You are on page 1of 49

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 +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 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


behaviour and processes across hierarchical levels (Antonakis. Rowe. leadership in organizations involves face-to-face interaction in pairs or groups at lower levels of an organization. Waldman. 1979) has contrasted ‘leadership of organizations’ and ‘leadership in organizations’. and D’hoore. Campion. A recent paper adds weight to these distinctions (Hunt et al. There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership across organizational levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe. Leadership Behaviours across Hierarchical Levels A number of writers have hypothesized differences in leadership style. Mumford. Collins. 1989). Hunt. 1997. Osborn. 2001. 1988. 1990. 2009) highlighting an important role of managerial leadership just below the strategic apex (director-level) in organizations. Ruiz-Quintanilla. whereas. and Zaccaro. Den Hartog. Vandenberghe. subordinate and peer. Grint. Yokochi. 2009. House. and Morgeson. 2000. transactional and laissez-faire leadership. and Bebb. Leadership of organizations essentially focuses on the leadership of the total organization. Hanges. Waldman and Yammarino. 1979. and Boal. Stogdill. 1999. Yammarino and Bass. Densten. 2003. Kroeck. 2003. Results within this body of research. Saskin. 2007. A similar distinction is that of visionary leadership and managerial leadership suggested by Rowe (2001). and Dorfman. and Sivasubramaniam. and Sivasubramaniam. 1974. 2005. 5 . Hunt. One ‘macro’ perspective (Dubin. 1991.. 1999. Dubin. 2. 2004. Avolio. Lowe. 1987. 1996.higher number of organisational levels than previous research and gathers data from a broader number of rating sources. 2007. 2003. This paper investigates these distinctions in a UK setting through the lens of transformational. Stordeur. then previous research – self. superior. Oshagbemi and Gill. Bruch and Walter. 2001). Bass. Avolio.

therefore. 2000). This paper investigates these general findings regarding effectiveness across hierarchical levels in UK manufacturing organisations.. 1985. 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. 1993.however. Previous research supports this finding. et al. 1998. Curphy. Bass and Avolio. only four of these studies have investigated the relative effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership at differing levels (Bruch. The effectiveness of transformational leadership. Avolio. Stordeur et al. 1987. 6 . 2007. have been varied. et al. 1998. and Walter. and Berson 2003). 1996..S. is needed to clarify the relative effectiveness of these behaviours across organizational levels in UK organizations. 1992. Army platoons found that both active transactional and transformational leadership behaviours are positively correlated with potency. suggesting that the most effective leaders typically display both transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass. for example... 1998). Further research. and Jung. therefore. 2007. Bruch and Walter. In addition. For example. 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. none of which have been within the UK. There are also areas that need further investigation. 1999. Densten. Howell and Avolio. 1988. it has been suggested that effective transformational leadership behaviour augments effective transactional leadership behaviour (Bass. 1993. Kane and Tremble. Lowe. Avolio. 2006). Hater and Bass. Jung. 2003. Bass. 1996. builds on a foundation of transactional leadership behaviours. Bass and Riggio. cohesion and performance (Bass. Lowe et al. recent research in 72 U.

1987. 1991) is a prescriptive model of organisational structure based on defining hierarchical level according to the complexity of work at each level. senior.Stordeur. The model shows seven levels within organisations grouped into three domains: systems. This research broadens the scope of previous research provides a more detailed examination of differing management levels by exploring five levels in organisations – top. Jaques and Clement. 1990. 1990. Densten (2003) used Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques. 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. and D’hoore. The model therefore is a useful addition to the already existing research literature concerning the FRL model and hierarchical level that we review below. 1976. Oshagbemi and Gill. SST suggests a model of organisational functioning whereby tasks or requirements increase in complexity with ascending organisational levels. Jaques. 1990. Jaques and Clement. In addition. Time span is defined as the maximum time for a manager at a given hierarchical level to complete critical tasks (Hunt. Yammarino and Bass. 2000. and direct leadership. organisational. two have studied three levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe. 2003). Jaques. 2003. 1989). director. 1989. 1987. Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques. 7 . 1989. middle and lower level management. 1991). The grouping is based on a measure of task complexity at each level termed ‘time span of discretion’. 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. Vandenberghe. Yokochi. 2004) and only one has studied four levels in organizations (Densten. 1991) (see Table 1). 1976. This model is also considered in this research project.

2001). the applicability of the Full Range Leadership Model’s description of transformational leadership has. Alimo-Metcalfe and AlbanMetcalfe. This research. been questioned (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe.1 Defining Hierarchical Level 8 . hopes to add to the investigation of this form of leadership behaviour in the UK. 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. Method 3. in the past. 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. 2000.(Insert Table 1 about here) In summary. therefore. Indeed. the objective of the research was to investigate the effectiveness of transformational. 3.

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. This is because management. however. Contingent reward (CR). Individualized consideration (IC). Perceptions of the hierarchical level of a manager using 360-degree ratings arguably the most rigorous method. 1976. 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. 3. Transformational leadership (TFL) (a composite of the preceding five variables). therefore. These variables were Attributed charisma (AC). 1987.2 Design The study used a between-groups design with 11 dependent variables. is needed for organizations where positions or ranks are more ambiguous or unclear and. hierarchy and even organization have been theorised as being construed through cognitive maps (Weick and Bougon. 2001) need to be considered. that the true nature of a hierarchy is what people perceive it to be. 1991). The use of a manager’s own opinion is adequate. Jaques and Clement. 1968). but the discussion above concerning cognitive maps implies that a consensus opinion would be more accurate. Idealized influence (II). Inspirational motivation (IM). Unanimous opinion of ratings was chosen as the preferred method of defining hierarchical level as it was deemed the most rigorous. Intellectual stimulation (IS). Jaques. 1989. Cognitive theories of organization (Weick and Bougon. 1990. It seems. In addition. 2001). Using job title or rank as a method of defining hierarchical level seems adequate for structured organizations such as the military. less comparable between organizations. therefore. data on Stratified-systems theory (SST) was also collected (Jacobs and Jaques. Active management-by- 9 . An alternative method. Previous research on transformational.

superior rating. Saville et al. Level of extra effort by followers (EE). Harris and Schaubroeck. Spector. etc. 1999). some researchers suggest the risk of bias from self-ratings is over-estimated (Crampton and Wagner. Harris and Schaubroeck. and subordinate rating. Therefore. peer rating. self-ratings and superior ratings. Leadership effectiveness (EFF). In addition. and substantial correlations with criteria of management job success. Furthmore. significant. 1998. Transactional leadership (TAL) – a composite of the preceding three variables. 1991. These significant differences are attributed to leniency or halo effects (Furnham and Stringfield. 2001. Schwarz. superior and subordinate ratings. Saville et al. Kruger and Dunning. Hough et al. self-ratings and peer ratings. 1999. 1994. 1978).. but to test whether they did make a significant difference to the data.Follower satisfaction (SAT). the decision was made to include self-ratings in the analysis. Holzbach. 1988. (1996) have demonstrated how self-report personality scales show predictable. Mount and Scullen.g. 1993). 1988. 1994. etc.g. Indeed. 1996.) (Furnham and Stringfield. Tornow.) than between self-ratings and otherratings (e. There is also general agreement among empirical research findings that self-ratings are consistently higher than other-ratings. with four categories of rating – self-rating. There is general agreement among academic researchers that there is greater congruence between other-ratings (e.exception (MBEA). It provides a more inclusive view of leadership (Borman. All of these variables reflected scales in the MLQ. 1994). There were also three outcome variables . 10 . peer and superior ratings. Laissez-faire leadership (LF). A 360-degree method was used. Passive management-by-exception (MBEP). 1998. (1990) suggest that response distortion due to social desirability does not appear significantly to affect validity coefficients. the use of different perceptions of leader behaviours by using self-ratings and subordinate ratings is useful.

3 Sample The original sample consisted of 432 managers. 1984). Director-level management (e. Five categories of hierarchical level were identified . Secondly. 1976. it would enable replication in future research initiatives. operations director and other directors). chief executive officer. it would enable comparison with previous research. 1989.Top-level management (e. general manager. production manager. It is also suggested that ‘replication with extension’.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. No data were obtained for time spans above five years.g. supervisor. Firstly.g. Senior management (e.g.g. chairman. Multiple responses were gained for 367 managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male. Jaques and Clement. 3. The second independent variable was time span of the manager’s role (as viewed by the manager him/herself). and ‘two to five years’ (Stratum IV). managing director). Middle management (e. aged between 21 and 62 years (mean = 11 . sales manager). Lower management (e. 2000. These were ‘up to three months’ (Stratum I). ‘one to two years’ (Stratum III). which modifies aspects of the original research design. 1990.g. It was reasoned that the use of a quantitative methodology was beneficial for this piece of research. 1991). finance director. Indeed. Rosenthal and Rosnow. is a highly suitable means for knowledge creation (Hubbard and Ryan. the literature highlights the importance of replication studies (Hubbard and Ryan. Jaques. 2000): most researchers see replication studies as providing genuine scientific knowledge. 1987. ‘three months to one year’ (Stratum II). Four categories were identified in line with SST (Jacobs and Jaques. site manager). team leader).

from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. 79 a time span of one to two years. Of the 367 subjects. 54 were senior managers. ranging from five to 3. where samples are to be divided into sub-samples. Firstly. 1975). Form 5X-short (Bass and Avolio. The organizations were of varying sizes.42 years).4 Materials The materials consisted of a 360-degree version of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. 1997) with both self-rating and other–rating 12 . Secondly. superior and subordinate) data concerning time span was obtained for 253 managers. sample sizes of 30 to 500 are deemed appropriate for quantitative empirical research. Manufacturing organizations were chosen because of their relatively well-defined hierarchical structures. of whom 56 reported a time span of up to three months. Multiple MLQ ratings (self.000 employees (mean = 285 employees) and £0. a minimum sub-sample size of 30 for each category is deemed necessary (Sekaran. and 49 a time span of two to five years (see table 3 for a breakdown of ratings by time span). There are some ‘rules of thumb’ cited in the literature for determining sample size (Roscoe. unanimous opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%). of whom 30 were top-level managers. peer. (Insert Table 2 about here) (Insert Table 3 about here) 3. 43 were middle managers and 55 were lower managers (see table 2 for a breakdown of ratings by hierarchical level). A solely-UK sample was used to control for national culture variance (Bass. 33 were director-level managers.2 million to £220 million turnover (mean = £27 million). 53 a time span of three months to one year. 1998). 2003).

Indeed. 1998. 2007. Howell and Avolio. 1999. 2 = ‘sometimes’. 3 = ‘fairly often’.g. There are. 1994. the MLQ was used for the research. Fuller. Den Hartog. Tepper and Percy. As the study was a replication-with-extension.. Hinkin and Schriesheim. Koh. “increases others willingness to try harder”). 2004. e. a recent review has identified 14 studies that generated conflicting claims regarding the factor structure of the MLQ and the 13 . Kantse.forms) and demographic sheets for all raters. 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. 1995) have confirmed that the MLQ can be regarded as providing a satisfactory model for assessing transformational leadership.. 1991. et al. Lowe et al. and 4 = ‘frequently. 1996. 1 = ‘once in a while’. Hackett. “leads a group that is effective”. 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. 1993. if not always’. Yammarino and Dubinski. 1997.g. “uses methods of leadership that are satisfying”. Kester... 1997.. 2008a. The first 34 items measure leadership behaviour and the remaining 11 items measure leader effectiveness (e. 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. 1999). Lievens. Van Muijen. 1990... 1995. and Stringer. Deluga and Souza. The rating scale has the following designations: 0 = ‘not at all’. past independent meta-analyses (Gasper. Hinkin and Tracey. and Allen. Carless. Van Geit. transactional and laissez-faire leadership (see Table 2).g. 1993. and Koopman. and Coetsier. and the extra effort provided by followers. however. e. 1992. 1994). Hinkin and Tracy. satisfaction with the leader and his or her methods. In addition. Rafferty and Griffin.. Patterson.

2008b). management-by-exception (active). however. This model has been found in a previous study of nurses in Finland (Kantse. et al. Since this time. Taking differing contextual considerations into account.. the results of this research suggested that the MLQ can be satisfactorily used to measure Full Range Leadership in relation to its underlying theory... 2003). under review). i. TLI = 0. 2009).number of factors that best represent the model (Antonakis et al. 14 . DF = 558. 2003). As the study was a replication-with-extension into the UK context. et al. which have been seen to be too ambiguous with respect to level of analysis. et al.103.e. the full nine factor model of the MLQ was used for comparative purposes.047) (Author 1. the nine-factor model best represented the factor structure underlying the MLQ (Form 5X) instrument.. The analysis conducted by Author 1. group or organisational level (Schriesheim et al.. also provides support for the nine factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (Chi² = 2. CFI = 0.888. there have been further criticisms of the MLQ suggesting the theory for the four dimensions – contingent reward. active management-by-exception and passive avoidant leadership based on the exploratory factor analysis. firstly. it is unclear whether they are measuring at an individual. et al. Lastly. This analysis suggested a slightly different variant of the MLQ model which comprises: active constructive leadership.901. 2007). however. 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.. however. Furthermore there has also been criticism of the items that constitute the MLQ. 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. RMEA = 0. Secondly. managementby-exception (passive) and laissez-faire – is underdeveloped (Hinkin and Schriesheim. a recent analysis of the MLQ concluded that. under review).583..

g. peer.3. 3. 2002). Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r) were calculated to test for relationships between the dependent variables . Hegarty. Shipper and Davy. which is important to highlight (Baruch 1999.transformational leadership. Baruch and Holtom.. superior and subordinate) for analysis purposes. 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. Agreement to take part in the research was obtained. The completed questionnaires were returned to the company representatives in sealed envelopes and forwarded to the research co-ordinator in a pre-paid envelope. The questionnaires were therefore of an ‘administered’ nature. the importance of individual perceptions analysis was conducted on the same basis for individual responses (self. Atwater.6 Data Analysis The study used mean values of the multiple responses (ratings by self. We do acknowledge. transactional leadership and laissezfaire . and a company representative (to receive the questionnaires) was chosen by the contact person in the company. subordinate and superior) (e. The questionnaires were mailed in sealed envelopes to company representatives. who then distributed the sealed envelopes to the participants in the study. More detailed multiple regression analysis was also 15 . Data were collated and analyzed using SPSS version 10. peer. 1974.and independent variables. The benefit to their organizations (a report on a comprehensive 360-degree assessment of leadership in their organization) was explained. however. Results of this analysis and similarities and differences are discussed later in the paper.5 Procedure Organizations were approached via electronic mail to seek agreement for the participation of their managers. 2008). 1998). et al. 1992.

To ensure an adequate sample size of around 45 (five observations for each independent variable) (Hair. and Black. Tatham. 4. ‘leadership effectiveness’ and ‘follower satisfaction’ – were tabulated (see Tables 4. effectiveness and satisfaction) for all dependent variables. 1998) the top-level manager category was merged with the director-level category. The table reports standardised 16 . The descriptive statistics for each dependent variable and the coefficients of correlation between dependent variables and the outcome variables – ‘extra effort’. 5 and 6). (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.performed for hierarchical level and time span to investigate the impact of independent variables (extra effort. Results The dependent variable ‘transformational leadership’ failed the goodness-of-fit test. The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8. effectiveness and satisfaction) for each category variable level. Anderson. The results of non-parametric test alternatives (Spearman’s ρ) was therefore reported for this variable. 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.

(Insert Table 7 about here) (Insert Table 8 about here) 4. Discussion The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different hierarchical levels of organizations in the UK. whereas transactional leadership is not 17 . Regression equations are available for examination upon request. 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. Transformational leadership is equally effective across hierarchical levels in organizations.betas (β) along with the adjusted regression coefficient (∆ R²) and F ratio. 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. The results of the regression analyses show the variable ‘organizational size’ had no moderating effect on independent and dependent variables. (Insert Table 9 about here) 5. superior and subordinate). peer.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.

effective and satisfying only at the highest time spans. 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. Laissez-faire leadership is ineffective at all hierarchical levels. were the same for both category variables for effectiveness and satisfaction. and satisfying at all time spans. 18 . Again this may have been due to the time spans used in the research being related more to senior-level. effective. however. The results concerning extra effort. effectiveness and satisfaction of transactional leadership.effective at the uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. effective and satisfying when exhibited by middlelevel managers. but in comparison it appears to be conducive to extra effort. Laissez-faire leadership appears to be inhibitory to extra effort when exhibited by lower-level managers. middle-level and lower-level managers than to director-level and top-level managers. and effective and satisfying when exhibited by lower-level managers. A framework of effective leadership behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations was developed from the findings (see figure 1). conducive to extra effort. For example. The results. however. show little similarity between category variables. (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.

1974. more confusing picture of effective and ineffective behaviours at differing levels. 1996. show similar results. 1983. For example. Ilgen and Feldman. Peer and superior ratings appear to have differing view. sensitivity. 1997). 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. Salam. 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. Also of interest were the nuances of intellectual stimulation being conducive to 19 . and Sims. peer. especially for subordinate and self ratings. being satisfying at all organisational levels measured. with the exception of contingent reward being effective at top and director level. AlimoMetcalfe (1996) suggests that superiors tend to focus on technical managerial skills. the more detailed analysis given by the regression analysis shows a slightly different. Also individualised consideration appears to be the most widespread behaviour. such as decision making and problem solving. Colvin. Borman.The results concerning individual responses (self. superior and subordinate). highlighted in Figure 2. empowerment and visionary leadership. With regards to the transactional leadership behaviours (contingent reward and active management-by-exception). (Insert Figure 2 about here) With regards to the constituent factors of transformational and transactional leadership. especially in the case of superior ratings in which they have almost the opposite view. they still appear to be related to effectiveness and satisfaction at lower and middle levels and middle to lower time spans. Bradley. 2001. 1978. whereas subordinates are more concerned with interpersonal skills. Cox. This appears to be supported by these findings.

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. 1978. Selznick.extra effort at top and director-level. a recent study (Stewart and Johnson. 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. the results of this research provide evidence to challenge previous findings concerning the proposition that effective leaders typically display both transformational and 20 . no behaviours were found to be conducive to extra effort at lower levels (except attributed charisma for the lower time spans). 2009). Higher-level managers. This may be due. 1966. Bass. to managers at lower levels being more oriented towards a steady workflow and having to have a greater focus on maintaining effective operations. Furthermore. as would happen as a manager rises in the organization hierarchy. Interestingly.f. Indeed. This could mark the shift from transactional to transformational behaviours found by this study. 1985) at lower levels of organisations. leadership may need to adapt approaches that successfully manage interpersonal relationships and clearly establish roles to ensure effective performance. this may only be the case for certain behaviours at certain levels in organisations. 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. as was suggested earlier. in comparison. focus more on change and on the creation and communication of new organizational policies (Katz and Kahn. suggests that as teams become increasingly diverse. 1957). And indeed.

and Dinger. et al. Howell and Avolio. 2001). It appears that only senior. 2001). Jung. Our findings.. 1999. 1998. 1998. 1999. The findings also support the suggestion made by Hunt et al.. Hater and Bass. Zaccaro. (2009) that the role of the managerial level just below the strategic apex is critical. as when behaviour is investigated at the more distinct level of constituent factors the picture becomes much more specific to various organisational levels. 1985. Den Hartog. 1979.. Sosik. 1991. 2006).transactional leadership behaviours (Avolio and Bass. effectiveness and satisfaction at different levels in organisations in the UK. middle and lower level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and transformational leadership behaviours. 1993. Waldman and Yammarino. 1999. 1992. however. 1988. There is a caveat attached to these summary comments. et al. Hunt. Avolio et al. The framework reported in this paper reflects the more macro distinctions of leadership discussed earlier in the paper (Dubin. 1998. Bass and Riggio. 2003. however. do support the augmentation effect of transformational leadership on transactional leadership (Bass. 1993). Saskin. 2006). 2000. Grint. Our results go further by illustrating that this augmentation effect also occurs at a macro organizational level. 21 . Bass and Avolio. Gill. Rowe. 1997. The distinction found in this paper also reflects similar distinctions made in the self-monitoring and effective leadership literature (Caligiuri and Day. Our research also supports concerns about the generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model (Bryman. 2009). There appears to be a distinct pattern of behaviours relating to extra effort. From the perspective of this research this is highlighted by a shift from transformational and transactional leadership requirements to solely transformational leadership requirements. It implies that there are differences in leadership requirements across hierarchical levels in organizations (Antonakis.

The essence of leadership in such programmes is to approach these tensions within an experiential process (Edwards et al. Indeed. 2002) where task orientation as well as relationship building is seen as important in developing leadership ability and capacity. 2002). Bass. which focuses on developing transformational leadership. In addition. has had positive results in many 22 . Edwards et al. The ‘Full-Range Leadership’ model has previously been hailed as ‘the leadership development solution for all managers’ regardless of organizational and national boundaries (Avolio. 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. on the other hand. the ‘Full-Range Leadership’ Programme (FRLP). 1997). This reflects programmes on the market (e. such as setting objectives and techniques for actively monitoring progress and taking corrective action as necessary. The results also suggest that lower. In considering lower managers for more senior positions in organizations.g. 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. middle and senior level managers (and potential managers) still require the development of active transactional leadership behaviours as well as transformational leadership behaviours.6. 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. This form of leadership development needs to reflect the key characteristics of active management-by-exception. 1999. the use of transformational leadership behaviours by these managers should be the basis for the assessment of their suitability. higher-level managers.

may be detrimental at certain levels in organisations.applications (Avolio and Bass 1994. More explicit effectiveness scales and other forms of effectiveness (e.. These improvements. 1996. Barling et al. effectiveness and satisfaction).g. This study has shown that a reduction in the use of management-by-exception (active). effectiveness and satisfaction). have exaggerated the importance of a leader’s behaviour and removed attention from important interpersonal and situational factors (Pittenger. therefore. there are concerns regarding the ‘effectiveness’ scales used in the MLQ (extra effort. Using the MLQ may. in managers at middle and lower levels of organizations.. and De Vader. financial targets. 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. as a consequence. Limitations and Further Research Firstly. 1989. Items in this scale may be influenced by implicit leadership theories (Lord. Foti. Meindl. The measures of leadership effectiveness in this study represent individuals’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness rather than objectively measured performance outcomes (e. etc. 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. 1990) or by halo effect.) therefore need to be used and analysed. A programme that develops transformational leadership at the cost of management-byexception (Bass and Avolio.g. team 23 . 1994) may not be suitable for all managers if there is a reduction in the use of active management-by-exception. Bass. however. Dvir 1998). tend to be accompanied by a reduction in the use of managing-by-exception (Bass. Bass and Avolio. 1998. 7. especially active management-by-exception. 1998. 1984. 1990. goal accomplishment. 1998. 1990. 2001).. 1994). Crookall.

The model is supported by theory in that transformational leadership is more prevalent at upper levels than at lower levels. transactional and laissez-faire leadership at different levels of organizational hierarchy. functional or departmental background etc. In addition. senior.. Evidence to support the model exists in previous research and theory. The use of transformational leadership is lacking at middle and lower levels. Qualitative analysis of the meaning of particular hierarchical levels such as lower. and the use and ineffectiveness of laissez-faire leadership are constant across the hierarchical levels of organizations. Rowe. Conclusions The results of the research suggest a distinct pattern in the use and effectiveness of transformational. 1979. The findings support general distinctions made in the leadership literature of (Dubin. 2009. there are variables that might affect results in the data analysis which have not been considered. 2001). and the effectiveness of transactional leadership is decreased both above and below middle-level management. 24 .performance) and could also contribute to common method variance. We provide a working model based on this pattern. 1991) and in previous research. Hunt et al. the use of transactional leadership. and transactional leadership is more effective at middle and lower levels than at upper levels.. Further analysis will consider such variables in relation to leadership and hierarchical level. the categorization of hierarchical level (e. age. The effectiveness of transformational leadership. middle and lower) may mean different things in different organizations (Hunt.g. middle and senior across different organizations is therefore recommended. Lastly. 8. such as gender.

25 . “The transformational leadership questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study”. We have suggested how the Full-Range Leadership programme.J. 13 June. 280-296. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. middle and lower-level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and transformational leadership behaviours. Our research has also provided a more comprehensive investigation in this area by addressing five hierarchical levels and data from multiple responses. No other research is known to have provided such in-depth data. 26-28. (2000). B. and Alimo-Metcalfe.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. pp. reflecting the findings. Finally. B. “The feedback revolution”. References Alban-Metcalfe. in most cases 360-degree assessment. R. 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. pp. (1996). Health Services Journal. Only senior.21. we provide evidence to challenge previous findings that effective leaders typically display both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. may be modified to better suit the leadership requirements of managers at different hierarchical levels of an organization. Alimo-Metcalfe. 9. Vol.

J.J. Minneapolis. Evaluation of the Impact of Transformational Leadership Training at Individual. Minnesota. Antonakis. 26 . and Alban-Metcalfe.. pp. and Sivasubramaniam. (1999). and Author 2. B. and Fleenor. (2001). Higgs. “Self-other agreement: Does it really matter?”.74. Binghamton. People Management. NY: Binghamton University. The Validity of the transformational. 261-295. Yammarino. B. Vol. pp. Organizational and Community Levels. & Bass. Group. 32-35. F. Binghamton University. (1993). B. Thousand Oaks. Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. L.. Personnel Psychology. B. CA: Sage. The Leadership Quarterly. R. J.. J. Antonakis. Atwater. (2001).J. Avolio. “Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”.J. Schyns. and laissez-faire leadership model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5X). and Alban-Metcalfe. W. 45. transactional.J. “Under the influence”. “The MLQ factor structure in a UK context”.M. (1998). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Atwater. R. pp. pp.E. Personnel Psychology. 6 March. B. Binghamton. B. N. 14. pp. Vol.J.. L.K. 51. F. Cross generations: A full range leadership development program. Avolio. (2003). Alimo-Metcalfe.M... E. Vol. B.J. (Under Review). (1994). B. Kellogg Foundation). Walden Univeristy. “Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. Ostroff. 1-27. 141-164. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Author 1. and Bass. and Yammarino. C. Avolio. B. (1992). Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.Alimo-Metcalfe. “The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire”.J. NY: Center for Leadership Studies. M. 577-598. Avolio. J. (Final report to the W. (2003).

B. R. Vol. pp. B.. B. “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”. Vol.Avolio. Y. (1997). (1998).). pp. Vol. Human Relations. Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions.J. and educational impact. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. Bass. New York: The Free Press. (1998). Journal of Leadership Studies.52. “You can drag a horse to water. and Avolio. Vol. 5. (1990). in Chemers. B. (Eds.M. and Bass.52. Bass. 130-139. 827-832.M.M. (1999). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Mahwah. “Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis”. 1-17. Journal of European Industrial Training. B.. Vol. Barling. and Ayman. M. Bass.C. B.J. pp. pp. 27 . Baruch. Y. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81. J. (1985). 61. 421-438. but you can’t make it drink except when it’s thirsty”.M.M. Vol.M. 441-462. 14. Weber. 1139-1160. Vol. B. B. B. 21-27. pp. pp. B. and Jung. B. (1999). K. Baruch. 49-79. pp. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. (1996). 72. (2008). D.. military. T. Human Relations. Transformational leadership: Industry.M. (1993). Bass B. “Transformational leadership: A response to critiques”. “Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. San Diego: Academic Press.J. Bass. American Psychologist.J. and Avolio.I. & Kelloway. and Holtom. Bass. Avolio. “Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment”.M.E. “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”. “Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond”.

Palo Alto. Waldman. second edition. W. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Vol. pp. Charisma and leadership in organizations. 28 .M. B. Bruch. W. In M. and Avolio. B. vol. 5-6. and Bebb. “Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect”. (1987).D. “Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts on transformational leadership”.).W. 5671. Avolio. (1992).M. 73-87.A. (Vol. Vol. Borman. pp... (2006). CA: Mindgarden. Y. Transformational leadership. and Riggio. Job behaviour. Avolio. 12. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 28. 12. and Avolio. A. B. and effectiveness. C. London: Sage. 271-326). Bass. 36. pp.M. G. C. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. (2007).M. (1997). (1974).J. 105-124. & Avolio. (1978).). (Eds. (1994).I.. Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. “Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership”. Journal of Applied Psychology. 710-726. B. M. B. B. Bass.M. “Introduction”. H. (1991). D. Jung. Hough (Eds. CA: Sage. pp. R. and Berson. Bryman. Borman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Thousands Oaks.J.J. and Walter. “The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach”. B.M. pp. B. Vol. 207-218. Mahwah. B.J. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 88. in Bass. performance. Vol. (2003).M. Palo Alto. Dunnette and L. Bass. pp. “Self-serving bias in the attribution process: A re-examination of the fact of fiction question”.. D. Bass. B. F.2..Bass. Group and Organization Studies. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bradley..J. pp. B.

(1992). “An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational climate. contextual. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard Business Review. J. pp. pp. Management of inmate workers: A field test of transformational and situational leadership. Vol. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. Curphy. 468-478. Crampton. in Clark.M. Paper presented at the Festschrift for Bernard Bass. ”Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”. Vol. Clark.A. Group and Organization Management. pp. Ontario. Caligiuri..M. (1989). 29 .J. Hackett. attrition and performance”. pp. (1994).” Journal of Applied Psychology. S. “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve”.E. July-August. and assignment-specific performance: A study of cross-national work performance ratings”.. P. “Effects of self-monitoring on technical. University of Western Ontario.. Vol. 136-139. Collins. pp. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.A. Leading from the middle: A challenge for middle managers. K.E. (2000).S. 79. London. P. (2005).R.Bycio. Vol. J. 25. (Eds. M. and Day. June. S. J. and Campbell D. 353-358. Impact of leadership.B. R. 154-174. 80. (2001). Carless. 177-188. (1995). 67-76. Colvin. and Wagner III.). Center for Leadership Studies. Crookall. 71. P. “Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviors as measured by the MLQ”. SUNY Binghamton. NC: The Center for Creative Leadership. Greensboro.D. G.V. pp. (1998). “Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. R. and Allen.

Human Relations. (1999). 26.L.N. IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (2002). Fairhurst. I. Vol.. The impact of transformational leadership training on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Israel. J.. Vol. Ross-onWye: The Leadership Trust Foundation. P. D. in Hunt. Vol. House. P. 16671696. Ruiz-Quintanilla. P.P. 64. and Dorfman. Den Hartog. “The effects of transformational and transactional styles on the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers”. 225-238. “Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple levels of being as context for effective leadership”. T. pp. Hanges. 62. Dubin.. J. (1979). pp. (1997)..N. R. pp.J. 19-34. Cross currents in leadership.J. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. “Considering context in discursive leadership research” Human Relations. Journal of Occupational Psychology. (2009). L. 49-55. 10. Densten.A. G.T. (Eds. 219-256. Doctoral dissertation. pp. J. Edwards. 1607-1632. pp. R. and Bailey. and Kriger.J. S. Leadership in Management. J. Den Hartog. Aviv. 30 . The Leadership Quarterly. R.. vol. Van Muijen. Ramat.. (1998). “Metaphors of leadership: An overview”. and Koopman. (2009). D. 62. (1991). Vol. Carbondale. 70.K.Deluga. pp. Dvir. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. and Souza. pp.W. Tel Aviv University. “Culture specific and cross-cultural generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”.). “Senior Police Leadership: Does Rank Matter?”. G. M. (2003).. “Transactional versus transformational leadership: An observational field study”. Fry. P.L. Winter. and Larson L. 400-418.G.L. Vol.

Leadership Quarterly. P. Kalamazoo. pp. and consultant ratings. Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work. 51.M. 330355. (1974).. “Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of superior evaluation. Tatham. R. Englewood Cliffs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. W.L. Theory and Practice of Leadership. L. pp. Gasper. manager. pp. 517-530.F..” Personnel Psychology. Riordan.” Human Relations. Hegarty. M. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. Fifth Editio. Group and Organization Management. 695-702. 67. Vol. peers. (1998).Furnham. Vol. Goldberg. “Congruence in job-performance ratings: A study of 360-degree feedback examining self. Vol. and Bass. and Zhang. Gill.J. Western Michigan University. Vol. NJ: Prentice Hall. K. (1994). P. and Black. J.C. and Stringfield. self-peer and peer-supervisor ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology. Anderson. and Stringfield. (1997).E.. Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature. 73. 31 . Multivariate Data Analysis. (1998).” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 764-766. 423-451. S. Hater. Furnham. 59. Grint. pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A. Vol. J. (1992). (1988). (2002). Vol.H. 43-61. W. 13. ”Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership”. “A meta analysis of self-supervisor.. P. 41. Vol. pp. “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”. R. 33. A. Gronn. “Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors”. B. J. (2008). R. Harris. pp.. Hair Jr. London: Sage Publications. (1988). pp. 57-67. and Schaubroeck.M.. (2006). “Employees’ perceptions of their leaders: Is being similar always better?”. C.

Hubbard. “The historical growth of statistical significance testing in psychology – and its future prospects.J. 12. 501. pp. and Schriesheim. Holzbach. Vol. Newbury Park. C. (2009). Osborn. 63. R.D. 661-681. “A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)”.R. R. 581-595. 78. Hinkin. K. Vol..R. 503-516. and Ryan. “Predicting consolidated unit performance: Leadership behavior. (2008a).G. “Rater bias in performance rating: Supervisor. (1999). Journal of Organizational Change Management.. pp.B. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. and support for innovation”. Howell. Vol. Kemp. Vol. (2008b).19. “Criterionrelated validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities”. 1234-1248. locus of control. and Tracy. P. pp. R. 60. Hough. pp. Journal of Applied Psychology. Leadership Quarterly. (1978). Eaton.. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. J. and Avolio. T.D. Hunt. CA: Sage. Vol. (1991). “The relevance of charisma for transformational leadership in stable organizations”. pp. Dunnette.B. N. 20. self and peer ratings.” Educational and Psychological Measurement. and Boal. and Schriesheim.A.513.G. Leadership Quarterly. Vol. C. J. 93.A. “An examination of ‘Nonleadership’: From Laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission”. Vol. . pp. R.” Journal of Applied Psychology. Hunt. Hinkin. 579-588. and McCloy. “The architecture of managerial leadership: Stimulation and channelling of organizational emergence”.K. J. pp. (2000). B. (1990). J. 32 . T.A. (1993). M.. 105-119. Leadership: A new synthesis.A.R. pp. T.N.Hinkin.M. 75. L. 891-902.

(Eds. 141-197. Requisite Organisation. (Vol. 127-133. “Performance appraisal: A process focus”. (1989). Katz. ”Psychometric properties of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire among nurses”..L.D. New York: John Wiley. and Kahn. Jr.. Arlington.L. H. 33 . (1990). R. Vol. T. Greenwich. (1998).. 68. (1991). Jacobs. (2007). Journal of Advanced Nursing. University of Oregon. and Jaques. O. E. Harvard Business Review.M. Kanste. The social psychology of organizations. D. E. Jaques.A. (1976). New York: Praeger. and Clement. Malden.L. An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in secondary schools in Singapore. T. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. in Cummings. Doctoral dissertation. and Tremble. The social psychology of organizations.). Kruger. Katz.).S. 7-65). Unpublished manuscript. U. Massachusetts: Blackwell. and Feldman. ‘In praise of hierarchy’.O.5. D. Jaques.D. Leadership in complex systems. Eugene. 201-212. B.Ilgen. L. D. Vol. J.R. Human Productivity Enhancement. E. (1990). T. J. “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognising one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”. (1987). pp.R. and Dunning.L. pp. Jaques.M. Kane. VA: Cason Hall. Jaques. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Research in organizational behaviour. R. London: Heinemann. (1983). pp. Miettunen. E. (1966). second edition. CT: JAI Press. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.2.1121-1134. Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing Complexity. J. In J. Vol. New York: John Wiley. S. (1978). 57. and Kyngäs. and Staw. and Kahn. Zeidner (Ed. D. W. pp. 77. E. Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. (1999). Koh.

G. Kroeck.. “Considering context in psychological leadership research”. 154166. pp. (2001). N.). and Antonakis. T. 343-378. J.. ”A test of leadership categorisation theory: Internal structure. F. Campion. (1984).E.R. Vol.V. 34 . Vol. 70. Oshagbemi. pp.L. “Differences in leadership styles and behavior across hierarchical levels in UK organizations”. R.. Vol.G. (2007). Psychological Bulletin. C. information processing. Vol. pp. Vol. pp. and Morgeson. Mahwah. S.J. Lowe. M. pp.K. and Coetsier. Van Geit. Nealey. (Eds. How People Evaluate Others in Organizations. 1587-1604. (2004). Lievens. and Cummings L. CT: JAI Press. Research in organizational behavior. and Sivasubramaniam. The Leadership Quarterly. and Gill. R. 62. in Straw. Mount. Human Relations.W. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. “Leadership functions of middle managers”. F. Lord. 7. Foti. On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Vol. 385425. F. The Leadership Quarterly.T. R.C. (2009). 93-106.P. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. and Scullen. and Fiedler.B. R. 25. and leadership perceptions”. (1997). 4. 415-430. K. J. M.Liden.. Issue 5. Mumford. pp. 34. Multi-source feedback ratings: What do they really measure. “The leadership skills requirements across organizational levels”.E. pp. and De Vader. Greenwich. S.L.M. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol.. P. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 12.. 18. (pp155176). (1990).). B. 313-329. Vol. “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership”.. (1996). In M. (1968). P. London (Ed. 159-203. Meindl. K.M.A. T. pp. “Identification of transformational leadership qualities: An examination of potential bias”.

17. Lincoln. J.A. Paper presented to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Academy of Management Executive. (1997). FL. Rowe. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vol. 35 . (2001)... and Eastman. and McLaughlin. pp. and Sims. “Leadership and the organizational context: Like the weather?”. R. (2004). A. “The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination”. 15. “In the eye of the beholder: How leadership relates to 360-degree performance ratings”. W. Porter. Nebraska: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Vol.E.Patterson. (1975).). 329-354. B. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (1995). Rinehart and Winston. and Stringer. Vol. pp. The Leadership Quarterly. in Plake.B.W. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. Kester. L. H. A Meta-analytic examination of leadership style and selected compliance outcomes. J. Academy of Management Review.G. M. pp. Pawar.. New York: Holt. D. J. 806-808.J. “Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions”. K. Pittenger. K. Second Edition. Leadership Quarterly. Rosenthal. 22. “Review of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research”. (2001). 90-109.K.C. pp.. C. Jr. pp. Rafferty. 15. Cox.S. Roscoe. pp. (Eds. Group and Organization Management. Salam. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Orlando. Fuller. (2006).L. B. 81-94. G. and Impara. 22. D.B. (1984).T. 559-576.S. Vol.Y. and Griffin.P. J. and Rosnow. 185-209. S. R. (1997).F. “Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership”. Vol.

(1996). 54. Saville. Vol. and Kanungo R. IL: Row. (1957). New York: John Wiley.” Applied Psychology: An International Review. Schwarz. 395-431. P. “Values in authentic action: Examining the roots and rewards of altruistic leadership”. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach. “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method”. D. pp. pp. Sekaran. “Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers”. Peterson. pp.L. and Scandura. Vol. 507-535. Sosik. Stewart.J. J. Nyfield.E. 34. Fourth Edition. (2003). 122-160. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. R. (2009). Vol. Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Vol. Journal of Organizational Behavior. M... American Psychologist. 34. 243-262. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York. Vol. NY: Free Press. J. R. (2009).B. “The visionary leader”. Spector. (1988). Hackston.A. Evanston. “A demonstration of the validity of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the measurement of job competencies across time in separate organizations. U. (2009). 604-616. (1999). 15. J.). 45. (Eds.Saskin. J.. 93-105. C. “A Meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)”. T. and Maclver. (1994). and Dinger. Jung. S. G.. pp. Group and Organization Management. G. in Conger. 385-392.M.. pp.. 20. P. Group and Organization Management.A. Sik.. CA: Jossey-Bass. pp.A. Stogdill. 36 . “Leader member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance”. and Johnson. (1974). pp. Wu.M.E. Leadership Quarterly.A. M. Schriesheim. Selznick. P. Vol. O. N. San Francisco.

Yammarino. pp.J. (2001). Educational and Psychological Measurement.R. Yammarino.G.E. 308-329. P. (2000). F. S.. Zaccaro. D. Tepper. “Perceptions are a reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end. C. in Clark. Vol. Yokochi. 37 . N.). pp. Making Sense of the Organization. 734-744. 221-230. pp. B. (Eds.E. F. 787-811. NJ: Leadership Library of America. Vol. Greenboro. (1994). pp. West Orange. in K. 151-170.W. Vol. CA: United States International University. 266. 32. Waldman.).J. (2001).T. Weick (Ed. Washington. “CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects.J. 49.J. W. B. (1993). Measures of leadership. ”Transformational leadership theory: using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions”. Nursing Research. p. and Dubinsky.Stordeur. and Bougon. Oxford: Blackwell. and Percy. (1994).M. Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: Transformational and transactional. M. 24. (1990). Vol. 37-43. San Diego. and Yammarino. Weick. Vandenberghe. The nature of executive leadership. F. NC: Center for Creative Leadership.. 54.A. pp.” Academy of Management Review. and Clark M. S. Vol. A. K. “Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments”.M. “Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”. “Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to success and failure”. and D'hoore. Personnel Psychology. Tornow.E. ”Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: some preliminary findings”. (1989).J. K. DC: American Psychological Association. (1999). and Bass. pp. 47.” Human Resource Management. Doctoral Dissertation. W.

and Walumbwa. 34.. pp..Zhu. “Moderating role of follower chararcteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement”. 590-619. Group and Organization Management. (2009). Avolio. 38 . F.O. Vol.J. W. B.

Hunt. p.Table 1.17.Division (General Management) III . 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 . (1991).Corporation VI .Department II . CA: Sage. Newbury Park.Company IV .G.Section I – Shop Floor (Direct Employee) Domain Systems Systems Organisational Organisational Direct Direct Direct Source. J.Group V . 39 . Leadership: A New Synthesis.

3%) 5 (5.7%) 17 (30.5%) 20 (19.0%) 37 (26. 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 (30.3%) 9 (27.6%) 24 (17.7%) 48 (27.1%) 7 (7.4%) 55 185 40 .3%) 9 (16.0%) 25 (46.1%) 37 (21.0%) 10 (33.8%) 185 29 (52.7%) 30 94 Director-level (n=33) 32 (30.3%) 34 (24.5%) 9 (27.4%) 94 12 (40.Table 2.4%) 0 (0.6%) 139 19 (44.1%) 7 (3.7%) 40 (23.0%) 173 20 (37.3%) 33 105 Senior-level (n=54) 48 (27.3%) 48 (51.0%) 22 (21.8%) 5 (5.9%) 9 (16.5%) 49 (26.9%) 105 15 (49.7%) 54 173 Middle-level (n=43) 39 (28.9%) 43 139 Lower-level (n=55) 49 (26.2%) 39 (21.9%) 9 (20.3%) 8 (26.5%) 5 (3.0%) 29 (27.6%) 2 (1.2%) 15 (34.5%) 41 (22.

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 (29.7%) 6 (3.0%) 53 175 54 (27.Table 3.1%) 17 (34.1%) 4 (7.7%) 5 (10.7%) 46 (16.4%) 41 (23.7%) 18 (32.1%) 41 (23.0%) 37 (21.3%) 47 (27.9%) 1 (0.9%) 76 (27.2%) 19 (35.3%) 41 (20.8%) 9 (17. 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 (29.7%) 52 (26.3%) 45 (22.6%) 79 272 52 (29.3%) 175 25 (47.7%) 37 (21.5%) 56 198 41 .4%) 10 (12.0%) 24 (30.0%) 198 34 (60.0%) 70 (25.0%) 169 27 (55.9%) 31 (18.8%) 5 (3.4%) 272 45 (57.4%) 4 (2.

60*** .66*** .00 .33*** -.19*** -.26*** X₅ MBEP 1.60 . *** = P<0.30*** -.18*** -.61*** .08** 1.79 -.38*** 1.23*** .32*** -.75 -.56*** .87 .00 -.67 .64*** .80 1.01.58*** X₅ IC 2.31 .63*** .46*** -.35*** N.05.00 X₂ II 2.64*** 1.00 .37*** -.25 .29*** -.39*** 1. ** = P<0.00 .73*** X₄ IS 2. * = P<0.00 .25*** X₅ LF .00 .65*** .55 .65*** X₅ MBEA 2.71 .40*** 1.32*** -.62*** .00 .84 .62*** .81 .05* -.13*** -.80 .B.63 .55*** X₅ CR 2.41*** X₄ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅ 1.76 .00 X₃ IM 2.83 .67*** 1.68 .Table 4: Inter-Correlations between Analysis Variables Variable M SD X₁ X₂ X₁ AC 2.68*** .83 .001. X₃ 1.

48**¦ .70***¦ .07 .48) 2.76***¦ .24) .58) 2. *** p<0.43) 2.53) Top-level (n=30) Director-level (n=33) Senior-level (n=54) Middle-level (n=43) Lower-level (n=55) Extra Effort TFL .74 (.52** -.52*** -.68 (.51) 2.74***¦ .88 (.47) 2.56** -.31* LF -.87 (. 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 2.92 (.55*** -.33* .62 (.31* -.73***¦ .32) .30) 2.00 .57**¦ .15 .53) 2.B.25) . * p<0.30) .77***¦ .53) 3.001.98 (.02 (.43) 2.01.51) 2.65***¦ TAL .66*** -.47*** -.30* .41) 2.75***¦ .05.43) 2.75 (.50 (.12 .26) .19 LF -.27 -.26 .87 (.09 (.75 (. ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r) * Standard deviations in parenthesis .44) 2.07 (.70***¦ .88 (.11 (.65*** Satisfaction TFL .29* LF -.69***¦ .Table 5: Means.32* .61 (.65*** -.41) 2.75***¦ .43) 2.56***¦ TAL .11 (.35 (.45** .81 (.36) 2.53) 2.26 Effectiveness TFL .35* -.94 (. ** p<0.64*** -.60*** -.63***¦ TAL -.69***¦ .62) 2.07 (.34 (.49*** N.19 -.90 (.56** -.04 .10 (.46) 2.

40) 2.84 (.77***¦ .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 .62*** -.48) 2.50*** -.40) 2.00 (.47) 2.59*** -.73 (.32* -. * p<0.47 (.27) .61) 2.24* .67***¦ .05.55) 2.43) 2.71 (.69***¦ .44) 2.42) 2.02 (.27) .65*** N.03 (.43) 3.73***¦ .80***¦ .95 (.63*** Satisfaction TFL .32** -.71***¦ .39* .43) 3.001.76 (.14 .59***¦ TAL . 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 2.99 (.18 LF -.22* .66***¦ .12 (. *** p<0.25) .02 (.84 (.47) 2.03 .67***¦ TAL .94 (.51) 2.48 (.54) 2.22) .64***¦ TAL .52) 2.70*** -.34* .39) 2.Table 6: Means.59) 3.68 (.42) 2.11 LF -.18 LF -.98 (.01.77 (.75 (. ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r) * Standard deviations in parenthesis 44 .06 .36* .51) 2.64*** -.72***¦ .72***¦ .19 Effectiveness TFL . ** p<0.07 (.62 (.64*** -.62*** -.52 (.B.30 (.11 (.42*** -.

02 .11 -.37* -.18 -.55* .23 .23 .44*** .36*** .16 .34 .04 .13 -.47** -.68 15.20 -.05 .58 10.09 -.37** -.10 -.28* .31 .05 .09 .21 .62** .70 14.10 .12 -.09 -.47** -.06 -.58 9. ** = P<0. F = F Ratio 45 .23 . ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient.05 -.32** .34* .05 -.15 -.11 .37*** .15 .52** .23 -.09 -.64 9.32** -.14 .25 .05 .02 -.22 -.78*** .33** .60** -.32* .04 -.10 -.21 -.12 .31*** . 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 . .22 .06 .001.97*** .21* -.21 -.01 .11 -.07 .Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort.73*** .07 .40** .36* -.03 -.25 .02 .04 -.29 .13 .64*** .70 12.17 .16 .04 .50 7.51*** -.13 .B.53 7.28* .04 .02 -. *** = P<0.20 .38 -.02 .01.40** .13*** .35 .26 .28 .14 -.00 -.08 -.19 .38 4.05 -.20 -. * = P<0.13 .15 .63 10.05.15 -.05 .00 -.15 .55 6.58*** .93*** .23 .12*** .38*** Senior-level (n = 54) Middle-level (n = 43) Lower-level (n = 55) N.27* .12 -.17 -.20 .10 .15 -.19 .58 9.12 -.15 -.38** .01 .

02 -.07 -.05.04 -.17 . * = P<0.62 14.05 .10*** .49 6.07 -.15 -.20 -.96*** Up to three months (n = 56) N.58*** .02 .64 11.40* -.04 -.19 -.30** .07 .23* -.24 .12 . 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) .69 46.02 .90*** .05 .00 .05 .05 .32 3.15 .00 -.11 .36*** 53.21 .05 . .11 .12 .08 .58 10.03 17.08 .00 .00 .04 .34* .45*** -.13 . ** = P<0.92*** .34* -.10 .21 .56 8.06 .33*** 56.00 .00 .06 .35* .78** 22.32 .00 .05 .23* .21 .16 -.42** -.11 -.01.67 18.09 Change 37.30* .15 .15 .13 .67*** .10 .09 .60*** 46 .02 .26 .24 .07*** .22 -.06 -.92** .28*** .16 -.24* .Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort.001.82*** 39.16 .22 -.39*** .04 .18 -.00 .07 .02 .10 .08 .16 -.04 -.56*** -.00 .16 -.03 .30*** 56.12 -.02 -.01 -.11 .42* -.15 .79*** .03 .00 .23 .05 -.07 -.01 .16 . ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient.62 12.02 .02 -.36* -.B.28** .18 -.16 .19* -.92*** .27 .14 .03 -.01 .13 -.62*** 26.67*** 1.35*** .04 Hierarchical Level R F Square Change .71 15.00 .56*** Rating R Square Change .03 .05 F Change 1.24 -.07 -.10 -.00 .26 .06 .41 5.12 .64 .00 .74 26.07 .81*** 11.27 .38** .06 .29* . 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 .27* . *** = P<0.17 .12 -.61 10.07 -.49* .05 -.

04** 10.05 .00*** 2.01 .02 .35*** 28.02 .00 .01 3.00 .12 .00 .18 42.02 EE .05.99*** 10.00 TAL .39 .01. * = P<0.00 .00 .59*** 47 .00 LF .03 .B.22 .04 .16 . ** = P<0.05 .94*** 3.20 7.02 MBEP .52 .58*** 8.01 SAT .03 MBEA .14 .08 PALEAD .02 .46** .00 . 13.00 .01 24.09*** 2.00 ACLEAD .04 23.53 2.32*** 17. *** = P<0.28 .08 EFF .00 .66** .00 .00 1.CR .63 .00 .74 .00 .04** 40.76** 13.00 .14 10.001.00 N.

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 1. Transformational leadership Transformational and transactional leadership 48 . ineffective and unsatisfying at all levels. Laissez-faire was inhibitory to extra effort. A Working Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical Levels TOP DIRECTOR SENIOR MIDDLE LOWER Notes: The reason for the diamond shape for transformational and transactional is that while transactional leadership was conducive to extra effort.

Figure 2. A Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical Levels according to Different Rating Sources Superior ratings Self-ratings Subordinate ratings Peer ratings Key Both transformational and transactional deemed effective Only transformational leadership deemed effective Denotes divisions between hierarchical levels 49 .