MMHA 6111 Week 2 Self-Assessment Reflection Example

Testing My Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Results Against What Happened at Work

Student Name

Walden University

MMHA 6111: Leadership and Organizational Change

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Testing My Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Results Against What Happened at Work

Introduction

This reflection uses the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, an instrument rooted in Bass's full-range model of leadership, which runs from transformational behaviors through transactional ones to passive avoidance of leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Only the self-rating form was completed; no supervisors, peers or staff rated the manager, so the results describe how the manager sees their own behavior, not how others experience it. The manager is the composite outpatient imaging manager introduced in Week 1, who is preparing to lead the consolidation of a satellite imaging center into the hospital's imaging department. Rather than report the scores and stop, this reflection treats each surprising result as a claim to test against what actually happened at work, and ends with development targets tied to the lowest-rated behaviors. No questionnaire items are reproduced.

Results

The scales are reported here in plain words rather than as numbers, grouped as the instrument's manual groups them (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

Transformational scales. The manager rated themselves highest on intellectual stimulation, encouraging staff to rethink how work is done, and on individualized consideration, treating each staff member as a person with distinct needs and room to grow. Ratings for inspirational motivation, communicating a compelling direction, were moderate, and ratings for idealized influence, being seen as a role model whose values others share, were moderate as well.

Transactional scales. Contingent reward, setting clear expectations and recognizing when they are met, was rated lower than the manager expected. Management by exception, active, watching for mistakes and correcting them, was rated moderately high.

Passive scales. Passive management by exception, waiting for problems to become serious before acting, and laissez-faire leadership, avoiding decisions, were both rated low, as most self-raters rate them.

Surprise One: High Individualized Consideration

The manager's high self-rating on individualized consideration was the first surprise, because an incident from last winter tells a mixed story. When the satellite center's lead technologist went on leave, leaving a staffing gap, the manager stepped into the schedule personally for six weeks, rebuilding each week's rotation and calling staff to cover shifts. The manager remembered this as attending to staff needs. But it could equally be read as the opposite of development: the manager did the lead's work rather than coaching another technologist to do it, and when the lead returned, no one else had learned to build the schedule. The incident suggests that the manager attends to people's immediate needs but less often to their growth, which is the developmental half of the scale.

Surprise Two: Low Contingent Reward

The lower rating on contingent reward surprised the manager, who thought of themselves as clear about expectations. The Week 1 episode explains it: after the satellite team rebooked forty patients during a scanner outage, the manager said nothing. Expectations were clear; recognition when they were met was missing. Contingent reward requires both halves, and the self-rating appears accurate.

Surprise Three: Moderate Inspirational Motivation

The moderate rating on inspirational motivation surprised the manager less on reflection. When the consolidation was first discussed with staff, the manager described it in terms of the lease ending and equipment costs, accurate reasons but not ones that give anyone a picture of what the combined department will be like to work in. The manager can explain why the change is happening but has not yet described where it is going. Kouzes and Posner's work on inspiring a shared vision makes the same distinction, between explaining a decision and enlisting others in a future they want (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).

What the Self-Rating Cannot Show

A self-rating cannot show how others see the manager, and research on the instrument has generally found that self-ratings and others' ratings differ, with leaders often rating themselves more favorably (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The incidents above are the manager's own recollections and may be selective. Before the consolidation begins, the manager should ask the satellite lead technologist and a hospital-based peer to complete the rater form, so that the development targets below can be checked against others' views.

Reading the Pattern Across Scales

Taken together, the results show a pattern that no single scale reveals. The manager's strengths sit in the behaviors that respond to individuals in the moment: noticing a problem, rethinking a process, stepping in. The weaker areas sit in behaviors that require deliberate, repeated attention over time: recognizing effort after the fact, developing someone else's capability, describing a future. The moderately high rating on active management by exception fits the same pattern, since watching for mistakes and correcting them is also a response in the moment. This matters for the consolidation, which will last months and will need sustained attention more than quick responses. The manager's natural strengths will help with the many small problems the move will create; the weaker areas are the ones the consolidation will depend on to keep the team together through it.

Development Targets

Three targets follow from the results and incidents. Contingent reward: after any week in which a team absorbs unusual work, the manager will name what the team did and thank them specifically, in person, within two working days. During the consolidation, a weekly note recognizing one contribution will make this a habit rather than a memory. Individualized consideration, developmental half: the manager will identify one technologist at each site to learn schedule building, with the manager coaching rather than doing, so that the next staffing gap is filled by someone who has been prepared. Inspirational motivation: before the next all-staff meeting, the manager will draft a one-paragraph description of what working in the combined department should be like in a year, test it with two technologists and use it, alongside the practical reasons, whenever the consolidation is discussed. Each target will be reviewed when the rater forms are returned.

Conclusion

The questionnaire was most useful not for its scores but for the incidents it forced the manager to revisit. Each surprising result, tested against an episode, pointed to a specific behavior the consolidation will demand: recognition for a team giving up its site, development so that the combined department does not depend on the manager stepping in and a description of the future that gives staff something to move toward.

References

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Wiley.