Transformational Leadership across Hierarchical Levels in UK Manufacturing Organizations
Gareth Edwards Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, UK Senior Lecturer in Organisations Studies Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Road Bristol, BS16 1QY Gareth3.email@example.com +44 (0)117 328 1707 Biography - Gareth is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies at Bristol Business School. His current interests are in the application of ideas on aesthetics and leadership, community and dispersed theories of leadership. Before entering academia Gareth spent twelve years working for a leadership and executive development company.
Roger Gill Durham Business School, Durham University, UK firstname.lastname@example.org Biography – Roger is Visiting Professor of Leadership Studies at Durham Business School and an independent consultant in leadership and leadership development. He has held a full-time chair in organizational behaviour and HRM and a subsequent visiting professorship in leadership studies at the University of Strathclyde Business School in Scotland, with responsibility for executive education, established and directed the Research Centre for Leadership Studies at The Leadership Trust, run his own HR management consulting firm in Singapore and Southeast Asia, and held senior
appointments in HR management consulting with the PA Consulting Group in Southeast Asia and in HR management in the textile and engineering industries in England.
Transformational Leadership across Hierarchical Levels in UK Manufacturing Organizations
Purpose This paper reports an empirical study of the effectiveness of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership across hierarchical levels in manufacturing organizations in the UK. The aim was to develop a framework of leadership across hierarchical levels that would be useful for leadership development programmes and interventions.
Design/methodology/approach Managers from 38 companies completed a 360-degree version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Multiple responses – self, superior, subordinate and peer ratings – were obtained for 367 managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male, aged between 21 and 62 years (mean = 42 years), from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. Of the 367 subjects, unanimous (cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level of the subject) opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%), which includes 30 top-level managers, 33 directors, 54 senior managers, 43 middle managers and 55 lower managers. Data concerning time span was also obtained for 253 managers.
Findings The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different hierarchical levels of organizations. Transformational leadership is equally effective across hierarchical levels in organizations, whereas transactional leadership is not effective at the
uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. Laissezfaire leadership is ineffective at all hierarchical levels.
Originality/value A framework of effective leadership behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations was developed from the findings. This framework can be used as a basis for leadership development in UK manufacturing organisations and potentially wider more general organisation contexts.
Key words: Transformational, Transactional, Leadership, Effectiveness, Hierarchical Level
Classification – Research Paper
1. Introduction The literature regarding leadership has recently witnessed a shift toward studying leadership in context (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Fairhurst, 2009; Fry and Kriger; 2009; Liden and Antonakis, 2009; Pawar and Eastman, 1997; Porter and McLaughlin, 2006) and as a distributed phenomenon across organizations (e.g. Gronn, 2002). Studies on transformational leadership have responded and have started to shift focus towards identifying and understanding contextual and organizational variables (Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa, 2009). This paper contributes to this shift in focus by exploring the contextual impact of hierarchical level on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and reports a framework of these leadership behaviours across five hierarchical levels in UKbased manufacturing organizations. This paper adds to knowledge in the area of hierarchical level and leadership research as it investigates leadership effectiveness across hierarchical levels in a UK context, which has not been investigated to date. The paper also explores a
Stordeur. transactional and laissez-faire leadership. 2009. 2001. Mumford. Bruch and Walter. A similar distinction is that of visionary leadership and managerial leadership suggested by Rowe (2001). 1988. House. 1989). then previous research – self. Kroeck. 2004. whereas. Leadership Behaviours across Hierarchical Levels A number of writers have hypothesized differences in leadership style. 2001). 1990.higher number of organisational levels than previous research and gathers data from a broader number of rating sources. 2007. Results within this body of research. This paper investigates these distinctions in a UK setting through the lens of transformational. 2007. Waldman. and D’hoore. leadership in organizations involves face-to-face interaction in pairs or groups at lower levels of an organization. and Zaccaro. Collins. behaviour and processes across hierarchical levels (Antonakis. 1991. Avolio. 1997. Lowe. and Sivasubramaniam. 1979. and Boal. A recent paper adds weight to these distinctions (Hunt et al. Avolio. 1974. Hunt. 1987. Waldman and Yammarino. and Morgeson. superior. Hunt.
2. Osborn. Hanges. 2009) highlighting an important role of managerial leadership just below the strategic apex (director-level) in organizations. 2005.
There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership across organizational levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe. Campion. 2003. and Sivasubramaniam. Yammarino and Bass. 1979) has contrasted ‘leadership of organizations’ and ‘leadership in organizations’. and Bebb. Dubin. Densten. Leadership of organizations essentially focuses on the leadership of the total organization. Grint. One ‘macro’ perspective (Dubin. Yokochi. Ruiz-Quintanilla. 1999. 2003. Vandenberghe. Bass. 1999.
. subordinate and peer. Stogdill. Rowe. Oshagbemi and Gill. 2000. Saskin. and Dorfman. 2003. Den Hartog.. 1996.
Stordeur et al. 1999. 1985.however. is needed to clarify the relative effectiveness of these behaviours across organizational levels in UK organizations. et al. Army platoons found that both active transactional and transformational leadership behaviours are positively correlated with potency. 2007. it has been suggested that effective transformational leadership behaviour augments effective transactional leadership behaviour (Bass. The effectiveness of transformational leadership. and Walter. 1993. In addition. There are also areas that need further investigation. 1996. 1993.
Most of the studies regarding transformational and transactional leadership across organisations report comparisons based on two levels (sometimes referred to loosely as ‘upper’ versus ‘lower’ levels) (Bass. 1998. only four of these studies have investigated the relative effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership at differing levels (Bruch. 1992. Bass and Avolio.
. and Berson 2003). et al. have been varied. 1998. Bass and Riggio. 1987. cohesion and performance (Bass. 2006). 2007. Lowe et al. recent research in 72 U. Bruch and Walter. Densten. This paper investigates these general findings regarding effectiveness across hierarchical levels in UK manufacturing organisations.
With this question regarding effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership across hierarchical levels it is worth reviewing the general research regarding the effectiveness of these behaviours. Howell and Avolio. 2000). Bass. 1988.. Kane and Tremble. 2003. therefore. Lowe.S. for example. Hater and Bass.. builds on a foundation of transactional leadership behaviours. 1996.. Previous research supports this finding. Avolio. therefore. Jung. 1998). none of which have been within the UK. Avolio. suggesting that the most effective leaders typically display both transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass.. and Jung. Curphy. For example. Further research.
1990. The increasing task complexity is a function of the uncertainties created by the necessity to deal with a more encompassing and a more turbulent environment further up the organisational hierarchy (Hunt. senior. 1976. Jaques. organisational. SST suggests a model of organisational functioning whereby tasks or requirements increase in complexity with ascending organisational levels. This research broadens the scope of previous research provides a more detailed examination of differing management levels by exploring five levels in organisations – top. 1990. 1990. This model is also considered in this research project. 1991) is a prescriptive model of organisational structure based on defining hierarchical level according to the complexity of work at each level. director. 1991). Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques. 1989). 1987. and direct leadership. 1991) (see Table 1). 1989. 2003. middle and lower level management. Vandenberghe. Yammarino and Bass. 1991) (SST) as the framework to record the frequency of leadership behaviours (as described in the FRL model) of 480 senior police officers in Australia.
.Stordeur. Time span is defined as the maximum time for a manager at a given hierarchical level to complete critical tasks (Hunt. Jaques and Clement. 1976. 2000. 1989. Jaques and Clement. and D’hoore. Yokochi. two have studied three levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe. The model shows seven levels within organisations grouped into three domains: systems. The model therefore is a useful addition to the already existing research literature concerning the FRL model and hierarchical level that we review below.
In addition. The grouping is based on a measure of task complexity at each level termed ‘time span of discretion’. Oshagbemi and Gill. 1987. 2003). 2004) and only one has studied four levels in organizations (Densten. Densten (2003) used Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques. Jaques.
3. in the past. 2000. Indeed. been questioned (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe. hopes to add to the investigation of this form of leadership behaviour in the UK. Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe. Method 3. 2001).1 Defining Hierarchical Level
. transactional and laissez-faire leadership across five hierarchical levels in organizations in a UK context and to develop a working model based on the findings of the research. This research. the applicability of the Full Range Leadership Model’s description of transformational leadership has.(Insert Table 1 about here)
In summary. therefore. the objective of the research was to investigate the effectiveness of transformational. This has not been done to date in the UK and therefore would be deemed a new contribution to our understanding of a well known theory.
Perceptions of the hierarchical level of a manager using 360-degree ratings arguably the most rigorous method. Previous research on transformational. Using job title or rank as a method of defining hierarchical level seems adequate for structured organizations such as the military. that the true nature of a hierarchy is what people perceive it to be. 1989.
3. therefore. Individualized consideration (IC). This is because management. Inspirational motivation (IM). Cognitive theories of organization (Weick and Bougon. An alternative method. Jaques and Clement. 1968). hierarchy and even organization have been theorised as being construed through cognitive maps (Weick and Bougon.2
The study used a between-groups design with 11 dependent variables. transactional and laissez-faire leadership has used two methods to define hierarchical level: job or vocation title or rank and the manager’s own perception. It seems. In addition. 2001) need to be considered. The use of a manager’s own opinion is adequate.The meaning of ‘organizational level’ and how it should be measured have been cited as important considerations concerning multiple-level leadership research (Nealey and Fiedler. but the discussion above concerning cognitive maps implies that a consensus opinion would be more accurate. 2001). Idealized influence (II). less comparable between organizations. Contingent reward (CR). Unanimous opinion of ratings was chosen as the preferred method of defining hierarchical level as it was deemed the most rigorous. however. Intellectual stimulation (IS). Active management-by-
. These variables were Attributed charisma (AC). 1991). Jaques. 1990. is needed for organizations where positions or ranks are more ambiguous or unclear and. 1987. data on Stratified-systems theory (SST) was also collected (Jacobs and Jaques. Transformational leadership (TFL) (a composite of the preceding five variables). 1976. therefore.
1994. There were also three outcome variables . and subordinate rating.Follower satisfaction (SAT). self-ratings and peer ratings. In addition.) (Furnham and Stringfield. Level of extra effort by followers (EE). superior rating. 1999). Kruger and Dunning. 1998.g. (1996) have demonstrated how self-report personality scales show predictable. 1988. There is general agreement among academic researchers that there is greater congruence between other-ratings (e. Saville et al. All of these variables reflected scales in the MLQ.
A 360-degree method was used. 1998.) than between self-ratings and otherratings (e. These significant differences are attributed to leniency or halo effects (Furnham and Stringfield. with four categories of rating – self-rating. Leadership effectiveness (EFF). Transactional leadership (TAL) – a composite of the preceding three variables. Passive management-by-exception (MBEP). Spector. etc. Harris and Schaubroeck. peer rating. 1999. 1991. Saville et al. Tornow. and substantial correlations with criteria of management job success. It provides a more inclusive view of leadership (Borman. Indeed. There is also general agreement among empirical research findings that self-ratings are consistently higher than other-ratings. 1994. 1994). Hough et al. self-ratings and superior ratings. 1978).exception (MBEA). some researchers suggest the risk of bias from self-ratings is over-estimated (Crampton and Wagner. Furthmore. etc. Schwarz. superior and subordinate ratings.. but to test whether they did make a significant difference to the data. Holzbach. Therefore. 1996. Laissez-faire leadership (LF). peer and superior ratings. 1988. 2001. 1993). Mount and Scullen. the decision was made to include self-ratings in the analysis. Harris and Schaubroeck. the use of different perceptions of leader behaviours by using self-ratings and subordinate ratings is useful.
.g. significant. (1990) suggest that response distortion due to social desirability does not appear significantly to affect validity coefficients.
it would enable replication in future research initiatives. chief executive officer. Five categories of hierarchical level were identified . chairman.
3. operations director and other directors).There were two independent variables: hierarchical level as judged by unanimous opinion (cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level of the subject) and time span. Firstly. team leader). These were ‘up to three months’ (Stratum I). Jaques and Clement. 1991). it would enable comparison with previous research. general manager. aged between 21 and 62 years (mean =
The original sample consisted of 432 managers. sales manager).g. 1984).Top-level management (e. Lower management (e. Director-level management (e. finance director. site manager). managing director). 1990. Middle management (e. ‘three months to one year’ (Stratum II). It is also suggested that ‘replication with extension’. 2000. Four categories were identified in line with SST (Jacobs and Jaques. Indeed.g. 2000): most researchers see replication studies as providing genuine scientific knowledge.g. No data were obtained for time spans above five years. production manager. 1976. and ‘two to five years’ (Stratum IV).g. Multiple responses were gained for 367 managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male.
It was reasoned that the use of a quantitative methodology was beneficial for this piece of research. Secondly. The second independent variable was time span of the manager’s role (as viewed by the manager him/herself). Senior management (e. supervisor.g. ‘one to two years’ (Stratum III). Rosenthal and Rosnow. Jaques. 1987. the literature highlights the importance of replication studies (Hubbard and Ryan. which modifies aspects of the original research design. is a highly suitable means for knowledge creation (Hubbard and Ryan.
of whom 56 reported a time span of up to three months. Form 5X-short (Bass and Avolio. There are some ‘rules of thumb’ cited in the literature for determining sample size (Roscoe. Manufacturing organizations were chosen because of their relatively well-defined hierarchical structures.42 years).
Of the 367 subjects. 2003).000 employees (mean = 285 employees) and £0. ranging from five to 3. Multiple MLQ ratings (self. a minimum sub-sample size of 30 for each category is deemed necessary (Sekaran. The organizations were of varying sizes.2 million to £220 million turnover (mean = £27 million). A solely-UK sample was used to control for national culture variance (Bass. Firstly. of whom 30 were top-level managers. where samples are to be divided into sub-samples. unanimous opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%).
(Insert Table 2 about here)
(Insert Table 3 about here)
3. 1997) with both self-rating and other–rating
. and 49 a time span of two to five years (see table 3 for a breakdown of ratings by time span). sample sizes of 30 to 500 are deemed appropriate for quantitative empirical research. Secondly. superior and subordinate) data concerning time span was obtained for 253 managers. 54 were senior managers. from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. 79 a time span of one to two years. 33 were director-level managers.4
The materials consisted of a 360-degree version of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. 53 a time span of three months to one year. 1998). peer. 1975). 43 were middle managers and 55 were lower managers (see table 2 for a breakdown of ratings by hierarchical level).
. 1998. Hinkin and Tracy.g. Hackett. 1993. 1995. Patterson.. 2008a. 3 = ‘fairly often’. Van Muijen.g. 1999. and Stringer. Carless. There are. Hinkin and Tracey. 1996. Indeed. 1993. 2007. the MLQ was used for the research.forms) and demographic sheets for all raters. “uses methods of leadership that are satisfying”.. et al. 1997.g. 1995) have confirmed that the MLQ can be regarded as providing a satisfactory model for assessing transformational leadership. 1 = ‘once in a while’. Van Geit. e. 1992. and Allen. In addition. Rafferty and Griffin. concerns about the lack of supporting evidence for the factor model of transformational leadership represented by the MLQ that have led some researchers to suggest alternative factor models (Bycio. 2004. This version of the MLQ is a 45-item questionnaire with a five-point Likert-type scale for rating the frequency of use of leadership behaviours associated with the scales that constitute the dimensions of transformational. Deluga and Souza. 1997. and Koopman.. 1999). however. and Coetsier. and the extra effort provided by followers. Yammarino and Dubinski. transactional and laissez-faire leadership (see Table 2). and 4 = ‘frequently. Howell and Avolio.. The first 34 items measure leadership behaviour and the remaining 11 items measure leader effectiveness (e. if not always’. Lievens. 1990.. Kantse. Hinkin and Schriesheim. satisfaction with the leader and his or her methods. a recent review has identified 14 studies that generated conflicting claims regarding the factor structure of the MLQ and the
. Although there are criticisms of the MLQ it has been suggested that they do not necessarily detract from the theory of transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass.. Fuller. Tepper and Percy. past independent meta-analyses (Gasper. 1994). Kester. 1991.. e. “increases others willingness to try harder”). The rating scale has the following designations: 0 = ‘not at all’. 1994. “leads a group that is effective”. Koh. 2 = ‘sometimes’. Lowe et al.
As the study was a replication-with-extension. Den Hartog.
583. also provides support for the nine factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (Chi² = 2.888. however.. As the study was a replication-with-extension into the UK context. management-by-exception (active).. however. the full nine factor model of the MLQ was used for comparative purposes.number of factors that best represent the model (Antonakis et al.. CFI = 0. et al.047) (Author 1. RMEA = 0. Since this time. 2003).901. 2009). Lastly. managementby-exception (passive) and laissez-faire – is underdeveloped (Hinkin and Schriesheim. 2007). et al. DF = 558. it is unclear whether they are measuring at an individual.e. active management-by-exception and passive avoidant leadership based on the exploratory factor analysis.. This analysis suggested a slightly different variant of the MLQ model which comprises: active constructive leadership.. under review).103. TLI = 0. the results of this research suggested that the MLQ can be satisfactorily used to measure Full Range Leadership in relation to its underlying theory.
Given the debate above an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the current data set and is reported in a separate paper (Author 1. This model has been found in a previous study of nurses in Finland (Kantse. The analysis conducted by Author 1. Taking differing contextual considerations into account. i. 2003). et al. firstly. Secondly. which have been seen to be too ambiguous with respect to level of analysis.. et al.
. there have been further criticisms of the MLQ suggesting the theory for the four dimensions – contingent reward. the nine-factor model best represented the factor structure underlying the MLQ (Form 5X) instrument. research has indicated that it is premature to collapse factors in this model before exploring the context in which the survey ratings are collected (Antonakis et al. 2008b). Furthermore there has also been criticism of the items that constitute the MLQ.. however. group or organisational level (Schriesheim et al. a recent analysis of the MLQ concluded that. under review).
which is important to highlight (Baruch 1999. et al. Baruch and Holtom. Hegarty.. peer.5
Organizations were approached via electronic mail to seek agreement for the participation of their managers. subordinate and superior) (e.6
The study used mean values of the multiple responses (ratings by self. Previous research using multiple responses also used the mean score for all individuals who responded to questionnaires as the measure for each scale (Atwater and Yammarino. Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r) were calculated to test for relationships between the dependent variables . 1992. The benefit to their organizations (a report on a comprehensive 360-degree assessment of leadership in their organization) was explained. and a company representative (to receive the questionnaires) was chosen by the contact person in the company. who then distributed the sealed envelopes to the participants in the study. Results of this analysis and similarities and differences are discussed later in the paper. Shipper and Davy.transformational leadership. Atwater. Agreement to take part in the research was obtained. 1974. transactional leadership and laissezfaire .3.and independent variables.g. the importance of individual perceptions analysis was conducted on the same basis for individual responses (self. Data were collated and analyzed using SPSS version 10. 1998).
3. superior and subordinate) for analysis purposes. peer. The completed questionnaires were returned to the company representatives in sealed envelopes and forwarded to the research co-ordinator in a pre-paid envelope. More detailed multiple regression analysis was also
. The questionnaires were therefore of an ‘administered’ nature. however. 2002). The questionnaires were mailed in sealed envelopes to company representatives. We do acknowledge. 2008).
and Black. The results of non-parametric test alternatives (Spearman’s ρ) was therefore reported for this variable. Results The dependent variable ‘transformational leadership’ failed the goodness-of-fit test.performed for hierarchical level and time span to investigate the impact of independent variables (extra effort.
4. The descriptive statistics for each dependent variable and the coefficients of correlation between dependent variables and the outcome variables – ‘extra effort’. effectiveness and satisfaction) for each category variable level. ‘leadership effectiveness’ and ‘follower satisfaction’ – were tabulated (see Tables 4.
(Insert Table 4 about here)
(Insert Table 5 about here)
(Insert Table 6 about here)
Multiple regression analysis was also performed to investigate predictors (taken from the independent variable list) of dependent variables (extra effort. 1998) the top-level manager category was merged with the director-level category. The table reports standardised
. To ensure an adequate sample size of around 45 (five observations for each independent variable) (Hair. Anderson. The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Tatham. effectiveness and satisfaction) for all dependent variables. 5 and 6). Hierarchical regression analysis was also performed to investigate the relative impact of other variables that may have impacted the results – organization size and rating source.
Owing to the strong moderating effect of the variable ‘rating’ the independent and dependent variables were subjected to further analysis by the original category variables (hierarchical level and time span) split by each rating category (self. Discussion The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different hierarchical levels of organizations in the UK.1
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented in table 9 and show that the category variable hierarchical level and the variable rating have the strongest moderating effect on independent and dependent variables. whereas transactional leadership is not
(Insert Table 7 about here)
(Insert Table 8 about here)
4. The results of the regression analyses show the variable ‘organizational size’ had no moderating effect on independent and dependent variables. A full assessment of differences between each of these perspectives and between these perspectives and the results obtained with the aggregated data set is available on request and summarized in the discussion below.betas (β) along with the adjusted regression coefficient (∆ R²) and F ratio. superior and subordinate). peer. Transformational leadership is equally effective across hierarchical levels in organizations. Regression equations are available for examination upon request.
(Insert Table 9 about here)
however. show little similarity between category variables. yet it was not inhibitory when exhibited by managers working to time spans of up to three months. transactional leadership appears to be conducive to extra effort when exhibited by seniorlevel managers. effective and satisfying only at the highest time spans. The results concerning extra effort. were the same for both category variables for effectiveness and satisfaction. middle-level and lower-level managers than to director-level and top-level managers. effectiveness and satisfaction of transactional leadership.effective at the uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. however. effective and satisfying when exhibited by middlelevel managers. but in comparison it appears to be conducive to extra effort. Again this may have been due to the time spans used in the research being related more to senior-level. For example.
. and satisfying at all time spans. Laissez-faire leadership is ineffective at all hierarchical levels.
(Insert Figure 1 about here)
With regards to comparing hierarchical level and time span there is similarity in results for transformational leadership as it is conducive to extra effort. A framework of effective leadership behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations was developed from the findings (see figure 1).
Laissez-faire leadership appears to be inhibitory to extra effort when exhibited by lower-level managers. The results. effective. and effective and satisfying when exhibited by lower-level managers. conducive to extra effort.
empowerment and visionary leadership. For example. sensitivity. 1974. whereas subordinates are more concerned with interpersonal skills. highlighted in Figure 2.The results concerning individual responses (self. 1978. Also of interest were the nuances of intellectual stimulation being conducive to
. Ilgen and Feldman. superior and subordinate). more confusing picture of effective and ineffective behaviours at differing levels.
(Insert Figure 2 about here)
With regards to the constituent factors of transformational and transactional leadership. Also individualised consideration appears to be the most widespread behaviour. such as decision making and problem solving. 1996. they still appear to be related to effectiveness and satisfaction at lower and middle levels and middle to lower time spans. Peer and superior ratings appear to have differing view. Colvin. Salam. Cox. 2001. peer. with the exception of contingent reward being effective at top and director level. especially for subordinate and self ratings. especially in the case of superior ratings in which they have almost the opposite view. and Sims. With regards to the transactional leadership behaviours (contingent reward and active management-by-exception). Similar to the findings of Bruch and Walter (2007) idealised influence and inspirational motivation were found to be ineffective at lower levels of organisations (hierarchical level and time span) in the study. 1997). AlimoMetcalfe (1996) suggests that superiors tend to focus on technical managerial skills. show similar results. 1983. Bradley. the more detailed analysis given by the regression analysis shows a slightly different. This is reminiscent of the suggestion that aspects of behaviour deemed to be important by one member of an organization may be different from those regarded as important by others (Alimo-Metcalfe. This appears to be supported by these findings. being satisfying at all organisational levels measured. Borman.
Bass. 2009). a recent study (Stewart and Johnson. as was suggested earlier. And indeed. focus more on change and on the creation and communication of new organizational policies (Katz and Kahn. to managers at lower levels being more oriented towards a steady workflow and having to have a greater focus on maintaining effective operations.f. Interestingly.extra effort at top and director-level. This may suggest that transformational leadership may not be achieving performance beyond normal expectations by changing how people feel about themselves and what is possible and by raising their motivation to new heights (c. inspirational motivation and individualised consideration being conducive to extra effort at senior levels and attributed charisma and intellectual stimulation being conducive to extra effort at middle levels. as would happen as a manager rises in the organization hierarchy. Indeed. leadership may need to adapt approaches that successfully manage interpersonal relationships and clearly establish roles to ensure effective performance. 1957). no behaviours were found to be conducive to extra effort at lower levels (except attributed charisma for the lower time spans). in comparison. 1985) at lower levels of organisations. This may be due. the results of this research provide evidence to challenge previous findings concerning the proposition that effective leaders typically display both transformational and
This investigation has found a comparative lack of transformational leadership behaviours and increased effectiveness of active transactional leadership behaviours at middle and lower levels compared with higher levels in the organizational hierarchy. Higher-level managers. Selznick. 1978. 1966. This could mark the shift from transactional to transformational behaviours found by this study. suggests that as teams become increasingly diverse. this may only be the case for certain behaviours at certain levels in organisations.
Hunt. 2006). Sosik. The distinction found in this paper also reflects similar distinctions made in the self-monitoring and effective leadership literature (Caligiuri and Day. middle and lower level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and transformational leadership behaviours. 1985. It implies that there are differences in leadership requirements across hierarchical levels in organizations (Antonakis.transactional leadership behaviours (Avolio and Bass. et al. Howell and Avolio. Saskin. Gill. 2001). 1998. Bass and Riggio. 1993). 1992. Zaccaro. as when behaviour is investigated at the more distinct level of constituent factors the picture becomes much more specific to various organisational levels. 1991. 2000. and Dinger. 1999. 1979. Waldman and Yammarino. effectiveness and satisfaction at different levels in organisations in the UK. 1999..
The framework reported in this paper reflects the more macro distinctions of leadership discussed earlier in the paper (Dubin. Den Hartog. Grint. 1988. do support the augmentation effect of transformational leadership on transactional leadership (Bass. Hater and Bass. It appears that only senior. There is a caveat attached to these summary comments. 2003. however. Jung. Rowe. 1998.. Bass and Avolio. 1993. 2001). 1998. 1997.
. From the perspective of this research this is highlighted by a shift from transformational and transactional leadership requirements to solely transformational leadership requirements. et al. however. There appears to be a distinct pattern of behaviours relating to extra effort.. 2009). Our findings. (2009) that the role of the managerial level just below the strategic apex is critical. 2006). Avolio et al. Our research also supports concerns about the generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model (Bryman. The findings also support the suggestion made by Hunt et al. 1999. Our results go further by illustrating that this augmentation effect also occurs at a macro organizational level.
The results also suggest that lower. This reflects programmes on the market (e. Bass.g. In considering lower managers for more senior
positions in organizations. such as setting objectives and techniques for actively monitoring progress and taking corrective action as necessary. which focuses on developing transformational leadership. Implications for Leadership Development The results of our research highlight the need for the development of transformational leadership behaviours at all levels of UK manufacturing organizations. on the other hand. the ‘Full-Range Leadership’ Programme (FRLP). need development that concentrates on moving from the use of active management-by-exception to the use of more constructive transactional leadership behaviour – contingent reward – and transformational leadership behaviours. Indeed. 2002). higher-level managers. This form of leadership development needs to reflect the key
characteristics of active management-by-exception. middle and senior level managers (and potential managers) still require the development of active transactional leadership behaviours as well as transformational leadership behaviours.6. Edwards et al. 2002) where task orientation as well as relationship building is seen as important in developing leadership ability and capacity. This is recognised in this particular example by expressing the importance of self-development for leadership and inter-relational aspects of leadership but without forgetting how managers and leaders frame tasks and what is seen as a successful outcome for groups.
The ‘Full-Range Leadership’ model has previously been hailed as ‘the leadership development solution for all managers’ regardless of organizational and national boundaries (Avolio. 1999. In addition. the use of transformational leadership behaviours by these managers should be the basis for the assessment of their suitability. The essence of leadership in such programmes is to approach these tensions within an experiential process (Edwards et al. has had positive results in many
may be detrimental at certain levels in organisations. 1994). 1990. 1994) may not be suitable for all managers if there is a reduction in the use of active management-by-exception. A programme that develops transformational leadership at the cost of management-byexception (Bass and Avolio.
This study has shown that a reduction in the use of management-by-exception (active). 1996.g. Crookall. and De Vader. effectiveness and satisfaction). as a consequence. therefore. Bass. in managers at middle and lower levels of organizations. Meindl.. More explicit effectiveness scales and other forms of effectiveness (e. have exaggerated the importance of a leader’s behaviour and removed attention from important interpersonal and situational factors (Pittenger. 1998. 1984. 1998. however. The measures of leadership effectiveness in this study represent individuals’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness rather than objectively measured performance outcomes (e. 1990. Barling et al. 1990) or by halo effect. tend to be accompanied by a reduction in the use of managing-by-exception (Bass. especially active management-by-exception. Items in this scale may be influenced by implicit leadership theories (Lord. financial targets. etc. Limitations and Further Research Firstly.applications (Avolio and Bass 1994.. 2001). These improvements. Foti.) therefore need to be used and analysed. team
. effectiveness and satisfaction).. goal accomplishment. Dvir 1998). Indeed within this data analysis it is recognised that it may not be appropriate to combine individual effectiveness items in to overarching constructs (extra effort.g.
7. 1998. there are concerns regarding the ‘effectiveness’ scales used in the MLQ (extra effort. The study has provided evidence to suggest that the Full-Range Leadership Programme may need to be altered to accommodate the need for the development of transactional leadership. Bass and Avolio. 1989. Using the MLQ may.
. middle and lower) may mean different things in different organizations (Hunt. and transactional leadership is more effective at middle and lower levels than at upper levels. The findings support general distinctions made in the leadership literature of (Dubin. the use of transactional leadership. and the effectiveness of transactional leadership is decreased both above and below middle-level management. The effectiveness of transformational leadership. Lastly..g. The use of transformational leadership is lacking at middle and lower levels.
. Qualitative analysis of the meaning of particular hierarchical levels such as lower.performance) and could also contribute to common method variance. 1991) and in previous research. Conclusions The results of the research suggest a distinct pattern in the use and effectiveness of transformational. 2001). 1979. In addition. such as gender. the categorization of hierarchical level (e. 2009. there are variables that might affect results in the data analysis which have not been considered. senior. middle and senior across different organizations is therefore recommended. functional or departmental background etc. Further analysis will consider such variables in relation to leadership and hierarchical level. and the use and ineffectiveness of laissez-faire leadership are constant across the hierarchical levels of organizations. Rowe. transactional and laissez-faire leadership at different levels of organizational hierarchy. Evidence to support the model exists in previous research and theory. age. The model is supported by theory in that transformational leadership is more prevalent at upper levels than at lower levels.
We provide a working model based on this pattern. Hunt et al.
“The feedback revolution”. 280-296. We have suggested how the Full-Range Leadership programme. B. (1996). Our research has also provided a more comprehensive investigation in this area by addressing five hierarchical levels and data from multiple responses. reflecting the findings. pp. References Alban-Metcalfe. (2000). in most cases 360-degree assessment.
9.The findings also add to knowledge in the area of leadership by providing new data and conclusions on the effectiveness of transactional and the ineffectiveness of laissez-faire leadership across hierarchical levels. “The transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study”. No other research is known to have provided such in-depth data. we provide evidence to challenge previous findings that effective leaders typically display both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Only senior.J. B. pp. middle and lower-level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and transformational leadership behaviours. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.21. and Alimo-Metcalfe. Vol. Alimo-Metcalfe. may be modified to better suit the leadership requirements of managers at different hierarchical levels of an organization. Health Services Journal. 13 June.
Finally. There is evidence also to support concerns about the generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model and suggestions of differences of leadership in general across hierarchical levels in organizations. 26-28.
Vol. and Yammarino.J. (1998). Avolio. C. pp. and Bass. Vol.74. B. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Alimo-Metcalfe. J.J. The Leadership Quarterly. Personnel Psychology.M. Binghamton. 577-598. J.J. J. NY: Center for Leadership Studies. Group. “Self-other agreement: Does it really matter?”. B.J. L.. N. Minneapolis. 1-27. B. (2003). Organizational and Community Levels..Alimo-Metcalfe. Kellogg Foundation). and Fleenor. (1994). Cross generations: A full range leadership development program. Antonakis. E. Ostroff. Avolio. Vol. Higgs.
. (Final report to the W.J. Evaluation of the Impact of Transformational Leadership Training at Individual. CA: Sage. 32-35. (2001). J. Yammarino. transactional. “The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire”. Avolio. B. “Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. 261-295. F. L. “Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”. 45. R. and Author 2. NY: Binghamton University. and Alban-Metcalfe. B.E. 14. Personnel Psychology. pp. (1992). Atwater.. pp. 51. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.M. “The MLQ factor structure in a UK context”. (2003). W.J. B. Binghamton University. 6 March. (2001). pp. Thousand Oaks.K. (Under Review). (1993). Author 1. Antonakis.J.. (1999). B. F. M. B. Atwater. R. and Alban-Metcalfe. People Management. pp. and laissez-faire leadership model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5X). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. “Under the influence”. The Validity of the transformational. Schyns. Binghamton. Minnesota. 141-164. and Sivasubramaniam.. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.. & Bass. B. Walden Univeristy. Avolio.
M.52.J. & Kelloway. pp. Mahwah. J. K. (1998). and educational impact.).I. Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. (Eds. Vol. Transformational leadership: Industry.E. Avolio. 827-832.
. Baruch. B. 61. B. Barling... pp. (2008). (1998). and Avolio. (1999). Y. pp. B. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1997). and Avolio. “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”. B. B. 72.M. Vol. Vol. 21-27. Human Relations. military. (1990). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. and Bass. (1993). (1999). and Jung. Bass B. Journal of Leadership Studies. “Transformational leadership: A response to critiques”. Journal of European Industrial Training. Bass. 1139-1160. 5. 421-438. pp. Bass. American Psychologist. pp. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. D.Avolio. 130-139. “Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment”. Y. B.J. 81. pp.J. B. (1985).J. Vol. M. B. Bass.M. 49-79. but you can’t make it drink except when it’s thirsty”. in Chemers. 14. “You can drag a horse to water.M. Weber. R. Bass. San Diego: Academic Press. “Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. Human Relations. New York: The Free Press. Vol.C.M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vol. pp. “Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond”. Baruch. “Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis”. B. and Holtom.M. Bass. 1-17. pp. 441-462. “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”. T. B.M.. B.52. Vol. and Ayman. (1996).M.
. and Bebb. Jung. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. (2007). pp. Vol.W.. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Transformational leadership. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. “Introduction”.J. B. Hough (Eds.. Job behaviour. Mahwah.M. 12. (2006). B. pp. 12. pp. Vol.M. 36.J.Bass. 88. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D. W. Y. “The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach”. Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.J. and Riggio. W. B. second edition. Thousands Oaks. London: Sage. Bradley. (Vol. B.. performance.). Palo Alto. pp. D. pp. 271-326). B. 28. Vol. C. (1994)..M. B. (2003). and Berson. CA: Sage.2. (1978). Borman. 105-124. (1992). H. and effectiveness. vol. 73-87. and Walter. M. 207-218. (1987). A. Bass. Group and Organization Studies. Avolio. (1974). CA: Mindgarden. (1997). 5671. Charisma and leadership in organizations. “Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Palo Alto.D. G. & Avolio. “Self-serving bias in the attribution process: A re-examination of the fact of fiction question”. Vol. pp.M. B. pp. B. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.. Borman. “Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts on transformational leadership”.A. Bass.I. Waldman.J. In M. Bass.
.J. (1991). Avolio. R. (Eds. and Avolio. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.M. and Avolio. 710-726. Journal of Applied Psychology. in Bass.M. B. C. B.). Dunnette and L. F. Bruch. 5-6.M. Bryman. “Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect”. B. Bass.
. pp. Vol. 154-174. Center for Leadership Studies. Hackett. 177-188. “Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. pp. London. and assignment-specific performance: A study of cross-national work performance ratings”. Curphy. P. (2001). July-August. “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve”. Crampton. Doctoral dissertation. (1989). NC: The Center for Creative Leadership.
.V. M. J.D. 468-478. S.A. SUNY Binghamton.M. J. D. Vol. Collins.A. Management of inmate workers: A field test of transformational and situational leadership..B..R. (1994). G. contextual. Paper presented at the Festschrift for Bernard Bass. (1995). (Eds. Carless. (2000). Leading from the middle: A challenge for middle managers. 25. pp. Harvard Business Review.” Journal of Applied Psychology.E. 136-139. and Day.E. University of Western Ontario.J. P. 353-358. Ontario. “Effects of self-monitoring on technical. “An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational climate. June. S. pp. R. Crookall. and Campbell D. Clark. attrition and performance”. Caligiuri.Bycio. (2005). pp.M. Journal of Applied Psychology. in Clark. P. and Allen. 71. J.S. Vol. pp. 79. Colvin. (1992). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.). 67-76. “Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviors as measured by the MLQ”. and Wagner III. R. (1998). Impact of leadership. ”Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”. Greensboro. Group and Organization Management. 80. K. Vol.
T. “Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple levels of being as context for effective leadership”. S. (Eds. M.. 62. and Bailey.. Carbondale. “The effects of transformational and transactional styles on the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers”. (1997). 70.. “Senior Police Leadership: Does Rank Matter?”. pp. J. Vol. D. “Transactional versus transformational leadership: An observational field study”.Deluga. (1979). P.T. (2009). IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Ross-onWye: The Leadership Trust Foundation. 10. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.J. 19-34. The Leadership Quarterly. vol.L. Edwards. (2009)..P. and Larson L. in Hunt. Fairhurst. Winter. and Kriger. (2003). Vol. “Metaphors of leadership: An overview”.L. and Koopman.N. G. D. 64.. “Considering context in discursive leadership research” Human Relations. P.L.. Densten. (1999). 16671696. J. L. pp. P. “Culture specific and cross-cultural generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”. G.J. Vol.N. (1991). 62. Tel Aviv University. pp. Israel.W. Ramat. Fry. House. (1998).A. Dubin. Cross currents in leadership.
. R.J. Leadership in Management. Journal of Occupational Psychology. Vol. (2002). Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. P. Doctoral dissertation. Human Relations. 26. and Dorfman. R. Den Hartog. Vol. 49-55. pp. Van Muijen. Aviv. R. pp.. J.). 219-256.K. and Souza. Hanges. pp. Dvir. 225-238. 1607-1632. I. The impact of transformational leadership training on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Ruiz-Quintanilla.G. J. Den Hartog. 400-418. pp.
R. M. P. Hater.H. Vol. 423-451. 764-766. (1974). (1992). J. 67. peers. 13. pp. Journal of Applied Psychology. Goldberg. P. C.
. Gronn. A. NJ: Prentice Hall. and Stringfield. “Congruence in job-performance ratings: A study of 360-degree feedback examining self. 57-67. 73. Gasper. Fifth Editio. pp. pp. and Black. Journal of Applied Psychology.Furnham. W. Vol. “A meta analysis of self-supervisor. Vol.C. Gill. Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work.F.M. (1998). and Zhang. 695-702. Anderson. (1994). Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Vol. Furnham. and Bass. “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”. “Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors”. Hegarty. Vol. B. pp. W. 41. pp. and consultant ratings.. 33. J. P. and Stringfield. (1998). “Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of superior evaluation.” Personnel Psychology. R. K. London: Sage Publications.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. and Schaubroeck. “Employees’ perceptions of their leaders: Is being similar always better?”. Harris. 330355.” Human Relations. 59.L. J.J. Hair Jr. (2008). (1997).. ”Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership”. 517-530. (2006). C. Vol. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. A.. 51. Western Michigan University. R. Riordan.E. manager. (2002). (1988). Leadership Quarterly. 43-61. L. Tatham.M. S. Vol. Grint... Group and Organization Management. self-peer and peer-supervisor ratings. Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature. Kalamazoo. pp. Theory and Practice of Leadership. pp. (1988). Englewood Cliffs. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Hinkin. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Howell. C. pp. Vol. (2009). Osborn. locus of control.” Journal of Applied Psychology.R.R. T. . and Avolio. (2008b).” Educational and Psychological Measurement. Hunt. Vol.G. 20. and Ryan. self and peer ratings. 60. Vol. and Tracy. J.D. 63.19. (1999). Hough. pp.N. N.A.. pp. K. and support for innovation”. Leadership: A new synthesis. Holzbach. 501. “The historical growth of statistical significance testing in psychology – and its future prospects. “Criterionrelated validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities”. Journal of Applied Psychology.G. 75. 105-119. “The relevance of charisma for transformational leadership in stable organizations”. Leadership Quarterly. and McCloy. 581-595. T. Dunnette. (1991).B. Vol. pp. pp. “Predicting consolidated unit performance: Leadership behavior. (1990).Hinkin. (2008a). “A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)”.K.. Vol. pp. L. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. 891-902. J. 93. 1234-1248. Eaton. CA: Sage.R.J. T. M. “Rater bias in performance rating: Supervisor. 503-516. (2000). Vol. Hinkin. Kemp. Hunt. Vol. 78. J. J. Hubbard. and Schriesheim. (1993). (1978).A. R. 12.M.B.. Newbury Park. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. “An examination of ‘Nonleadership’: From Laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission”.513.D. 661-681. B. R. and Boal.A. Vol. 579-588. “The architecture of managerial leadership: Stimulation and channelling of organizational emergence”. Leadership Quarterly. pp. P. and Schriesheim.. pp. R.
(1998). (1999). J. Katz. E. E. and Clement. Jr. (Eds. The social psychology of organizations. T. and Kahn. An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in secondary schools in Singapore.L. Vol. R. in Cummings. W. CT: JAI Press.M. and Jaques. (1990).D. Kruger.L.. E. London: Heinemann.). “Performance appraisal: A process focus”. and Dunning. J. 141-197. Greenwich.1121-1134. In J. (1991). (Vol. B. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. New York: Praeger. Human Productivity Enhancement. 57. S. pp. R. pp. Jacobs. 68. U. Jaques. Requisite Organisation. H. D.. Vol. Doctoral dissertation. 77. Kane.R. (1966).L. T. and Tremble. 201-212. Arlington. Jaques. (1983). Journal of Advanced Nursing. Miettunen. L.O.
.R. O.A. Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing Complexity. and Feldman. New York: John Wiley.S. Leadership in complex systems. Harvard Business Review. VA: Cason Hall. (2007).D. D. Massachusetts: Blackwell. (1976).).2. second edition. Kanste. D. Unpublished manuscript. Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. The social psychology of organizations. (1989). Jaques. pp. 7-65). “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognising one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”. D. Koh. J.5. University of Oregon.Ilgen. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. New York: John Wiley. (1987). E. ”Psychometric properties of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire among nurses”. Katz. (1990). and Kyngäs. Jaques. and Kahn. Malden. and Staw. Vol. E.L. 127-133. T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.M. (1978). Zeidner (Ed. pp. Eugene. Research in organizational behaviour. ‘In praise of hierarchy’..
E. pp. B.E.
. “The leadership skills requirements across organizational levels”. Vol. “Differences in leadership styles and behavior across hierarchical levels in UK organizations”.. (1984). Vol. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.P. and Sivasubramaniam. N. Foti. P. and Cummings L. Lord. Mumford. S. (2007). pp. 18. (1968). “Leadership functions of middle managers”.. (1997). K. 159-203. T. Human Relations. Multi-source feedback ratings: What do they really measure. 12. Psychological Bulletin. In M. “Identification of transformational leadership qualities: An examination of potential bias”. and Fiedler. Research in organizational behavior. (pp155176). in Straw.W.. and Antonakis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.K. F. Vol. (2009). 62.L. C. The Leadership Quarterly.V. pp. “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership”. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and Scullen. (1990). Campion. Lievens.). 7. 4. (2001). R.L. 415-430.J. pp. (Eds.. Vol. 25. J. Vol.. Oshagbemi.. and Morgeson. 93-106. ”A test of leadership categorisation theory: Internal structure. (2004). Meindl. Van Geit. 154166. and leadership perceptions”.R. 385425. M. pp. How People Evaluate Others in Organizations. P. and Coetsier.G. 70. Issue 5. Nealey. F. S. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. R. 343-378. F.). (1996).M. Mahwah..C. pp. and Gill.B. On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom.T.Liden. information processing. 1587-1604.G. Greenwich. Vol. J. T. CT: JAI Press. London (Ed. K. R. R. The Leadership Quarterly. Vol. Mount.M. and De Vader. Lowe. Vol. 34.A. 313-329. M. pp. pp. “Considering context in psychological leadership research”. Kroeck.
L. K. Leadership Quarterly. 329-354.B. (2006). Vol. Academy of Management Review.Y. 806-808. 22. Rinehart and Winston. and Impara.A. R. “Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions”. “Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership”. pp. “The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination”.B.). and Sims. R. “Review of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research”.Patterson. 90-109. Vol. pp. Rafferty.F. and McLaughlin.G.S. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. Orlando.. (2001).J. J. Salam. A. Second Edition. Fuller. J. Vol. G. (1997). The Leadership Quarterly. FL.E. 15. 81-94. Porter. (1984). M.T. (1995). Rowe. Vol. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. and Rosnow. H. Pawar. Cox. and Eastman. 22. (2004). (1975).S. Roscoe.K. 185-209. 559-576. Vol. Lincoln. B. J.L. (Eds. C.
. in Plake.. pp. New York: McGraw-Hill. 15. K. S. Paper presented to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. pp. Kester. New York: Holt. Jr. Pittenger.. “In the eye of the beholder: How leadership relates to 360-degree performance ratings”. pp. Academy of Management Executive. Rosenthal. A Meta-analytic examination of leadership style and selected compliance outcomes. pp. D.. and Stringer. “Leadership and the organizational context: Like the weather?”. and Griffin. (1997). Group and Organization Management.W. 17. (2001). J.C. Nebraska: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln. W. D.P. B.
pp. NY: Free Press. 34.. O. “Values in authentic action: Examining the roots and rewards of altruistic leadership”. and Scandura. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 20. (Eds. and Johnson. “Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers”. 395-431. pp. “A Meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)”. (1957).). Sik.M. (2009). 93-105. and Dinger. Leadership Quarterly. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach. Sosik. G. N. IL: Row.. Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. 34. Fourth Edition.. G. American Psychologist. 385-392. pp. D. “The visionary leader”.A. (2009).. Group and Organization Management. “Leader member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance”.. P. Jung.M.Saskin. “A demonstration of the validity of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the measurement of job competencies across time in separate organizations.B. J. (1999). Stewart. P. and Maclver. Peterson. U.E. Saville. CA: Jossey-Bass. M. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. Stogdill. pp. S. San Francisco. Vol. Nyfield. pp. Schwarz. J. Vol. (2003).” Applied Psychology: An International Review. and Kanungo R.. C. T. New York. R. P. Vol. R. pp. Vol.E. 15. 122-160. Sekaran.
. “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method”. Vol.. 507-535. Wu. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. 45.A. M. (1988). Schriesheim. (1996).A. J.J. Selznick. 54.A. (2009). New York: John Wiley. Vol. Group and Organization Management. in Conger. J.L. pp. Hackston. (1994). 243-262. Evanston. (1974). 604-616. Spector.
and Bougon. (1990). Oxford: Blackwell. NJ: Leadership Library of America. D.E. (1989). 54.R. Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: Transformational and transactional. 266. F.E. S. and Bass.” Academy of Management Review. Yokochi. NC: Center for Creative Leadership. pp. 49. M. 47. CA: United States International University. Weick (Ed. “Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. (1993). Zaccaro. Vol. A. “Perceptions are a reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end. (2001). (Eds. B. W. W.M.J. (1994). S. Personnel Psychology. pp. pp.. Vol. ”Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: some preliminary findings”.Stordeur. 37-43. Vol. Nursing Research.J. Doctoral Dissertation.W. Washington. 787-811. San Diego. Educational and Psychological Measurement. and Dubinsky. p. Tepper. and Yammarino. pp. in K. (1994). Vandenberghe. (2001).M. N.” Human Resource Management. Weick. Waldman. The nature of executive leadership. DC: American Psychological Association. 24. pp. and Clark M.E. K. (2000). and D'hoore. F. Making Sense of the Organization.
.A. Greenboro.J. K. 221-230. Vol. pp. “Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to success and failure”.J. 308-329.J.). Vol. 32. 734-744. “Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments”. F. Yammarino. ”Transformational leadership theory: using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions”. 151-170. “CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects. and Percy. Yammarino. Measures of leadership. P. (1999).G. in Clark..). West Orange. C. B.T. Tornow.
34. Avolio... B. 590-619. F. Vol.Zhu. Group and Organization Management. (2009). W.
.O. “Moderating role of follower chararcteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement”. pp. and Walumbwa.J.
Leadership: A New Synthesis.Table 1.Company IV .Department II . J.17. Newbury Park.G.Section I – Shop Floor (Direct Employee)
Domain Systems Systems Organisational Organisational Direct Direct Direct
Source.Corporation VI . Domains and Levels in Stratified-systems Theory
Time span 20 years and over 10-20 years 5-10 years 2-5 years 1-2 years 3 months to 1 year Up to 3 months
Level VII .Group V . CA: Sage. (1991).Division (General Management) III .
. Hunt. p.
7%) 40 (23.3%) 9 (16.4%) 0 (0.0%) 37 (26.0%) 173 20 (37.0%) 22 (21.9%) 9 (20.3%) 48 (51.1%) 37 (21.5%) 41 (22.3%) 9 (27.3%) 34 (24.8%) 5 (5.9%) 9 (16.6%) 24 (17.0%) 10 (33.6%) 139 19 (44.4%) 55 185
.2%) 39 (21.3%) 8 (26.0%) 29 (27.5%) 5 (3.7%) 54 173
Middle-level (n=43) 39 (28.4%) 94 12 (40.5%) 20 (19. Ratings Breakdown by Hierarchical Level
Top-level (n=30) Rating Sources Self rating Superior rating Peer rating Subordinate rating Unstated Total Rating Scope 360 degree 270 degree 180 degree Total Total Ratings 29 (30.9%) 105 15 (49.3%) 5 (5.8%) 185 29 (52.Table 2.9%) 43 139
Lower-level (n=55) 49 (26.1%) 7 (7.7%) 30 94
Director-level (n=33) 32 (30.5%) 9 (27.2%) 15 (34.0%) 25 (46.3%) 33 105
Senior-level (n=54) 48 (27.7%) 48 (27.6%) 2 (1.5%) 49 (26.1%) 7 (3.7%) 17 (30.
2%) 19 (35.5%) 56 198
.Table 3.9%) 31 (18.1%) 41 (23.4%) 4 (2.7%) 6 (3.0%) 169 27 (55.7%) 18 (32.9%) 76 (27.2%) 49 169
One year and under two years (n=79)
Three months and under one year (n=53)
Up to three months (n=56)
79 (29.4%) 272 45 (57.9%) 1 (0.1%) 17 (34.7%) 5 (10.7%) 37 (21.3%) 175 25 (47.3%) 41 (20.7%) 52 (26. Ratings Breakdown by Time Span
Two years and under five years (n=49) Rating Sources Self rating Superior rating Peer rating Subordinate rating Unstated Total Rating Scope 360 degree 270 degree 180 degree Total Total Ratings 49 (29.0%) 70 (25.0%) 198 34 (60.8%) 5 (3.3%) 45 (22.0%) 53 175
54 (27.4%) 41 (23.8%) 9 (17.3%) 47 (27.6%) 79 272
52 (29.1%) 4 (7.7%) 46 (16.0%) 24 (30.4%) 10 (12.0%) 37 (21.
25 .68 .30*** -.60*** .26*** X₅ MBEP 1.00 -.18*** -.00 X₃ IM 2.65*** X₅ MBEA 2.66*** .80 1.76 .37*** -.84 .75 -.00 .64***
1.83 . ** = P<0.32*** -.55 .80 .32*** -.67*** 1.00
.68*** .Table 4: Inter-Correlations between Analysis Variables
Variable M SD X₁ X₂ X₁ AC 2.83 .29*** -.01.62*** .62*** .38***
1.00 X₂ II 2.23*** .00 .05.13*** -.41*** X₄ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅
1.35*** N.63*** .61*** .71 .19*** -.B.05* -.73*** X₄ IS 2.56*** .00 .67 .64*** . *** = P<0. * = P<0.001.63 .79 -.60 .31 .55*** X₅ CR 2.87 .00 .33*** -.65*** .46*** -.25*** X₅ LF .39***
1.58*** X₅ IC 2.81 . X₃ 1.
43) 2.01.07 (.36) 2.98 (.32* .02 (.47) 2.26 Effectiveness TFL .19 -.69***¦ .B.07 (.00 .55*** -. ** p<0.94 (.88 (.65*** -.33* .31* -.92 (.53) Top-level (n=30) Director-level (n=33) Senior-level (n=54) Middle-level (n=43) Lower-level (n=55)
Extra Effort TFL .75 (.70***¦ .34 (.51) 2.53) 3.51) 2.001.26) . * p<0.10 (.Table 5: Means.60*** -.27 -.63***¦ TAL -.65*** Satisfaction TFL .77***¦ .19 LF -.73***¦ .35* -.74 (.48**¦ .15 .24) .56** -. Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ρ) for Hierarchical Level and Outcome Variable Scores
Dependent Variable Means and Standard Deviations TFL TAL LF EE EFF 2.87 (.65***¦ TAL .75 (.50 (.52** -.57**¦ .53) 2.43) 2.05.58) 2.49*** N.48) 2.75***¦ .30) 2.64*** -.53) 2.07 .62 (.46) 2. ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r) * Standard deviations in parenthesis
.41) 2. *** p<0.43) 2.76***¦ .88 (.52*** -.12 .56***¦ TAL .41) 2.90 (.30* .43) 2.26 .31* LF -.69***¦ .32) .70***¦ .44) 2.75***¦ .47*** -.25) .56** -.30) .35 (.29* LF -.04 .09 (.66*** -.81 (.61 (.45** .68 (.11 (.87 (.11 (.74***¦ .62) 2.
B.62*** -.48 (.001.42) 2.62*** -.Table 6: Means.32* -.39* .80***¦ . Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ρ) for Time Span and Outcome Variable Scores
Dependent Variable Means and Standard Deviations TFL TAL LF EE EFF SAT 2.95 (.65*** N.84 (.84 (.12 (.42*** -.44) 2.06 .77 (.18 LF -.25) .98 (.64*** -.77***¦ . ** p<0.27) .71 (.02 (.32** -.71***¦ .27) .40) 2.18 LF -.59) 3.50*** -.67***¦ TAL .64*** -.02 (.43) 3.99 (.76 (.24* .94 (.68 (.01.03 .39) 2.59*** -.54) 2.59***¦ TAL .22* .22) .42) 2.43) 3.55) 2.52 (.51) 2.43) 2.51) 2.30 (.00 (.52) 2.75 (.63*** Satisfaction TFL .72***¦ .47 (. *** p<0.03 (.64***¦ TAL .47) 2.61) 2.66***¦ .05.73***¦ .67***¦ . ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r) * Standard deviations in parenthesis
.19 Effectiveness TFL .73 (.07 (.14 .69***¦ .57) Two years and under five years (n=49) One year and under two years (n=79) Three months and under one year (n=53) Up to three months (n=56)
Extra Effort TFL .11 (.47) 2. * p<0.70*** -.36* .34* .48) 2.62 (.11 LF -.72***¦ .40) 2.
02 .00 -.19 .29 .Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort. *** = P<0.15 .13 .70 12.05 -.32* .38*** Senior-level (n = 54) Middle-level (n = 43) Lower-level (n = 55)
N.05 .21* -.15 .36*** .31 .58 9.00 -.55 6.15 .38 -.15 -.01.16 . * = P<0.58*** .38** .21 -.28* .64*** .23 . Effectiveness and Satisfaction by Hierarchical Level
Independent Variable Top-level and Directorlevel (n = 63) Extra Effort AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F Effectiveness AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F Satisfaction AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F .08 -.10 -.12 -.27* .33** .17 -. F = F Ratio
.62** .04 .50 7.15 -.70 14.47** -.37* -.44*** .60** -.25 .10 .01 .12 -.B.04 .35 .13 .18 -.21 . .21 -.32** .05 . ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient.37*** .47** -.93*** .58 10.68 15.58 9.40** .97*** .64 9.15 -.28 .13 -.73*** .78*** .17 .02 -.55* .34* .05 .12*** .28* .63 10.51*** -.04 -.12 .07 .25 .11 .04 .02 .32** -.06 .20 .10 -.23 .37** -.16 .20 -.22 -.07 .05 -.09 .02 -.09 -. ** = P<0.36* -.34 .15 -.19 .40** .05 .13 .04 -.38 4.22 .23 -.09 -.20 .53 7.05.26 .03 -.20 -.12 -.02 .01 .06 -.05 -.11 -.11 -.52** .14 -.13*** .001.23 .10 .14 .23 .09 -.31*** .
28*** . *** = P<0. ** = P<0.58*** .00 .27 .00 .56*** -.06 .05 .62*** 26.24 .15 .36*** 53.42** -.10*** .62 12.04 Hierarchical Level R F Square Change .00 .01 .61 10.69 46.38** .10 -.06 .11 .30* .12 .27 .23 .05 .05 .03 .08 .56*** Rating R Square Change .00 .30*** 56.01 -.21 .71 15.24* .10 .03 .92*** .08 .81*** 11.42* -.15 -.00 -.74 26.07 -.13 -.06 .06 -.07*** .02 -.67 18.49 6.05 .05 -.11 -.39*** .13 .67*** 1.00 .16 -.02 .01.15 .26 .19 -.15 .26 .15 .49* . .00 .05
F Change 1.05 -.22 -.02 -.02 .07 .96*** Up to three months (n = 56)
N.21 .07 .10 .05 .18 -.02 -.64 11.24 .17 .07 .23* -.29* .001.78** 22.20 -.16 -.30** .03 17.41 5.04 -.12 .40* -.16 -.03 -.16 .02 .56 8.11 .Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort.92** .64 .16 -.92*** .19* -.07 -.22 -.11 .17 .02 .12 .07 -.01 .06 .09 Change 37.21 .B.60***
.13 .02 .90*** .24 -.45*** -.16 .00 .05 .09 .33*** 56.79*** .12 -.00 .12 -.82*** 39.32 3.07 -. F = F Ratio
Table 9: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Independent and Dependent Variables by Category Variables
Organization Size R F Change Square AC II IM IS IC TFL Change .28** .23* .62 14.04 .00 .58 10.32 .34* -.04 .18 -.14 .16 .05.35*** . Effectiveness and Satisfaction by Time Span
Independent Variable Two years and over (n = 65) One year and under two years (n = 79) Extra Effort AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F Effectiveness AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F Satisfaction AC II IM IS IC CR MBEA MBEP LF ∆ R² F Three months and under one year (n = 53) .04 -.00 .08 .34* .27* .35* .00 .00 .10 .04 -.36* -. ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient.03 .07 -.67*** . * = P<0.
53 2.66** .14 .02 EE .00 N.00 .00 .09*** 2.02 .04** 40.02 MBEP .00 LF .04 .00 .00 1.00 .01.01 .08 EFF .76** 13.00 . * = P<0.94*** 3.03 .12 .22
.01 SAT .08 PALEAD .00 .18 42.05 .CR .52 .00 .04
23.05 .35*** 28.00 TAL .46** .00*** 2.01 3.02 .14 10.00 .B.58*** 8.00 .05.001.59***
13.00 .39 .00 ACLEAD .00 .04** 10.28 .20 7. ** = P<0. *** = P<0.32*** 17.01 24.02 .63 .99*** 10.16 .74 .03 MBEA .00 .
Laissez-faire was inhibitory to extra effort.Figure 1.
Transformational leadership Transformational and transactional leadership
. ineffective and unsatisfying at all levels. A Working Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical Levels
Notes: The reason for the diamond shape for transformational and transactional is that while transactional leadership was conducive to extra effort. effective and satisfying at middle management levels it was only conducive to extra effort at senior levels and effective and satisfying at lower levels.
Figure 2. A Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical Levels according to Different Rating Sources
Both transformational and transactional deemed effective Only transformational leadership deemed effective Denotes divisions between hierarchical levels