this line of inquiry, Avolio and Bass (2004)
classroom instruction and experiential argued that identifying and understanding
learning. Further, the mission of agricultural one’s personal leadership style is necessary
education is to prepare “students for in order to effectively develop leadership in
Journal of Agricultural Education 93 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
others. As such, this study sought to fill a The study of leadership has evolved
gap in the literature (Connors & Swan, from the identification of traits and
2006) by determining the preferred characteristics, to investigating the complex
leadership style of agricultural education relationship between leaders and followers
teachers, arguably the most important person (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2004). While there
to assist youth in developing leadership are different theories that can be used to
through involvement in an agricultural identify and classify leadership styles
education program. (Northouse), the researchers selected the
transformational leadership paradigm to
Theoretical Framework undergird this study. Transformational
leadership was proposed by Burns (1978),
Adults’ epistemological beliefs and the model was further developed by
pertaining to leadership development play Bass (1985) who identified transformational,
an important role when adults interact with transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
youth and provide them with leadership styles. A transformational leadership style is
opportunities. The premise of this study when a leader is interested in helping
identified teachers’ preferred leadership transform people from followers into leaders
style as an outward expression of their (van Linden & Fertman, 1998).
personal epistemological belief about youth Transformational leaders value the
leadership development. As a result, participation and contribution of others,
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory share leadership in the form of group power,
served as the theoretical basis for this study. and are open to delegation. The
The components of this dynamic system transformational leader is process-oriented,
interact as people have life experiences, and the focus is on being a leader (van
which in turn shape their personal and career Linden & Fertman). According to Northouse
development. Bandura’s social cognitive (2004), “transformational leadership is
theory contends that personal factors, concerned with the performance of
environment, and behavior interact to affect followers, and also with developing
each other. The interrelationship among the followers to their fullest potential” (p. 174).
variables means that personal factors can In contrast, a transactional leadership style is
influence the environment and behavior, contingent on a transaction or exchange
environment can influence personal factors between leader and follower that usually
and behavior, and behavior can influence consists of a reward system. Transactional
personal factors and the environment. For leaders value problem and solution
example, a teacher who assists youth in identification, are product-oriented, and
developing leadership skills enters the focus on doing leadership tasks (van Linden
relationship with epistemological beliefs & Fertman). A transactional leadership style
about leadership development (personal promotes taking charge of many traditional
factors), conducts leadership development leadership functions, and making decisions
activities in a school setting that may or may in order to move the group forward, even if
not nurture youth development everyone has not been heard. Transactional
(environment), and these interactions leaders focus more on the outcomes, and
influence the attitude and possibly even the less on the individual’s needs and personal
career commitment of the teacher development (van Linden & Fertman). Bass
(behavior). (1997) argued that transformational and

Journal of Agricultural Education 94 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
transactional leadership styles compliment comprise transactional leadership.
each other, provide a synergistic relationship Contingent reward refers to the exchange
that adds to a leader’s effectiveness, and can that occurs between the leader and the
result in performance beyond expectations follower, whereby the effort of followers is
(Aldoory & Toth, 2004). rewarded by the leader. In this process, the
Avolio and Bass’s (2004) Full Range leader receives agreement from the
Leadership Model incorporates nine followers on the expected outcomes as well
leadership factors, including five factors as the return for work completed
representing transformational leadership, (Northouse, 2004). Management-by
three factors representing transactional exception is displayed by a transactional
leadership, and one factor representing leader in two forms: active or passive.
laissez-faire leadership. In this model, Corrective criticism, negative feedback and
transformational leadership is defined by negative reinforcement are all characteristics
five factors: idealized influence (attributed), of management-by-exception. In the
idealized influence (behavior), inspirational management-by-exception (active) form, the
motivation, intellectual stimulation and leader closely monitors followers for
individualized consideration. Idealized mistakes, and then takes action by correcting
influence is a factor that draws followers to with negative feedback. Management-by-
the leader during interactions. In this exception (passive) is demonstrated when
process, followers are positively influenced the leader intervenes when problems
by a leader who has high standards of moral become serious and if standards have not
and ethical behavior. Leaders that display been met.
idealized influence have a charisma about The ninth factor in Avolio and Bass’s
them and provide their followers with a (2004) Full Range Leadership Model is
sense of mission (Northouse, 2004). laissez-faire leadership, which is
Idealized influence is both an impact and a characterized as a hands-off approach and
behavior (Avolio & Bass, 2004), thus two there is little effort to help followers grow.
leadership factors are necessary: idealized This factor is demonstrated when a leader
influence (attributed) and idealized influence relinquishes responsibility, delays decisions,
(behavior). Inspirational motivation is and fails to follow up requests for assistance.
displayed by leaders who effectively The leader makes no attempt to help
communicate high expectations to followers followers grow personally (Northouse,
and motivate them to commit to a shared 2004).
vision of the organization (Northouse).
Intellectual stimulation is displayed by a Literature Review
transformational leader when he or she
supports followers in using their own Demography theory (Korac-Kakabadse,
creative and innovative problem-solving Korac-Kakabadse, & Myers, 1998) suggests
skills to deal with organizational issues. This that attributes such as age, tenure,
type of leadership promotes followers to occupation, gender, and ethnicity are
challenge their own beliefs and values as compositional characteristics that influence
well as those of the leader (Northouse). interpersonal and group dynamics. Support
Individualized consideration is represented for this theory comes from studies that
by leaders who provide a supportive climate found the personal characteristics of leaders
for their followers. Transformational leaders exerted an influence on the outcomes and
display individualized consideration when successes of an organization (Aldoory &
they act as coaches and mentors, and Toth, 2004; Hambrick & Mason, 1984;
encourage followers to reach their own goals Rosenbusch & Townsend, 2004). Therefore,
and potential (Northouse). the literature review focused on the selected
Contingent reward, management-by- personal characteristics germane to this
exception (active), and management-by- study (i.e., gender, years of teaching
exception (passive) are the three factors that experience, and highest academic degree

Journal of Agricultural Education 95 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
earned), and how these attributes are the government system. Likewise, Moore
connected to leadership style. and Rudd (2006) determined that tenure in
the Extension service was a predictor of
Leadership Style and Gender both transformational and transactional
Research has been conducted since the leadership styles for chief Extension
1970s to determine whether leadership style administrators in each state. In opposition,
differs by gender, and the findings have Spotanski and Carter (1993) found no
been mixed. A number of studies have significant difference in leadership style of
described men as having a tendency for university agricultural education leaders by
transactional leadership, while women have years of experience in the leadership
been portrayed as more transformational position. In a study conducted with
(Bass, 1998; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; community college presidents, it was
Druskat, 1994; Giovanonni, 2001; Maher, reported that there was no relationship
1997; Rosenbusch & Townsend, 2004). between leadership style and number of
Male leaders were more likely to display years at their present position (Wen,
transactional leadership through use of 1999).
management-by-exception (active and
passive), while women leaders engaged in Leadership Style and Highest Academic
more of contingent reward behaviors (Eagly, Degree Earned
Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Previous research was found that
Women leaders were found to exhibit presented conflicting findings regarding
transformational leadership through leadership style and its relationship with
individualized consideration more highest academic degree. Moore and Rudd
frequently than did men (Bycio, Hackett, & (2006) determined that the highest degree
Allen, 1995; Maher), and Komives (1991) earned was a predictor of transactional
reported that female managers self-rated leadership style among senior leaders in the
themselves significantly higher for Extension service. Disagreeing, Sykes
intellectual simulation than did their male (1995) concluded that the level of education
counterparts. In contrast, other scholars have beyond a bachelor’s degree was not a
found no relationship between leadership significant influence on the leadership style
style and gender. For example, D’Ambrosio of county Extension directors.
(2000) and Komives found no gender The agricultural education teacher is a
differences in transformational and key person in fostering the leadership
transactional leadership style ratings. development of students. Previous
Further, Bass (1998) found no difference leadership studies in agricultural education
between men and women leaders regarding have primarily been focused on youth. No
contingent reward and laissez-faire study could be found that identified the
leadership style. preferred leadership style of agricultural
education teachers, and the personal
Leadership Style and Years of characteristics that are connected to
Teaching Experience leadership style.
Only one empirical research study was
found that reported on the relationship of Purpose and Objectives
leadership style and years of teaching
experience. Lord, De Vader, and Alliger The purpose of this study was to
(1986) posited that less experienced teachers examine the preferred leadership style of
were likely to exhibit a transformational agricultural education teachers in
leadership style. In related literature, mixed Minnesota. Additionally, this study sought
results were found regarding the relationship to compare leadership style and leadership
that leadership style had with tenure and job factors on the basis of selected personal
longevity. For example, Athanasaw (2003) characteristics. As a result, the following
reported that the leadership style of senior research objectives were addressed: (a)
executives within the federal government describe the preferred leadership style and
differed as a function of years employed in leadership factors of teachers, and (b)
Journal of Agricultural Education 96 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
determine if the preferred leadership style Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio,
and leadership factors of teachers differed 1995), which was utilized to gather
on the selected personal characteristics of leadership style data from participants. The
gender, years of teaching experience, and MLQ 5X-Short Form consisted of 36 Likert-
highest academic degree earned. type questions that represented nine factors
The following null hypotheses were across three leadership styles:
tested to determine whether there were transformational, transactional, and laissez-
significant findings from the study: faire. The MLQ is a reliable instrument and
has estimates of internal consistency that
Ho There is no statistically significant range from .74 to .94 for the total items and
1
difference in teachers’ preferred for each of the factor scales (Avolio & Bass,
leadership style by gender. 2004). This study achieved a post hoc
Ho There is no statistically significant Cronbach’s alpha of .80 for the total items,
2
difference in teachers’ leadership .88 for the 20 items representing
factors by gender. transformational leadership, .58 for the 12
Ho There is no statistically significant items representing transactional leadership,
3
difference in teachers’ preferred and .49 for the four items representing
leadership style by years of laissez-faire leadership. In the second
teaching experience. section of the questionnaire, participants
Ho There is no statistically significant were asked to provide demographic
4
difference in teachers’ leadership information. The data collection instrument
factors by years of teaching was reviewed for content validity by an
experience. expert panel from across the United States.
Ho There is no statistically significant Panel members were selected for their
5
difference in teachers’ preferred research focus on leadership and/or research
leadership style by highest methodology expertise. Several changes
academic degree earned. were made to the instrument based on the
Ho There is no statistically significant feedback of the expert panel.
6
difference in teachers’ leadership A modified version of Dillman’s
factors by highest academic degree Tailored Design Method (2000) guided the
earned. data collection process. An e-mail pre-notice
was sent to teachers prior to mailing the
Methods and Procedures cover letter, questionnaire, and self-
addressed, stamped envelope. After the first
This study utilized a comparative survey mailing, an e-mail was sent to teachers
research design (Krathwohl, 1998) to collect thanking them for their participation and
and analyze the data. The target population asking for questionnaires from those
for the study was agricultural education teachers who had not yet responded. A
teachers in Minnesota. Based on second mailing and follow-up e-mail was
demographic data, the researchers completed in an effort to gain a
determined that the respondents were a representative response rate. To control for
representative time and place sample of the nonresponse error, the researchers compared
population (Oliver & Hinkle, 1982), and MLQ and demographic information of on-
therefore inferential statistics were utilized time to late respondents (Miller & Smith,
to analyze the data. The accessible 1983). No significant differences were
sample consisted of agricultural education found, thus increasing the generalizability of
teachers (N = 234) who taught in the results.
Minnesota during the 2005-2006 school The Statistical Package for the Social
year. The Minnesota Department of Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 was used to
Education provided the sampling frame for compile and compute the data. Descriptive
the study. statistics, independent samples t tests, and
The data collection instrument was analysis of variance (ANOVA) were utilized
comprised of two sections. The first section to analyze the data. The data were checked
was the Multifactor Leadership for normality, and Levene’s test for equality
Journal of Agricultural Education 97 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
of variances was conducted to assure respondents taught, with a range of 13 to
homogeneity of variance. To test null 850 students. The mean size of an FFA
hypotheses three and four, the researchers chapter was 57 members (SD = 34), with a
developed categories for years of teaching range of 0 to 207 members. An average of
experience based on teacher development 1.4 teachers (SD = .7) comprised an
models (Fessler & Christensen, 1992) and agricultural education department, with a
previous studies from the literature review range of .3 to 3.5 teachers.
(Athanasaw, 2003; Spotanski & Carter, The first objective was to describe the
1993). An alpha level of .05 was established preferred leadership style and leadership
a priori for testing the hypotheses. factors of agricultural education teachers. As
shown in Table 1, teachers had mean
Findings scores of 3.07 (SD = .39) for
transformational leadership, 2.04 (SD = .35)
A total of 176 agricultural education for transactional leadership, and 1.03 (SD =
teachers returned the questionnaire, which .58) for laissez-faire leadership.
represented a 75.2% response rate. The Individualized consideration (M = 3.35, SD
mean age of teachers was 39 (SD = 10.7), = .42) was the highest mean score for a
with a range of 22 to 61 years. Respondents factor within transformational leadership,
had taught agricultural education an average while contingent reward (M = 3.14, SD =
of 14 years (SD = 10.1), with a range of 1 to .45) was reported as the highest mean
36 years. An average of 160 unduplicated score for a factor within transactional
students (SD = 144) were enrolled in leadership.

agricultural education courses where the
Table 1
Preferred Leadership Style of Teachers (n = 176)
Leadership style and factors M SD
Transformational 3.07 .39
Individualized consideration 3.35 .42
Inspirational motivation 3.16 .47
Idealized influence (attributed) 3.00 .46
Idealized influence (behavior) 2.98 .58
Intellectual stimulation 2.84 .55
Transactional 2.04 .35
Contingent reward 3.14 .45
Management-by-exception (active) 1.61 .66
Management-by-exception (passive) 1.37 .59
Laissez-faire 1.03 .58
Note. Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently, if
not always
Journal of Agricultural Education 98 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
The second objective sought to statistically significant difference in
determine if the preferred leadership style leadership style between male and female
and leadership factors of teachers differed teachers. As a result, null hypothesis one
on the selected personal characteristics of failed to be rejected. However, when
gender, years of teaching experience, and comparing leadership factors by gender, a
highest academic degree earned. The results statistically significant difference was found
are displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Null between male and female teachers on
hypotheses one and two were tested by individualized consideration (t = -2.09, p
.05
conducting an independent samples t test. = .04). Therefore, null hypothesis two was
As shown in Table 2, there was not a rejected.

Table 2
Preferred Leadership Style of Teachers by Gender
Male Female
Leadership style n M SD n M SD t p
Transformational 134 3.04 .40 42 3.16 .35 -1.64 .10
Transactional 134 2.05 .35 42 2.01 .37 .66 .51
Laissez-faire 133 1.03 .58 42 1.02 .62 .17 .86
Note. Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently, if
not always

ANOVA was utilized to test null experience (Table 3), and none were found
hypotheses three and four. Statistically when comparing leadership factors by years
significant differences were not found for of teaching experience. Therefore, null
leadership style on years of teaching hypotheses three and four were not rejected.

Table 3
Preferred Leadership Style of Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience
Less than 5 years 6 to 15 years Over 15 years
Leadership style n M SD n M SD n M SD F p
Transformational 45 3.07 .38 56 3.04 .37 74 3.09 .41 .24 .79
Transactional 45 1.99 .38 56 2.07 .34 74 2.06 .35 .85 .43
Laissez-faire 45 1.06 .57 56 1.12 .65 73 .95 .54 1.53 .22
Note. Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently, if
not always

Journal of Agricultural Education 99 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…

leadership factors by highest academic
Null hypotheses five and six were tested degree, a statistically significant difference
through use of an independent samples t test. was found between teachers with
As revealed in Table 4, there was not a bachelor’s degrees and those with
statistically significant difference between master’s degrees on intellectual
teachers with bachelor’s degrees and those stimulation (t = -2.62, p = .01).
.05
with master’s degrees on leadership style. As a result, null hypothesis six was
Therefore, null hypothesis five failed to be rejected.
rejected. However, when comparing

Table 4
Preferred Leadership Style of Teachers by Highest Academic Degree Earned
Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree
Leadership style n M SD n M SD t p
Transformational 108 3.03 .40 68 3.12 .38 -1.47 .14
Transactional 108 2.07 .36 68 2.00 .35 1.37 .17
Laissez-faire 107 1.04 .56 68 1.01 .62 .29 .77
Note. Scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = frequently, if
not always

Conclusions, Implications, and This study concluded that agricultural
Recommendations education teachers are more
transformational in their preferred leadership
Supported by Bandura’s social cognitive style in contrast to transactional and laissez-
theory (1986), the premise of this study faire styles. Specifically, this study found
identified teachers’ preferred leadership that teachers were engaging in
style as an outward expression of their transformational leadership behaviors fairly
personal epistemological belief about often, were engaging in transactional
youth leadership development. Arguably, leadership behaviors sometimes, and were
the teacher is the most important person to engaging in laissez-faire behaviors once in a
assist youth in developing leadership while. No previous research in agricultural
through involvement in an agricultural education was found that had investigated
education program. As such, this study the preferred leadership styles of teachers,
sought to fill a gap in the literature by however the findings do support research
determining the preferred leadership style of that found a similar pattern of preferred
agricultural education teachers, and supports leadership style exhibited by preservice
the logic that understanding one’s personal teachers (Harms & Knobloch, 2005), and by
leadership style is necessary to effectively Extension Service leaders (Moore & Rudd,
develop leadership in others (Avolio & 2006). While recognizing that
Bass, 2004). Readers are cautioned to limit transformational and transactional
the generalizability of the results to leadership styles compliment each other
agricultural education teachers in (Bass, 1997), research has shown that
Minnesota, and it is recommended that this transformational leadership behavior is
study be extended to a larger population of correlated with preferred organizational
agricultural education teachers throughout outcomes such as employee and follower
the United States. motivation, performance, and satisfaction
Journal of Agricultural Education 100 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
(Brown, Birnstihl, & Wheeler, 1996; Yukl, (1986). However, two significant differences
1999); persuasive abilities (Crawford & were found pertaining to the factors
Strohkirch, 2004); and the ability to adapt in comprising transformational leadership. The
changing times (Bass, 1998). As such, an first was that male and female teachers
implication of this study is that the differ on individualized consideration, with
transformational leadership style females scoring higher (Bycio et al., 1995;
preferred by teachers might be Maher, 1997). This finding would
advantageous when confronted with issues indicate that female teachers are more adept
in the school environment (e.g., changes in at attending to and supporting the
educational policy and reform initiatives, individual needs of followers and group
school funding, student demographics). members. Gender socialization (Cooper,
Further, Ogawa and Bossert (1995) 1997; Portello & Long, 1994) suggests that
conceptualized transformational leadership gender differences in leadership exist
as an organizational quality that can due to individuals manifesting stereotypical
positively influence the school system and traits and behaviors that are not
culture. readily amenable to change. Men are
It appears that agricultural education typically described as being independent,
teachers are exhibiting individualized objective, assertive, competitive, and
consideration the most often as a factor logical, whereas stereotypically
within transformational leadership. As noted expressive characteristics attributed to
by Avolio and Bass (2004), leaders women include emotionality, nurturance,
exhibit this factor by treating individuals and sensitivity to others. The second
uniquely, providing a supportive climate, significant finding was that teachers with
listening carefully to the individual needs of master’s degrees scored higher than
followers and group members, and by those with bachelor’s degrees on
attempting to maximize their associates’ intellectual stimulation. Avolio and Bass
full potential. Further, this type of leader is (2004) describe this type of leader as
supportive of individual growth, and being skillful at helping others to think
assists individuals in becoming fully about old problems in new ways; having
actualized. The implication is that the ability to conceptualize and articulate a
individualized consideration is likely group vision; and are likely to exhibit
being developed by agricultural education intellectual stimulation through critical
teachers as they provide individual thinking, questioning the status quo, and in
leadership development opportunities for articulating a creative approach to
students through the FFA, and as they accomplishing the organization’s mission.
assist each student in gaining experiential Teachers who exhibit intellectual
learning through supervised agricultural stimulation likely challenge students and
experience (SAE). Further, this study organizational members to be creative,
identified that teachers were using innovative, and to utilize critical thinking
contingent reward the most often as a factor and problem-solving skills (Northouse,
within transactional leadership. Contingent 2004).
reward “refers to an exchange process As a result of the findings from this
between leaders and followers in which study and supported by career
effort by followers is exchanged for development theory (Fessler &
specified rewards” (Northouse, 2004, p. Christensen, 1992), it is recommended
178). that continuing professional education
This study concluded that a significant be provided to agricultural education
difference was not found in preferred teachers on leadership topics. A logical
leadership style on gender, years of starting point is to assist teachers in
teaching experience, and highest gaining a better understanding of
academic degree earned. These findings are their preferred leadership style, and
in support of previous research how this belief influences the
(D’Ambrosio, 2000; Komives, 1991; Sykes, relationship they have with
1995), and are opposed to Lord et al. organizational members and youth.
Journal of Agricultural Education 101 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Greiman, Addington, Larson, & Olander Preferred Leadership Styles…
Continuing professional education will Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and
allow teachers to become more performance beyond expectations. New
aware of different leadership styles, York: Free Press.
and to further develop the factors
comprising transformational leadership. Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of
This exploratory study was conducted leadership. New York: Free Press.
to examine the epistemological beliefs
that teachers have about youth Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the
leadership development. Whereas teachers’ transactional–transformational leadership
preferred leadership style was represented as paradigm transcend organizational
a personal factor in Bandura’s social boundaries? American Psychologist, 52,
cognitive theory (1986), there are other 130-139.
personal factors that should be
examined. For example, it is likely Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational
that a teacher’s self-efficacy regarding leadership: industrial, military, and
youth leadership development has an educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:
important role in the theory. The Erlbaum.
other two variables in the model,
environment and behavior, should be Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995).
studied in subsequent research to gain Multifactor leadership questionnaire leader
a better understanding of the interactions form (5x-short). Redwood City, CA: Mind
and relationships between the variables. Garden.
It is recommended that leadership
research be conducted that will Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., &
determine the variables in Bandura’s Atwater, L. (1996). The
social cognitive theory that are the best transformational and transactional
predictors of youth leadership development. leadership of men and women. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 45,
References 5-34.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985).
Leadership and gender in public relations: Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.
Perceived effectiveness of transformational New York: Harper & Row.
and transactional leadership styles. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157- Brannon, T., Holley, C. W., & Key, J. P.
183. (1989). Impact of vocational
agriculture/FFA on community leadership.
Athanasaw, D. L. (2003). Leadership Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(3),
styles as perceived by career senior service 37-45.
executives. International Journal of Public
Administration, 26(10-11), 1207-1236. Brown, W., Birnstihl, E. A., & Wheeler,
D. W. (1996). Leading without
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). authority: An examination of the impact of
Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third transformational leadership on
edition manual and sampler set. Redwood cooperative extension work groups and
City, CA: Mind Garden. teams. Journal of Extension [Electronic
version], 34(5).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations
of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New
NJ: Prentice Hall. York: Harper and Row.

Journal of Agricultural Education 102 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007