the impact of vulnerability on transformational leadership

Running Head: VULNERABILITY AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP �1

The Impact of Vulnerability on Transformational Leadership

Krista Simonis

University of Portland

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

VULNERABILITY AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP �2

Abstract

This study investigated the potential relationship between vulnerability and

transformational leadership. Likely due to a low number of respondents there were no

significant conclusions to be drawn, and the measures were unreliable. Regardless, this study

contributes to and encourages scholarship on vulnerability and proposes a relationship

between vulnerability and leadership.

Keywords: transformational leadership, trust, vulnerability


The Impact of Vulnerability on Transformational Leadership

Introduction

At the root of all interpersonal relationships is human connection- one of the ways

we create this connection is through vulnerability (Brown, 2010). Since so many of our

waking hours are spent in the workplace, it is important not to discount the relationships

we create there. Leaders should aspire to creating connections with their employees and

engaging in transformational leadership behavior. However, little research has been done on

what this would require from the leader. This paper investigates the relationship between

vulnerability and transformational leadership, as mediated by trust. First I undertake a

review of some of the literature surrounding the subject before discussing methods and

results. While ultimately the results of this study lack reliability and significance, that does

not discount the theoretical underpinnings of the argument that vulnerability and

transformational leadership are connected.

Literature Review

When researching vulnerability it is near impossible to not come across Brené

Brown’s TED talk “The Power of Vulnerability.” Not only is it the top hit for a google search

on vulnerability, but it is also so prevalent in social discourse that no fewer than four people

forwarded me a link to the video during the course of this project. The most comprehensive

review of literature on vulnerability so far is very recent, having been completed in 2015

(Nienaber, Hofeditz, and Romeike, 2015). They develop a few propositions regarding

vulnerability specifically in leader/follower relationships, in an effort to clear up the

“fuzziness” and conflation of vulnerability with many trust definitions (Nienaber et al., 2015).

Of particular interest is their theoretical Proposition 4, which states: “The higher the level


of vulnerability expressed by the trustor, the higher will be the reciprocal trust of the trust

referent,” (Nienaber at al., 2015, p. 576). Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer’s 1998 review

of cross-discipline views of trust reveals that all definitions involve a “willingness to be

vulnerable.” Thus the level of vulnerability should correlate with an increase in trust.

Research on leadership shows trust is increased in a leader-follower relationship

characterized by transformational leadership. This section will first overview the concept of

vulnerability in trust before overviewing the role of trust in transformational leadership.

Vulnerability

All vulnerability involves risk, or the possibility for negative outcomes (Rousseau et

al., 1998). Mayer at al. propose that “the level of trust is compared to the level of perceived

risk in a situation,” (Mayer et al., 1995). Thus, for trust there is an expected positive

correlation between trust and the level of vulnerability. The literature review conducted by

Nienaber et al. specifically on vulnerability in trust is especially important in building upon

existing definitions of trust such as Rousseau et al. and Mayer, Davis, and Schoonman

(Nienaber et al., 2015; Rousseau et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 1995). This section will first look at

trust and its common definitions before looking directly at vulnerability.

Rousseau et al. address three stages of trust: building, stability, and dissolution. The

building stage is focused on the formation or building of trust, the stable stage is focused on

the institutional factors of trust that are maintained, and the declining stage is central to

studying reduced trust (Rousseau et al., 1998). These stages form a “feedback loop” of sorts,

where higher trust and the outcomes of “risk taking in relationship (RTR)” coalesce to

contribute to trustor’s re-evaluating the level of trust in the relationship (Clelland &

Zarankin, 2012; Mayer, Davis & Schoonman, 1995). Thus, trust becomes a self-reinforcing


mechanism (Bekkers, 2012). Trust can be conceptualized as either cognitive trust, based on

assessments based on rational choice theory that take into account the the value of such

trust, or relational trust, which is primarily based on emotions (Nienaber et al., 2015).

Cognitive trust has had several names in the literature, referred to by Rousseau et al. (1998) as

deterrence-based trust, and by Agarwal, Dutta, & Sypher (2009) as calculus-based trust. This

study was more concerned with measuring vulnerability than trust, but it may be interesting

to measure the role of vulnerability in creating each type of trust.

Part of what determines whether or not a person is initially trusted is Trustworthiness,

which is based on attributes of the trustee (Mayer et al., 1995). Rousseau et al. (1998)

included this in their review of the literature, and Mayer et al. (1995) expanded on this idea

to identify three major components of trustworthiness. Ability is the general competence

and expertise level of the trustee, and is relegated to his/her specific area (Mayer et al., 1995).

Vulnerability may play a part in the perception of ability and is worth further study to

determine if varying levels of vulnerability have an impact on the perception of ability.

Benevolence is the perceived willingness of a trustee to do good to the trustor (Mayer et al.,

1995). This has to do with the altruistic intentions of the trustee, and can be likened to

inspirational motivation in transformational leadership (discussed further in the following

section) (Mayer et al., 1995). Integrity is similar to morals. For determining trustworthiness,

integrity relies on the trustee having a key set of principles that is acceptable to the trustor.

These three traits work in conjunction with each other, Mayer et al. point out “it is possible

for a perceived lack of any of the three factors to undermine trust” (1995). In Nienaber et

al.’s model for the development of trust and vulnerability, this trustworthiness serves to act

as a trust antecedent that combines with the trustor’s propensity to trust to create bases of


trust (including cognitive and affective trust) (Nienaber et al., 2015). Many of these factors

are akin to the traits of transformational leadership, which is perhaps why transformational

leadership can lead to an increase in trust (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1996).

Transformational Leadership

Different kinds of leadership exist, including transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire (Men, 2014). Transactional leadership focuses on reward and punishment

behaviors, laissez-faire leadership is characterized by the absence of interference, and

transformational leadership which serves to motivate individuals to go above and beyond for

the organization (Bass, 1985). These different styles of leadership have significant affects on

the culture of an organization, as well as its organizational structure, climate, and

effectiveness (Men, 2014). While this study included measures for laissez-faire and

transactional leadership, of primary interest to this review of the literature is

transformational leadership. Transformational leadership has received a majority of

attention in the literature because of its association with higher employee satisfaction and

higher organizational performance (Hoption, Barling, Turner, 2013). Transformational

leadership has more dependence on trust than other forms of leadership, Kellaway et al.

showed that leadership styles such as laissez-faire are negatively associated with trust

(Kelloway et al., 2012, p. 51).

Defined as leadership that uses interpersonal communication to form emotional

attachments between leaders and followers, transformational leaders “foster a climate of

trust,” (Men, 2014). Transformational leadership can be broken into four component parts:

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Idealized influence is based upon the conception of


fair relationships and depends upon both the “attributional component made on the part of

the follower, and a behavioral component enacted by the leader,” (Hoption et al., 2013).

Since trust is cyclical and based upon both the trustworthiness and propensity to trust,

idealized influence reflects this relationship. Often idealized influence manifests in leaders

and followers alike chooses to surpass purely self-interested motives and focus on the well-

being of the organization (Kelloway et al., 2012). Inspirational motivation can create

intrinsic motivation in the follower/leader relationship, through encouragement employees

are often encouraged to act more safely and altruistic (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer,

1996; Conchie, 2013). Intellectual stimulation encourages creative and independent

thinking, providing stimulating ways for followers to interact with problems (Hoption et al.,

2013; Kellaway et al., 2012). Individualized consideration is a more affective facet of

transformational leadership which involves leaders creating relationships with followers that

demonstrate care and attenuation with follower’s needs and emotions (Hoption et al., 2013).

Those leaders who are more capable at providing individual consideration typically have

relationships with their employees that are characterized by greater trust, indeed

individualized consideration is the component of transformational leadership that has

shown the highest rates of creating trusting relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and

Bommer, 1996).

Transformational leadership encourages a sense of well-being in employees, and can

prove more effective at motivation than other styles of leadership (Kelloway, E. K., Turner,

N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, 2012). Often, transformational leadership and empathy skills can

predict a leaders ability to gain employee’s trust, which will in turn lead to higher

organizational productivity and employee satisfaction (Jin, 2010, p. 159). Research by


Goodwin, Lee Whittington, Murray, & Nichols indicates that “Trust is not simply an

outcome of transformational leadership, but is the basis for its influence,” indicating the

need for trust to be established in an employee-manager relationship prior to

transformational leadership occurring (Goodwin et al., 2011). In order to encourage the

development of these types of transformational relationships, it is important to develop

trust.

Transformational leadership has often been investigated from the perspective of the

emotion the leader can invoke in followers. “Leaders attempt to evoke change by appealing

to followers’ emotional states to motivate personal adaptation,” (Rubin, Munz, Bommer,

2005). These studies help inform why leadership, especially transformational leadership, is

so important. However, they do not help to answer the specifics of what makes a leader

more transformational, nor do they help answer what traits or processes should be

encouraged in order to be transformational in leadership. Since transformational leadership

is proven to be more beneficial to both the employee and the organization, the

encouragement of more leaders to act more transformationally should have increased

benefits. Rubin, Munoz, and Bommer showed that agreeableness, extroverted-ness, and

emotional recognition were positively linked to transformational leadership behavior overall

(Rubin, Munz, Bommer, 2005). Additionally, since individualized consideration is a part of

transformational leadership, it seems likely that these traits and skills like emotional

recognition and the ability to trust would be associated with an increase in transformational

leadership behaviors overall.


Justification

Since trust has such an impact on transformational leadership, it seems illogical that

there is a lack of research on what managers can do to increase interpersonal trust. More

research is needed to investigate whether a top-down approach to fostering trust through

vulnerability would be successful. Since trust has been shown to be a mediating component

of transformational leadership, and vulnerability has been shown to be a component of

trust, this research will attempt to answer the question:

RQ: What is the role of vulnerability in transformational leadership?

While existing research on trust and existing research on transformational leadership

might lead this researcher to believe there to be a positive relationship between

vulnerability and transformational leadership, there could be mediating factors.

Vulnerability on the part of the manager could undermine employee’s trust in the manager’s

competence (ability) and therefore perceived trustworthiness. However, since this study

relies on self-reported vulnerability and leadership styles, that mediating effect is not being

tested using these methods, which are discussed below.

Methods

Measures

Mayer and Gavin (2005) was cited by Nienaber, Hofeditz, and Romaine in their 2015

review of literature on vulnerability as being a study which focused on active vulnerability.

Their trust definition included vulnerability, stating: “Trust is manifested in actual behavior

that allows vulnerability to the trustee,” (Nienaber et al., 2015). In their study, Mayer and

Gavin focused on behaviors which “actually allow vulnerability to the trustee,” (Mayer and


Gavin, 2005). For their study, Mayer and Gavin developed questions to measure trust that

“reflected statements from participants in employee focus groups that related to various

ways of being vulnerable to a given managerial referent,” (2005). Because this study is

primarily concerned with vulnerability and reflects active measurements of this, this

measure of ten items that “queried a respondent’s willingness to be vulnerable,” was deemed

a good measure of willingness to be vulnerable in a managerial relationship (Mayer and

Gavin, 2005). The original results reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 for plant management

(Mayer and Gavin, 2005). Wording of these questions was slightly changed as appropriate

for the referent, a full example and measure can be seen in the Appendix.

As an additional measure of vulnerability, the Psychological Vulnerability Scale was

used to assess the respondent’s “static” vulnerability. With only six questions, the

Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.71-0.86 (Sinclair and Wallston, 1996). The authors identified

the scale as one that "reflects detrimental cognitive beliefs;" specifically this scale is used to

measure stress and vulnerability associated with pain management, this is why it was

combined with the trust measurement from Mayer and Gavin (Sinclair and Wallston, 1996).

For this study, the psychological vulnerability scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.585 and was

thus not reliable. The trust scale from Mayer and Gavin’s 2005 study had a Cronbach’s alpha

of 0.545, also not reliable. When combined to form one scale for vulnerability, the

Cronbach’s alpha did increase to 0.632. Based on the Cronbach’s alpha of the original studies

and the higher Cronbach’s alpha of the combined study, it is likely that given a higher

number of respondents the combined vulnerability scale of 14 items would be a reliable

measure.


While measures of transformational leadership like those developed by Bass (1985),

or Carless, Wearing and Mann (2010) are the preferred method for measuring

transformational leadership, they are typically taken by subordinates; thus would likely not

yield reliable results when used as a self-assessment tool. Since this study is looking at self-

reported feelings of vulnerability in managers, having followers take the transformational

leadership study would then require pairings of surveys with the leader and subordinate. In

order to simplify the survey process and maintain confidentiality, it was necessary to use a

measure that relied on self-reporting. The measurement of leadership through personality

traits is supported by Ross and Offerman (1997). Their study found that an “enabling

personality profile characterized by pragmatism, encouragement, and acceptance was

strongly predictive of transformational leadership ratings,” (Ross and Offerman, 1997).

Dussault, Frenette, and Fernet developed a self-report scale of leadership that relies on

measuring traits such as charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration

(2013). This measure for transformational leadership had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88

(Dussault et al., 2013). For this study, which relied on 25 valid responses, the Cronbach’s

alpha for transformational leadership was 0.684. Again, this does not demonstrate reliability,

but based on the scale’s performance in past studies, it is likely due to a low N.

Procedures

The 40 question survey included five demographic questions that asked about the

participant's age, education level, gender, and number of employees managed. Based on the

response of a proofreader, an additional question was added that asked “How comfortable

were you taking this survey?” as an attempt to further measure vulnerability. The survey was

conducted using an online survey software (Qualtrics) and distributed through professional


social networking sites and direct contact. Questions were asked using a five-point Likert

scale with possible answers ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Limitations

of the survey were that leadership was self-reported, which may not be as accurate. Secondly,

by asking specifically about people you manage at work, it may have excluded those who act

in a leadership capacity in other groups and organizations (teams, etc.). Additional

limitations included the lack of a question about the amount of interaction time leaders had

with those they managed. There may have been a further opportunity for study with regards

to the level of vulnerability and the level of transformational leadership compared to the

amount in interaction since an increase in time generally leads to an increase in trust

(Nienaber et al., 2015).

Participants

There were 46 respondents, however 11 respondents answered they were not

employed in a managerial position and were excluded from the study, and further responses

were invalidated due to a lack of completion. This left an N of 25 from which to gather data.

Respondents were 64% male to 36% female. 34.6% of respondents were 55-64 years of age,

30.8% of respondents were 25-34, 26.9% of respondents were 35-44, and 7.7% of respondents

were 45-54. No respondents reported being over 65 or between 18-24. The majority of

respondents had completed a Master’s Degree (26.1%), with 15.2% completing a Bachelor’s

degree. The rest of the respondents were scattered throughout, with 1 respondent each

reporting some college, technical degree, or associate’s degree, and 2 respondents reporting

professional or doctorate degrees. 46.9% of respondents managed fewer than 5 employees,

25% managed between 5 and 15, 15.6% managed 15-30 employees, and 6.3% managed 30-45

and greater than 60 respectively. No one reported managing between 45-60 employees.


Results

The results of this study were underwhelming, overall the data lacked statistical

significance, likely due to a low number of usable cases (25). There was no statistical

significance between gender and vulnerability, and no statistical difference between gender

and leadership style.

The following Pearson’s Correlation table shows the results of the analysis of the

data. There was a statically significant negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership

and transformational leadership (-0.531). Additionally, there was a strong correlation between

transactional and transformational leadership (.705). However, this may be merely reflective

of the fact that the leadership scale was self-reported, thus many transactional leaders may

believe they perform transformational behaviors (and vice versa), without this being an

accurate representation of reality. In order to control for this potential perception problem,

future studies should rely on cross-tabulation between employee and manager surveys so

managers are given the opportunity to self-report on vulnerability while employees report

on leadership styles of said managers.

Vulnerability

Laissez-Faire

Transformational

Transactional

Combined Vulnerability Scale

Pearson’s correlation

1 0.289 -0.086 0.092

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.161 0.689 0.669

N 25 25 24 24

Laissez-Faire leadership Pearson’s correlation

0.289 1 -.531** -0.352

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.161 0.006 0.084

N 25 26 25 25


The research question for this paper, “What is the role of vulnerability in transformational

leadership?” sought to determine what relationship there is, if any, between the amount of

vulnerability leaders feel and their ability to be transformational. The correlation table

demonstrates that vulnerability was not significantly correlated with any leadership style.

However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no relationship, it may simply be a

reflection of the low N for this study and the reliance on self-reported leadership. Literature

suggests a logical relationship between the two, but in order to determine what the

relationship is it may be beneficial to define trust, vulnerability, and transformational

leadership into their component parts for testing.

Results suggested a significant relationship between the number of employees

managed and the mean score on the vulnerability scale. Respondents managing 30-45

employees had the highest mean score of 3.39, while the lowest mean score (2.47) was

reported for those respondents managing between 5-15. This may indicate that the level of

vulnerability a manager feels is related to the amount of interaction and personal knowledge

of employees, but also interrelates to the leader’s ability to keep track of the employees; as

an organization gets larger it becomes harder to monitor for vulnerability. However, even

with these points of significance (0.023 and 0.097 respectively), they are relying on measures

Transformational Leadership Pearson’s correlation

-0.086 -.531** 1 .705**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.689 0.006 0.000

N 24 25 25 24

Transactional Leadership Pearson’s correlation

0.092 -0.352 .705** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.669 0.084 0.000

N 24 25 24 25


that did not perform reliably and thus cannot be used as conclusive results. For future study,

adding in an additional measure about the amount of interaction time between managers

and employees may provide interesting results that can clarify this relationship further.

Discussion

The measures used for this survey are logically sound and would likely have

performed reliably given a larger N. Given the current scholarship on vulnerability, the

measures used approximated vulnerability to a reasonable person standard. It should be

noted that neither ‘vulnerability’ scale used for this study was actually intended to measure

vulnerability in this setting, and further scholarship should continue to develop more

accurate measures for this topic in order to be able to draw conclusions regarding

vulnerability’s role in the workplace specifically and interpersonal interactions in general. If

another study can demonstrate that the level of trust in an employee/manager relationship

can be correlated to the level of vulnerability a leader demonstrates, it may be possible to

create more fulfilling and productive work relationships by having leaders consciously

increase vulnerability. This study was hampered by the number of usable responses, as well

as the necessity of leadership styles being self-reported. Future analyses on this topic should

attempt to pair leaders and followers and assess management styles, levels of trust, and

levels of vulnerability separately. Ultimately a unique vulnerability scale for interpersonal

relationships should be developed; this scale was based on a psychological vulnerability scale

used for pain management and a trust scale. Further research can look directly at measuring

vulnerability for transformational leadership. Potential implications include investigations

into whether or not transformational leaders feel more vulnerable, and what those feelings

may mean for job performance and interpersonal relationship. The relationship between


vulnerability and trust directly should also be investigated, to determine how much of the

trusting relationship is created through vulnerable acts. Additionally, researchers could

investigate the role of vulnerability and vulnerable leaders upon the perceptions of

competency and trustworthiness of managers by employees. Vulnerability is key to creating

deeper connections, and deserves a more thorough investigation in the literature. This was

an attempt to begin to outline some of the implications of being vulnerable, however

ultimately little can be concluded from the results.


References

Agarwal, V., Dutta, M., & Sypher, H. (2009). Reconceptualizing trust: A theoretical

framework of macro-level relational trust in health care organizations. Conference

Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-40. Retrieved from https://

login.ezproxy-eres.up.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy-eres.up.edu:

2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cms&AN=45286875&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press; Collier

Macmillan.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.

The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554.

Brown, B. (2010, June). Brené Brown: The Power of Vulnerability [Video File]. Retrieved

From: http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?language=en

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational

leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389-405.

Conchie, S. M. (2013). Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: A

moderated-mediated model of workplace safety. Journal of occupational health

psychology, 18(2), 198.

Dussault, M., Frenette, E., & Fernet, C. (2013). Leadership: Validation of a self-report scale.

Psychological Reports, 112(2), 419-36.


Goodwin, V. L., Lee Whittington, J., Murray, B., & Nichols, T. (2011). Moderator or

mediator? Examining the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm.

Journal Of Managerial Issues, 23(4), 409-425.

Hoption, C., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2013). “It's not you, it's me”: transformational

leadership and self-deprecating humor. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

34(1), 4-19.

Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership

and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in

leadership. Work & Stress, 26(1), 39-55. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.660774

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust

for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 84(1), 123.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the

shop while the employees watch the boss?. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5),

874-888.

Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.

The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258792

Men, L.R. (2014). Why Leadership Matters to Internal Communication: Linking

Transformational Leadership, Symmetrical Communication, and Employee

Outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 256-279. doi:10.1080/1062726X.

2014.908719

Nienaber, A. M., Hofeditz, M., & Romeike, P. D. (2015). Vulnerability and trust in leader-

follower relationships. Personnel Review, 44(4).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/258792


Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management,

22(2), 259-298.

Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of

personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078-1086.

Rousseau, D. Sitkin, S., Burt, R., Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-

Discipline View of Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the

Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(2), 119-129.


Appendix A - Measures

Table I. Items in the Psychological Vulnerability Scale (PVS)

If I don’t achieve my goals, I feel like a failure as a person.

I feel entitled to better treatment from others than I generally receive.

I am frequently aware of feeling inferior to other people.

I need approval from others to feel good about myself.

I tend to set my goals too high and become frustrated trying to reach them.

I often feel resentful when others take advantage of me.

Trust (Mayer & Gavin, 2005)

If I had my way, I wouldn't let my employees have any influence over issues that are

important to me.

I would be willing to let my employees have complete control over my future in this

company.

I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my employees.

I would be comfortable giving an employee a task or problem which was critical to me, even

if I could not monitor his/her actions.

I would tell an employee about mistakes I've made on the job, even if they could damage my

reputation.

I would share my opinion about sensitive issues with employees, even if my opinion were

unpopular.

I am afraid of what an employee might do to me at work.


If an employee asked why a problem happened, I would speak freely, even if I were partly to

blame.

Self-Reported Leadership Scale

I speak enthusiastically.

I am optimistic about the future.

I communicate my vision of the future.

I am cheerful.

I encourage my staff to take professional training.

I support staff who need help.

I get staff involved in the problem-solving process.

I share information with my staff.

I respect other opinions than mine.

I listen attentively to others.

I respect other people’s feelings.

I take into account the needs of my staff when I make decision.

I particularly recognize good work.

I recognize when staff do good work.

I congratulate everybody when they do good work.

When I see that someone is having problems at work, I make sure that the problem gets

fixed.

I follow-up on tasks to find out if there are any problems, and if necessary, I correct them.

I reprimand staff who does not follow the institutional rules.


I do not return phone calls.

I am not available when people need me.

I am not available.

the impact of vulnerability on transformational leadership

Documents