The Indispensable Manager, Myth or Beneficial Reality

Roy Davis

Gonzaga University

ORGL 501 – Methods of Organizational Research

Instructor: Dr. Adrian Popa

 

The Indispensable Manager, MYTH or Beneficial Reality

 

Introduction

 

“It has been said that if you find someone who is indispensable to your company, fire them immediately.  That’s a bit much, but an indispensable employee is a dangerous dependency” (Broudy, 2008).  Organizations risk the crippling affects of losing the indispensable manager when that key individual quits, acquires new employment, or leaves for health reasons.  Additionally, the necessity of firing the indispensable manager may come to fruition when the organizational model of an indispensable manager clashes with the myth.

 

In an interview with Godinez (2004), Rob Gajdica poses that the characteristic of an indispensable employee is “primarily, someone who does not feel they are indispensable.  The most indispensable employees I know possess a combination of characteristics – namely, integrity, flexibility, honesty and, of course, excellent communication skills.”  The organizational risk of having to fire the manager who does not posses these characteristics parallels the risk of the employee quitting, acquiring new employment, or leaving for health reasons.

 

Since indispensability is a creation of structure, and not an inherent characteristic of the individual, organizations have the ability to construct desirable characteristics of a leader.  The ability to lead goes further than the empowerment gained by a construct of loyalty and commitment to organizational structure.  Allowing or creating the indispensable employee/manager empowers without collateral leadership and denies positive and profound change.

 

Mistakenly, we often attribute managerial success to individual commitment.  Organizations create an opportunity for growth that is a fit for loyalty and commitment, and then promote steadfast employees into managerial positions.  Although organizations generally understand that leadership is an essential quality of a successful manager, the indispensability of the individual becomes the “it” factor of organizational success in lieu of leadership.  This underlines the need to understand better the roots of the indispensable manager.

 

Review of Existing Literature

 

Most existing literature defines and promotes the indispensable manager as requisite to organizational and personal success.  However, a group of researchers from the University of California-Irvine, MIT, and the Stanford Graduate School of Business examined how management teams at 161 Silicon Valley start-ups performed between 1994 and 2002.  They found that although “turnover among managers is usually viewed as bad, it also has its positive side: As businesses grow and require new perspectives and experience, turnover can bring in fresh ideas and expertise that are vital to a company's long-term prospects” (Ewers, 2007, p. 42).  These findings suggest the unsuitability of the term “indispensable” in reference to key management, and that indispensability may indeed be mythological.

 

Murray (2001) suggests that CEOs often suffer “from a classic problem: the Myth of the Indispensable Employee.”  Murray’s twenty-five years of experience, specializing in leadership and group effectiveness, have taught him that CEOs often tolerate indispensable managers.  Tolerance morphs into compromise, compromise leads to negative real-world situations.  “Jack Welch at GE once said that the toughest people decisions involve high performers who do not share the company’s values” (Murray, 2001).  As a result, an enormous gap between what the CEO wants for his company and what he has emerges.  The CEO realizes “he could no longer compromise what he wanted for his company” (Murray, 2001).  This is mythological indispensability based on corporate demand.

 

Indispensability has another foundation, an annealing process.  Corporate America births the indispensable manager as a means of stress relief.  These key managers simulate the annealing process in an attempt to yield results.  Eventually, “we incorporate them into our daily routines, and before long, they become seemingly indispensable” (Glen, 2006).  In the beginning, “staffers like this setup.  It’s lower risk and requires less work” (Glen, 2006).  Over a period, the original feeling of being needed transforms into either managers recognizing “the burden of having a staff that delegates even the most mundane details back up to the boss” (Glen, 2006), or the manger integrates the myth of indispensability into their psyche.  They become victims of the myth.   In the latter, the indispensable tool the CEO created in the annealing process initiates the cycle from tolerance, to compromise, to negative real-world situations. 

 

Once this cycle takes hold within an organization, degeneration begins.  “While times have changed, the hammer of authority remains close at hand.  If it's human nature for workers to seek freedom, it's also human nature for bosses to withhold it” (Coy, 2007).  The resulting marriage of human nature and indispensability “encourages a cyclical co-dependence” (Glen, 2006): staffers seek freedom; managers covet power; and, CEOs demand results.  This “cyclical co-dependence” perpetuates the myth of the indispensable manager.

 

If the indispensability of a manager is questionable, what is the indispensible measure of organizational success?   Suitor (2009) quotes President John F. Kennedy, who once said, "Strong leaders surround themselves with advisors, not admirers. They recognize that admirers tell them what they wish to hear.”  Indispensability cordons the manager from their staff, creating admirers and often times enemies: Leadership embraces staffers through trust. 

 

Suitor (2009) found the following:

 

Integrity is a requirement for any head.  It reflects a fundamental honesty of thought and action, with a devotion to the principles and the profit of the organization.  It is the basis for the creation of trust that must be earned — it will not be given.

 

Through this trust, the leader negates the mythological requirement for an indispensable manager. 

 

Hooper (2002) discusses that “since leadership is about people, one should view the practice of leadership as an art to be developed rather than a process to be mastered.”  This theory exemplifies the falsehood in the preceding pattern where indispensability denotes mastery.  Mastery does not imply any specific expertise, abilities or formal training.  To maintain a successful Master/subordinate relationship takes abilities and skills beyond or apart from normal relationship skills.  To the contrary, leadership allows a manger “to think about issues beyond his or her own individual experience and to take advantage of the wisdom of others” (Hooper, 2002).   This interaction requires the development of a relationship where abilities and skills are mutually inclusive of normal relationship skills.

 

Kouzes & Posner (2007) pose that “personal values are the route to loyalty and commitment” (p.56).  This defines commitment as an individual preference in course.  The qualities individuals within an organization view as the preferential of a committed manager are essential in determining what makes an individual appear indispensable from an organizational viewpoint.  Is having a committed manager who is indispensable the same as having an indispensable leader?  Moreover, if a manager is in fact a leader, is “indispensable” ever an accurate description? 

 

Importance of Study

 

The literature review revealed an absence of empirical research concerning the impact of allowing or creating indispensable managers within an organization.  Additionally, there is no tangible direct or indirect observation testing the reality or substantiation of the indispensable manager.  Organizations must understand the pitfalls of creating the indispensable employee.  Certainly, utilization of the term “indispensable” is a misnomer.  Since indispensability is a creation of faulty structure, and not an inherent characteristic of the individual, organizations have the ability to construct desirable characteristics.  The ability to lead goes further than the empowerment gained by a construct of loyalty and commitment to organizational structure.  Allowing or creating the indispensable employee/manager empowers without collateral leadership and denies positive and profound change.

 

It is important to study job satisfaction in organizations where this distinction is not evident.  It is essential to study job satisfaction for both the indispensable employee and for the employee otherwise seen as less than indispensable.  This is not to say that the latter employee is dispensable; however, through this study, we will find if either the employer implies or the latter employee senses their unessential position within the organization.  Though the results may be heterogeneous, it is imperative that this study spark conversation identifying commitment and leadership as two autonomous actions within an organization.  Secondly, we must study how the organizational measure of indispensability of an employee places commitment and leadership in opposition of one another.  A successful study will help to assure quality leadership benefits the employer, manager, and employee.

 

Purpose of Study

 

A virtual lack of empirical research, coupled with a literature review theorizing the infeasibility of the indispensable manger, suggests an uncharted segment of organizational design.  However, the literature review does reveal that when organizations allow the perpetuation of the indispensable manager, the impact is far from negligible.  Murray (2001) recounts a conversation with a CEO “suffering from a classic problem: The Myth of the Indispensable Employee.”  The manager thought of as “indispensable” became aggressive and non-responsive to the CEO’s prompts for change.  “Painted into a corner by his own procrastination, the CEO felt he was losing grip on his company” (Muray, 2001).  CEOs, who fall prey to the “myth,” risk losing productive ground to management practices with no empirical foundation.

 

The purpose of this research is to explore the feasibility of allowing or creating the indispensable manager.  Research questions are:

 

1. What defines a manager as indispensable to organizational success?

2. Is any manger indispensable?

3. What affect does an indispensable manager have on organizational success?

 

Methodology

 

Through quantitative research methods, the aim of this study is to classify features of the indispensable manger, count them through surveys, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain observations.  “Quantitative research seeks to discover how many people think, act or feel a particular way (as opposed to why they do) and as such this form of research often utilizes large samples ranging in size from around 50” (Quantitative Research, 2008).  This minimum sample size is appropriate when studying Field Office, District, and Regional Directors populations.

 

Understanding that “survey research is one of the most important areas of measurement in applied social research” (Trochim, 2006), this study will utilize the survey type of design in quantitative research.  “The broad area of survey research encompasses any measurement procedures that involve asking questions of respondents” (Trochim, 2006) and is appropriate when studying why organizations may believe their managers to be indispensable. 

 

Participants

 

The quantitative research will include surveys accomplished by Field Office, District, and Regional Directors of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  USCIS includes 26 districts, encompassing 89 local offices and 129 application Support Centers located throughout the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands.  In view of the fact that it is improbable that the survey will be inclusive of every individual in the large target population, the study will sample a smaller sub-group of the population.  The sampling will encompass the Western Region offices of USCIS, to include both rural and urban offices in five western states and Guam. 

 

“A quasi-experimental design is one that looks a bit like an experimental design but lacks the key ingredient -- random assignment” (Trochim, 2006).  This is quasi-experimental research using a non-random sampling of participants currently in the employ of USCIS with a government rating GS-14 and above (second level management positions within the federal government).  Non-random sampling is useful when the methodology utilizes descriptive comments about the sample.  To reduce the chance that the sample bias will be very high, volunteer sampling is not appropriate to this study.  There is an increased risk that volunteers may exhibit exposures or outcomes that may differ from non-volunteers where the sampled participants may have a vested interest in the outcome of the study (e.g. a change in management practices dependent upon the outcome of the internal study).  Key to the success of the survey project is avoiding response bias.  Additionally, it is imperative to preserve anonymity of the participants when conducting the survey.  To guarantee anonymity, the survey will avoid specific demographic questions that deal with age, race, or position. 

 

Procedure

 

The researchers will contact the USCIS Western Regional Director in Los Angeles, CA to secure their permission to disperse the survey to all second line managers in the region.  Additionally, researchers will request creation of a secure email account in order to distribute secure access to a Web-based survey within the agency Intranet.  This will alleviate random respondents replying as might occur if the survey were to appear on an unsecure Web page.  The target population consists entirely of highly literate Internet users capable of accessing and completing the on-line survey.  Access to the account will be limited to IT professional, per agency guidelines, and researchers.

 

 Based on the approval from the Regional Director, researchers will create an email distribution list for the target population.  This distribution list will establish a sample size for the study.   A high response rate is the key to legitimizing a survey's results.  When a survey elicits responses from a large percentage of its target population, the findings are inevitably more accurate.  In an attempt to ensure a large response rate, the email distribution will include a memorandum form the Regional Director recommending a response cut-off date. 

 

To ensure further anonymity, researchers will ask the target population to respond to an email electronically verifying completion of the survey instead of signing their survey online.  This email will in no way connect the target population with specific survey responses received to date.  This email will utilize the same distribution list as the initial survey request.  Researchers will electronically transmit the verification email on the response cut-off date recommended by the Regional Director.  In order to improve the response rate and since successful surveys generally follow up the initial invitation with a reminder to those that have not yet responded, researchers will compile a second distribution list from the non-responsive target population.  This new target population will have an additional seven days to respond to the survey request.

 

Data Collection

 

Researchers will utilize a single mode of data collection in completing this quantitative research.  The survey software utilized (internal secure HTML and ACCESS database software) simplifies compilation and analysis of the data collected.  However, to ensure accuracy of the programs utilized in data collection, researchers will visually verify five percent of the data collected for accuracy. 

 

The survey is relatively short and easy to use, taking no longer than thirty minutes to complete.  The survey format is unambiguous and consistent.  Question formats remain consistent and do not jump randomly from type to type; however, transitional survey questions do require minimal format changes and do so without ambiguity.  Instructions are as explicit as possible considering the simplicity of the survey.  The survey form is professional in appearance, systematically constructed, and should lead to a high response rate.

 

Definitions placed at the end of the survey allow the respondent to answer prior survey questions based on personal experience without predisposition or a preconceived opinion.  This method allows the respondent to evaluate impartially facts presented for determination (biased, n.d.).  Additionally, to confirm criterion validity, asking the same question in different ways at a later stage in the questionnaire tests for consistency in the response.  Utilizing the criterion-related validity, researchers measure how well one variable or set of variables predicts an outcome based on information from other variables (Criterion validity, 2009).

 

The researcher compiled the list of questions provided in the survey from items collected during the Literature Review.  The survey questions contain descriptive items designed as confirmatory research.  This involves testing against the researcher’s hypothesis or specific assumptions.  Because no empirical research exists as a foundation for this research survey, the survey is unique; although, the researcher does employ close-ended questions based on the Likert-scale (Waddington, 2000).

 

When utilizing the Likert-scale, each respondent is asked to rate each item on some response scale.  For example, they could rate each item on a 1-to-5 response scale where they strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, or strongly agree.  Rensis Liker developed the original scale of this type.  Liker explains the scale in his article, "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," in Achieves of Psychology (1932).  He reported very satisfactory reliability data for the scales developed with his procedure.  This “psychometric scale is the most widely used scale in survey research today” (Likert scale, 2009).

 

The survey developed for this study contains minimal transitional questions that are categorical and closed-ended.  When the answers are categories, each respondent must fall into exactly one of them. 

 

Researchers often us Categorical questions in surveys because these questions save time and reduce respondent burden.  Saving time contributes to accuracy because a respondent who must wade through scores of questions may tend to answer “no” more frequently (e.g., Lehnen & Reiss, 1978).  Subsequently, reducing the number of questions asked ought to reduce the respondent’s tendency to say “no” (Dashen, M.L., & Fricker, S., 2009).

 

The researcher will organize the closed-ended data in a variety of ways, analyze the data mathematically, and compare data sets.  The researcher will represent the data in two ways — in a bar graph and in a circle graph.  This is dependent upon acquisition of data through either the Likert-scale or categorical closed-ended questions.  The Likert-scale model does not easily transition to circle graphing unless the data retrieved reflects distinctive, near categorical, results.

 

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

 

This quantitative study attempts to analyze data without having prior empirical research to utilize as reference data and for meta-analysis.  The Literature Review clearly establishes that although a large amount of information exists concerning indispensable managers, the research that derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief is deficient.  The lack of empirical data means that this research should serve as the foundation for future empirically based studies. 

 

Ideally, the lack of empirical research should alleviate any conformational bias.  “The prevailing trend in research is to confirm what we already know, augmenting our knowledge by small increments (Dobres, 2009).  This research does not seek to conform, but to explore a possible pitfall evident in organizational structure never before studied.  “Once a lot of research has been done on a given topic, patterns and themes begin to emerge.  It is these patterns that we then seek to pass on to others in the form of education (Dobres, 2009).  The strengths and the weaknesses are mirror images – all subject to error, controlled by their limitations, and destined to educate.  The following sections concerning criteria of validity and reliability discuss strengths, weaknesses, and limitations in more depth. 

 

Validity

 

In his extensive essay on test validity, Messick (1989) defined validity as “an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores and other modes of assessment” (p.13).  Validity “is the extent to which a measure reflects only the desired construct without contamination from other systematically varying constructs” (Hoyle, Harris & Judd, 2002, p.83).  The questions determining the validity of this research are: (1) How valid is our interpretation of the respondent’s survey data; and, (2) How valid is it to use this data in making judgments in relation to the utilization of indispensable employees in an organization.  In order to answer these questions, we will evaluate the validity of the research utilizing three criteria: construct validity, internal validity, and external validity.

 

Construct Validity

 

“The degree to which both the independent and dependent variables accurately reflect or measure the constructs of interest is known as the construct validity” (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.32).  Ebel and Frisbie contend that:

 

Construct validation is the process of gathering evidence to support the contention that a given test indeed measures the psychological construct the makers intend it to measure. The goal is to determine the meaning of scores from the test, to assure that the scores mean what we expect them to mean (1991, p. 108).

 

One way of assessing the construct validity of a test is to correlate its different test components (Alderson, Clapham & Wall, 2000, pp. 183-184).    In correlating this study’s survey components, researchers consider construct validity a "labeling" issue (Trochim, 2006).  This survey certainly attempts accurately to label the “indispensable” manger through participant response.  Therefore, when measuring the term "indispensable," what researchers are really measuring is this marker.  Appendix A provides the composition of the survey with the rubrics developed for this study.

 

Internal Validity

 

Internal validity “concerns the extent to which conclusions can be drawn about the causal effects of one variable on another (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.32).  “When observations in social research are selected so that they are not independent of the outcome variables in a study, sample selection bias (sometimes labeled ‘selection effects’) leads to biased inferences about social processes” (Marshall, 1998).  The single mode of data collection used in this study and the utilization of non-random sampling seek to reduce selection bias, therefore increase internal validity.  However, “the artificiality of the survey format puts a strain on validity” (Barribeau et al., 2005).

 

This study will seek to counter the affect of the survey’s synthetics by understanding that “people's real feelings are hard to grasp in terms of such dichotomies as "agree/disagree," "support/oppose," "like/dislike," etc., these are only approximate indicators of what we have in mind when we create the questions (et al., Barribeau 2005).  Further offsetting artificiality is the demand that “reliability,” on the other hand, be a clearer matter (Barribeau et al., 2005), as will be discussed further in the “Reliability” section of the proposal.

 

External Validity

 

“A final criterion for useful research concerns the extent to which one can generalize the results of the research to the populations and settings of interest in the hypothesis” (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.32).   Seldom is a researcher interested in drawing conclusions only about the participants in a study.  Usually, the researcher prefers to claim that the obtained results are also valid as applicable to a larger population.  However, for the purposes of this study, the participants (USCIS Western Region) accurately reflect the target population (USCIS), as described previously in the “Participants” sections of this proposal[MSOffice2] .  Although this is a potential threat to external validity, future external studies may inevitably replicate obtained results.

 

Reliability

 

“The reliability of a measure is defined as the extent to which it is free from random error” (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.83).  Surveys tend to be strong on reliability; because, “survey research presents all subjects with a standardized stimulus, and so goes a long way toward eliminating unreliability in the researcher's observations. Careful wording, format, content, etc. can reduce significantly the subject's own unreliability” (Barribeau et al., 2005). 

 

There are several different ways to estimate reliability, such as test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, parallel-forms reliability, and internal consistency reliability – none of which researchers implement into this study, as the survey format does not lend itself to these estimations.  Use of test-retest reliability is appropriate when the quality or construct measured remains stable over time, such as intelligence.  However, this survey largely focuses on management style, and the “style of management is shown to depend on the size of the enterprise and related to company effectiveness and results” (Davidmann, 2006), a dynamic undertaking.  Additionally, inter-rater reliability is only applicable when the survey requires judging, as in a test of intellect, thus, is not applicable to this research study’s survey format.  “Parallel-forms reliability is gauged by comparing two different tests created using the same content.  This is accomplished by creating a large pool of test items that measure the same quality and then randomly dividing the items into two separate tests” (Barribeau et al., 2005).  Time and resource limitations preclude the necessity of having two tests administered to the same subjects at the same time.  Therefore, while applicable, this test of reliability is not suitable for utilization in this research at this time.  Lastly, internal consistency reliability is a “form of reliability used to judge the consistency of results across items on the same test.  Essentially, you are comparing test items that measure the same construct to determine the tests internal consistency (Barribeau et al., 2005).  Deployment of the Likert-scale type survey inhibits use of internal consistency reliability.  This study’s survey reliability stands alone based on simplicity of wording, format, and consistency.

 

Ethical Considerations

 

In quasi-experimental research such as this, one major ethical issue that arises involves the confidentiality and anonymity of the data (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.59).  This proposal addresses anonymity in the Participant and Procedure sections.  Participants record absolutely no identifying characteristics on the data that would make it possible for the researcher to figure out who contributed a given piece of data (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.59).  Therefore, with an understanding that the “crucial ethical prescription for researchers is not to promise anonymity unless the conditions under which the data are truly anonymous” (Hoyle et al., 2002, p.59), confidentiality is a consideration [MSOffice3] but not an ethical issue of this study.

 

“Since researchers who choose to do surveys have an ethical obligation to use population samples that are inclusive of race, gender, educational and income levels, etc., if you choose to” (Barribeau et al., 2005) administer electronic surveys serious problems may arise.  “Individuals who have access to personal computers, modems and the Internet are not necessarily representative of a population (Barribeau et al., 2005).  This accessibility issue encompasses USCIS employees with disabilities.  However, as a Federal agency, USCIS complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in providing reasonable accommodation to all employed persons with disabilities.  Although, it is suggested that researchers not use an electronic survey when a more inclusive research method is available (Barribeau et al., 2005), inclusivity is not an issue of this study. 

 

Conclusion

 

The first step in understanding the affect of the “indispensable” manger/supervisor in an organizational structure is to measure, define, and understand the label given to it by upper level managers.  Once baseline studies like this one establish that understanding, future studies will provide insights into the impact these persons, whether mythical or real, have on organizational structure and culture. 

 

Lohr (2009) eloquently reminds us:

 

Indispensable?  No one is, we’re told.  Times change, people move on and the notion of the irreplaceable individual is a myth.  That is irrefutable, at least in the cosmic sense of Charles de Gaulle’s grim reminder:  “The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

 

Lohr (2009) also quotes Warren Bennis, a professor at the University of Southern California who states:

 

The real test of exemplary leadership is not making yourself an irreplaceable icon but developing a deep, talented bench who, when their turn comes, can unite a company and unleash creativity into their own way.

 

This is the foundation and direction of future investigation: Once researchers determine the perceived value of the indispensable manager/supervisor, they can begin to understand either the benefit or the fatal flaw in allowing the perpetuation of myth or beneficial reality.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Dianne, W. (2000). Language testing construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Barribeau, P., Butler, B., Corney, j., Doney, M., Gault, J., Gordon, J., Fetzer, R., Klein, A., Ackerson Rogers, C., Stein, I. F., Steiner, C., Urschel, H., Waggoner, T., Palmquist, M. (2005). Survey Research. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/survey/.

 

biased. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved April 26 2009 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/biased

 

Bradley, R. (2005, December 1). Retrieved April 25, 2009, from U.S. Department of Education: http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/pdf/Validity_Evidence%20.pdf.

 

Broudy, J. (2008, September 1). Dealing with the prima donna. Construction Business Owner.com. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/people-management/dealing-with-the-prima-donna.html.

 

Coy, P. (2007, August 20). COG OR CO-WORKER?. BusinessWeek, Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Criterion validity. (2009, April 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04:45, April 30, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criterion_validity&oldid=285142217

 

Dashen, M.L., & Fricker, S, (2009). Understanding the Cognitive Processes of Open-Ended Categorical Questions and their Effects on Data Quality. Journal of Official Statistics.

 

Davidmann, M. (2006). Style of management and leadership. In The works of manfred davidmann (Second edition 1982). Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.solhaam.org/articles/clm2.html.

 

DJS Research LTD. (2008). Quantitative research. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.quantitativeresearch.org.uk/.

 

Dobres, J. (2009). Education versus research. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from Firefox Wordpress Dreamhost: http://www.jon22.net/education-versus-research/.

 

Ebel, R. L & Frisbie, D. A.(1991). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice-Hall.

 

Ewers, J., & E., J. (2007, August 13). All Work and No Play Makes a Company... Unproductive. U.S. News & World Report, 143(5), 42-42. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Glen, P. (2006, October 2). How Indispensable Should You Be?. Computerworld, pp. 50,50. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Godinez, S. (2004, January 12). Success Story. January 4, 2004. The Dallas Morning News, DallasNews.com. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://classifieds.dallasnews.com/employment/it/011104ccCareersTechsuccess.bfdd2fb.html.

 

Hooper, J. (2002, Winter2002). Creating Strong Leaders and Strong Units. Air & Space Power Journal, 16(4), 17-24. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M.  (2002). Research methods in social relations (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

 

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Likert scale. (2009, April 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:13, April 20, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Likert_scale&oldid=283712312

 

Lohr, S. (2009, January 18). One day you're indispensable, the next day.. The Gainsville Sun. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090118/znyt05/901183009&template=printpicart.

 

Marshall, G. (1998). "sample selection bias." A Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-sampleselectionbias.html

 

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education.

 

Murray, P. (2001). The myth of the indispensable employee. Managing Times (Quarter Four). Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://www.tbmcg.com/acrobat/featured_articles/4q01_PatMurray.pdf.

 

Suitor, J. (2009, Spring2009). A Letter on Leadership. Independent School, 68(3), 14-16. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from Professional Development Collection database.

 

Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Internet WWW page, at URL: <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/> (version current as of October 20, 2006).

 

Waddington, H. (2000). Types of survey questions. In  B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/surveyquest/start.htm