In their survey study attached , Elpers and Westhuis (2008) indicate that there was a deficit between social workers’ ideal expectations of leadership behavior and their perception of actual leaders’ behavior. In turn, this was related to lower job satisfaction. As leaders, these ideas have interesting implications. Do you think the “deficit” concept is a worthwhile consideration when thinking about leadership and employee satisfaction? Did the methodology of the study convince you? Can a leader meet “ideal” expectations?

Organizational Leadership and Its Impact
On Social Workers’ Job Satisfaction:
A National Study
Kathy Elpers, EdD, LCSW
David J. Westhuis, PhD
ABSTRACT. This article reports the results of a national study focusing
on leader behavior and job satisfaction of BSW and MSW social workers
employed in social service agencies. A stratified, systematic, randomly
selected sample of 2,500 social workers who are members of NASW in the
United States was surveyed through the use of a mailed questionnaire. The
final sample was composed of 833 practicing MSW and BSW social workers.
A key finding is that organizational leadership impacts job satisfaction.
Academic programs need to expand their curricula to address leadership
development and offer separate courses on leadership to prepare students
for organizational leadership roles.
KEYWORDS. Organizational leadership, social work leadership, social
work job satisfaction
Kathy Elpers, EdD, LCSW, is Associate Professor of Social Work at the
University of Southern Indiana, 8600 University Boulevard, Evansville, IN
47712 (E-mail: [email protected]).
David J. Westhuis, PhD, is Associate Professor, Indiana University School of Social
Work, 902 W. New York St., Indianapolis, IN 46202 (E-mail: [email protected]).
Address correspondence to: Kathy Elpers at the above address.
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 32(3) 2008
Available online at http://asw.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
26 doi: 10.1080/03643100801922399
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 27
INTRODUCTION
The current trend in leadership theory appears to be shifting from
leadership by management to leadership by empowerment, with the intent
of creating workplaces of learning that foster dignity and respect (Lu,
2004; Kotter, 1990; Senge, 1990; Weisbord, 1987). Most of the current
leadership materials discuss the importance of leadership in the work-place. However, research on the impact that organizational leadership has
on the employees in the workplace and their job satisfaction is minimal.
Nevertheless, leaders play a significant role in the workplace and can
have a powerful effect on the way an organization operates. It is also clear
that leaders are often unaware of how their leadership practices impact
employees and the organization as a whole.
Despite current trends in the development of worker empowerment,
many workers are unhappy with their jobs and workplaces. This unhappi-ness occurs in the profession of social work as well as other professions.
Because of the stressful type of work they perform, social workers are
candidates for burnout or emotional exhaustion, which has often been asso-ciated with job dissatisfaction (Arches, 1991; Jayaratne & Chess, 1984;
Siefert, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1991; Söderfeldt, Söderfeldt, & Warg, 1995).
Past studies linked the lack of job satisfaction to occupational stress, poten-tial burnout, retention of employees, absenteeism, job productivity, and
organizational commitment, but the behavior of employees’ leaders can
also have a large effect (Butler, 1990; Butler & Cantrell, 1997; Koeske &
Koeske, 1989; Packard & Kauppi, 1999; Storey & Billingham, 2001; Um &
Harrison; 1998; Vinokur-Kaplan, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1994). This study
examines the impact of leader behavior on employees’ job satisfaction.
Organizational Leadership
Whether or not the term leadership is distinct from management, the
literature on leadership suggests a variety of definitions of leaders (Bass,
1990; Clark, Clark, & Campbell, 1992; Yukl, 1998, 2002), depending on
the goals and purpose of the research. In this study, leadership will be
used to include behavior, personal traits, roles, relationships, interaction
patterns, follower perceptions, and influence on organizational culture
and goals (Judge et al., 2002; Kleinman, 2004; Kouzes & Posner, 1990;
Northouse, 2004; Prentice, 2004; Yukl, 1998, 2002).
When an employee enters the workplace, that employee has an
expectation and perception of his or her supervisor and the leadership
28 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
characteristics that individual demonstrates. Often one’s perception after
some experience no longer correlates with one’s original expectation. In
their research on what characteristics employees expect and admire in
leaders, Kouzes and Posner (1987, 1995) interviewed managers through-out the country asking what characteristics they wanted and admired in
their leaders. A content analysis of the 225 values or traits identified as
the most important were being honest, forward-looking, inspiring, and
competent (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, p. 22). Although a person’s overall
happiness in life cannot be the responsibility of one’s employer, a leader’s
behavior in the workplace can contribute to an employee’s job satisfac-tion. According to Kouzes and Posner (1990), “Successful leadership
depends far more upon the follower’s perception of the leader’s abilities
than upon the leader’s own perception” (p. 29). In summarizing her
review of the literature on leadership, McNeese-Smith (1991) concluded
that leadership is a crucial component in creating productive organiza-tions as well as in satisfying the needs of employees. As employees’
needs are addressed and met, productivity may improve as a result of
enhanced employee commitment. In short, leader behavior can influence
employee job satisfaction.
Impact of Leader Behavior on Employee Job Satisfaction
Most surveys on job stress, morale, and bumout have included some
measure of job satisfaction (Koeske et al., 1994). Studies in the area of
bumout among social workers indicate that factors in the organization that
contribute to bumout include a low degree of social support, autonomy,
role confusion, challenge, value conflict, and depersonalization (Arches,
1991; Koeske & Koeske, 1989; Siefert, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1991; Söderfeldt,
Söderfeldt, & Warg, 1995; Um & Harrison, 1998).
Although the research findings are inconsistent regarding the correlation
between supervisors’ leader behavior and employees’ job satisfaction,
studies continue to examine the impact leadership has on workers’ job
satisfaction (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Ironson et al., 1989). The
workplace issues found to be impacted by leadership were work motiva-tion, organizational commitment, productivity, and job satisfaction.
Because research in this area is inconclusive and contradictory, it is
difficult to determine a causal effect between leadership and job satisfac-tion. Nevertheless, studies have indicated a relationship between leadership,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Gellis, 2001; Glisson,
1989; Kays, 1993; Malka, 1989; Packard, 1989).
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 29
For social workers, a supervisor’s demonstration of the transforma-tional leadership style with participatory decision-making was associated
with employees’ organizational perfonnance, commitment, and job satis-faction (Fuller et al., 1999; Gellis, 2001; Mary, 2005). Studies conducted
with human service agencies were based on specific work settings, types
of work, workloads, and clientele. Social workers’ concerns and issues of
job satisfaction may differ from those of employees in other agencies.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a general conclusion that leadership is a
key factor in organizations and can impact employees’ job satisfaction.
Given these issues, this study attempts to address two important questions
related to leadership in human service organizations: (1) Is there a differ-ence between social workers’ expectations of their supervisor’s leader-ship behavior and their perceptions of their supervisor’s actual leadership
behavior, and (2) does the difference between what social workers expect
from their leaders’ behavior and the perceived leaders’ actual behavior
affect job satisfaction?
METHODS
Sample
A quantitative descriptive survey was used to assess social workers’
expectations and perceptions of leader behavior and job satisfaction. The
research methodology was approved to be appropriate for human subjects
by the Internal Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern Indiana
and Spalding University.
A stratified, systematic, randomly selected sample of 2,500 social
workers in the United States was surveyed using a mailed questionnaire.
The initial mailing included the questionnaire, a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the study, and a return envelope with address and stamp.
A reminder postcard followed two weeks later. The sample was stratified
based on state of residence, gender, area of practice (clinical practice,
administration, supervision, or other) and academic degree. Only MSW
and BSW social workers were selected for the sample. The stratification
ensured all states were represented and the appropriate proportions for
gender, area of practice, and academic degrees were represented. The
1999 membership list of the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW), which is the primary professional organization for social
workers, was used to draw the sample. Eight hundred and thirty-three
30 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
individuals returned the survey for a response rate of 33%: a) 22.5% (n = 164)
were males, and 77.5% (n = 564) were females; b) 1.8% were BSWs,
91.5% MSWs, and 6.7% designated themselves as “other”; c) 90.1% were
Caucasian, 4.4% African American, 1.5% Asian, and 4.0% were from
other ethnic backgrounds. Overall, the sample represented in this study
was very similar to the demographics of the total membership of the
National Association of Social Workers, which consists of 79% females
and 21% males. With regards to nationality, the total membership of
the NASW is 89% Caucasian. With regards to academic degree, the
total membership of the NASW consists of 91% MSW and 3% BSW
(O’Neil, 2001).
Instruments
Social workers’ expectation of leader behavior and perception of
leadership behavior in the workplace were measured by the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI)-Observer (Kouzes & Posner, 1997a, 1997b).
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)-Observer consists of 30 state-ments that use a 10-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 (almost never)
to 10 (almost always). The 30 statements describe leadership behaviors
and are categorized into the five leadership practices of challenging the
process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the
way, and encouraging the heart. Each of the five practices encompasses
six statements from the 30-item inventory.
Kouzes and Posner (1997a, 1997b) report the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI)-Observer is internally reliable, with each of the six state-ments in the various practice categories highly correlated with each
other. The LPI has face and predictive validity, meaning that the results
are significantly correlated with various performance measures and can
be used to make predictions about leadership effectiveness (Kouzes &
Posner, 1997b, p.7). In addition, each of the five scales or leadership
practices is statistically independent and measure five different practices.
Since Kouzes and Posner developed and validated the LPI using samples
from the business world, we decided to conduct an exploratory factor
analysis to determine if a five factor (scale) model was appropriate for
the sample of social work professionals used for this study. A principal
components procedure was used to extract the initial factors, and this
was followed by a promax rotation to identify the final factors. This pro-cess did not confirm a five-factor model for the LPI. The initial results
suggested that there were three factors, but the review of the correlations
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 31
(.70 to .73) between the three factors suggested that the LPI may only be
one factor scale, as is suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). The
intemal consistency reliability coefficient for this single factor was a
very respectable .977. The one-factor LPI was used in the data analysis
for this study.
Social workers’ job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfac-tion Scale (JSS) developed by Koeske et al, (1994). The Job Satisfaction
Scale (JSS) consists of 16 items measured on an 11-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 11 (very satisfied). Koeske et al.
(1994) report that the 16 job satisfaction items have a three-factor struc-ture that reflects the intrinsic qualities of the work role, satisfaction with
supervision and agency operation, and the extrinsic elements of promo-tion and salary. They report the overall Job Satisfaction Scale’s reliability
has ranged from .83 to .91 in various studies. They note the subscales of
the JSS reliabilities have ranged from .78 to .90 (p. 27).
In this study an additional question “on satisfaction with leadership
behavior of one’s supervisor” was added as part of the job satisfaction
instrument. Although the Job Satisfaction Scale is concerned with aspects
of one’s job other than a leader’s behavior, it is important to this study to
recognize leader behavior as possibly contributing to job satisfaction and
therefore this additional item was added.
As with the LPI, a factor analysis was done to confirm the factorial
structure based on our respondents. The principal components method
was again used to extract the initial factors, and this was followed by a
promax rotation to identify the final factors in the now 17-item scale.
These analyses confirmed that there were three factors present in the scale
and that they were identical to those reported by Koeske et al. (1994). We
also found that only three items from the JSS loaded on the final factor,
and the reliability for this three-item scale was .59. Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994) suggest that a three-item factor that has low reliability
should not be retained as a factor. Based on this recommendation, an
additional factor analysis was done, forcing a two-factor model. The
results of this factor analysis confirmed the data could accommodate a
two-factor model with all items having loadings of .35 or above. The
items from the third factor identified in the initial analysis loaded on the
first factor in the subsequent analysis. This factor had 11 items and was
reflective of the content noted in Koeske et al.’s (1994) subscale that
addressed satisfaction with supervision and agency operations. The second
six-item factor was reflective of their subscale, which addressed the
intrinsic qualities of a worker’s job satisfaction. This includes issues such
32 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
as the “opportunity to help people” and the “ability to work with clients.”
The reliability coefficient for the full JSS was found to be .90. The newly
created 11-item subscale addressing supervision and agency operations
had a reliability of .88, and the intrinsic subscale’s reliability was .86.
This revised JSS was used in the data analyses in this study.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS-14), a software package used for behavioral research.
Paired t-tests and Pearson correlations were used to test the various
research questions. The effect sizes were also computed to highlight the
magnitude of differences between the expected and actual leadership
behaviors. Due to the multiple statistical tests, a Bonferroni corrected
p value of .003 was used for the study. This was done to reduce the
likelihood that any statistical differences that were found were due to
chance.
RESULTS
The questions addressed in this research were: (1) Is there a differ-ence between social workers’ expectations of their supervisor’s leader-ship behaviors and their perceptions of their supervisor’s actual
leadership behaviors, and (2) does that difference affect social workers’
job satisfaction?
Leadership Behavior Reflected in Survey
As noted previously, social workers’ expectation of leader behavior
and perception of leadership behavior in the workplace were measured by
the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)-Observer (Kouzes & Posner,
1997a, 1997b). To determine the applicability of the leadership instru-ment used in the study for social workers, the respondents were asked
whether the scale addressed the leadership behaviors of their supervisor.
Ninety point four percent (N = 576) of the respondents indicated that the
scale reflected the leadership behavior of their supervisor.
Research Question 1
Is there a dijference between social workers’ ideal expectations and
their perceptions of leaders’ actual behavior?
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 33
Utilizing the LPI instrument, the respondents were asked to assess
the expected and perceived leadership behaviors of their supervisors
in the workplace. These data were collected by having the respondent
completing the LPI two times, once to indicate how they expected their
leader to perform and again for how they perceived their leader to
perform in reference to the 30 items on the scale.
A paired, two-tailed t-test was used to ascertain if there was a statistical
difference between what the respondents ideally expect from their super-visors and what the respondents perceived as actual leadership behaviors
in the workplace. The t-tested results indicated that there was a statisti-cally significant difference between the expected and perceived scores.
Respondents’ reported statistically higher expected scores on the LPI
(M = 256.62, SD = 30.28) than their reports of the actual leadership
scores for supervisors (M = 190.84, SD = 59.43), t(618) = 27.25, p = .000
(two-tailed test).
The t-test analysis was followed with a computation of a Cohen’s d
effect size to help determine the magnitude of the difference between the
expected and actual leadership scores. The effect size for the differences
between the mean scores was 1.40, which is based on Cohen’s (1988)
standard.
Research Question 2
Does the difference between what social workers expect from their
leaders ‘ behavior and the perceived leaders ‘ actual behavior affect job
satisfaction?
As noted above, an additional question, leadership behavior of supervisor,
was added as part of the Job Satisfaction Scale with permission of the
scale authors. The respondents rated each of the 16 items of the Job
Satisfaction Scale as to how it pertained to aspects of their work, including
the added item of their supervisor’s leadership behavior.
The revised Job Satisfaction Scale items measure the dimensions of
intrinsic qualities of the work role, such as working with clients, opportu-nities for helping people, and feelings of success as a professional, and
organizational dimensions including quality of supervision, amount of
authority given to do their job, and clarity of guidelines for doing their
job. The respondents had higher mean scores for job satisfaction items
regarding the intrinsic factors than for the organizational factor items,
except for the organizational dimension of the amount of authority given
to do a job.
34 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
Scores for each of the items of the Job Satisfaction Scale were analyzed
(Table 1) to determine respondent’s level of satisfaction on the 16 items as
well as the added dimension of the leadership behavior of their supervisor.
The mean scores could range from 1, “very dissatisfied”, to 11, meaning
“very satisfied.” Of all the items in the Job Satisfaction Scale, the respondents
had the highest satisfaction with “working with their clients” (M = 9.06). The
next highest areas of job satisfaction were satisfaction with their field of spe-cialization (M = 8.98), opportunities for helping people (M = 8.77), amount
of client contact (M = 8.56), challenge of their job (M = 8.12), success as a
social worker (M = 8.68), and relationship with fellow workers (M = 8.51).
The lowest scores, indicating areas of dissatisfaction, were opportunities for
promotion (M = 5.30) and program funding (M = 5.82). The respondents’
mean scores for areas pertaining to leadership behavior, quality of supervi-sion, and recognition by the supervisor ranged from 6.06 to 6.83. Respon-dents had similar mean scores for salary and benefits (M = 6.93), and clarity
of guidelines for their jobs (M = 6.95). The respondents were a little more sat-isfied with opportunities for acquiring new skills (M = 7.26) and involvement
in decision-making (M = 7.29), but were not as satisfied as they were with
their identities as professionals who work with clients (M = 9.06).
TABLE 1. Job satisfaction of respondents
Item N M’ SD
Working with Clients
Field of speciaiization you are in
Your feeiing of success as a social worker
Opportunities for reaily heiping peopie
Amount of client contact
The amount of authority you have been given to do your jcb.
Interpersonal relations with fellow workers
The challenge your job provides you
Opportunity for involvement in decision making
Chances for acquiring new skills
Clarity of guidelines for doing your job
Your salary and benefits
The recognition given your work by your supervisor
Leadership behavior of your supervisor**
The quality of supervision you receive
Amount of funding for programs
Opportunities for promotion
*Note: Scores range from 1-11.
**Added item.
693
682
696
697
689
703
700
706
692
697
687
701
668
670
660
644
656
9.06
8.98
8.68
8.77
8.56
8.53
8.51
8.12
7.29
7.26
6.95
6.93
6.87
6.66
6.06
5.82
5.30
1.74
2.09
2.07
2.20
2.34
2.33
2.04
2.51
2.94
2.69
2.63
2.68
3.03
3.22
3.22
2.83
3.04
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 35
A Pearson correlation was computed to determine if there was an asso-ciation between Job Satisfaction Scale items and the mean difference
between total expected and actual leadership practices scores (Table 2).
Since the statistical significance of multiple (17) r values were being com-puted, the p value for significance was set at the Bonferroni corrected
value of .003 for statistical significance rather than .05.
Based on these analyses, we found that 13 of the 17 items from the
revised JSS were statistically associated with the mean differences in
leadership expectations and behaviors. All aspects of job satisfaction,
except for working with clients, field of specialization, and amount of cli-ent contact, were negatively correlated with the difference between the
total mean scores of expected and actual leadership practices. These
results suggest that the greater the difference between expected and actual
leadership practices, the more dissatisfied the social work respondents
were with their jobs. It appears that the aspects that account for the most
TABLE 2. Correlation of job satisfaction items with differences
in leadership behaviors
Item Mean SD Pearson P Value
Difference Correlation
1. Working with clients 693
2. Field of specialization you are in 682
3. Your feeling of success as a sociai work 696
4. Opportunities for really helping people 697
5. Amount of client contact 689
6. The amount of authority you have been
given to do your job.
7. Interpersonal relations with fellow workers 700
8. The challenge your job provides you
9. Opportunity for involvement in decision
making
10. Chances for acquiring new skills
11. Clarity of guidelines for doing your job
12. Your salary and benefits
13. The recognition given your work by your
supervisor
14. Leadership behavior of your supervisor
15. The quality of supervision you receive
16. Amount of funding for programs
17. Opportunities for promotion
9.06 1.74 +.011 .793
8.98 2.09 -.100 .014
8.68 2.07 -.166** .000
8.77 2.20 -.106 .009
8.56 2.34 -.078 .052
703
700
706
692
697
687
701
668
670
660
644
656
8.53
8.51
8.12
7.29
7.26
6.95
6.93
6.87
6.66
6.06
5.82
5.30
2.33
2.04
2.51
2.94
2.69
2.63
2.68
3.03
3.22
3.22
2.83
3.04
-.348**
-.242**
-.293**
-.498**
-.442**
-.370**
-.118**
-.645**
-.754**
-.653**
-.207**
-.315**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
^Correlation between item and the difference between expected and actual.
**Bonferroni corrected p value=.003.
36 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
variation in the difference between scores invotved leadership administration,
namely leadership behavior of supervisors, recognition of work by super-visors, and quality of supervision received, which had Pearson r vatues of
-.754, -.645, and -.653, respectively (Table 2).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a differ-ence between social workers’ expectations and perceptions of their super-visor’s behavior, and whether that difference affects social workers’ job
satisfaction. Our analysis found that there were statistically significant
differences between what social workers expected from their supervisors
compared to what they perceived their supervisors provided, as measured
by the total score for the LPI. For all statistical comparisons, the expecta-tion scores were higher than the perceived leadership scores, thus
suggesting there is a difference between what social workers expect and
what they perceive from their leaders in the workplace.
Fourteen of the 16 items from the JSS were found to have statistically
significant correlations with the mean difference score for perceived and
expected LPI scores. These correlations suggest that as the difference
between expected and perceived leadership increases, there is a corre-sponding lower level of reported job satisfaction. The highest individual
items correlations were found for the JSS item “the quality of supervision
received” (r = -.653) and the added item of “satisfaction with the leader-ship behavior of one’s supervisor” (r = -.754). In sum, we found that there
is a statistically significant difference between social workers’ perceived
and expected leadership, and this difference is associated with their job
satisfaction.
Implications
Although the literature reveals minimum research specific to leader-ship behavior and job satisfaction for social workers, the results of this
study suggest several implications for the social work profession, social
work supervisor/leaders, and social work curricula. Although no agree-ment exists on an overall universal model or theory of effective leadership
for all organizations, the fact that leadership continues to be studied, dis-cussed, and written about attests to the importance leadership has for
employees and organizations.
Kathy Elpers and David J. Westhuis 37
Leadership implies follower-ship. A constructive relationship between
the leader and employee can positively impact the employee regarding
productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Social
work supervisors need to be aware of their followers’ expectations and
perceptions of leadership in their organizations.
The best criterion for studying effective leadership in relation to
its impact on follower-ship is to understand it from the perspective of
the employee rather than merely from leader self-evaluation.
Employee job satisfaction includes extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction.
These factors affecting job satisfaction include pay, benefits, and
opportunity for promotion; a supportive and empowering work
environment; clarity of job roles; recognition; participative decision-making; and resources that allow employees to work with clients with
positive outcomes. Leadership can impact and influence many of these
factors.
The literature demonstrates that most of the studies conducted in
the area of effective leadership, job satisfaction, leader-member
exchange, and other areas pertinent to this topic, including organiza-tional commitment and organizational citizenship, derive mainly from
the areas of business management and social and organizational psy-chology rather than from social work. Additional research in the social
work field is necessary to address the role and impact of leadership in
the work place and to differentiate social work leadership skills from
management skills. Although these roles and skills are often inter-changeable, leadership functions may be different than management
functions (Konczak, Steely, & Trusty, 2001; Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik,
1992). Research needs to ascertain if, in fact, there are differences in
the functions and roles of leaders and managers, and whether one is
more effective in impacting social workers’ job satisfaction in an
organization.
Many still debate whether there are differences in the roles of manage-ment and leadership. Some view management as dealing with bureau-cratic activities, whereas leadership deals with the interpersonal
relationships in organizations. Others believe these roles are interchange-able and that leaders are often placed in both a management and leader-ship role (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Kotter, 1990; Yukl, 1994, 1998,
2002; Zaleznik, 1992). From reviewing the literature, it is the authors’
position that leadership and management are distinct activities. It is rec-ommended that future researchers be cognizant of these issues and that
leadership be treated and studied as a separate entity.
38 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
Limitations
The study results and implications noted above must be considered
within the context of its limitations. The major limitations of this
study concern: (1) the sample population, (2) the use of questionnaires,
(3) respondents’ subjective responses to instruments, and (4) the use of
LPI-Observer with social workers.
This study was limited to those social workers who are members of the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). It would be difficult to
determine how many social workers are not members of the NASW. The
membership of NASW consists of predominantly Caucasian females who
have a master’s degree in social work (MSW). Therefore, the results are
representative of this particular group and do not reflect issues pertaining
to diversity and ethnicity.
Questionnaires are often used with large sample populations. However,
surveys can be subject to bias and error due to subjective and differing
interpretations of the questions by the respondents. Practices of leaders
with some employees may be different from