correlation of inspirational leadership, but considerably higher than the average inter-item correlation of transactional leadership (.12). The item-rest correlations of ratio-nal—objective leadership as compared with transactional leadership are also higher. For rational—objective the range is .31 to .62, for transactional leadership —.07 to .46. The rational—objective scale thus has a higher internal consisrency than the transactional scale. However, some of the statistics could still be improved upon.
The scale found for laissez-faire leadership, named passive leadership, forms a combina-tion of Bass' scales for laissez-faire leadership and passive managemenr-by-exception. One item from the subscale of laissez-faire did not meet the stipulated criteria and was left out of the passive leadership scale, seven items remained. The scale statistics for passive lead-ership are, as expected after adapting the scale, better than the same statistics for Bass' laissez-faire leadership. The CC of passive leadership is .74, considerably higher than the .49 OC of laissez-faire leadership, even though passive leadership has more items (7 vs. fout). The average inter-item correlation of passive leadership (.30) is higher than the average inter-item correlation of laissez-faire leadership (.21). The range of item-rest cor-relations for the passive leadership items is .25 to .57 vs. a range of item—rest correlations from .09 to .44 for laissez-faire. The passive scale thus has a higher internal consistency than the laissez-faire scale. Some of the statistics could still be improved upon.
Correlations between the factors found in this study and Bass' factors
Table 7 shows the correlations of the three factors found in this study with each other and Bass' factors. The correlation of inspirational with rational—objective leadership is sub-stantial, .62. It is higher than the correlation between Bass' transformational and trans-