Journal of Management 1996 Podsakoff 259 98

http://jom.sagepub.
com/
Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/014920639602200204
1996 22: 259 Journal of Management
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie and William H. Bommer
Citizenship Behaviors
Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational
Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association

can be found at: Journal of Management Additional services and information for
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Apr 1, 1996 Version of Record >>

by guest on June 17, 2014 jom.sagepub.com Downloaded from by guest on June 17, 2014 jom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Journal of Management
1996. Vol. 22, No. 2. 259-298
Transformational Leader Behaviors
and Substitutes for Leadership as
Determinants of Employee Satisfaction,
Commitment, Trust, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors
Philip M. Podsakoff
Scott B. MacKenzie
Indiana University
William H. Bommer
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
The goal of this study was to examine the effects of transforma-
tional leadership behaviors, within the context of Kerr and Jermiers
(1978) substitutes for leadership. Data were collected from 1539
employees across a wide variety of different industries, organizational
settings, and job levels. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis
procedures generally showed thatfew of the substitutes variables moder-
ated the effects of the transformational leader behaviors on followers
attitudes, role perceptions, and in-role and citizenship behaviors in
a manner consistent with the predictions of Howell, Dorfman and Kerr
(1986). However, the results did show that: (a) the transfotntational
leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership each had unique effects
on follower criterion variables; (b) the total amount of variance
accounted for by the substitutes for leadership and the transformational
leader behaviors was substantially greater than that reported in prior
leadership research; and (c) several of the transformational behaviors
were significantly related to several of the substitutes for leadership
variables. Implications of these findings for our understanding of the
effects of transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leader-
ship are then discussed.
During the past decade and a half, two rather distinct lines of theory and research
have emerged in an attempt to improve our ability to understand leadership effec-
tiveness. One of these approaches focuses on the identification and examination of
those leader behaviors that influence followers values and aspirations, activate
Direct all correspondence to: Philip M. Podsakoff, Indiana University, Department of Management, School of
Business, Bloomington, IN 47405.
Copyright 0 1996 by J AI Press Inc. 0149-2063
259
by guest on June 17, 2014 jom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
260 PODSAKOFF, MACKENZIE AND BOMMER
their higher-order needs, and arouse them to transcend their own self-interests for
the sake of the organization (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989a, 1989b). These trunsfomza-
tional or charismatic behaviors are believed to augment the impact of
transactional1 forms of leader behavior on employee outcome variables, because
followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do
more than they are expected to do (Yukl, 1989b, p. 272). Examples of this new
focus on leadership include the work of Bums, Bass, House, and others (cf. Avolio
& Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio & Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldman,
Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boa1 & Bryson, 1988; Bums, 1978;
Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991; House,
Woycke & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993;
Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). Although these approaches differ somewhat from each
other, as noted by Pod&off, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990), the majority
of them share the common perspective that by articulating a vision of the future of
the organization, providing a model that is consistent with that vision, fostering the
acceptance of group goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders
change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing
to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization.
Research on the transformational leadership paradigm has proven to be rather
promising. For example, Bryman (1992) cites a variety of organizational studies
demonstrating that transformational leader behaviors are positively related to
employees satisfaction, self-reported effort, and job performance. Similar results
have been reported in several field studies (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, Avolio
& Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldman, Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Bennis & Nanus,
1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991; House,
Woycke & Fodor, 1988; Roberts, 1985; Trite & Beyer, 1986) from a variety of
samples and organizational settings. In addition, in a laboratory study designed to
examine the relative impact of directive leader behavior versus charismatic leader-
ship behavior (which is considered by many to be a form of transformational
leadership behavior), Howell and Frost (1989) found that charismatic leader
behavior produced higher performance, greater satisfaction, and greater role clar-
ity, than directive leader behavior.
Almost concurrently with the emergence of the transformational approach to
leadership, but not necessarily related to it, has been an increased interest in Kerr
and Jermiers (1978) substitutes for leadership model. According to this
approach, the key to improving leadership effectiveness is to identify the situa-
tional variables that can either substitutefor, neutralize, or enhance the effects of
a leaders behavior. Included among variables that have been identified by Kerr
and Jermier (1978) as potential substitutes for leadership are four subordinate char-
acteristics (ability, experience, training, and knowledge; need for independence;
professional orientation; and indifference to organizational rewards), three tusk
characteristics (task feedback; routine, methodologically invariant tasks; intrinsi-
cally satisfying tasks), and six organizational characteristics (organizational
formalization; organizational inflexibility; group cohesiveness; amount of advi-
sory/staff support; rewards outside the leaders control; and the degree of spatial
distance between supervisors and subordinates). Unlike the transformational
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2, 1996
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs 261
approach to leadership, which assumes that it is the leaders transformational
behavior that is the key to improving leadership effectiveness, the substitutes for
leadership approach assumes that the real key to leadership effectiveness is to iden-
tify those important situational or contextual variables that may substitute for the
leaders behavior, so that the leader can adapt his or her behavior accordingly.
The substitutes model has attracted a great deal of research interest (cf.
Howell & Dorfman, 1981, 1986; Jermier & Berkes, 1979; Kerr & Jermier, 1978;
Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Pod&off, Niehoff, MacKenzie & Will-
iams, 1993; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover & Huber, 1984; Sheridan, Vredenburgh &
Abelson, 1984). However, the results of this research suggest that the substitutes
variables behave somewhat differently than expected by Kerr and his colleagues
(cf. Howell, Dorfman & Kerr, 1986). Consistent with other situational approaches
to leadership, the basic assumption made by Kerr and his colleagues (cf. Howell et
al., 1986) is that the substitutes for leadership variables have their primary effects
on subordinate criterion variables through their interactions with the leader behav-
iors of interest. That is, the substitutes variables are predicted to moderate the
relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate criterion variables.
However, recent research (cf. Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff,
Niehoff, MacKenzie & Williams, 1993) designed to test these predictions has not
been all that supportive. For, in spite of the fact that the substitutes for leadership
had a number of important main effects, and accounted for a large proportion of the
variance in the criterion variables, relatively few of the substitutes had moderating
effects consistent with those predicted by Howell et al., (1986).
Thus, the existing empirical evidence does not appear to be very supportive
of the substitutes for leadership model, at least in terms of their moderating effects.
This might suggest that they have little impact on the effects of leadership.
However, such a conclusion is premature, because several studies (cf. Farh, Podsa-
koff & Cheng, 1987; Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Pod&off, Niehoff,
MacKenzie & Williams, 1993) have found that the substitutes for leadership vari-
ables are significantly related to many forms of leader behavior (as well as to the
criterion variables). This suggests that any structural model designed to examine
the impact of a leaders behavior on subordinate attitudes, role perceptions, and
performance, that does not include both the substitutes for leadership, and the leader
behaviors, is misspecified and will produce biased estimates of the effects of the
leaders behavior, since the substitute variables are significantly correlated with the
leader behaviors, and with the criterion variables. This implies that much of what
we know about the impact of leader behavior on subordinate criterion variables
could be inaccurate, due to the omission of the substitutes for leadership variables.
Whether this is true or not depends upon the extent to which the substitute variables
are correlated with the leadership behaviors of interest, and the criterion variables.
Potential Effects of Substitutes for Leadership on the Impact of
Transformational Leader Behaviors
Interestingly, these two major streams of research have never been merged,
even though there is good reason to expect that the substitute variables may influ-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2. 1996
ence the impact of transformational leader behaviors. In their original paper, Kerr
and Jermier (1978) proposed a set of substitutes for leadership variables that they
believed would generally moderate the impact of a leaders behavior on subordi-
nate criterion variables. Their first test of the model quite naturally focused on the
dominant forms of leader behaviors extant at that time (e.g., relationship-oriented,
supportive, and people-centered leader behaviors; and task-oriented, instrumental,
and job-centered leader behaviors). However, from the beginning, Kerr and Jerm-
ier (1978) clearly intended their model to be more broadly applicable, Since Table
1 is derived from previously conducted studies, substitutes are only suggested for
the two leader behavior styles which dominate the research literature. The substi-
tutes construct probably has much wider applicability, however, perhaps
to. . . leadership in general. (p. 378). Consistent with this interpretation, Farh,
Pod&off and Cheng (1987), Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and Huber (1984), Podsa-
koff, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993), and Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and
Williams (1993), applied the model to various forms of leader reward and punish-
ment behavior, and Sheridan, Vredenburgh and Abelson (1984) applied it to
decision making, informational, and interpersonal forms of leader behavior. Thus,
the substitutes model was originally intended to be, and has been, applied to a
broad range of leader behaviors.
However, the substitutes model has never been applied to transformational
leadership, even though there is reason to suspect that the substitute variables may
moderate the impact of some forms of transformational leadership behavior. For
example, in their original specification of the model, Kerr and Jermier (1978)
explicitly proposed that substitutes for leadership should moderate the impact of
supportive leader behavior, which is regarded by many as a form of transforma-
tional leadership (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio & Goodheim,
1987; Bass, Waldman, Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1987). This
hypothesis subsequently found partial support in the work of Dobbins and Zaccaro
(1986) who found that group cohesiveness moderates the impact of individualized
support on employee satisfaction.
Similarly, one might expect the impact of high performance expectations,
providing an appropriate model, and articulating a vision, to be moderated by
group cohesiveness, because group members may set expectations for performance
and appropriate behavior, and possibly even have a different vision than that of the
leader. It is also possible that the impact of a leaders high performance expecta-
tions, providing an appropriate model, and articulating a vision, may be moderated
by the extent to which he or she is perceived to control important organizational
rewards. Banduras (1977) research suggests that modeling the appropriate behav-
ior will only be effective when a leader can reward subordinates for exhibiting the
desired behavior. By a similar logic, followers may be less likely to move in the
articulated direction, or meet high performance expectations, if they do not believe
their leaders will be able to reward them for it. Task feedback might also be
expected to have a similar effect on the impact of these behaviors, based on Locke
and Lathams (1990) review of a number of studies showing that feedback gener-
ally enhanced the effect that goal setting (high performance expectations) had on
task performance.
The impact of fostering the acceptance of group goals and intellectual stimu-
lation might also be moderated by some of the substitutes for leadership. For
example, followers who like to work alone, and have a high need for independence,
may be particularly immune to attempts on the part of a leader to foster the accep-
tance of group goals. In addition, continually pressuring subordinates to re-think
the way they do their work (intellectual stimulation) may be quite effective for
subordinates with a low need for independence, and quite irritating and ineffective
for subordinates with a high need for independence. This may help explain why the
effects of intellectual stimulation have been positive in some cases (Bass, 1985),
and negative in others (Pods&off, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Thus, it
may be that the impact of each of the forms of transformational leader behavior
previously identified in the leadership literature may be moderated by one or more
of the substitutes for leadership.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to determine the potential
effects that substitutes for leadership have on the relationships between transfor-
mational leader behaviors and followers attitudes, role perceptions, and
performance. More specifically, we will examine: (a) the main efsects of the trans-
formational leader behaviors in the context of the effects of the substitutes for
leadership, and (b) the moderating e!fsects of the substitutes for leadership on the
relationships between the transformational leader behaviors and the follower crite-
rion variables. This will help us to determine whether the effects of
transformational leadership are as context-free as many suppose them to be, and
whether previous estimates of the effects of transformational leader behaviors on
these criterion variables have been biased by the omission of the substitutes
variables.
It is important to note that, in addition, this study will also examine the effects
of transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership on a more
comprehensive set of performance measures. The majority of studies on transfor-
mational leadership behaviors have focused on the effects that these behaviors
have on in-role performance, rather than on extra-role or organizational citi-
zenship behaviors (OCBs, Organ, 1988). However, as noted by Podsakoff et al.
(1990), even though the effects of transformational leadership on in-role perfor-
mance are important, they may not be as important as the effects of
transformational leadership on extra-role and/or citizenship behavior. Others have
recognized this as well. Indeed, Boa1 and Bryson (1988, p. 11) argue that the
essence of transformational leadership is that such leaders ...lift ordinary people
to extraordinary heights; Yukl(1989b, p. 272) argues that they cause subordinates
to . ..do more than they are expected to do; Bass (1985) says that they get people
to perform beyond the level of expectations; and House et al. (1988, p. 100)
claim that these leaders motivate their subordinates to perform above and beyond
the call of duty. Taken together, this suggests that transformational leadership
may have a number of important effects on extra-role or organizational citizenship
behaviors. The same is true of substitutes for leadership. Recent research by Podsa-
koff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and Williams (1993) and Pod&off, MacKenzie and
Fetter (1993) has documented the linkage between substitutes for leadership and
264 PODSAKOFF. MACKENZIE AND BOMMER
OCBs or extra-role behavior. Consequently, organizational citizenship behaviors
were included as a key criterion variable in this study.
Sample
Method
Measures of leader behaviors, job attitudes, and role perceptions for this study
were collected from 1539 employees, and matching performance data were
collected for 1200 of them from their managers.?
A portion of the data was previously published in a study by Pod&off and
MacKenzie (1994a), which examined the psychometric properties of the substitutes
for leadership scales. However, that study did not include transformational leader
behaviors or examine their impact on the criterion variables included in this study,
nor did it examine the impact of substitutes for leadership on these criterion variables,
or the interaction of the substitutes and transformational leader behaviors.
The majority of the respondents held white collar, managerial, and profes-
sional positions. The sample was drawn from multiple divisions of several large
companies located throughout the U.S. and Canada. In an attempt to increase the
variability of the substitutes measures, the sample was chosen from a wide range
of industries (printing, automotive vehicles and parts, office furniture products,
banks, diversified financial services, petroleum refining, chemical, pharmaceuti-
cal, electronics, photographic, information services, home appliances, pulp and
paper, recycling, office products, computer services, electrical equipment, plastic
products, and food industries), organizational levels (entry level through CEOs and
presidents), and from companies of varying size (from 10 million dollars to
Fortune 100 size), some of whom had both foreign and domestic operations. While
the industries in which these organizations operate vary, all of these companies are
comparable in that they are all large, publicly-held firms, consisting primarily of
well educated, professional employees. More specifically, 63.4% of the subjects
possessed a four-year college degree or higher, and 70.7% were either managerial
or technical/professional employees. Almost forty percent (38%) were members of
a professional association or society at the time of the survey. The respondents had
an average age of 36.5 years, average company tenure of 11.3 years, and an average
tenure of 2.9 years under their present supervisor.
Procedure
Survey questionnaires were administered to the respondents from each
sample in their work settings during normal working hours, or respondents were
allowed to take the survey home to complete if they so chose. Included with each
packet was a letter from the researchers indicating the general nature of the survey,
and assuring all respondents that their individual responses would remain anony-
mous. Also included with each survey was a stamped envelope, addressed directly
to the researchers. The sample size of 1539 represents a return rate of 91%.
Predictor Variables
Transformational Leader Behaviors. Podsakoff et al.s (1990) transfor-
mational leadership behavior inventory (TLZ) was used to assess the leader
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22. NO. 2, 1996
behaviors measured in the study. This scale is designed to measure six key dimen-
sions of transformational leadership that have been identified in the research
literature (cf. Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Conger
& Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & DeVanna,
1986). The dimensions are: articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model,
fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing
individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Previous research using this
scale generally supported the hypothesized factor structure; however, three of the
dimensions (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering
the acceptance of group goals) were found to be highly intercorrelated. In view of
the fact that Pod&off et al.s study is the only one that has empirically examined
the scales properties, it is important to confirm the scales psychometric properties
in the present study.
Substitutes for Leadership. The 13 substitutes for leadership constructs
identified by Kerr and Jermier ( 1978) were measured with the 4 1 -item scale devel-
oped by Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993). This scale has been shown to
possess generally good psychometric properties, and to correlate with other vari-
ables in a manner that is consistent with its nomological net (cf. Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1994a; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993).
Criterion Variables
Eleven criterion variables were examined in the current study. Five of these
criterion variables (General Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Trust, Role
Clarity, and Role Conflict) were self-report measures. The other six criterion vari-
ables (employee in-role performance, altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy,
civic virtue, and sportsmanship) were behavioral measures provided by the super-
visors of each of the respondents.
Employee (or Self-) Assessed Criterion Variables. General Satisfaction
was measured with the 20-item short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-
naire (MS&; Weiss, Dawis, England & Lofquist, 1967). The MSQ has been shown
to possess generally good psychometric properties (cf. Gillet & Schwab, 1975;
Price & Mueller, 1986; Weiss et al., 1967), and correlates well with other measures
of job satisfaction (cf. Gillet & Schwab, 1975; Wanous, 1974). Organizational
Commitment was measured with the 15-item scale developed by Porter, Steers,
Mowday, and Boulian (1974). This scale is designed to assess the relative strength
of an employees identification with and involvement in the organization
(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Previous research (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
Porter et al., 1974; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) has demonstrated that this 15-
item scale possesses adequate psychometric properties. Trust in and loyalty to the
leader was assessed with the six item scale used by Podsakoff et al. (1990). Their
research has shown that: (a) all of the items load on the intended factor, (b) a one-
factor model fit the data very well, and (c) the scale had a very acceptable internal
consistency reliability (.90). Finally, shortened versions of Rizzo, House and Lirtz-
mans (1970) scales were used to assess employees role clarity and role conflict.
The role clarity and role conflict scales contained six and eight items, respectively.
The reduced item versions of Rizzo et al.s. (1970) scales have been widely used,
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2. I996
and generally positive evidence exists on both their reliability and validity (cf.
House, Schuler & Levanoni, 1983; Schuler, Aldag & Brief, 1977).
Manager Assessed Criterion Variables. The six behavioral measures
provided by the respondents supervisors were intended to capture both in-role
and extra-role aspects of subordinates performance. In-role pegormance was
defined as those activities that an employee is expected to perform to meet the
prescribed requirements of the job, and was measured with a 4-item scale devel-
oped by Williams (1989). This scale asked supervisors to rate the degree to which
a subordinate fulfills the formal requirements of his or her job, and performs all
essential job duties. In addition to measuring employees in-role performance, we
also measured several extra-role or organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs; Organ, 1988, 1990) using a modified version of the scales developed by
Pod&off and MacKenzie (1989). The items included in this scale measure all five
of the citizenship behavior dimensions identified by Organ (1988), including
altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. Previous
research by a number of researchers (cf. MacKenzie, Pod&off & Fetter, 1991;
Moorman, 1991, 1993; Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Niehoff & Moor-man,
1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994b; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman &
Fetter, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Tansky, 1993) has been very
encouraging, and generally shows this scale to possess good validity and very
acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability.
Seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
(7) strongly agree were utilized to assess all of the constructs measured in the
present study, with the exception of the 20 MSQ scale items, which were assessed
with the traditional five-point scales ranging from (1) very dissatisfied to
(5) very satisfied used in prior research (Weiss et al., 1967).
Analytical Procedures
The data analysis was conducted in three major phases. First, we investigated
the factor structure and reliability of the transformational leadership behavior
inventory developed by Pod&off et al. (1990). In the next phase of our analysis,
we examined the aggregate effects of the set of transformational leader behaviors
and leadership substitutes (i.e., individual, task, and organizational characteristics)
on subordinate attitudes, role perceptions, and performance, to determine which
groups of predictor variables had the greatest effects on each of the eleven criterion
variables. Finally, we examined both the main and interactive effects of the trans-
formational leader behaviors and 13 leadership substitutes on each of the criterion
variables by using hierarchical moderated regression analysis procedures (Cohen
& Cohen, 1983; Stone, 1988; Stone & Hollenbeck, 1984, 1989).
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory
Table 1 reports the completely standardized confirmatory factor loadings of
the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory. As shown in this table, the
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22. NO. 2. 1996
I
t
e
m

N
o
.

T
a
b
l
e

1
.

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

C
o
n
f
i
r
m
a
t
o
r
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

S
c
a
l
e

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

H
i
g
h

A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

P
e
t
j
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

I
t
e
m

a

V
i
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

2

4

1
1

1
6

1
8

9

1
9

2
2

6

8

1
0

2
0

A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

a

V
i
s
i
o
n

I
s

a
l
w
a
y
s

s
e
e
k
i
n
g

n
e
w

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

u
n
i
t
/

d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.

P
a
i
n
t
s

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g

p
i
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

f
u
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

o
u
r

g
r
o
u
p
.

H
a
s

a

c
l
e
a
r

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

w
h
e
r
e

w
e

a
r
e

g
o
i
n
g
.

I
n
s
p
i
r
e
s

o
t
h
e
r
s

w
i
t
h

h
i
s
/
h
e
r

p
l
a
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

f
u
t
u
r
e
.

I
s

a
b
l
e

t
o

g
e
t

o
t
h
e
r
s

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

h
i
s
/
h
e
r

d
r
e
a
m

o
f

t
h
e

f
u
t
u
r
e
.

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
l

L
e
a
d
s

b
y

d
o
i
n
g

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

s
i
m
p
l
y

b
y

t
e
l
l
i
n
g
.

P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

a

g
o
o
d

m
o
d
e
l

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w
.

L
e
a
d
s

b
y

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
.

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

F
o
s
t
e
r
s

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
m
o
n
g

w
o
r
k

g
r
o
u
p
s
.

E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

t
o

b
e

t
e
a
m

p
l
a
y
e
r
s
.

G
e
t
s

t
h
e

g
r
o
u
p

t
o

w
o
r
k

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

g
o
a
l
.

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
s

a

t
e
a
m

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d

s
p
i
r
i
t

a
m
o
n
g

h
i
s
/
h
e
r

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.

.
7
0

.
7
3

.
7
0

.
8
4

.
8
1

.
6
6

.
8
7

.
7
9

.
7
5

.
7
7

.
7
7

.
9
0

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

T
a
b
l
e

1
.

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

I
t
e
m

N
o
.

I
t
e
m

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

H
i
g
h

A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

P
e
r
j
b
r
m
a
n
c
e

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

a

V
i
s
i
o
n

M
o
d
e
l

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

H
i
g
h

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

5

S
h
o
w
s

u
s

t
h
a
t

h
e
/
s
h
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
s

a

l
o
t

f
r
o
m

u
s
.

1
7

I
n
s
i
s
t
s

o
n

o
n
l
y

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
.

2

1

W
i
l
l

n
o
t

s
e
t
t
l
e

f
o
r

s
e
c
o
n
d

b
e
s
t
.

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

7

A
c
t
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

m
y

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
.

(
R
)

1
2

S
h
o
w
s

r
e
s
p
e
c
t

f
o
r

m
y

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
.

1
4

B
e
h
a
v
e
s

i
n

a

m
a
n
n
e
r

t
h
a
t

i
s

t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l

o
f

m
y

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

n
e
e
d
s
.

1
5

T
r
e
a
t
s

m
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

m
y

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
.

(
R
)

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

1

H
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

m
e

w
i
t
h

n
e
w

w
a
y
s

o
f

l
o
o
k
i
n
g

a
t

t
h
i
n
g
s

w
h
i
c
h

u
s
e
d

t
o

b
e

a

p
u
z
z
l
e

f
o
r

m
e
.

3

H
a
s

i
d
e
a
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
v
e

f
o
r
c
e
d

m
e

t
o

r
e
t
h
i
n
k

s
o
m
e

o
f

m
y

o
w
n

i
d
e
a
s

1
h
a
v
e

n
e
v
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
e
d

b
e
f
o
r
e
.

1
3

H
a
s

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

m
e

t
o

t
h
i
n
k

a
b
o
u
t

o
l
d

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

i
n

n
e
w

w
a
y
s
.

.
6
0

.
8
4

8

.
8
1

?

F

.
=
i

.
7
8

$

.
8
1

h

L
%

.
8
8

Z

!
I

.
8
3

Z

W

.
7
8

K

9

.
7
5

.
7
8

P
Y
C

3
3

.
6
1

.
6
4

.
5
8

,
6
8

.
5
9

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

overall fit of the six-factor model to the data was quite good, even though the x2
(df) was 965.51 (194). Bentlers (1990) comparative fit index (WI) was .94,
Bollens (1989) incremental fit index (ZZV) was .94, Joreskog and S&-borns (1993)
goodness of fit index (GFI) was .91, and Tucker and Lewiss (1973) fit index (TLZ)
was .93. In addition, each of the hypothesized factor loadings was statistically
significant at the .Ol level, all of the items had completely standardized loadings of
.60 or above, and Fomell and Larckers (198 1) measure of the average amount of
variance each latent factor accounted for in its indicators (p,,) was quite large,
ranging from 58% to 68% with an average of approximately 61%. Thus, there
appeared to be good support for the hypothesized factor structure of the transfor-
mational leadership scale. However, this was evaluated further by testing whether
any of the hypothesized factors could be combined-two, three, four, five or even
six at a time-without significantly affecting the fit of the model. The results
suggested that the hypothesized six factor model fit the data significantly better
than any of these rival models.
Scale Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations of all of the
variables used in the present study are reported in Table 2. An examination of this
table indicates that the mean internal consistency reliability for the 30 constructs
used in this study was a very respectable .82, and that the reliabilities for all of the
constructs except two (need for independence, a = .69; and rewards outside the
leaders control, a = .67) reported in this table meet or exceed Nunnallys (1978)
recommended level of .70 for newly developed scales. The intercorrelations
reported in Table 2 also indicate that several of the transformational leader behav-
iors included in this study are correlated with several of the substitutes for
leadership. This underscores the importance of including both sets of variables in
leadership research if the unique contributions of the leader behaviors and substi-
tutes for leadership on the criterion variables are to be examined.
Aggregate Effects on Criterion Variables
Given the preliminary evidence described above, our analysis shifted to an
investigation of the impact of the transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership on the eleven criterion variables. The first step was to assess the
amount of variance in the criterion variables accounted for by the complete set of
leader behaviors and substitutes. This was done by regressing each of the eleven
criterion measures on the six leader behaviors and the 13 substitutes variables. The
equation for this full model is as follows:
Y, = ai + CjPijTLBj + C,P,,SUBSUB, + ~,Pi,TASKSUB, + Z,Pi,ORGSUB, + E
(1)
where: Yi = the ith criterion variable (i = 1 to 11)
TLBj = the jth transformational leadership behavior (i = 1 to 6)
UBSUBk = the kth subordinate substitute variable (1 = 1 to 4)
TASKSUBt = the lth task substitute variable (m = 1 to 3)
ORGSUB, = the mth organizational substitute variable (n = 1 to 6)
T
a
b
l
e

2
.

M
e
a
n
s
,

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
,

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,

a
n
d

S
u
b
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

k
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

M
e
u
n
s

S
D
.

A
l
p
h
a

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

I
I

1
2

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

I
.

A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

a

V
i
s
i
o
n

2
.

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
l

3
.

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

4
.

H
i
g
h

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

5
.

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

6
.

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

7
.

A
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

8
.

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

9
.

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

1
0
.

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

I

I
.

T
a
s
k

F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

1
2
.

R
o
u
t
i
n
e

T
a
s
k
s

1
3
.

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

S
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

T
a
s
k

1
4
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

1
5
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

1
6
.

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
S
t
a
f
f

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

1
7
.

C
o
h
e
s
i
v
e

G
r
o
u
p

1
8
.

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

L
e
a
d
e
r
s

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

1
9
.

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

2
0
.

M
S
Q

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

2
1
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

2
2
.

T
r
u
s
t

i
n

L
e
a
d
e
r

2
3
.

R
o
l
e

C
l
a
r
i
t
y

2
4
.

R
o
l
e

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

2
5
.

I
n
-
R
o
l
e

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
6
.

A
l
t
r
u
i
s
m

2
7
.

C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

2
8
.

S
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
s
h
i
p

2
9
.

C
o
u
r
t
e
s
v

5
.
0
8

I
.
2
3

.
8
7

5
.
0
1

1
.
4
8

.
8
4

5
.
2
5

1
.
3
7

.
8
9

5
.
3
9

1
.
2
2

.
8
0

4
.
8
8

1
.
5
5

.
9
0

4
.
9
6

1
.
2
4

.
8
2

5
.
8
4

1
.
0
9

.
7
1

3
.
4
3

1
.
8
4

.
9
1

3
.
3
4

1
.
5
1

.
7
9

4
.
7
4

1
.
3
1

.
6
9

4
.
9
8

I

.
3
7

.
8
4

3
.
6
9

1
.
6
5

.
8
1

5
.
4
7

1
.
3
3

.
9
0

3
.
8
0

1
.
5
2

.
7
8

4
.
2
4

1
.
4
7

.
8
2

5
.
2
1

1
.
4
2

.
7
4

5
.
3
4

1
.
2
9

.
8
7

2
.
2
4

1
.
1
8

.
6
7

4
.
0
2

1
.
8
6

.
7
8

3
.
8
5

5
.
2
1

5
.
5
6

5
.
2
4

4
.
0
2

5
.
8
8

5
.
5
5

5
.
8
0

5
.
4
4

5
.
3
2

3
0
.

C
i
v
i
c

V
&
m
e

5
.
3
6

-

0
.
5
3

.
8
7

1
.
0
5

.
9
0

1
.
2
8

.
8
9

1
.
1
6

.
8
4

1
.
0
9

.
7
6

1
.
1
2

.
9
2

0
.
9
6

.
8
3

0
.
9
7

.
8
0

1
.
2
1

.
8
4

1
.
1
4

.
8
4

0
.
9
7

.
I
2

2

.
6
8

-

-

-

.
6
3

.
6
3

-

.
4
9

.
4
0

.
3
9

-

.
4
0

.
5
4

.
4
9

.
I
2

.
6
1

.
5
2

.
4
6

.
4
0

.
3
1

-

.
o
o

.
0
2

.
0
3

.
0
4

.
0
3

-
.
O
l

.
O
l

.
O
l

.
0
2

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
0
2

.
I
0

-

-

-
.
3
2

.
0
3

.
3
7

-
.
0
9

-
.
2
6

.
0
5

.
3
4

-
.
0
9

-
.
2
5

.
0
7

.
3
4

-
.
o

1

-
.
I
5

.
0
4

.
2
8

-
.
0
8

-
.
2
9

.
0
4

.
3
2

-
.
0
5

-
.
2
2

.
0
3

.
2
6

-
.
0
8

.
0
7

p
.
0
3

-

.
2
6

.
0
2

.
0
7

.
I
8

.
0
3

-
.
3
8

.
0
7

-

.
0
4

-
.
0
6

.
2
4

:

.
I
9

F

-
.
1
3

-
7

-

-

-

-

-

-

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

T
a
b
l
e

2
.

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

1
3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

1
9

2
0

2
1

2
2

2
3

2
4

2
5

2
6

2
7

2
8

2
9

3
0

T
k
-
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

I
.

A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

a

V
i
s
i
o
n

.
2
7

.
2
3

.
I
9

.
0
7

.
2
0

-
.
I
2

-
.
I
2

.
4
9

.
3
4

.
5
0

.
3
9

-
.
1
9

.
I
7

.
I
7

.
1
8

.
2
1

.
1
8

.
0
8

2
.

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
l

.
2
3

.
2
1

.
I
7

.
0
7

.
2
2

-
.
0
8

-
.
1
4

.
4
8

.
2
8

6
3

.
3
6

-
.
2
2

.
2
1

.
1
9

.
1
7

.
1
9

.
2
1

.
0
9

3
.

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

.
2
3

.
2
6

.
1
9

.
0
6

.
3
3

-
.
0
5

-
.
l
O

.
4
6

.
2
7

.
5
3

.
3
7

-
.
2
0

.
2
1

.
1
9

.
1
5

.
1
8

.
1
8

.
0
6

4
.

H
i
g
h

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

.
2
1

.
I
6

.
2
3

.
0
5

.
2
1

-
.
1
5

-
.
0
9

.
2
7

.
2
0

.
2
9

.
2
9

-
.
0
4

.
0
8

.
0
9

.
0
8

.
0
8

.
1
2

.
0
7

5
.

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

.
1
9

.
1
8

.
I
0

.
0
3

.
1
8

.
o
o

-
.
l
l

.
4
5

.
2
5

.
5
9

.
3
3

-
.
2
5

.
2
2

.
2
2

.
1
9

.
1
9

.
3
2

.
1
2

6
.

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

.
2
0

.
1
8

.
I
4

.
1
6

.
1
4

-
.
l
l

-
.
1
3

.
3
6

.
2
6

.
4
0

.
2
8

-
.
0
3

.
I
3

.
1
4

.
1
1

.
l
I

.
1
2

.
0
9

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

7
.

A
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

.
2
1

.
0
5

.
0
9

.
1
4

.
I
6

-
.
0
5

.
I
3

.
I
5

.
1
2

.
0
9

.
2
8

.
1
3

.
0
8

.
0
5

.
0
4

-
.
0
2

-
.
O
l

.
0
9

8
.

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

.
0
9

.
I
1

.
0
6

.
l
O

.
0
4

-
.
0
2

.
0
4

.
0
3

.
0
4

.
O
l

.
0
4

.
0
8

-
.
0
2

-
.
0
3

-
.
O
l

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
8

.
0
3

9
.

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

-
.
3
6

p
.
1
8

-
.
2
6

-
.
0
8

-
.
2
0

.
0
4

.
0
7

-
.
5
7

-
.
5
8

-
.
3
7

-
.
2
9

.
2
7

-
.
1
8

-
.
1
6

-
.
2
1

-
.
2
2

-
.
I
8

-
.
1
4

1
0
.

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

.
0
3

.
0
9

.
0
2

p
.
0
9

.
0
2

.
o
o

.
0
5

.
0
3

.
o
o

.
0
3

.
l
l

-
.
0
2

.
0
7

-
.
O
l

.
O
l

.
O
l

.
O
O

p
.
0
6

1
1
.

T
a
s
k

F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

.
4
8

.
3
3

.
2
8

.
I
1

.
2
3

-
.
0
7

-
.
0
4

.
5
5

.
3
9

.
4
0

.
5
6

-
.
2
2

.
2
1

.
1
9

.
2
0

.
I
6

.
1
6

.
1
4

1
2
.

R
o
u
t
i
n
e

T
a
s
k
s

-
.
3
2

-
.
3
2

.
1
3

p
.
0
7

-
.
1
7

-
.
0
8

.
0
4

-
.
2
5

p
.
1
1

-
.
0
9

.
o
o

-
.
0
9

-
.
l
l

-
.
1
4

-
.
1
7

-
.
1
3

-
.
1
4

-
.
2
2

1
3
.

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

S
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

T
a
s
k

-

.
1
7

.
2
6

.
1
6

.
2
5

p
.
0
6

.
0
2

.
6
6

.
4
6

.
2
9

.
4
4

-
.
1
4

.
I
6

.
2
0

.
1
9

.
1
7

.
I
5

.
I
1

1
4
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

-

_

.
3
2

.
0
4

.
1
4

.
O
O

-
.
0
6

.
2
6

.
2
5

.
1
9

.
4
9

-
.
2
0

.
0
4

.
O
l

.
0
2

-
.
O
l

.
0
4

-
.
0
7

1
5
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

-

-

_

.
0
7

.
2
6

-
.
0
8

-
.
O
l

.
3
2

.
3
6

.
2
3

.
3
5

-
.
2
0

.
0
9

.
0
6

.
1
2

.
l
l

.
l
O

.
0
3

Z

1
7
.

1
6
.

C
o
h
e
s
i
v
e

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
S
t
a
f
f

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

-

-

~

_

-

_

_

_

.
1
3

_

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
8

.
O
O

.
O
l

.
J
O

.
1
2

.
2
7

.
l
O

.
3
1

.
0
8

.
2
7

.
0
9

-
.
I
2

.
2
2

-
.
O
l

.
I
3

-
.
O
l

.
I
4

.
0
9

.
O
l

.
I
5

.
O
O

-
.
O
l

.
I
6

.
0
5

.
0
8

$

1
8
.

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

G
r
o
u
p

L
e
a
d
e
r
s

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

-

-
.
O
l

-
.
0
9

-
.
l
l

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
7

-
.
0
4

-
.
0
9

-
.
0
7

-
.
l
O

p
.
0
6

-
.
0
8

-
.
l
l

%

1
9
.

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

_

_

~

_

_

_

-
.
0
6

p
.
0
3

-
.
1
2

-
.
0
5

.
2
0

-
.
0
6

-
.
0
8

-
.
0
3

-
.
O
l

-
.
0
6

-
.
0
4

F

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

2
0
.

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

M
S
Q

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

-

~

_

-

_

_

~

_

.
5
8

.
5
6

.
5
2

p
.
3
0

.
2
6

.
2
6

.
2
7

.
2
8

.
2
6

.
I
7

2

2

I
.

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

.
4
8

.
5
2

-
.
I
9

.
1
4

.
1
8

.
1
9

.
1
8

.
1
6

.
1
2

$

2
2
.

T
r
u
s
t

i
n

L
e
a
d
e
r

-
-
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
-

.
4
9

-
.
2
3

.
1
4

.
l
l

.
1
3

.
0
9

.
I
2

.
0
4

3

2
3
.

R
o
l
e

C
l
a
r
i
t
y

-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
_

-
.
1
9

-
.
l
l

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
5

-
.
1
3

-
.
0
8

.
0
5

z

2
4
.

R
o
l
e

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

-
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
~
_
-

.
2
4

.
2
0

.
2
3

.
2
1

.
2
4

.
I
7

.
-

2
5
.

I
n
-
R
o
l
e

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

_
_
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

.
5
9

.
6
8

.
5
3

.
5
5

.
5
6

3

2
6
.

2
7
.

A
l
t
r
u
i
s
m

C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

-
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
_

-
~
_
-
_
_
~
_
-
-
_
-
_
_
_

.
6
5

.
5
0

.
4
7

.
6
4

.
5
3

.
5
8

.
5
6

.
k

2
8
.

S
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
s
h
i
p

-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

5
2

.
3
5

2
9
.

C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

C
i
v
i
c

V
i
r
t
u
e

-
~
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
_

.
4
6

5

3
0
.

.
Y

N
o
t
e
s
:

W
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
o
s
e

c
a
s
e
s

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

s
e
r
v
e
s

a
s

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
,

N

=

1
5
3
9
.

I
n

t
h
o
s
e

c
a
s
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

Y
,

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

s
e
r
v
e
s

a
s

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
,

N

=

1
2
0
0
.

W
h
e
n

N

=

1
5
3
9
,

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

a
t

o
r

a
b
o
v
e

.
0
5

a
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p

<

.
0
5
,

a
n
d

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
t

o
r

Z
?

a
b
o
v
e

.
0
7

a
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p

<

.
O
l
.

W
h
e
n

N

=

1
2
0
0
,

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s

r
e
p
o
t
t
e
d

a
t

o
r

a
b
o
v
e

.
0
7

a
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p

<

.
0
5
,

a
n
d

c
o
e
f
f
t
c
i
e
n
t
s

a
t

o
r

a
b
o
v
e

.
0
9

a
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

p

<

.
O
l
.

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Following the estimation of this model, the transformational leader behavior
category was omitted from the full model to determine the total amount of variance
in the criterion variables uniquely attributable to the set of leader behaviors
included in the study. Next, each of the three substitutes for leadership categories
(subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics) was omitted from the model
sequentially so that we could determine: (a) the unique contribution of each set of
substitutes to the amount of variance accounted for in the criterion variables, and
(b) the total amount of variance in the criterion variables uniquely attributable to
the complete set of substitute variables. Then, the amount of variance in each crite-
rion variable shared by any combination of the three substitutes categories was
derived by subtracting the unique contribution of each set from the total amount of
variance attributable to all of the substitutes combined. Finally, the amount of vari-
ance in the criterion variables shared by the transformational leadership behavior
category and the leadership substitutes categories was also examined. The results
of the aggregate analyses are reported in Table 3. Each numerical entry in a column
of this table represents the percent of variance (R2) attributable to the variables
identified in the corresponding row of the table. For example, the first numerical
entry in the table, under the column titled General Satisfaction indicates that
transformational leadership behaviors accounted for 7% of the total variance in
followers general satisfaction.
An examination of Table 3 reveals several interesting findings. First, consis-
tent with the recent research reported by Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and
Williams (1993) and Pod&off, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993), the amount of vari-
ance explained in general satisfaction (7 l%), organizational commitment (48%),
trust (55%), role clarity (52%) and role conflict (28%) by the leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership is quite respectable when contrasted with prior research
which has examined the same criterion variables (cf. Jackson & Schuler, 1985;
Mowday et al., 1979; Rizzo et al., 1970). Of course, it is possible to argue that some
of the variance explained in these criterion variables may be due to the fact that
they were obtained from the same respondents that the leader behavior and substi-
tute measures were obtained from and therefore may, in part, be due to common
method variance (cf. Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips, 1991; Cote & Buckley, 1987; Podsa-
koff & Organ, 1986). However, the amount of variance explained in the behavioral
criterion variables, which are not subject to any same-source bias, is also higher
(with an average of approximately 11.5%) than the 3%-6% generally reported in
much of the extant leadership literature.
Second, the data also indicate that, although transformational leadership
behaviors account for more variance than substitutes for leadership in follower
trust and courtesy, and about the same amount of variance in the case of in-role
performance and altruism, leadership substitutes have a greater impact than these
leader behaviors on the majority of follower attitudes, role perceptions, and behav-
iors. Thus, while transformational leadership behaviors generally account for more
variance in follower trust (28% versus 5%) and courtesy (7% versus 4%), and
about an equal amount of variance in the case of in-role performance (3% versus
5%) and altruism (2% versus 4%); leadership substitutes account for substantially
more variance than transformational leadership behaviors in the case of follower
T
a
b
l
e

3
.

P
a
r
t
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g

o
f

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

i
n

S
u
b
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

b
y

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
n
d

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

0
r
g
a
n
i
:
u
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
r
u
s
t

i
n

R
o
l
e

R
o
l
e

I
n
-
R
o
l
e

C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
-

S
p
o
r
t
m
u
n
-

C
i
v
i
c

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

L
e
a
d
e
r

C
l
a
r
i
t
y

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

P
e
r
f
k
n
a
n
c
e

A
/
t
r
u
i
s
m

t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

s
h
i
p

C
o
u
r
t
e
s
>

V
i
r
t
u
e

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

(
A
)

T
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

u
n
i
q
u
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

f
o
r

b
y

l
e
a
d
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

(
B
)

U
n
i
q
u
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e

t
o

s
u
b
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

(
C
)
U
n
i
q
u
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

a
t
t
i
r
u
b
t
a
b
l
e

t
o

t
a
s
k

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

(
D
)

U
n
i
q
u
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e

t
o

o
r
g
a
-

n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

i
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

s
h
a
r
e
d

b
y

(
B
)
.

(
C
)
,

a
n
d

(
D
)

T
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

u
n
i
q
u
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

b
y

s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

s
h
a
r
e
d

b
y

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
n
d

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

i
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

s
h
a
r
e
d

b

(
A
)
.

(
B
)
,

(
C
)
,

a
n
d

(
D
)

T
o
t
a
l

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

T
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

b
y

l
e
a
d
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
n
d

s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

7
%

1
%

2
8
%

5
%

1
4
%

2
%

1
6
%

3
7
%

2
1
%

7
1
%

4
8
%

5
5
%

5
2
%

2
8
%

1
1
%

1
0
%

1
1
%

1
1
%

1
5
%

1
1
%

1
5
%

3
%

2
%

1
3
%

3
3
%

1
4
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

2
%

5
%

2
2
%

3
%

2
%

7
%

9
%

1
1
%

2
9
%

2
0
%

3
%

3
%

2
%

2
%

2
%

7
%

3
%

1
%

0
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

2
%

2
%

2
%

3
%

1
%

1
%

9
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

4
%

1
%

1
%

1
%

2
%

1
%

1
8
%

5
%

4
%

6
%

5
%

4
%

7
%

3
%

4
%

3
%

4
%

4
%

1
%

2
%

4
%

3
%

0
%

9
%

1
%

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

satisfaction (37% versus 7%) commitment (33% versus I%), role clarity (29%
versus 3%), role conflict (18% versus 3%) civic virtue (9% versus l%), conscien-
tiousness (6% versus 2%) and sportsmanship (5% versus 2%).
Third, with the exception of civic virtue, the percentage of variance shared
between the combination of the transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership, relative to the total amount of variance accounted for in the criterion
variables, is quite noteworthy (ranging from 3% to 27%, with an average of
approximately 10.8%). Moreover, the variance jointly explained by the leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership represents, on average, approximately one-
third (33.7%) of the total variance in the follower criterion variables.
These findings suggest that, with the exception of employee trust, one gener-
ally loses little explanatory value by excluding the effects of variation in the
transformational leadership behaviors in the case of follower attitudes and role
perceptions. However, the same is not generally true in the case of employee
performance. For example, as indicated in Table 3, the combination of the trans-
formational leader behaviors and leadership substitutes accounted for a total of
48% of the variance accounted for in follower commitment, but only 1% is
uniquely attributable to the transformational leader behaviors, while the remaining
47% is either attributable to the substitutes variables (33%) or shared (14%) by the
leader behaviors and substitutes variables. Practically speaking, this means that
even if variation in the leader behaviors was excluded from our analysis, all but 1%
of the variance (which represents approximately 2% of the total of 48%) in
employee commitment would be accounted for. Similarly, the exclusion of the
transformational leader behaviors as predictors of followers role clarity, role
conflict, or satisfaction, would result in accounting for all but approximately 3%
(which represents less than 6% of the total of 52%), 3% (which represents less than
11% of the total of 28%), and 7% (which represents approximately 10% of the total
of 7 1 %), respectively, of the variance accounted for in these criterion variables.
The one exception to this finding in the case of employee attitudes and perceptions
is employee trust, where exclusion of the variation in the transformational leader
behaviors would reduce the total amount of variance accounted for by 28% (which
represents over 50% of the total of 55%).
However, in general, it is not safe to ignore the effects of leader behaviors on
employee performance. For example, exclusion of variation attributable to the
leader behaviors from employee courtesy would reduce the total proportion of vari-
ance accounted for from 15% to 8% (which represents almost 47% of the total
variance accounted for in this criterion variable; 7115 = 46.7%). Likewise, exclu-
sion of variation attributable to the transformational leader behaviors from
followers in-role performance, altruism, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship,
would result in a reduction in the total percent of variance accounted for of approx-
imately 27%, 20%, 18%, and 18%, respectively. The one exception to this finding
is in the case of civic virtue, where exclusion of the variation attributable to the
transformational leader behaviors would reduce the total amount of variance
accounted for by a mere 1% (which represents about 9% of the total of 11%). Thus,
in general, it appears that transformational leadership behaviors are relatively more
critical to the determination of employee performance than they are to employee
attitudes and perceptions.
Individual Effects
In the next phase of our analysis, we examined the individual effects of each
of the six transformational leader behaviors and 13 substitutes on the 11 criterion
variables in our study by regressing each of the criterion variables on the full set of
leader behaviors and substitutes. This procedure permits one to examine the unique
effects of each individual leader behavior and substitute variable while controlling
for all of the other predictor variables. Table 4 reports the results of this phase of
these analyses. The standardized regression coefficients (ps) reported in this table
provide an estimate of the relative effect of each leader behavior and substitute on
the corresponding criterion variable.
An overall examination of Table 4 indicates that all of the transformational
leadership behaviors, and all of the substitutes for leadership, significantly influ-
enced one or more of the criterion variables. This table also indicates that the
transformational leader behaviors, organizational characteristics and task char-
acteristics categories had significant effects on all of the criterion variables (11 out
of 11); and the subordinate characteristics category had significant effects on all
but one of the criterion variables. In addition, the organizational characteristics
category had the greatest number of effects (25 of the total of 89, or 28%) followed
by transformational leader behaviors (24 of 89, or 27%), task characteristics (with
23 of 89, or 26%), and subordinate characteristics (17 of 89, or 19%). Finally, of
all of the individual predictor variables, individualized support served as a predic-
tor of the greatest number of criterion variables (10 out of 1 l), followed closely by
task routinization (with 9 of 1 l), indifference to organizational rewards (which
served as a predictor of 8 of the 11 criterion variables), organizational formaliza-
tion (with 7 out of 1 l), and task feedback, intrinsically satisfying tasks, and group
cohesiveness (each of which served as a predictor of 6 of the 11 criterion variables).
General Satisfaction. Five leader behaviors and six leadership substitutes
had significant main effects on followers general satisfaction. Of the leader behav-
iors that were significant, individualized support (p = .12), providing an
appropriate model (p = .lO), and vision articulation (p = .09), had the strongest
positive effects on general satisfaction. Fostering the acceptance of group goals
also had a positive effect on satisfaction (p = .OS), while high performance expec-
tations had a negative effect on this criterion variable (p = -.05). These findings
suggest that leaders who are supportive, provide an appropriate model, clarify their
vision, foster common goals among their work groups, but do not convey overly
ambitious expectations, have more satisfied employees than leaders who are not
supportive, do not provide an appropriate model, do not clarify their vision or foster
common goals within their group, or are perceived to demand too much from their
subordinates.
Among the substitutes, intrinsically satisfying tasks had the strongest impact
(p = .39) on general satisfaction, followed by indifference to organizational
rewards (p = -.26), group cohesiveness (p = .14), organizational inflexibility (l3 =
.03), and professional orientation (p = -.03). Thus, subordinates who perform satis-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22. NO. 2, 1996
PODSAKOFF, RfACKENZIE AND BOMMER
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22. NO. ?,1996
fying tasks and work in groups that are cohesive are more satisfied than
subordinates who perform less satisfying tasks, or work in groups that are less
cohesive. Somewhat surprisingly, subordinates who perceived their organization
to be more inflexible were also more satisfied than subordinates who perceived
their organization to be less inflexible. In addition, subordinates who are indiffer-
ent toward the rewards offered by their organization, or who are professionally
oriented, are less satisfied than subordinates who value the rewards offered by their
organization, or are not professionally oriented. Taken as a whole, therefore, the
above results suggest that subordinate satisfaction is determined somewhat more
strongly by leadership substitutes than by leader behaviors.
Organizational Commitment. Only one of the leader behaviors (vision
articulation) had a significant main effect on organizational commitment (p = .lO),
while six substitutes for leadership (indifference to rewards, intrinsically satisfying
tasks, routine tasks, organizational inflexibility, group cohesiveness, and rewards
outside the leaders control) influenced this criterion variable. Indifference to orga-
nizational rewards (p = -.46), rewards outside the leaders control (p = -.06), and
routine tasks (p = -.06) tend to decrease commitment, while intrinsically satisfying
tasks (p = .21), organizational inflexibility (p = .lO), and group cohesiveness (p =
.06) tend to increase it. Thus, leadership substitutes, as opposed to leadership
behaviors, appear to be the key determinants of employees commitment to the
organization.
Trust. Only three leader behaviors, as opposed to five substitutes for lead-
ership, had significant main effects on employee trust. However, two of the leader
behaviors (providing an appropriate model, p = .33, and individualized support, j3
= .28), had the greatest impact on this criterion variable. Fostering the acceptance
of group goals (p = .06) also had a positive impact on employee trust. These find-
ings suggest that followers who perceive their leaders to provide appropriate
models, be supportive, or foster the acceptance of group goals, tend to express
more trust in their leaders than employees who perceive their leaders otherwise.
Of the substitutes variables, group cohesiveness (p = . lo), task feedback (p =
.OS), and ability, experience, training, and knowledge (p = .04), were also found to
be positively related to employee trust; while both indifference to organizational
rewards (p = -.13) and organizational formalization (p = -.05) were found to be
negatively related to this criterion variable. Thus, subordinates who perceive them-
selves to possess a high degree of ability, experience, training, or knowledge, work
in more cohesive groups, receive a substantial amount of task feedback, value the
organizations rewards, or do not perceive the organization to have too many rules
and regulations, express more trust than subordinates who perceive themselves to
have less ability, experience, training and knowledge, work in less cohesive work
groups, receive little task feedback, are indifferent to organizational rewards, or
feel the organization is overly formalized.
Role Clarity. As a whole, subordinates perceptions of role clarity are prima-
rily influenced by leadership substitutes, rather than leadership behaviors. Only two
leader behaviors, articulating a vision (p = .09) and individualized support (p = . lo),
affect subordinates role clarity. However, six leadership substitutes significantly
influence this criterion variable. Among the substitutes, organizational formaliza-
tion (p = .29) and task feedback (p = .25) had the strongest effects, followed by
intrinsically satisfying tasks (p = .15), subordinates perception of their ability, expe-
rience, training, and knowledge (0 = .14), organizational inflexibility (p = .07), and
task routinization (p = .05). These results suggest that employees whose supervisors
articulate an effective vision and provide support, who work in organizations that
are more formalized or inflexible, who perform satisfying tasks or tasks that provide
more feedback, who are members of more cohesive work groups, or who have high
levels of ability, experience, training and knowledge, generally express more role
clarity than employees who face the opposite conditions.
Role Conflict. Four leader behaviors and 11 substitutes for leadership had
significant main effects on role conflict. Of the leader behaviors that had an
effect, two (individualized support, p = -. 11; and providing an appropriate model,
p = -.09), were negatively related to role conflict, while the other two (intellec-
tual stimulation, p = .14; and high performance expectations, p = .07) were
positively related to this criterion variable. These findings suggest that leaders
who are supportive, and provide an effective model, tend to reduce subordinates
perceptions of role conflict; while leaders who have unreasonably high expecta-
tions, or who provide intellectual stimulation to their subordinates, tend to
increase the subordinates perceptions of role conflict.
Among the 11 leadership substitutes that had effects on role conflict, advisory
and staff support (p = .21), indifference to rewards (p = .15), spatial distance (p =
.14), ability, experience, training, and knowledge (p = .l l), and professional orien-
tation (p = .05) were also found to increase role conflict, while task routinization
(p = -. 14), organizational inflexibility (p = -. 13), intrinsically satisfying tasks (p =
-. 1 l), organizational formalization (p = -.07), group cohesiveness (p = -.06), and
task feedback (p = -.06), were found to decrease it. Thus, as in the case of role clar-
ity, employees perceptions of role conflict are primarily determined by substitutes
for leadership, rather than leader behaviors.
In-Role Performance. Two of the transformational leader behaviors exam-
ined in this study had a significant main effect on employee in-role performance.
Both individuali.zed support (p = . lo), and fostering the acceptance of group goals
(p = .09) tended to increase followers in-role performance. Thus, followers who
perceive their leaders to be more supportive, or to encourage the acceptance of
group goals, generally perform at higher levels than followers who perceive their
leaders to be less supportive, or not to encourage group goals.
In addition, five substitutes for leadership influenced this subordinate crite-
rion variable. Routine tasks (p = -.09), indifference to organizational rewards (@ =
-.OS), and rewards outside the leaders control (l3 = -.06), all were negatively corre-
lated with in-role performance; while need for independence (0 = .07), and task
feedback (p = .07) were positively related to this criterion variable. These findings
suggest that subordinates who perform routine tasks, who are indifferent to the
rewards they receive from the organization, perceive their leader to control few
rewards, receive little feedback from the tasks they perform or who have a low need
for independence, tend to exhibit less in-role performance than subordinates who
do not perform routine tasks, value the rewards of their organization, perceive their
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22, NO. 2. 1996
leaders to control these rewards, receive substantial task feedback, or have a high
need for independence.
Altruism. One leader behavior, and five substitutes for leadership had
significant main effects on employee altruism. Both individualized support
(Agb = .14) and intrinsically satisfying tasks (p = .lO) were positively related to
employee altruism; while task routinization (/3 = -.08), organizational formaliza-
tion (p = -.06), advisory/staff support (p = -.06), and spatial distance (p = -.06),
were negatively related to this criterion variable. These results suggest that subor-
dinates who find their tasks intrinsically satisfying or who feel their leaders are
supportive are more altruistic than subordinates who do not find their tasks to be
intrinsically satisfying or do not feel that their leaders are supportive; while subor-
dinates who perform routine tasks, receive advisory and staff support, perceive
that the organization is more highly formalized, or are spatially removed from
their leader, are less altruistic than their peers who face the opposite conditions.
Thus, leadership substitutes were bigger determinants of employee altruism than
transformational leadership behaviors.
Conscientiousness. Only one of the leader behaviors (individualized
support) had any unique individual effects on subordinate conscientiousness; while
four of the leadership substitutes had an effect on this criterion variable. Task routin-
ization (j3 = -. 12), indifference to organizational rewards (p = -.08), organizational
formalization (0 = -.06), and rewards outside the leaders control (p = -.06), were
all negatively related to employee conscientiousness; while individualized support
(p = .l 1) was positively related to this form of citizenship behavior. Thus, employ-
ees who value organizational rewards and perceive that their leader controls them,
perform less routine tasks, perceive their organizations to be less formalized, or
perceive their leader to be supportive, tend to be more conscientious, than employ-
ees who do not value organizational rewards or do not perceive their leaders to
control them, perform more routine tasks, perceive their organization to be more
formalized, or perceive their leaders not to be supportive.
Sportsmanship. Two leader behaviors (articulating a vision, p = .12; indi-
vidualized support, p = .09) were found to be positively related to employee
sportsmanship. Subordinates who perceived their leaders to clearly articulate a
vision of the future or be supportive, tended to exhibit more sportsmanship than
subordinates who perceived their leaders not to exhibit these behaviors.
Six subsfitutes for leadership also had significant effects on subordinate
sportsmanship. Four of these substitutes (ability, experience, training, and
knowledge; indifference to rewards; routine tasks; and organizational
formalization) were negatively related to employee sportsmanship; while the
remaining two (intrinsically satisfying tasks and group cohesiveness) were
positively related to this criterion variable. The results suggest that subordinates
who possess more ability, experience, training, and knowledge, or are indifferent
to organizational rewards, perform routine tasks or tasks that are less intrinsically
satisfying, perceive their organizations to be more formalized, or work in groups
that are less cohesive, are less likely to exhibit sportsmanship than subordinates
who do not possess a lot of ability, experience, training, or knowledge, value
organizational rewards, perform less routine or more intrinsically interesting tasks,
perceive their organization to be less formalized, or work in more cohesive work
groups. Of these main effects, vision articulation had the greatest impact (p = .12),
followed by indifference to rewards (p = -.l l), individualized support and
intrinsically satisfying tasks (both with ps = .09), group cohesiveness (p = .08),
routine tasks (p = -.07), organizational formalization (p = -.06), and ability,
experience, training, and knowledge (p = -.06). Thus, it appears that subordinate
sportsmanship is influenced somewhat more by substitutes for leadership than by
leader behaviors.
Courtesy. Only two of the transformational leadership behaviors, and three
substitutes for leadership, had significant main effects on subordinates courtesy.
However, one of the leader behaviors that did have an effect, individualized
support, had the most substantial (positive) impact (0 = .29) of any of the predictor
variables. Somewhat surprisingly, high performance expectations also had a signif-
icant positive effect (p = .06), on this criterion variable.
Of the leadership substitutes, task routinization (p = -.lO) and professional
orientation (p = -.07) were negatively related to employee courtesy, and group
cohesiveness (p = .09), was positively related to this form of citizenship behavior.
Generally speaking, these findings suggest that employees who perceive their lead-
ers to be supportive, or to have high performance expectations, as well as those
employees who work in cohesive groups, perform less routine tasks, or are less
professionally oriented, exhibit more courteousness to their peers than subordi-
nates who perceive their leaders to be less supportive or have less demanding
expectations, or who work in less cohesive work groups, perform routine tasks, or
are more professionally oriented.
Civic Virtue. Although only one of the leader behaviors had any significant
effects on civic virtue, six of the leadership substitutes influenced this criterion
variable. The results indicate that employees who perceive their leader to provide
individualized support, receive more task feedback, or who perceive themselves to
have more ability, experience, training, and knowledge, are more likely to engage
in civic virtue than employees who do not perceive their leader to be supportive,
receive little task feedback, or who do not perceive that they have as much ability,
experience, training, or knowledge.
In contrast, employees who perform routine tasks, perceive their organization
to have highly formalized rules and regulations, do not believe that their leaders
control rewards, or are indifferent to the rewards they do control, tend to exhibit
less civic virtue than employees not faced with these conditions. Routine tasks had
the greatest impact on civic virtue (p = -.18), followed by ability, experience,
training, and knowledge (p = .12), organizational formalization (p = -. lo), individ-
ualized support and task feedback (both with ps = .08), and rewards outside the
leaders control, and indifference to rewards (both with ps = -.08). Thus, civic
virtue on the part of subordinates appears to be determined primarily by leadership
substitutes, rather than leader behaviors.
Moderating Efsects
in R2
The moderating effects of the substitutes were tested by examining the change
attributable to the leader behavior x substitute interaction terms added in the
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs 28 1
final stage of the hierarchical regression procedure. If the interaction term added to
this stage of the regression analyses produces a significant AR2 (i.e., significantly
increases the amount of variance explained in the criterion variable), then the
substitute is identified as a moderator of the relationship between the leader behav-
ior and criterion variable under investigation.
As discussed by Pods&off, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993), for a variable to
qualify as a neutralizer, both the main effect of the leader behavior and the inter-
action term must be significant, and they must have difSerent signs. To qualify as
an enhancer, both the leader behavior main effect and the interaction term must be
significant, with the same signs. Finally, to qualify as a substitute: (a) the leader
behavior must have a significant main effect; (b) the potential substitute variable
must weaken the relationship between the leader behavior and the criterion variable
(i.e., the interaction must be significant and it must have a diflerent sign than the
leader behavior main effect); and (c) the substitute must have a significant main
effect on the criterion variable in the same direction as the leader behaviors main
effect. Only when conditions (a), (b), and (c) are met can it be said that the variable
both weakens the impact of the leaders behavior on the criterion variable and also
replaces, or substitutes for it.
Graphically, the criteria specified above suggest that neutralizers may take
any of the forms indicated in Figure 1. The figure shows six possible types of
neutralizing effects, which vary according to whether the main effect of the leader
behavior on the criterion variable is positive or negative, and whether the main
effect of the neutralizer variable is positive, nonsignificant, or negative. Since
substitutes are special types of neutralizing variables, they are also shown in this
figure. Figure l(a) shows the classic substitution effect diagrammed by Howell et
al. (1986, p. 93), where the effect of the leaders behavior on the criterion variable
is positive, this effect is weakened by the moderator variable, and it is replaced by
a positive main effect of the moderator on the criterion variable. However, Figure
l(f) also meets the statistical requirements for a substitution effect in that the
moderator variable both weakens the impact of the leaders behavior, and also
replaces it. Examples of moderators that meet Howell et al.s (1986) statistical
requirements for enhancers are shown in Figure 2.
Consistent with the recommendations of Stone (1988), and Stone and Hollen-
beck (1984, 1989), follow-up analyses were conducted in those cases in which a
significant AR2 value was obtained for the interaction term by: (1) calculating sepa-
rate regression equations (Y values) at values one standard deviation above and
below the mean of the moderator variable, (2) plotting these results graphically to
develop a visual picture of the nature of the moderating relationship, and (3)
comparing the plots with Figures 1 and 2 to determine which of the interactions
were consistent with the criteria specified by Howell et al. (1986).
The moderating effects of the substitutes on the leader behavior-criterion vari-
able relationships are provided in Table 5. The values reported in this table are the
standardized regression (Beta) weights for those interactions between the leader
behaviors and substitutes that were found to be significant. Also reported (in paren-
thesis) is an alphanumeric character next to each interaction, which indicates the
nature of the moderating relationship that was obtained in the follow-up split-
(a)
H
El
Lz
L
(b)
L
Ii
#
H
(d)
H
(cl
k
H
H
L
(c)
L
H
LL
H
(4
L
i
H
Ii
NOIL: In the figures, the H indicates a non-significant relationship between the leader behavior and the criterion
variable at high levels of the moderating variable; H indicates a significant relationship between the leader
behavior and the criterion variable at high levels of the moderating variable. The L represents the relationship
between the leader behavior and the criterion variable at low levels of the moderating variable. The combination
of the N and L lines, together. represents a full or complete neutralizing or substituting effect. The combination
of the H and L lines. together, represents a partial neutralizing or substituting effect.
Figure l(a) - (f). Graphic representation of leadership neutralizers and substitutes
groups regression analyses. These characters refer to the basic patterns that are
displayed in Figures 1 and 2.
As an aid to interpreting the information provided in Table 5, it may be helpful
to examine a few of the interactions displayed in this table. For example, as shown
by the first numerical entry under the General Satisfaction column of this table,
intrinsically satisfying tasks served as a significant moderator of the relationship
between a leaders articulation of a vision and general satisfaction (p = .43). Next
to this coefficient is the alphanumeric character (2c), which indicates the plot for
this interaction looks like Figure 2(c). This figure indicates that articulating a
vision has a significant positive impact on general satisfaction when subordinates
perform a task that is more intrinsically satisfying, but no impact when their task is
less intrinsically satisfying. Given that vision articulation also was found to have a
significant positive main effect on employee satisfaction (see Table 4), profes-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22. NO. 2, 1996
(d
L
L'
7
Ii
lb)
Id1
L
F
L'
H
(Cl
Is
L
L'
H
(cl
H
E
L'
L
L
tfl
R
hi
L'
L
Norr: In the figures, the L indicates a non-significant relationship between the leader behavior and the criterion
variable at low levels of the moderating variable; L indicates a significant relationship between the leader behav-
ior and the criterion variable at low levels of the moderating variable. The H represents the relationship between
the leader behavior and the criterion variable at high levels of the moderating variable. The combination of the L
and H lines, together, represents a full or complete enhancing effect. The combination of the L and H lines,
together, represents a partial enhancing effect.
Figure 2 (a) - (f). Graphic representation of leadership enhancers
sional orientation is an enhancer of the positive effects of vision articulation on
employee satisfaction, according to Howell et al.s (1986) statistical criteria.
As another example, notice that the third entry in the employee Conscien-
tiousness column (p = -.86) has an (nc) symbol next to it. This symbol means that
even though group cohesiveness moderated the effect of providing an appropriate
model on employee sportsmanship, the nature of this interaction was not clussifi-
able using the Howell et al. (1986) criteria. This situation arose whenever the
leader behavior of interest interacted with the moderator variable, but: (a) the
leader behavior did not have a main effect on the criterion variable itself, or (b) the
effect of the leader behavior on the criterion variable was not significant at either
the high or the low level of the moderator variable. Although such interactions indi-
cate that the substitute of interest does, indeed, moderate the relationships between
the leader behavior and criterion variables of interest, they do not fit Howell et al.s
T
a
b
l
e

5
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

a
n
d

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
r
u
s
t

i
n

S
a
t
i
$
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

L
e
a
d
e
r

R
o
l
e

R
o
l
e

I
n
-
R
o
l
e

C
o
n
s
&
n
-

S
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
-

c
i
v
i
c

C
l
a
r
i
t
y

C
o
n
j
l
i
c
t

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

A
l
t
r
u
i
s
m

t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

s
h
i
p

C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

V
i
r
t
u
e

T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s

A
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

T
a
s
k

f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

R
o
u
t
i
n
e

t
a
s
k

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

t
a
s
k
s

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
s
t
a
f
f

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

G
r
o
u
p

c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
l

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

o
r
g
a
n
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

T
a
s
k

f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
s
t
a
f
f

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

G
r
o
u
p

c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

l
e
a
d
e
r
s

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
p

G
o
a
l
s

A
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

R
o
u
t
i
n
e

t
a
s
k

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

t
a
s
k
s

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

G
r
o
u
p

c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

l
e
a
d
e
r
s

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

-

-

.
4
3
*
*
(
2
c
)

-

-

-

-
.
3
7
*
(
l
a
)

-

.
3
2
*
*
(
2
b
)

-

-
.
2
2
*
(
n
c
)

-

-
.
2
8
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-
.
2
5
*
(
l
a
)

-
.
3
8
*
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
2
9
*
(
n
c
)

.
2
8
*
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-
.
4
l
*
(
l
a
)

-

-
.
2
5
*
(
n
c
)

-

-
.
3
2
*
(
l
b
)

.
4
7
*
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
2
7
*
(
n
c
)

.
4
3
*
*
(
n
c
)

.
4
l
*
*
(
n
c
c
)

.
3
3
*
*
(
2
b
)

.
4
5
*
*
(
2
b
)

-
.
6
5
*
*
(
l
a
)

-
.
3
4
*
*
(
l
c
)

.
2
1
*
(
2
b
)

.
3
9
*
*
(
n
c
)

.
3
8
*
*
(
2
b
)

-

-

-

-

-

.
6
6
*
*
(
n
c
c
)

.
4
l
*
*
(
n
c
c
)

.
4
9
*
*
(
n
c
)

.
3
5
*
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
.
4
2
*
(
n
c
)

.
3
8
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-
.
6
2
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-

.
5
6
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.
7
6
*
*
(
n
c
)

-

.
6
4
*
(
n
c
)

-

.
4
5
*
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-
.
8
6
*
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

.
4
7
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

.
7
l
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-
.
5
8
*
(
m
)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
.
5
1
*
(
X
)

-
.
5
1
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
5
l
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-
.
4
0
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

T
a
b
l
e

5
.

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
r
u
s
t

i
n

R
o
l
e

R
o
l
e

I
n
-
R
o
l
e

C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
-

S
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
-

C
i
v
i
c

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

L
e
a
d
e
r

C
l
a
r
i
t
y

C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

A
l
t
r
u
i
s
m

t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

s
h
i
p

C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

W
r
t
u
e

H
i
g
h

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

T
a
s
k

f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

t
a
s
k
s

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
s
t
a
f
f

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

I
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

o
r
g
a
n
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

R
o
u
t
i
n
e

t
a
s
k

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

t
a
s
k
s

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

l
e
a
d
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

I
n
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g

t
a
s
k
s

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
/
s
t
a
f
f

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

G
r
o
u
p

c
o
h
e
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

.
2
0
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-

-
.
2
8
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

.
3
8
*
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
2
7
*
(
n
c
)

0
.
3
l
*
(
l
b
)

-

-
.
1
7
*
(
n
c
)

O
.
l
6
*
(
l
c
)

-

-

.
2
3
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-
.
2
6
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
2
8
*
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
2
8
*
(
n
c
)

-

.
2
7
*
*
(
n
c
c
)

-

.
3
0
*
(
n
c
)

-

-
.
5
2
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

.
2
4
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
4
l
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
.
3
1
*
(
l
c
)

-

.
3
4
*
*
(
2
a
)

.
2
7
*
(
l
e
)

-

-
.
2
5
*
(
l
c
)

-

.
3
9
*
(
n
c
)

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

.
4
8
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

-

.
5
2
*
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
3
2
*
(
n
c
)

-
.
4
3
*
(
m
)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.
4
1
*
*
(
n
c
)

.
4
6
*
(
n
c
)

-

-

-

N
o
t
e
s
:

*

p

<

.
0
5
;

*
*
p

<

.
O
l

T
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

s
h
o
w
n

a
r
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
.

T
h
e

a
l
p
h
a
n
u
m
e
r
i
c

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

t
h
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s

r
e
f
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

l
(
a
)
-
(
f
)

a
n
d

2
(
a
)
-
(
0
.

T
h
u
s
,

t
h
e
s
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

T
h
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s

n
c

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

H
o
w
e
l
l

e
t

a
l
.

(
1
9
8
6
)
.

T
h
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s

n
c
c

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
e
c
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

H
o
w
e
l
l

e
t

a
l
.

(
1
9
8
6
)
.

a
n
d

t
o
o
k

t
h
e

f
o
r
m

o
f

a

c
l
a
s
s
i
c

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-
t
h
a
t

i
s

o
n
e

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

l
e
a
d
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

w
a
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

a
t

o
n
e

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
o
r
,

a
n
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

a
t

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
.

A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

e
v
e
r
y

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

1
3

s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

f
o
r

l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

w
e
r
e

e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

l
e
a
d
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
-
s
u
b
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

(
8
5
8

i
n

a
l
l
)
,

f
o
r

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

c
l
a
r
i
t
y
,

o
n
l
y

t
h
o
s
e

s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

a

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

l
e
a
d
e
r

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r

o
n

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.

b
y

g
u
e
s
t

o
n

J
u
n
e

1
7
,

2
0
1
4
jo
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
lo
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

(1986) classification scheme, because the leader behavior of interest does not have
a main or simple main effect on the criterion variable.
Finally, notice that the last numerical entry in the General Satisfaction
column (j3 = .27) has an (ncc) symbol next to it. This symbol means that even
though the moderating effect of group cohesiveness on the relationship between
intellectual stimulation and general satisfaction was not classifiable using Howell
et al.s (1986) criteria, the interaction between the leader behavior and the substi-
tute variable took the form of a classic moderating effect; that is, one in which
the slope of the relationship between the leader behavior and criterion variable was
significantly positive at one level of the moderator, but significantly negative at the
other level of the moderator. Although these classic interactions do not fit readily
into the classification scheme developed by Howell et al. (1986), they are never-
theless potentially important to leaders, since they indicate conditions under which
the effects of the leader behavior may change the most dramatically. For this
reason, we have decided to identify them explicitly.
With this in mind, several general comments regarding the overall pattern of
moderating effects in Table 5 are in order. First, it bears noting that of the 858
possible interaction effects (6 leader behaviors x 13 substitutes variables x 11 crite-
rion variables = 858 possible interactions) examined in this study, 69 significant
moderators were actually observed. This represents about 8% of the possible cases
examined, which is somewhat higher than would be expected by chance. However,
of the 69 moderating effects detected, only 18 (or 2.1% of the 858 examined) met
the criteria for substitutes, neutralizers, or enhancers specified by Howell et
al. (1986). Of the remaining 5 1 interaction effects detected: (a) 4 (5.8% of the 69)
represented classical interaction effects, in which the relationship between the
leader behavior of interest and the criterion variable were significantly positive at
one level of the moderator, and significantly negative at the other level of the
moderator, (b) 21 (30.4% of the 69) were cases in which the overall relationship
between the leader behavior and the criterion variable was significant at one level
of the moderator variable, but not at the other level of the moderator, and (c) 26
(37.8% of the 69) were cases in which the relationship between the leader behavior
and the criterion variable was slightly positive (but not significant) at one level of
the moderator, and slightly negative (but not significant) at the other level of the
moderator.
Second, it appears that, on average, the substitutes tended to moderate the
effects of the leader behaviors more on the self-report criterion variables than they
did on the behavioral criterion variables. Approximately two-thirds (65.2%) of the
69 moderating effects, and every one of the 18 effects that met the criteria for
substitutes, neutralizers, or enhancers specified by Howell et al. (1986),
involved the self-report criterion measures (i.e., satisfaction, commitment, trust,
role clarity and role conflict). Indeed, none of the moderating effects involving the
behavioral criterion variables met Howell et al.s (1986) criteria. Of the self-report
criterion measures, trust was associated with the greatest number of moderating
effects (17), followed by organizational commitment (13), role clarity (7) and
general satisfaction and role conflict (both with 4 each). Of the performance
measures, in-role performance (with a total of 7), sportsmanship (with 5), courtesy
and civic virtue (with 4 each), were associated with the greatest number of moder-
ating effects, and altruism with the least (just 1).
Third, the effects of some of the transformational leadership behaviors on the
criterion measures were influenced by more moderators than others. The two
leader behaviors that were moderated the most often were articulating a vision and
fostering the acceptance of group goals (each with 15 of the 69 interactions that
occurred or, when taken together, approximately 43% of the total), followed
closely by providing an appropriate model and intellectual stimulation (each with
12 of the 69 interactions, or about 17%), and high performance expectations (with
10 of the 69 interactions, or about 14%). On the other hand, the leader behavior that
was moderated the least was individualized support (with only 5 of the 69 interac-
tions, or about 7.2%).
Finally, although all of the 13 substitutes moderated the impact of at least one
leader behavior, some substitutes produced far more moderating effects than
others. Organizational formalization was the most frequent moderator (accounting
for 9 of the 69 moderated relationships), followed by intrinsically satisfying tasks
(accounting for 8 of the 69 moderated relationships), group cohesiveness (account-
ing for 7), and professional orientation, need for independence, and spatial distance
(each accounting for 6 of the 69 moderated relationships). Thus, it would appear
that the most important category of moderators in our sample relate to organiza-
tional characteristics, and that of these, organizational formalization, group
cohesiveness, and spatial distance, were the most important individual moderators.
Moderators of articulating a vision. As indicated in Table 5, 15 (10.5%)
of the possible 143 interactions were significant in the case of the relationships
between articulating a vision and the 11 criterion variables. Follow-up analyses of
these interactions indicated that eleven of these interactions did not fit the criteria
specified by Howell et al. (1986), and therefore were not classifiable in their
system. Interestingly, advisory/staff support served as a classic moderator of the
relationship between articulating a vision and employees trust in their leader.
More specifically, the relationship between articulating a vision and trust was
significantly positive at low levels of advisory/staff support, but was significantly
negative at high levels of advisory/staff support.
Of the remaining four interactions: (a) intrinsically satisfying tasks served as
an enhancer of the positive relationship between articulating a vision and general
satisfaction, (b) group cohesiveness served as substitute for the positive relation-
ship between vision articulation and organizational commitment, and (c) ability,
experience, training, and knowledge served as a substitute for and need for inde-
pendence served as a neutralizer of the positive relationship between vision
articulation and role clarity. Taken together, these findings indicate that about one-
fourth (4 of 15 or 27%) of the significant interactions observed between articulat-
ing a vision and the substitutes variables are consistent with the criteria specified
by Howell et al. (1986).
Moderators of providing an appropriate model. Twelve (8.4%) of the
possible 143 interactions between providing an appropriate model and the 13
substitutes for leadership on the 11 criterion variables were found to be significant.
However, as indicated in Table 5, only six of these interactions were consistent
with the criteria specified by Howell et al. (1986). An examination of the follow-
up regression analyses indicated that: (a) advisory/staff support served as an
enhancer of the positive relationship between providing an appropriate model and
employees general satisfaction, and (b) professional orientation, indifference to
organizational rewards, and rewards outside the leaders control served as enhanc-
ers, while organizational inflexibility served as a neutralizer, and task feedback
was a substitute of the positive relationship between providing an appropriate
model and employees trust in their leader.
Moderators of fostering the acceptance of group goals. Fifteen (10.5%)
of the 143 interactions between fostering the acceptance of group goals and the 13
substitutes for leadership examined in this study were found to be signi~cant. Of
these interactions, only two (1.4% of the total possible) were found to be consistent
with Howell et al.s (1986) criteria. Routine tasks served as a substitute and spatial
distance served as an enhancer of the positive relationship between fostering the
acceptance of group goals and employees trust in their leader. In addition, both
ability, experience, training, and knowledge, and need for independence served as
classic moderators of the relationship between fostering the acceptance of group
goals and role clarity. The relationship between fostering the acceptance of group
goals and role clarity was signi~cantly positive when subordinates perceived they
possessed high levels of ability, experience, training, and knowledge, or had a high
need for independence; but was significantly negative when subordinates
perceived that they possessed low levels of ability, experience, training, and
knowledge, or had a low need for independence.
Moderators of high performance expectations. Ten (7%) of the interac-
tions between high performance expectations and the substitutes for leadership
variables were found to be significant; three of these (three of the 143 possible, or
2.1%) met Howell et als criteria. Spatial distance served as an enhancer of the
positive relationship between high performance expectations and employees
perceptions or role conflict, while task feedback served as a neutralizer of this rela-
tionship. Thus, task feedback tended to assuage the positive effects of high
performance expectations on role conflict, while spatial distance from the leader
tended to magnify them. In addition, advisory/staff support served as a neutralizer
of the positive relationship between high performance expectations and
employees trust in their leader.
Moderators of individualized support. There were only five moderators
(3.5%) of the effects of individualized support on the 11 criterion variables. Of
these moderators, two (or 1.4% of the 143 possible) were consistent with the crite-
ria specified by Howell et al. (1986). Indifference to organizational rewards served
as a neutralizer of the positive relationship between individualized support and
employee trust, and routine tasks served as a neutralizer of the negative relation-
ship between individualized support and employee perceptions of role conflict.
Moderators of inteIlectu~ stimulation. There were 12 moderators (8.4%)
of the effects of leader intellectual stimulation on the subordinate criteria variables;
but only one of these (less than 1% of the total possible) met the criteria specified
by Howell et al. (1986). Subordinates professional orientation served as a neutrd-
izer of the positive relationship between intellectual stimulation and role conflict;
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22, NO. 2, 1996
indicating that the relationship between intellectual stimulation and role conflict
was positive for subordinates who lacked a professional orientation, but was not
significant for subordinates who were professionally oriented. In addition, one of
the moderating effects took the form of a classic interaction. At low levels of
group cohesiveness, intellectual stimulation was negatively related to general satis-
faction, while at high levels intellectual stimulation was positively related to this
criterion variable.
Discussion
The primary objective of the study reported here was to explore the relative
contributions of transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership to
employee attitudes, role perceptions, and in-role and extra-role performance.
This was accomplished by examining the aggregate effects of the leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership on the subordinate criterion variables, as well as their
individual main and interactive effects. In discussing the overall pattern of results,
we first examined the aggregate effects of the leader behaviors and the substitutes
for leadership on employee attitudes, role perceptions and performance. Next, we
examined the unique effects of the six transformational leader behaviors and the 13
substitutes for leadership on the eleven criterion variables. Finally, we examined
the moderating effects of the leadership substitutes on the leader behavior-criterion
variable relationships.
Aggregate Effects on Criterion Variables
An examination of the aggregate effects of the transformational leader behav-
iors and leadership substitutes on subordinates attitudes, role perceptions, and
performance produced a number of interesting findings. First, the data reported in
Table 3 indicate that adding the 13 substitutes for leadership to the six transforma-
tional leader behaviors included in this study significantly improved the proportion
of variance accounted for in the 11 criterion variables. Second, the data also indi-
cate that although the transformational leader behaviors contributed to the variance
in every one of the criterion variables, with the exception of employee trust and
courtesy, the amount of variance accounted for in the remaining (nine) criterion
variables by the substitutes variables, was always greater than the amount of vari-
ance accounted for by the leader behaviors. This was especially true in the case of
the employee attitudes (other than trust), and role perceptions. Third, with a few
exceptions, a substantial portion of the variance explained in employees attitudes
and role perceptions is shared by both of the leader behavior and substitute
categories.
Taken together, these findings suggest the importance of including both the
transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership if one wishes to
obtain a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of the employee criterion
variables examined in this study. Indeed, the results of the aggregate analysis indi-
cate that because of the large proportion of the shared variance between the
transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership, it is essential to
include the substitutes variables in any test of the effects of transformational lead-
ership. Otherwise, the parameter estimates obtained will be biased due to
misspecification of the regression model.
Individual Efsects on Criterion Variables
As indicated in Table 4, one transformational leader behavior (individualized
support) appears to be a particularly important determinant of employee attitudes,
role perceptions and behaviors. Individualized support was found to be positively
related to employees satisfaction, trust in their leader, role clarity, in-role perfor-
mance, altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue; and
negatively related to employees perceptions of role conflict. These effects suggest
that employees who perceive their leaders to provide individualized support gener-
ally trust their leaders more, and are better sports, more satisfied, productive,
altruistic, conscientious, courteous, experience more role clarity and less role
conflict, and exhibit more civic virtue, than are employees who perceive their lead-
ers to provide less support.
According to the propositions of many transformational leadership
approaches (cf. Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boa1 & Bryson, 1988; Burns,
1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986), leaders
who articulate a vision should have positive effects on employee attitudes, role
clarity, and extra-role behaviors. Consistent with these expectations, articulating a
vision was found to be positively related to employees general satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment, role clarity, and one dimension of organizational
citizenship behaviors (sportsmanship). Somewhat surprisingly, however, articulat-
ing a vision was not related to employee trust, or to other dimensions of employees
citizenship behaviors.
Leaders who were perceived by their subordinates to provide an appropriate
model tended to have functional effects on employee attitudes and role perceptions,
but no effects on employee behaviors. Providing an appropriate model was posi-
tively related to employee satisfaction and trust in ones leader, and negatively
related to subordinates perceptions of role conflict. Thus, leaders who provide
appropriate models increase employees trust and satisfaction, and decrease the
amount of conflict they experience in their jobs.
Leaders who communicate high performance expectations, and those who
provide intellectual stimulation, had some effects on employee outcome variables;
but with the exception of the positive effect of high performance expectations on
courtesy, the effects that they did have were not functional to the organization.
Both high performance expectations and intellectual stimulation tended to increase
role conflict. In addition, high performance expectations tended to decrease
employees general satisfaction. Although these findings are contrary to the predic-
tions of a variety of transformational models of leadership, they are not totally
unanticipated. For example, Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported a negative relation-
ship between intellectual stimulation and employee trust and satisfaction, and a
negative relationship between high performance expectations and employee trust.
They noted that one possible explanation of the dysfunctional effects of intellectual
stimulation might be due to the fact that, Although intellectual stimulation may
produce desirable effects in the long run, it may be that in the short run, leaders who
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs 29 I
continually urge or exhort followers to search for new and better methods of doing
things create ambiguity, conflict, or other forms of stress in the minds of those
followers. (p. 135). Thus, it is possible that when leaders provide too much intel-
lectual stimulation to their subordinates, they also may increase the levels of role
conflict their subordinates experience.
The reason for the negative relationship between high performance expecta-
tions and employee satisfaction, and the positive relationship between this form of
transformational leader behavior and employee perceptions of role conflict, are not
as straightforward. However, House (1977) has suggested that in order to be effec-
tive, high performance expectations must not only be communicated to followers
in an unambiguous manner, but the leader must also let followers know that the
leader has confidence in their ability to meet those expectations. Otherwise, it may
appear that the leader is continually expressing a desire for higher and higher levels
of performance on the followers part, without really expecting them to be able to
meet these higher expectations. Unfortunately, although our measure taps the
leaders high expectations, it does not appear to tap his/her expressions of conti-
dence that the followers can meet these expectations. Thus, it is possible that the
dysfunctional consequences of high performance expectations observed in this
study would be alleviated in future research, if the measure of high performance
expectations was broadened to include expressions of confidence by the leader in
the followers ability to meet these expectations.
In addition to the leader behaviors, all of the substitutes for leadership were
found to independently influence at least one criterion variable. The pattern of
main effects indicates that, of the subordinate characteristics, indifference to orga-
nizational rewards had the greatest number of effects (eight), followed by ability,
experience, training, and knowledge (with five), and professional orientation (with
three). The effects of both professional orientation and indifference to organiza-
tional rewards were generally dysfunctional. Professional orientation tended to be
associated with reduced levels of employee satisfaction, and courtesy, but
increased role conflict. Similarly, employees indifference to organizational
rewards tended to reduce employees satisfaction, commitment, trust in their
leader, in-role performance, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue;
and also increased role conflict. However, the effects of employees ability, expe-
rience, training, and knowledge, were somewhat more complex. On the one hand,
employees who perceived that they possess more ability, experience, training, and
knowledge, tended to express more trust in their leader and role clarity, and exhibit
more civic virtue than employees who do not perceive they possess as much ability,
experience, training, and knowledge. On the other hand, higher levels on this
predictor variable also tended to result in more role conflict on the part of employ-
ees, and reduced sportsmanship. Taken together, these findings appear to strongly
reinforce the notion that professionally oriented employees present significant
challenges to organizational leaders (cf. Von Glinow, 1988), and that, in order to
be effective, leaders must identify rewards that employees value.
Of the task characteristics, routine tasks were found to have the greatest
number of significant main effects (with nine), followed by both task feedback and
intrinsically satisfying tasks (with six each). Task feedback and intrinsically satis-
fying tasks primarily affected employee attitudes and perceptions, but task
routinization influenced all of the behavioral criterion variables, as well as
employee attitudes and role perceptions. Task feedback and intrinsically satisfying
tasks generally had functional effects on subordinate criterion variables. Both of
these predictor variables tended to increase employee satisfaction, and role clarity,
and decrease employees perceptions of role conflict. In addition, task feedback
tended to increase employees trust in their leader and their in-role performance
and civic virtue; and intrinsically satisfying tasks tended to increase organizational
commitment, altruism, and sportsmanship.
However, the effects of task routinization were generally negative. For exam-
ple, although higher levels of task routinization tended to increase role clarity, and
decrease role conflict, employees with more routinized tasks also engaged in
substantially less in-role and citizenship behaviors. These latter findings relating
task routinization to citizenship behaviors appear to support Farh, Pod&off and
Organs (1990) conceptual arguments regarding the potential importance of job
characteristics as determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors, and suggest
that additional attention to task properties may prove valuable in future OCB
research.
Finally, in the case of organizational characteristics, organizational formaliza-
tion had the greatest number of effects (with seven), followed by group
cohesiveness (with six), and organizational inflexibility and rewards outside the
leaders control (with four each). Interestingly, organizational formalization had
many of the same effects as task routinization. For example, like routine tasks,
organizational formalization increased employees perceptions of role clarity, and
decreased role conflict, altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic
virtue. In addition, organizational formalization also decreased employees trust in
their leader. One possible explanation for the similarity in the results regarding the
effects of these two predictor variables on the citizenship behaviors relates to the
fact that when tasks are relatively routinized, and the rules and regulations of the
organization are relatively formal in nature, employees may perceive their behav-
iors to be relatively prescribed for them, and they do not feel that they can go
beyond their well defined areas of responsibility. Of course, another possible
explanation is that, when employees feel that their behavior becomes over-
prescribed by the organization and represents a threat to their independence, they
may resist these threats by choosing not to do what may benefit the organization.
Brehm (1966), for example, has noted that such forms of psychological reactance
are one of the main responses to threats to ones independence and freedom.
However, if this reactance explanation is accurate, one probably would
assume that employees perceptions of organizational inflexibility would also
decrease citizenship behavior, since inflexible work rules and procedures might be
expected to restrict employees perceptions of personal freedom and independence
of action. Contrary to this expectation, organizational inflexibility actually
increased employees general satisfaction and commitment to the organization, and
had no effects on employee in-role or extra-role behaviors. These effects are diffi-
cult to reconcile with those produced by organizational formalization. However,
one possible explanation relates to the perceptions of employees regarding the
legitimacy of the organizational rules and procedures. Building on the work of
Katz and Kahn (1966), Baum and Youngblood (1975) predicted that organizational
control policies that are perceived as legitimate, and compulsory for all employees,
would be more effective than laissez-faire policies that are noncompulsory.
Consistent with their expectations, they found that organizational control policies
that were perceived as legitimate, and compulsory for all, produced more func-
tional effects than did noncompulsory policies.
Finally, given the generally functional effects of group cohesiveness found in
this study, it would appear that the recent rejuvenation of interest among research-
ers in work teams and team building is justified. Group cohesiveness was
positively related to employees general satisfaction, commitment, trust, sports-
manship, and courtesy, and negatively related to employees perceptions of role
conflict; suggesting that cohesive groups generally improve employees attitudes,
role perceptions, and citizenship behaviors.
Moderating Effects of the Substitutes Variables
An examination of Table 5 indicates that only four variables moderated the
impact of a transformational leadership behavior on a criterion variable in a manner
consistent with the definition of a substitute [Figures l(a) or (f)], as specified by
Howell et al. (1986). Group cohesiveness substituted for the impact of articulating
a vision on organizational commitment; task feedback substituted for the impact of
providing an appropriate model on employees trust in their leader; routine tasks
substituted for fostering the acceptance of group goals on employees trust in their
leader; and ability, experience, training, and knowledge, substituted for articulating
a vision on employees perceptions of role clarity; all in the manner shown in
Figure l(a). If replicated by future research, this would suggest that articulating a
vision may be less important when followers have more ability, experience, train-
ing, and knowledge, or work in a cohesive group; providing an appropriate model
may be less important when followers work on tasks that give them a high degree
of feedback; and fostering the acceptance of group goals may be less important
when followers perform routine tasks.
An examination of Table 5 also indicates that six variables met the criteria of
a neutralizer, as specified by Howell et al. (1986). Almost half (three) of these
neutralized the effect of a leader behavior on role conflict. Task feedback served as
a partial neutralizer of the positive effect of high performance expectations on role
conflict; professional orientation served as a full neutralizer of the positive effect
of intellectual stimulation on role conflict; and routine tasks served as a full neutral-
izer of the negative effect of individualized support on role conflict. (The
difference between full and partial neutralizers is that full neutralizers
completely eliminate the significant positive or negative effect of the leader behav-
ior, while partial neutralizers simply reduce the impact of the leader behavior,
although its effect remains significant.) Of the three remaining neutralizing effects
observed, need for independence served as a full neutralizer of the positive effect
of articulating a vision on role clarity; indifference to organizational rewards
served as a partial neutralizer of the positive effect of individualized support on
employees trust in their leader; and organizational inflexibility served as a partial
neutralizer of the positive effect of providing an appropriate model on employees
trust in their leader.
Eight variables moderated the relationship between transformational leader
behaviors and subordinate criterion variables in a manner consistent with Howell
et al.s (1986) definition of an enhancer. The majority of these effects (six) took
the form specified by Figure 2(b). Interestingly, half of these relationships occurred
when trust in ones leader served as the criterion variable, and four of the interac-
tions resulted from cases where providing an appropriate model was the leader
behavior of interest. Rewards outside the leader control, employees indifference
to organizational rewards, and professional orientation, all served as partial
enhancers of the positive relationship between providing an appropriate model and
subordinates trust in their leaders. In addition, advisory/staff support served as a
full enhancer of the positive relationship between providing an appropriate model
and general satisfaction; intrinsically satisfying tasks served as a full enhancer of
the positive relationship between articulating a vision and general satisfaction;
spatial distance served as a full enhancer of the positive relationship between
fostering the acceptance of group goals and subordinates trust in their leader; and
spatial distance served as a full enhancer of the positive relationship between high
performance expectations and employees perceptions of role conflict.
Finally, an examination of Table 5 also indicates that 51 (73.9%) of the 69
significant interactions did not meet the requirements for substitutes, neutralizers,
or enhancers specified by Howell et al.( 1986), primarily because their correspond-
ing leader behavior main effects were not significant.
Conclusions
The results of the present study do not provide strong evidence for the moder-
ating effects of Kerr and Jermiers (1978) substitutes for leadership on the
relationships between transformational leader behaviors and subordinate criterion
variables. Although the number of interaction effects observed (69, or 8% of a
possible 858) was somewhat greater than one would expect by chance alone, only
18 (or approximately 2.1% of the total) of these interactions behaved in a manner
consistent with that specified by Kerr and his colleagues (cf. Howell et al., 1986).
The vast majority of the remaining interactions were ones in which the leader
behavior of interest had no significant overall effect on the subordinate criterion
variables. Thus, strictly speaking, the results provided little or no support for the
universal prediction that substitutes for leadership moderate the impact of transfor-
mational leadership on the job attitudes, role perceptions, or performance of
subordinates.
However, it would be a mistake to conclude from this that it is safe to ignore
the substitutes when examining the effects of transformational leader behaviors.
We believe that this conclusion would be misguided because several of the substi-
tutes for leadership examined in this study were significantly correlated with both
the transformational leadership behaviors and the criterion variables. Functionally,
this means that any structural model that examines the effects of these leader
behaviors on the subordinate criterion variables that does not include the substi-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22. NO. 2, 1996
tutes variables would be misspecified. Thus, to ignore the substitutes variables
when examining the effects of transformational leadership behaviors would lead to
biased parameter estimates of the effects of these leader behaviors on the subordi-
nate criterion variables, and generally obscure their importance relative to these
contextual variables. This implies that much of what we know about the impact
of transformational leadership on employee attitudes, perceptions, and perfor-
mance, may be subject to qualification.
In addition, the fact that the substitutes for leadership and transformatioal
leader behaviors are correlated with each other suggests that future research ought
to investigate why this is the case. There are three reasons why the substitutes vari-
ables might be correlated with leader behaviors. First, it is possible that the
relationships between the substitutes and the leader behaviors might be spurious,
and be caused by other unrecognized factors. Second, it is possible that the substi-
tutes influence or constrain a leaders behavior in some way. A final possibility,
noted by Kerr (1977), Howell et al. (1990), and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Fetter
(1993), among others, is that leaders can influence the substitutes variables. If so,
it is possible that managers actually have a stronger impact than previously
suggested because they can influence subordinates not only directly through their
behavior, but also by shaping the context in which the subordinates work.
Finally, the findings of this study suggest that leaders need to have a better
understanding of those contextual variables that influence subordinate attitudes,
role perceptions, and performance, and how to influence these contextual vari-
ables. An examination of the results of this study, when taken together with the
findings reported previously by Pod&off, Niehoff, MacKenzie and Williams
(1993) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993), suggests that some substi-
tutes that may be particularly good candidates in this regard include indifference to
organizational reward, routine tasks, intrinsically satisfying tasks, organizational
formalization, and group cohesiveness, because these substitutes generally have
had several effects across all three of these studies. Thus, future research should
focus additional attention on the effects of these substitutes, as well the things that
leaders can do to influence them.
Notes
I According to Bums (1978), transactional leadership behavior stems from the exchange process between lead-
ers and their subordinates wherein a leader provides rewards in return for the subordinates effort.
2. A portion of the data was previously published in a study by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994a), which exam-
ined the psychometric properties of the substitutes for leadership scales. However, that study did not include
transformational leader behaviors or examine their impact on the criterion variables included in this study, nor
did it examine the impact of substitutes for leadership on these criterion variables, or the interaction of the
substitutes and transformational leader behaviors.
References
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. Pp. 29-49 in J.G. Hunt.
B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & CA. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emer,qin~ /eder.ship vistas. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. & Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing the construct validity in organizational research. Admin-
istrcrtive Science Qucrrterly. 36: 421.458.
Bandura, A. (1977). So&l learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership andperformunce beyond expectution. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at
the world class level. Journal ofManugement, 13: 7-19.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling domi-
noes effect. Grr~up und Orgunizution Studies, 12: 73-87.
Baum, J.F. & Youngblood, S.A. (1975). Impact of an organizational control policy on absenteeism, performance,
and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 688-694.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The stmtegiesfr,r taking chrge. New York: Harper & Row.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 107: 238.246.
Boa], K.B. & Bryson, J.M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. Pp. 5-
28 in J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P Dachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas. Lexing-
ton, MA: Lexington Books.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociologicu~ Methods
and Research, 17: 303-3 16.
Bradford, D.L. & Cohen, A.R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance in
contemporary organizations. New York: Wiley.
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory ofpsychological reoctunce. New York: Academic Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizutions. London: Sage.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.
Cote, J.A. & Buckley, R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct
validation studies. Journal of Marketing Reseurch, 24: 3 15-3 18.
Dobbins, G.H. & Zaccaro, S.J. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate satisfac-
tion Group and Organizutionul Studies, I I : 203.219.
Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. & Cheng, B.S. (1987). Culture-free leadership effectiveness versus moderators of
leadership behavior: An extension and test of Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership model in
Taiwan. Journal cjlnternational Business Studies, 18: 43-60.
Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader
fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal ofManagement, 16: 705-721.
Fornell. C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journul of Marketing Research, 28: 39-50.
Gillet, B.J. & Schwab, D.P. (1975). Convergent and discriminant validities of the corresponding Job Description
Index and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 3 13-3 17.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Pp. OOO-OOO in J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leader-ship; The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J., Schuler, R.S. & Levanoni. E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts? Journcd
ofApplied Psychology. 68: 334.337.
House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psycholog-
ical theory of leadership effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 364-396.
House, R.J., Woycke, J. & Fodor, E.M. (1988) Perceived behavior and effectiveness of charismatic and non-char-
ismatic U.S. Presidents. Pp. OOO-OOO in J. Conger & R. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership and
management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.P., Bowen, D.E., Dorfman, P.W., Kerr, S. & Podsakoff, P.M. (1990). Substitutes for leadership: Effec-
tive alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynumics, (Summer): 20-38.
Howell, J.P. & Dorfman, P.W. (198 1). Substitutes for leadership: Test of a construct. Academy of Management
Journal, 24: 714-728.
Howell, J.P. & Dorfman, P.W. (1986). Leadership and substitutes for leadership among professional and non-
professional workers. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 22: 29-46.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Munuge-
ment Review, II: 88-102.
Howell, J.M. & Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision processes, 43: 243-269.
Jackson, SE. & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and
role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior und Human Decision Processes, 36: 16-78.
Jermier, J.M. & Berkes, L. (1979). Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at a quasi-
military model. Administrutive Science Quarterly, 24: l-23.
Joreskog, K.G. & Sdrbom, D. (1993). LlSREL VI I I : Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum like-
lihood, instrumental variables and least squares methods, 8th ed. Morresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kerr, S. (1977). Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design. Orgnnizafion andAdmin-
istrative Sciences, 8: 135-146.
Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Orgunizationul
Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375-403.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective produc-
tivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123-150.
Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences
of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 17 l-194.
Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relation-
ship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46: 759-775.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. & Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 209-225.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal oj
Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.
Niehoff, B.P. & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theoty, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Pp. 43-72 in B.M. Staw &
L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizationul behavior, Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1989). A second generation measure oforganizutional citizenship behavior.
Indiana University.
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994a). An examination of the psychometric properties and the nomological
validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of App/ied Psychology,
79: 702-7 13.
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994b). Organizational citizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing Research, 31: 351.363.
Pod&off, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership
Quarterly, I : 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. & Fetter, R. (1993). Substitutes for leadership and the management of profes-
sionals. Leader.yhip Quurterly, 4: l-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.P., MacKenzie, S.B. & Williams, M.L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really
substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermiers situational leadership model,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: l-44.
Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12: 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and
punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 21-63.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.
Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150.163.
Roberts, N.C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human Relations, 38: 1023-1046.
Schuler, R.S., Aldag, R.J. & Brief, A.P. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 20: 111.128.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. &Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self concept
based theory. Organization Science, 4: l-17.
Sheridan, J., Vredenburgh, D. & Abelson, M. (1984). Contextual models of leadership influence in hospital units.
Acudrmy of Mrmtrgrmrnr Journul. 27: 51.78.
Stone, E.F. (1988). Moderator variables in research: A review and analysis of conceptual and methodological
issues. Pp. 191-229 in K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Rrsrcrrch in prr,wnnrl cmd humcm r~sourcw
mcmcr~rmenr, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Stone, E.F. & Hollenbeck. J.R. (1984). Some issues associated with the use of moderated regression. Orgcmi;cr-
rioncd Behtrvior and Humcm Prrfonncmc~e, 34: 195-2 13.
Stone, E.F. & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1989). Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for
detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journcrl of Applied P.sy~ho/o~qy, 74:
3-10.
Tansky, J.W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: What is the relationship? Onplo~~ee Respon-
sihilities and Rights Joumcrl. 6: 195.207.
Tichy, N. & DeVanna, M. (1986). The rrtm.~fi,rmcrtiorzcrI Irudrr. New York: Wiley.
Trite, H.M. & Beyer, J.M. (1986). Charisma and its routiniLation in two social movement organizations. Pp. I 13.
164 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Resecrrch in Orgrmizationtr[ Brhcrvior, Vol. 8. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Tucker, L.R. & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum-likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrika. 3X: I- 10.
Von Glinow, M.A. (1988). The nrw prc!frssioncl[.s, Muurging rodc~.s hi&l& m~plowrs. Cambridge. MA.:
Ballinger.
Wanous, J.P. (1974). A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. ./ourncrl
of Applied Psyhol~~,gy, 59: 139-144.
Weiss, D.J. Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. & Lofquist, L.H. ( 1967). M~mutrlfi~r /1ze Minncso/cr Scrtisfircrion @_ws-
tionncdrr. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Industrial Relations Center Work Adjustment Project.
Williams, L.J. ( 1989). Affective and non-affective components ofjob satisfaction and organizational commitment
as determinants as organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Lrcrdetxhip in orgtrniwtimw. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G.A. (I 989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Ywrly Ruvicw, ofMu~r~rmw~r. 1.5:
25 l-289.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2, I996

Journal of Management 1996 Podsakoff 259 98

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management 1996 Podsakoff 259 98

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://jom.sagepub.

Southern Management Association

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Apr 1, 1996 Version of Record >>

You might also like