The purpose of this study was to extend the field of motivating language theory (MLT) by providing a conceptual framework and methodology for determining low-ML and high-ML leader levels. This quantitative study, specifically, studied the Motivating Language of Wyoming K-12 superintendents operating in the role of CEOs as perceived by their principals. The results of this study found that Wyoming Superintendents with high-ML levels positively influencing employee outcomes in the areas of communication satisfaction, communication competence as well as organizational outcomes in the area of leader effectiveness. Finally, because of this study, two nascent ideas of leaders and leadership within the context of MLT have emerged: (a) the ML Intensity Score Composition and (b) the 3-D MLT Typology Matrix.
AlqahtaniA. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ motivating language and public school climates in Kuwait. Management in Education, 29, 125-131.
2.
ArmanR.DellveL.WikströmE.TörnströmL. (2009). What health care managers do: Applying Mintzberg’s structured observation method. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 718-729.
3.
BolmanL.DealT. (2017). Artistry, choice, and leadership reframing organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
4.
Calvó-ArmengolA.de MartíJ.PratA. (2015). Communication and influence. Theoretical Economics, 10, 649-690.
5.
FanK.ChenY.WangC.ChenM. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114, 421-437.
6.
FraenkelJ.WallenN. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
7.
FullanM. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
GazielH. (1995). Managerial work patterns of principals at high- and average-performing Israeli elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 96, 179-194.
9.
GolemanD. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-92.
10.
HeathC.HeathD. (2008). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Random House.
11.
HolmesW. T. (2012). The motivating language of principals: A sequential transformative strategy (EdD dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/62876560.pdf
12.
HolmesW. T. (2019). Superintendent talk and MLT: Self-reflections and insights from Wyoming superintendents. Manuscript in preparation.
13.
HolmesW. T.CarrM. (2017). Motivating language and self-mentoring: A training program supporting the development of leaders in organizations. Development and Learning in Organizations, 31(5), 4-8.
14.
HolmesW. T.ParkerM. A. (2017). Communication: Empirically testing behavioral integrity and credibility as antecedents for the effective implementation of motivating language. International Journal of Business Communications, 54, 70-82.
15.
HolmesW. T.ParkerM. A. (2018). The relationship between behavioural integrity, competence, goodwill, trustworthiness, and motivating language of a principal. School Leadership & Management, 38, 435-456. doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1430687
16.
HolmesW.ScullW. (2018). Reframing organizations through leadership communications: The four-frames of leadership viewed through motivating language. Development and Learning in Organizations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/DLO-09-2018-0107
17.
HowellJ.CostleyD. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
KmetzJ.WillowerD. (1982). Elementary school principals’ work behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 62-78.
19.
KotterJ. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96-103.
20.
KowalskiT. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
LeendersR.van EngelenJ.KratzerJ. (2003). Virtuality, communications, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, 69-92.
22.
LiaoP.LeiG.FangD.LiuW. (2014). The relationship between communication and construction safety climate in China. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18, 887-897.
23.
MadlockP. (2012). The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 169-184.
24.
MadlockP.SextonS. (2015). An application of motivating language theory in Mexican organizations. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 255-272.
25.
MayfieldJ. (2009). Motivating language: A meaningful guide for leader communications. Development and Learning in Organizations, 23(1), 9-11.
26.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM.KopfJ. (1995). Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale development. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 329-344.
27.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM.KopfJ. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37, 235-248.
28.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM. (2002). Leader communication strategies critical paths to improving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20, 89-95.
29.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM. (2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker’s intent to stay: An investigation using structural equation modeling. Human Performance, 20, 85-102.
30.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM. (2012). The relationship between leader motivating language and self-efficacy: A partial least squares model analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 357-376.
31.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM. (2016). The diffusion process of strategic motivating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication, 3, 368-392. doi:10.1177/2329488416629093
32.
MayfieldJ.MayfieldM. (2018). Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
MayfieldM.MayfieldJ. (2009). The role of leader-follower relationships in leader communication: A test using the LMX and motivating language models. Journal of Business Inquiry, 8(1), 65-82.
34.
MayfieldM.MayfieldJ. (2015). The effects of leader motivating language use on employee decision making. International Journal of Business Communications, 53, 465-484. doi:10.1177/2329488415572787
35.
McCroskeyJ.TevenJ. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.
36.
MerrimanK.SchmidtS.Dunlap-HinklerD. (2007). Profiling virtual employees: The impact of managing virtually. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 6-15.
37.
MintzbergH. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
38.
MyersS. A.MartinM. M. (2015). Understanding the source: Teacher credibility and aggressive communication traits. In MottelT. P.RichmondV. P.McCroskeyJ. C. (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 67-88). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
PalmerB. (2017). A renewed call to action: Update principal selection methods. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 14(3), 11-27.
40.
ParkerM. A.HolmesW. T. (2019). How much motivating language does a leader need for school improvement? Manuscript submitted for publication.
41.
PerinaK. (2002). When CEOs self-destruct. Psychology Today, 35(5), 16.
SharbroughW.SimmonsS.CantrillD. (2006). Motivating language in industry. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 322-343.
46.
SimonsT. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-35.
47.
SimonsT. (2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
SullivanJ. J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13, 104-115.
49.
TengbladS. (2006). Is there a “new managerial work?” A comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s classic study 30 years later. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1437-1461.
50.
WilliamsB. (2017). Leadership communication practices of the triangle high five superintendents: A mixed methods study of the relationship between motivating language and principal retention (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC.
YildizY. (2016). Language ideology in the discourse of educational leadership. In SamierE. (Ed.), Ideologies in educational administration and leadership (pp. 49-61). New York, NY: Routledge.
