International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration
Volume 8, Issue 4, May 2022, Pages 28-36
Corporate American Employees Prefer Transformational Leaders with Integrity and Trust
URL: https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.84.10031 Dhar Ramdehal, 2 Chizoba Madueke.
1 Collins College of Professional Studies, St. John’s University, Queens, New York, USA
2 School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Abstract: Understanding what leadership styles of corporate American leaders display integrity and trust is essential to organizational stakeholders, stockholders, the American public, and the business world. The study focused on why some corporate American leadership lacked integrity and trust from 2000-to 2012 which resulted in organizational failures. A quantitative research was developed from the theoretical framework of leadership styles and their respective associations with integrity and trust, organizational performance, and the impact of leadership behaviors on employees and the public. A correlational design was employed using transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire validated leadership frameworks and their respective subscales. The study examined the relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. Participants in the eastern United States completed the internet administered survey questionnaire and Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient. Analyses of data revealed statistical significance of both positive and negative relationships between different leadership styles, integrity, and trust as hypothesized from the two researched questions. Recommendations are made from the various themes of resulted from the relationship in leadership styles that positively correlate with integrity and trust. One such recommendation from the study results and findings showed transformational leadership style most positively correlated with integrity and confidence as the preferred leadership style of corporate American employees.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership, Integrity, Trust, Ethics, Organizational Success, Corporate American Employees
The framework of this study was developed from the alleged failures of corporate American organizations from 2000-2012. Understanding if there are any relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust explained what leadership styles may have led to failures in corporate American organizations from 2000-2012. Stelzer (2004) postulated that failures of American corporate organizations resulted in the loss of the public’s confidence in corporate leadership’s trustworthiness and integrity. Because it was not known if there were any relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust (Childers, 2009). New knowledge on what relationships exists between leadership styles of corporate American leaders’ integrity and trust could serve to guide organizations in selecting future leaders to lead their organizations.
The study is significant to the growing body of knowledge on leadership styles, integrity, and trust, particularly in the American corporate society. Leadership attributes and behavioral qualities were expanded and evolved to accommodate social and professional needs. Analysis of different leadership styles affecting relevant applications was revealed. Understanding the importance of integrity and trust contributed to the transformational leadership theoretical framework previously researched by testing the theory in the context of American corporate leadership and recognizing the need for integrity and trust in corporate American leadership attributed to different approaches in leadership styles and ascribed success.
Figure 1: Leadership Paradigms
It is important to understand the root causes of the problem that affected millions of Americans on a professional, social, and personal level from 2000-to 2012 by using existing knowledge to discover a new understanding of relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. The study was significant because the results supported a framework for change in leadership paradigm toward leadership styles that embraces integrity and trust. Second, the results will serve to illuminate current and future leaders on preferred and evolving leadership styles and practice with alternative options for corporate leaders and organizations to change the way they lead their organizations to benefit shareholders and stakeholders. Change management and leadership initiatives were advocated through professional development toward specific leadership styles to guide organization, behavior, culture, and success. Third, new knowledge on leadership theoretical framework may serve as a platform to train and develop future corporate American leaders on how to embrace, adapt and execute from different leadership contingencies. Fourth, the results of the study added to the growing body of knowledge on the significance of leadership practice and development through the change in rules designed to affect compliance, regulations, practice, and governance in the context of American corporate leadership.
The problem was to understand what leadership styles lacked integrity and trust. A chronological overview of the problem from 2000-2012 began when Enron revealed a breach of public and government’s conviction of business leaders’ modesty and accountability (Stelzer, 2004). Specifically, the Enron debacle resulted in security analysts exaggerating stock value and colluding with their Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and banking-friendly corporate colleagues to engage in fraud (Stelzer, 2004). Boutros and Joseph (2007) stated that corporate scandals and fraudulent leadership practices led to an all-time high destruction of stakeholders and the public’s trust in the 21st century. Breaches of public and government’s trust by corporate organizational leaders seemed to be a trend from 2000-2012. It was unknown if any relationship existed between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust.
Stelzer (2004) surmised that the problem was deeply rooted in the foundation of the American capitalist system. Berle and Gardiner (1932) predicted the collapse of a capitalist system with principals and agents because of conflicts of interest. Berle and Gardiner’s bold 76-year prediction slowly climaxed in the 2007-2009. Pretorius and le Roux (2013) supported Stelzer (2004) findings that many deceptive leadership practices from 2000-2012 began with Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson in 2000. The deceptive practices continued and contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2009, a global economic recession, and seemingly ended with the Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme in 2011. The general problem resulted in the lack of integrity and trust in American corporate leadership.
It was essential to understand the root causes of the problem that affected millions of Americans on a professional social, and personal level from 2000-2012 by using existing knowledge to discover new understanding of relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. The American public blamed the lack of government leadership, oversight, and corporate American leadership for the problem (Grigor & Salikhov, 2009). Collins and Nigro (2010) added the US economy lost $11.369 billion in mortgage and insurance fraud from 2007 through 2011, as the failures continued throughout the decade. In 2008 Madoff Investment Securities was alleged to copy 3,200 investment accounts which later confirmed an estimated $65 billion investment frauds in 2011 (Winarick, 2011). Guerrera (2011) stated despite the best efforts of government and public outcry of failed corporate American organizations, fraudulent leadership practices, and deceptive behaviors displayed a lack of integrity and trust.
The effects and devastation of such breaches were felt as the American economy recovered. The lack of integrity and trust is grounded in research supporting allegations of corporate American leadership resulting in both public and private loss of innocence and trust from 2000-2012 (Pretorius & le Roux, 2013). The specific problem was that it was unknown if any relationship exists between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. This unanswered question led to the specific problem and gap in knowledge.
3. Literature Review
The review of literature began with a title search and a review of the problem that resulted from leadership styles of corporate American leaders lacking integrity and trust. The criteria for selecting relevant scholarship included keywords and terms such as transformational, transactional, authentic, administrative, and charismatic leadership styles. Integrity and trust are reviewed from an organizational, leadership, and personal perspectives. This germinal review includes topical terms such as organizational integrity, behavioral integrity, leadership integrity, leadership trust, behavioral trust, ethics, morality, and corporate social responsibility.
A review of the historical and theoretical perspectives of leadership paradigms and their evolution towards a transformational leadership style showed the evolution of leadership paradigms and an in-depth understanding of the variables of integrity and trust from organizational, behavioral, personal, and leadership perspectives. The review included a review of ethics, morality, and CSR as attributes interwoven with integrity, trust, and legislative reforms spanning multiple presidencies to resolve the dilemma of corporate American organizational leadership failures. The review was conducted with a holistic approach to gain a complete understanding of the scope of the problem in a historical, national, administrative, and social context.
The germinal review included the seminal works of Avolio, Bernard Bass, James McGregor Burns, Wren, Tichy and Devanna, Yammarino, and others reflected in the reference list. Burns (2003) stated leadership is one of the most studied subjects in science but is still one of the less understood subjects. Morgan (2006) wrote leadership is a phenomenon that continues to evolve like complex organizations in an open system. Open system organizations are like molecules, cells, complex organisms, species, and ecology. Faraz et al. (2019) wrote creating innovative work behaviours, and psychological empowerment of employees through servant leadership impacts organizational environments. Morgan (2006) described leadership evolution as a process of adapting to environments and corporate life cycles to those of species, their habitats, and ecology. Perhaps the leadership phenomenon may be better understood as researchers described leadership attributes and variables from multiple contents, contexts, diverse interpretations, and applications. Faulks et al. (2021) stated such an evolutionary process impacts the empowerment of leadership through innovative work, organizational readiness, and sustained economic performance. The methodological review of the literature concluded by discussing the gap and the need for new knowledge as discussed, to address the specific problem; it was unknown if any relationship exists between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. This unanswered question led to identifying the gap in knowledge for social science research.
A quantitative correlational design was used to study the correlations of relationships between leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust. The study hypotheses were developed to deduce the associations and their effects from constructed logic following a linear path. The linear bearings were derived from experiments of causation, correlation of relationships, and temporal order ruling out alternatives through hypotheses testing (Christensen et al., 2011). The study variables focused on investigating the existence of relationships between variables by following the linear path of applied constructed logic through hypotheses testing.
Three specific survey instruments were used in this study to collect data for hypothesis testing. They were the MLQ leadership questionnaire, Behavioral Integrity Scale, and Behavioral Trust Scale, which collected ranked ordinal numerical data necessary for examining the relationship between variables. A study population of 126 employees from corporate American organizations located in the eastern United States. The study population of 126 employees provided a medium-size effect of 0.3 and an alpha error level of .05, requiring a sample size of 84 or higher to determine relationships between variables with an 80% probability and a statistical significance with 95% confidence level.
The results of demographic data collected included participants’ gender, years of professional experience, and level of education. First, analysis of the data collected revealed the following: Male participants were 51% or 44 participants, and female participants were 49% or 42 of 86 respondents, indicating a balanced gender distribution between variables and statistical analysis of study results. Second, participants’ years of professional experience were presented in numerical and percentage values. Years of professional experience had a total range of 1 – 25 or more years and consisted of 5 equally distributed degrees of 5 years intervals.
Results showed study participants were experienced professionals as statistical analysis yielded a mean and median of 14 years of professional experience. Further data analysis showed more remarkable tenure in years of professional experience, with 28% of study participants having 20 or more years of professional experience. Other analyses found that 65% of study participants had 11 or more years of experience, and 78% had six or more years of professional experience.
The third demographics data collected were the study participant’s level of education. Participant’s levels of education ranged from those who completed high school level to those with the post-graduate level of education in academic ranked order. The results from data collected revealed that 52% of participants received a college education and 38% of participants received a graduate and or postgraduate education. The cumulative results showed, that 90% of study participants received college or higher, with 10% receiving high school education.
5.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Two research questions were generated for this study. The first research question inquired if there was a relationship between leadership styles of corporate American leaders and their integrity. The second research question inquired if there is a relationship between leadership styles of corporate American leaders and their level of trust. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ) was used to measure leadership styles, the Behavioral Integrity Scale (BIS) was used to measure behavioral integrity and the Behavioral Trust Scale (BTS) was used to measure behavioral trust.
Data from the MLQ 5X, BIS and BTS were subjected to a series of Spearman’s Rho correlations to address the two research questions outlined above. The assumption that there is a monotone (i.e., linear) relationship between the MLQ and the BIS and BTS was tested for each of the Spearman’s Rho correlations by generating a bivariate scatterplot and visually inspecting the scatterplot. In all cases, the relationship appeared linear and there were no indications of a curvilinear relationship asserting assumptions of a linear relationship between the study instruments was met for all the Spearman’s Rho correlations.
Figure 2: Scatterplot Graph of Transactional Leadership Style
Figure 3: Scatterplot Graph of Transformational Leadership Style
The results were presented in three sections. The first section discussed the descriptive statistics for the independent variables (i.e., MLQ scales) and the dependent variables (i.e., BIS, BTS). The second section presented the results of the Spearman’s Rho correlations that directly addressed the research questions. The third section demonstrated Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction subscales. The descriptive statistics for the scales of the MLQ and subscales and the total scores of the BIS and BTS are as follows.
A review of the results revealed most of the variables were skewed, most of them in the negative direction. The only measure that evidenced positive skewness was the Laissez-faire leadership. An inspection of the minimum and maximum scores for each scale found that the subject’s scores varied across the entire dimension, from close to the lowest possible score to the highest possible score. The only exception to this was the Transactional leadership style, where subjects did not tend to score at the extremes.
5.2 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics included standard deviation, standard error of skewness, and standard error of kurtosis. Skewness less than -1 or greater than 1 is considered highly skewed. Skewness between -1 and -0.5 or 0.5 and 1 are moderately uneven distribution. Skewness between -0.5 and 0.5 are considered asymmetric distribution. The analyses indicated that the leadership subscales Transformational, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Behavioral Integrity, and Behavioral Trust of the variables were highly negatively skewed with a Standard Error of Skewness = .261, concluded skewness of the results was significantly above deviation from normality ranging from -1.058 to -.137. Transactional leadership style was the only exception where participant’s scores were asymmetric distribution of -.525. The only leadership subscale with measured evidence of positive skewness was the Laissez-faire leadership at 1.16.
The standard deviation measured the distribution of scores from the average or expected value. A review of the minimum and maximum scores for each scale revealed that scores varied across the entire dimension, with the lowest possible score, 0.00 to the highest possible score, 20.00. The standard deviation in the study was 1.15. Scores for all leadership styles and subscales were low standard deviation and close to the average mean. All scores were within 1 standard deviation of the norm.
The Standard Error of Kurtosis was .517, measured the flatness of the results found most of the study variables were normally distributed. Most of the data were light tailed to normal distribution. Normal distribution of kurtosis is measured by a value equal to 3. Kurtosis values greater than 3 suggested the dataset has more tails than in a normal distribution. The dataset showed normally distributed positive kurtosis for variables Transformational leadership and all its subscales, Laissez-faire leadership, other MLQ, subscales Satisfaction, and behavioral integrity ranging from .093 to .946. A negative kurtosis was shown in variables Transactional leadership and its subscale Contingent Reward. Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and behavioral trust were in the range of -.068 to -.889. The data was considered in the normal kurtosis distribution as all scores were measured by a value lesser than three. All data were normally distributed for kurtosis flatness, although negatively skewed for most variables.
5.3 Correlational Data Analysis
The research questions inquired about the relationship of the Transformational, Transactional, Contingency Reward, Management by Exception (Active), Management by Exception (Passive), and Laissez-faire corporate leadership styles with behavioral integrity and trust. Other relationship results were computed for MLQ 5X subscales Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. The results and analyses from Spearman’s Rho calculations of correlations coefficient are as follows.
5.4 Transformational Leadership Analysis
Transformational leadership style and its subscales were analyzed. Transformational leadership and its subscales showed positive correlational relationships. The Transformational leadership style overall results significantly correlated overall with the BIS, r(83) = .613, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .624, p < .001. The following are results of transformational leadership subscales. Idealized Influence (Attributed) BIS, r(83) = .656, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .668, p < .001. Idealized Influence (Behavior) BIS, r(83) = .452, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .498, p < .001. Inspirational Motivation BIS, r(83) = .502, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .462, p < .001. Intellectual Stimulation BIS, r(83) = .564, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .607, p < .001. Individual Consideration BIS, r(83) = .606, p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = .599, p < .001.
The positive nature of the correlations indicated that as scores on Transformational leadership and its subscales increased, behavioral integrity and trust simultaneously increased positively. Transformational leadership style and its subscales evidenced significant relationships with the BIS, all p’s < .001, and with the BTS, all p‘s < .001. Analyses of the results rejected the null hypotheses, there is no relationship between the leadership styles of corporate American leaders and BIS and TIS. The studies revealed significant positive correlational results in favor of the alternative hypotheses that there are relationships between Transformational leadership style and its subscales and behavioral integrity and trust.
5.5 Transactional Leadership Analysis
Transactional leadership consists of three subscales: Contingency Reward, Management by Exception (Active), and Management by Exception (Passive). An analysis revealed that the relationship of the corporate leaders’ tendency to utilize a Transactional leadership style and their behavioral integrity, r(83) = .093, p = .396, and their trust, r(83) = .060, p = .588, was not significant. No relationships were evident, and the null hypotheses could not be rejected for the Transactional leadership style with its three subscales. A total score revealed no relationships with variables BIS and BTS of any statistical significance. An in-depth analysis of Transactional leadership subscales revealed significant relationships among the individual subscales and explained why the overall Transactional leadership style has no relationship to BIS and TIS.
5.6 Contingent Reward Analysis
It is of interest that two of the three scales that comprised the Transactional leadership style (i.e., Management by Exception (Passive) and Contingent Reward) revealed a significant relationship to behavioral integrity, r(83) = .560, p < .001, and r(83) = .530, p < .001. The positive nature of the correlations in Contingency Reward subscale indicated that as scores increased, correlational scores on the behavioral integrity and behavioral trust measures also increased. An analysis of scores found a positive relationship between the Contingent Reward leadership subscale and behavioral integrity and trust. The null hypothesis that the Contingency Reward subscale of the Transactional leadership style has no relationship to behavioral integrity and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.7 Management by Exception (Active) Analysis
Management by Exception (Active) was the only subscale of the Transactional leadership style that did not evidence a relationship with behavioral integrity, r(83) = .072, p = .511, and behavioral trust, r(83) = .007, p = .947. It appeared that the inclusion of the Management by Exception (Active) in the Transactional leadership composite led to it not being predictive of behavioral integrity and behavioral trust. The analyses revealed no relationship exists between Transactional Leadership Management by Exception (Active), and the null hypothesis there is no relationship between behavioral integrity and behavioral trust could not be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.8 Management by Exception (Passive) Analysis
A review of Table 4 outlined the Management by Exception (Passive) subscale was significantly correlated with the BIS, r(83) = -.482 , p < .001 and the BTS, r(83) = -.455, p < .001. These correlations showed a negative relationship between behavioral integrity and behavioral trust. It is noted that Management by Exception (Passive) had a negative relationship with both behavioral integrity and behavioral trust, indicating that as scores on the Management by Exception (Passive) increased, scores on behavioral integrity and behavioral trust decreased. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship between Management by Exception (Passive), behavioral integrity, and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
Additional analyses were conducted, where the scores on the Management by Exception (Passive) were reversed so the scores on this subscale would have a significant positive relationship with behavioral integrity and trust. The results revealed that the newly created Transactional leadership score was significantly related to behavioral integrity, r(83) = .520, p < .001, and behavioral trust, r(83) = .509, p < .001. It was hypothesized that the negative relationship of Management by Exception (Passive) combined with the positive relationship of Contingent Reward resulted in composite Transactional leadership style score not being related to behavioral integrity and behavioral trust. The null hypothesis there is no relationship between Transactional leadership style and behavioral integrity and behavioral trust could not be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.9 Laissez-Faire Leadership Analysis
A review of the study findings included correlations that showed a significant relationship of Laissez-faire leadership to behavioral integrity, r(83) = -.501, p < .001, and behavioral trust, r(83) = -.449, p < .001. The negative nature of the relationship revealed scores on Laissez-faire leadership increased, scores on behavioral integrity and behavioral trust decreased. Analysis of the results confirms the null hypothesis, there is no relationship between Laissez-faire leadership and behavioral integrity, and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.10 Extra Effort Leadership Subscale Analysis
Analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the remaining subscales of the MLQ 5X and the BIS and BTS. The results are presented in Table 4. An review of this subscale in Table 6 revealed that the Extra Effort subscale showed significant positive relationship correlations to behavioral integrity, r(83) = .577, p < .001, and behavioral trust, r(83) = .623, p < .001. Given the positive nature of these results, the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the Extra Effort subscale and behavioral integrity and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.11 Effectiveness Leadership Subscale Analysis
Analysis of this subscale, Effectiveness was conducted, and with results are shown in Table 6. The revealed a significant relationship to behavioral integrity, r(83) = .705, p < .001, and behavioral trust, r(83) = .688, p < .001. The results confirmed the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the Effectiveness leadership subscale and behavioral integrity, and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
5.12 Satisfaction Leadership Subscale Analysis
An analysis of the subscale, Satisfaction, was conducted, and the results were presented in Table 6. The results showed a significant relationship to behavioral integrity, r(83) = .684, p < .001, and behavioral trust, r(83) = .612, p < .001. Given these results, the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the Satisfaction leadership subscale and behavioral integrity and behavioral trust could be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
Gap in Knowledge
The study extended beyond the null and alternative hypotheses by deriving inferences from the results and understanding the implications of the positive and negative relationships between study variables in the study context. An essential question of the study was to understand what leadership styles of American corporate leaders lacked integrity and trust. The gap in knowledge was illuminated by the central question of the problem of the study; to understand what leadership styles of corporate American leaders lacked integrity and trust that ultimately led to organizational failures during 2000-2012. Further analysis of the data collected identified additional themes.
An in-depth examination of the corporate American organizational failures concluded a lack of integrity and trust by corporate American leaders was the root cause of the problem (Stelzer, 2004; Boutros and Joseph, 2007; Winarick, 2011; and Pretorius and le Roux, 2013). The Laissez-Faire leadership style was found to show the most substantial lack of integrity and trust, followed by Transactional leadership subscales Management by Exception (Active) and Management by Exception (Passive). It was concluded that two subscales of Transactional leadership style, Management by Exception (Active), Management by Exception (Passive), and Laissez-Faire leadership style and models were practiced during 2000-2012 as both lacked integrity and trust that, led to some organizational failures. These results were correlated with studies by Al-Malki & Juan (2018), which found Laissez-Faire leadership displayed ambiguity and conflict in job performances.
The second theme was the significance of the study in understanding leadership theoretical constructs from a corporate American perspective. The results of the study are supported by existing research that evidenced applications of leadership styles fostering integrity and trust outside the United States (Yang, 2016; Gordon and Gilley, 2012; and Tuan, 2012). The results contributed significantly to the development of theoretical leadership framework from a corporate American perspective. The study’s results added to the growing body of evidence that leadership styles, subscales, and models exhibiting positive correlations with integrity and trust are preferred incorporate American organizations. Sharma et al. (2019) found similar results with variables of leadership ethics and trust. And concluded ethical leaders displaying honesty and high levels of integrity play a vital role in outcomes of organizational commitment and identification. The results provided further significance for practice surmising leaders and managers consider changing their leadership styles to synergize with identity-based trust or knowledge-based trust and integrity.
Academia may derive value from the findings to design curricula for professional development initiatives and different learning styles. Organizations may benefit by implementing, coaching, and developing strategies for future leaders to align leadership practice with styles known to have a positive relationship with integrity and trust to create change in organizational culture and behaviors. A shift in leadership paradigm for professional development initiatives aligns with similar studies exploring the role of servant leadership (a subcategory of transformational leadership) and its positive effect on innovative behavior in the workplace (Khan et al., 2021). The study confirmed a strong positive leader-follower relationship construct resulting greater workflow, innovative work behavior and mediating roles between managers and subordinates.
The results illuminated the importance and need for a shift in corporate American leadership paradigm adapting towards Contingency Reward, Transformational leadership style, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction MLQ subscales with integrity, and trust characteristics and attributes. The results provided significant alternative options for corporate American organizations in choosing a leader with leadership styles that foster integrity and trust. The study results are supported by previous studies (Bass, 1990; Morgan, 2007; Burns, 2003; and Masood et al., 2006) that identified a new leadership paradigm to be transformative in advocating open system thinking in leadership practice displaying truth, honesty, integrity, and trust in influencing followers. According to Younas et al. (2021) behavioral integrity and trust in leadership correlated positively with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and supported the chain of causality and sequential mediation of employees’ behaviors. Uppathampracha & Guoxin (2021) studied leadership relationships through the lens of authentic leadership style (a subcategory of transformational leadership) and found positive correlations between the original leadership style and organizational innovation, job crafting, and psychological capital. Corporate American leadership may use the findings as a platform for changing policies, regulations, and governance to charter a new course for the 21st century and change how they lead their employees and organizations for shareholders, stakeholders, and the American public.
The statistical significance of the relationships between study variables, leadership styles of corporate American leaders, integrity, and trust was evidenced in the results of the study, where both positive and negative relationships were confirmed by statistical analyses. Leadership styles with positive relationships to integrity and trust foster employee satisfaction and support increased performance, culminating in organizational success. Four recommendations are made for future studies. First, future studies are recommended to ascertain how leadership integrity and trust are contributing factors to organizational success rather than a determinant. Second, it would be reasonable to consider other variables in future studies. Recommendations for future studies to determine other relationships between leadership styles and variables, morality, ethics, satisfaction, performance, and emotional intelligence.
A third recommendation for future studies pertains to external validity. The external validity in the study was limited because of the purposive convenience sampling technique used in the study. The purposive convenience sampling technique restricted the statistical inference from correlation and statistical effect to the general population. Future studies that expand the geographic location of study participants may allow for the generalization of the larger population. Such studies would allow for more substantial generalization of inferential statistics of the larger population of corporate American employees. The fourth recommendation for future studies with a larger population and sample size will allow for in-depth analyses to identify differences in leadership preference between male and female employees, tenured versus non-tenured employees, and the difference in leadership styles between eastern United States and western United States.
Understanding how to apply integrity and trust as leadership attributes independently or in conjunction with other leadership traits and skills may provide personal and professional development and growth opportunities. The significance of the study to leadership addressed a national problem with corporate American employees and organizations located in the eastern United States. Results filled a gap in knowledge by revealing the existence of positive relationships between variables and direct correlations to leadership success, integrity, and trust. These developments will give more credence to the contingency theories of leadership as the births of new hybrids are developing from existing leadership theories. Corporate American organizations can regain leadership integrity and trust by committing to benefiting employees, environments, investors, and create wealth through redesigning and rebuilding resilient organizations.
- Al-Malki, M. & Juan, W. (2018). Impact of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict: Implications for Job Performance. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 4(1), 29-43. DOI: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.41.2003 CrossRef
- Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics 18(3), 19-31. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/science/article/pii/009026169090061S
- Boutros, A., & Joseph, C. B. (2007). Building, maintaining and recovering trust: A core leadership competency. Physician Executive, 33(1), 38-. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
- Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
- Childers, H. (2009). Transformational leadership and its relationship to trust and behavioral integrity. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (UMI: 3402113.)
- Collins, M., & Nigro, P. J. (2010). Mortgage origination fraud. Criminology & Public Policy. 9(3), 633-640. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010. 00657.x CrossRef
- Faraz, N.A., Mughal, M.F., Ahmed, F., Raza, A. & Iqbal, M.K. (2019). The Impact of Servant Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Work Behaviour-Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 5(3), 10-21. CrossRef
- Faulks, B., Song, Y., Waiganjo, M., Obrenovic, B., & Godinic, D. (2021). Impact of Empowering Leadership, Innovative Work, and Organizational Learning Readiness on Sustainable Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of Companies in Russia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 13(22), 12465. DOI: 10.3390/su132212465 CrossRef
- Gordon, G. & Gilley, J. W. (2012). A trust-leadership model. Performance Improvement, 51(7), 28-35. DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21284 CrossRef
- Grigor’ev, L. & Salikhov, M. (2009). Financial Crisis 2008. Problems of Economic Transition, 51(10), 35-62. DOI:10.2753/PET1061-1991511002. CrossRef
- Guerrera, F. (August 19, 2011). Why this crisis differs from the 2008 version of The Wall Street Journal, Money and Investing Section. Retrieved from http://yahoo.finance.com/banking-budgeting/article/113282/why-crisis-differs-from-200-version-wsj
- Khan, M.M., Mubarik, M.S., Ahmed, S.S. Islam, T., & Khan E. (2021). Innovation with flow at work: Exploring the role of servant leadership in affecting innovative work behavior through flow at work. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 42(8), pp. 1267-1281. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ.06.2021.0236 CrossRef
- Masood, S. A., Dani, S. S., Burns, N. D., & Backhouse, C. J. (2006). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: the situational strength perspective. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220(B6), 941-949. DOI:10.1243/09544054JEM499. CrossRef
- Morgan, G. (2007). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
- Pretorius, M., & Le Roux, I. (2012). A reality check for corporate leaders: when managers don’t respect their bosses. Strategy & Leadership, 40(1), 40-44. DOI:10.1108/1087571211191693. CrossRef
- Sharma, A., Agrawal, R., & Khandelwal, U. (2019). Developing ethical leadership for business organizations: A conceptual model of its antecedents and consequences. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 40(6), pp. 712-734. https://DOI:org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2018-0367 CrossRef
- Stelzer, I. M. (2004-). The corporate scandals and American capitalism. Public Interest, (54), 19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/222110865/fulltextPDF/8C2040545346487CPQ/1?accountid=458
- Tuan, L. T. (2012). The linkages among leadership, trust, and business ethics. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1) 133.DOI:10.1108/17471111211196629. CrossRef
- Winarick, K. (2010). Thoughts on greed and envy. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 70(4), 317-327. Retrieved from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ajp/
- Uppathampracha, R., & Guoxin, L. (2021). A study of the relationships between Authentic leadership, job crafting, psychological capital, and organizational innovation. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 7(4), 14-22. DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.74.1002 CrossRef
- Yang, Y. F. (2016). Examining competing models of transformational leadership, leadership trust, change commitment, and job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 154-173. DOI: 10.1177/0033294116657586. CrossRef
- Younas, A., Wang. D., Javed, B., & Zaffar, M.A. Moving beyond the mechanistic structures: The role of inclusive leadership in developing change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (Johns Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 38(1) pp. 42-52. DOI: 10.1002/cjas.1586 CrossRef