The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.

htm

JMP 28,1

Leader-follower interactions: relations with OCB and sales productivity

Hannes Zacher and Nerina L. Jimmieson
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose Based on substitutes for leadership theory, the aim of this study is to examine followers learning goal orientation as a moderator of relationships among transformational leadership, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and sales productivity. Design/methodology/approach Data came from 61 food and beverage attendants of a casino, and were analyzed using regression analyses. Findings Transformational leadership was positively related to both OCB and sales productivity. Learning goal orientation moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, such that transformational leadership was more strongly related to OCB among followers with a low learning goal orientation than among followers with a high learning goal orientation. Research limitations/implications Limitations of the study include the small sample size and cross-sectional research design. Practical implications Organizations could train supervisors to practice a transformational leadership style and to take followers learning goal orientation into account. Originality/value The ndings of this study suggest that, with regard to OCB, a high learning goal orientation of followers may act as a substitute for low levels of leaders transformational leadership. Keywords Transformational leadership, Organizational citizenship behavior, Sales productivity, Learning goal orientation, Substitutes for leadership, Learning, Leadership Paper type Research paper

92
Received January 2011 Revised December 2011 February 2012 February 2012 Accepted February 2012

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 28 No. 1, 2013 pp. 92-106 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941311298887

Transformational leadership is one of the most widely researched and arguably one of the most effective leadership styles (Avolio et al., 2009). Transformational leaders act as positive role models, communicate an attractive vision of the future, encourage followers to think independently, and assist followers in developing their individual strengths (Bass, 1985, 1999). Numerous studies have shown that transformational leadership is positively associated with important individual, team, and organizational outcomes (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1994; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Jung et al., 2003). However, so far, much less is known about follower characteristics that may act as boundary conditions of relationships between transformational leadership and work outcomes (Yun et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2009). Furthermore, studies that investigate relationships between transformational leadership and objective productivity outcomes are still rare, mainly because these objective measures are difcult to obtain (Hiller et al., 2011; Xenikou and Simosi, 2006).
The authors thank Nick Shelton for his assistance with data collection.

The goals of this study were, therefore, twofold. First, we aimed to examine relationships among transformational leadership and two indicators of followers effort at work: their organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and an objective measure of their sales productivity. OCB involves a class of discretionary employee behaviors that benet the organization, as well as its employees and customers (Organ et al., 2006). Employees with high levels of OCB invest extra effort into their work and go above and beyond their supervisors expectations. While OCB refers to concrete employee behaviors (i.e. goal-directed actions that are under employees control) that require effort, sales productivity constitutes one possible objective outcome of employee effort that also may be inuenced by situational factors (see Campbell et al., 1993). Second, we focused on the role of followers learning goal orientation as a moderator of the relationships between transformational leadership and OCB and sales productivity. Learning goal orientation is a motivational disposition which refers to employees desire to develop themselves by acquiring new skills, mastering new situations, and improving their work-related competencies (VandeWalle, 1997, 2001). Learning goal orientation is one specic form of goal orientations, which are dened as relatively stable motivational dispositions related to the goals that people pursue in achievement situations and how they develop and validate their ability in organizations (Button et al., 1996; DeShon and Gillespie, 2005; VandeWalle, 1997; VandeWalle et al., 2000). Contemporary research on learning goal orientation is based on the early psychological literature on achievement motivation that has identied the fundamental human needs for mastery and achieving success as well as the need to avoid failure (Atkinson, 1957; McClelland et al., 1953; Murray, 1938). More recent work has distinguished between mastery and performance orientations (Button et al., 1996; Schmidt and Ford, 2003). Similar to learning goal orientation, mastery orientation refers to the extent to which people focus on learning and developing their competence. In contrast, performance orientation refers to peoples motive to demonstrate competence or to avoid demonstrating incompetence. Research on interactions between transformational leadership and follower characteristics is so far sparse. Avolio et al. (2009) noted in their review of the leadership literature that perhaps one of the most interesting omissions in theory and research on leadership is the absence of discussions of followership and its impact on leadership (p. 434). These authors called for further research on follower characteristics as an integral part of the leadership process (see Zhu et al., 2009, for a recent exception). The potentially important role of followers learning goal orientation for leadership has so far not been investigated. We used substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) as a guiding theoretical framework for our study. This theory explains that factors other than the leader (including follower, and situational characteristics associated with the task or organization) may contribute to positive work outcomes by substituting for ineffective leader behaviors (Howell et al., 1990; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Schriesheim, 1997). These substitutes for leadership provide followers with guidance and incentives that motivate them to perform and compensate for problems associated with weak leadership (Howell et al., 1990). We aim to extend the theoretical literature on substitutes for leadership by showing that followers learning goal orientation may help them compensate for low levels of transformational leadership with regard to OCB and sales productivity. The results of our study may have implications for organizational practitioners concerned

Leader-follower interactions

93

JMP 28,1

with employees OCB and productivity. If our hypotheses are supported, organizations benet from selecting, placing, and training leaders and employees in order to achieve a better t between supervisors transformational leadership style and their subordinates learning goal orientation. Development of hypotheses Relationships among transformational leadership, OCB, and sales productivity We propose that transformational leadership is positively related to OCB. A possible explanation for this expectation is that followers attribute positive characteristics to transformational leaders and internalize their beliefs, values, and normative behaviors. In doing so, they prioritize collective interests at the sacrice of self-interests and receive praise and recognition which lead to improved motivation and loyalty to their leaders (Wang et al., 2005). The importance of transformational leadership for OCB is well documented in the literature. For example, Podsakoff et al. (1996) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB in a study of 1,539 subordinates and matched OCB ratings from 1,200 managers from various industries. A more recent study of manufacturing and customer service employees showed that transformational leadership was positively related to supervisor ratings of OCB (Purvanova and Bono, 2006). H1. There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. We further propose that transformational leadership is positively related to followers sales productivity. Transformational leaders motivate their followers to perform above and beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994), which, in turn, should be associated with higher sales productivity. Bono and Judge (2003) suggested that followers of transformational leaders view their work as more important and as more self-congruent. There is general support for strong and positive relationships between transformational leadership and subjective performance outcomes (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). The ndings regarding the relationships between transformational leadership and objective productivity outcomes are rather sparse. For example, Avolio et al. (1988) showed that transformational leadership predicted students productivity in a management simulation game (e.g. market share and return on assets). Geyer and Steyrer (1998) reported that transformational leadership positively predicted the short-term and long-term objective performance of banks (i.e. the ratios of the volume of production to the number of checking accounts and the number of potential customers). However, Arnold et al. (2009) did not nd support for their hypothesis that transformational leadership positively inuences product and service sales. Despite these mixed ndings, we make a prediction consistent with Bass and colleagues theorizing on transformational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1994), that transformational leaders motivate their followers to perform above and beyond expectations. H2. There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and sales productivity. Moderating role of followers learning goal orientation Beyond expecting bivariate relationships among transformational leadership on the one hand and OCB and sales productivity on the other, we also suggest that followers

94

learning goal orientation moderates these relationships. Specically, we propose that transformational leadership will have stronger positive relationships with OCB and sales productivity among followers with a low learning goal orientation than among followers with a high learning goal orientation. These assumptions are consistent with substitutes for leadership theory (Howell et al., 1990; Kerr and Jermier, 1978) in that followers with a high learning goal orientation should be more self-motivated and willing to show engagement in the rst place (VandeWalle, 1997) and, therefore, less dependent on external motivating factors, such as transformational leadership. Evidence for this assumption comes from research showing positive relationships between learning goal orientation and outcomes such as self-efcacy (Phillips and Gully, 1997) and performance (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Payne et al., 2007; Porath and Bateman, 2006; VandeWalle et al., 1999). In addition, people with a high learning goal orientation are more motivated to seek feedback (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997), use better learning strategies (Wolters, 1998), and persist when facing barriers (VandeWalle et al., 1999). In contrast, the motivation to engage in OCB and to strive for high levels of sales productivity should be higher among followers with a low learning goal orientation when they are guided by a motivational leader with high levels of transformational leadership. This theorizing, based on substitutes for leadership theory, received initial support by Bettencourts (2004) ndings of interactive inuences of situation and person antecedents on OCB. Specically, Bettencourt found that mastery orientation moderated the positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, such that transformational leadership was more strongly related to OCB when mastery orientation was low than when mastery orientation was high. In this study, we examine learning goal orientation as a moderator, and include sales productivity as an objective outcome, in addition to OCB. H3. Learning goal orientation moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, such that the relationship is stronger for followers with a low learning goal orientation than for followers with a high learning goal orientation. H4. Learning goal orientation moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and sales productivity, such that the relationship is stronger for followers with a low learning goal orientation than for followers with a high learning goal orientation. The conceptual model summarizing all of our hypotheses is depicted in Figure 1. Method Procedure and participants The organizational context for the research was the food and beverage section of a casino in Australia. Participation for all 236 food and beverage attendants of the casino was voluntary, and required the completion of a questionnaire. Questionnaires were delivered to each employee during shifts over the course of one week. Employees were requested to complete the questionnaire in their own time and to return it via a reply-paid envelope or to a secure box placed at the security desk. Questionnaires from 101 employees were returned for a response rate of 47 percent. Among those who responded, 61 employees (60 percent) provided their clerk identication number, which allowed computer access

Leader-follower interactions

95

JMP 28,1

96
Figure 1. Conceptual model

to their objective sales productivity statistics (see measurement section below). A series of t-tests showed that there were no signicant differences between the two groups in demographic characteristics (age, gender, job tenure, employment status [i.e. causal, full-time, or part-time]) and the focal variables. In addition, it is important to note that the hypotheses, which involved only the self-report variables (transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and OCB) were supported with the initial sample of 101 employees. To test our complete conceptual model including sales productivity, we used the reduced sample of 61 employees. This reduced sample comprised 24 males and 37 females, the mean age was 24.05 years (SD 5.51), and the mean job tenure was 1.27 years (SD 1.18). Most employees in the sample were casually employed (i.e. working irregular hours on an as-needs basis; n 45), and only a few held a full-time (n 4) or a part-time (n 12) position. Measures Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was assessed with the 20 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X Short, Avolio and Bass, 1995)[1]. Consistent with previous research (Bass et al., 2003), we combined the ve subscales of the MLQ (Idealized Inuence Attributed, Idealized Inuence Behavior, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration) into a single transformational leadership composite. A validation study (Avolio et al., 1999) showed that the MLQ-5X items make up a single higher-order transformational leadership factor that is distinct from, yet related to, the other two higher-order leadership factors of developmental exchange (r 0:39) and corrective avoidant (r 20:73). In the current study, the response format ranged from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). Cronbachs a of the scale was 0.98. Learning goal orientation. Followers learning goal orientation was measured with six items from VandeWalles (1997) work-domain goal orientation scale. An example items is, I enjoy challenging and difcult tasks at work where I will learn new skills. Cronbachs a was 0.91. The response format ranged from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). VandeWalle (1997) reported the results of exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses, internal consistency and test-retest correlations, and nomological network analysis to support the reliability and validity of the scales. For example, a mastery orientation scale assessing a preference for challenging tasks and meeting personal standards correlated positively with the learning goal scale (r 0:60).

Organizational citizenship behavior. OCB was measured with 14 items from the altruism (e.g. I willingly help others who have work-related problems), conscientiousness (e.g. I am always punctual), courtesy (e.g. I do not abuse the rights of others), and civic virtue (e.g. I like to keep abreast of changes in the organization) scales developed by Podsakoff et al. (1993) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993). As research has shown that OCB is best represented as a single higher-order factor (Hoffman et al., 2007; LePine et al., 2002), we computed a composite score across all items. In support of the scales validity, Podsakoff et al. (1993) reported positive and signicant correlations among the four OCB scales and in-role performance, ranging from r 0:41 to r 0:60 The response format ranged from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). Cronbachs a for the scale was 0.95 in the current study. Sales productivity. Following interviews with managers of the casino, it was established that productive food and beverage employees are successful salespersons. In fact, it was within each employees discretion to promote premium drink products. The sales productivity measure was derived after intensive observation of the food and beverage section. This revealed that premium spirit prices are not price-listed nor are the bottles always on display. In addition, the organization represented an advanced level of the hospitality service. Thus, employees had high levels of role autonomy (see Kelley, 1993) which allows them to upsell; that is, to suggest to guests a better quality product which is of higher cost (Aydin and Ziya, 2008).We used an objective measure of sales productivity which we culled from company records four weeks after the questionnaire data were collected. Specically, sales productivity was measured as the ratio of premium to standard bar products sold by each participating employee over the past month. This ratio ranged from 2.67 to 49.33, with a mean of 18.04 (SD 12:40). To obtain this data, we utilized the organizations integrated point-of-sale computers which required each employee to enter their unique clerk identication number which records every sale. The benet of this statistic is that it is not reliant on the number of hours an employee works and the volume of guests typically served by each food and beverage area in the casino. Results Table I shows the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the variables. Providing preliminary support for H1 and H2, transformational leadership was positively correlated with OCB (r 0:65, p , 0.01) and sales productivity (r 0:69, p , 0:01). In addition, OCB and sales productivity were highly correlated (r 0:75, p , 0:01) which suggests that these two indicators of employee effort measure indeed similar constructs.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. Transformational leadership Learning goal orientation Organizational citizenship behavior Sales productivity M 4.13 4.59 4.94 18.04 SD 1.37 1.19 1.06 12.40 1 (0.98) 0.47 * 0.65 * 0.69 * 2 (0.91) 0.72 * 0.70 * 3 4

Leader-follower interactions

97

(0.95) 0.75 *

Notes: n 61; Reliability estimates (Cronbachs a) for multi-item scales are shown in parentheses along the diagonal; * p , 0.01

Table I. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and intercorrelations of the variables

JMP 28,1

98

Tables II and III show the results of two regression analyses conducted to test our hypotheses. We mean-centered transformational leadership and learning goal orientation (Cohen et al., 2003), computed the interaction term as the product of the mean-centered variables of transformational leadership and learning goal orientation, and entered all predictor variables simultaneously in the two regression equations. Based on the number of statistical tests performed (two regression analyses), we adjusted the Type I error rate using a version of the Bonferroni correction procedure that takes multiple correlated outcomes into account (Holland and DiPonzio Copenhaver, 1988; Shaffer, 1995). Specically, we reduced the Type I error rate from a 0:05 to a 0:042. According to H1, transformational leadership is positively related to OCB. Table II shows that transformational leadership was positively related to OCB (b 0:44, p , 0.001), supporting H1. As shown in Table III, transformational leadership also was positively related to sales productivity (b 0:60, p , 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2. Given our relatively small sample size, we computed statistical power post hoc using the G *Power software (Faul et al., 2009). The statistical power to detect the relationships between transformational leadership and OCB and sales productivity was high (. 0.99). H3 states that learning goal orientation moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, such that the relationship is stronger for followers with a low learning goal orientation than for followers with a high learning goal orientation. Table II shows that the interaction between transformational leadership and learning goal orientation signicantly predicted OCB (b 2 0.18, p , 0.042). The variance ination factors (VIFs) were all below 1.5, thus multicollinearity was not considered to be a problem. The statistical power to detect this interaction was 0.74. To test whether the interaction was conformed to the hypothesized pattern, we conducted simple slope analyses (Cohen et al., 2003). Consistent with expectations, the simple slope for followers with a low learning goal orientation (1 SD below the mean) was stronger (B 0:52, SE 0.12, b 0.67, t 4:50, p , 0.01) than the simple slope for follower with a high learning goal orientation (1 SD above the mean; B 0.24, SE .08, b 0.31, t 3.22, p , 0.01). The interaction is depicted in Figure 2. These ndings support H3.
Beta t 5.18 * * 5.80 * * 2 2.18 *

Table II. Results of regression analysis for organizational citizenship behavior

Transformational leadership Learning goal orientation Transformational leadership Learning goal orientation

0.49 0.50 2 0.18

Notes: R 0.82; R 2 0.67; F 38.33 * *; df 3, 57; n 61; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01

Beta Table III. Results of regression analysis for sales productivity Transformational leadership Learning goal orientation Transformational leadership Learning goal orientation Notes: R 0.81; R 2 0.66; F 36.38 *; df 3, 57; n 61; * p , 0.01 0.43 0.49 0.06

t 4.48 * 5.57 * 0.73

Leader-follower interactions

99

Figure 2. Relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior moderated by learning goal orientation

According to H4, learning orientation moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and sales productivity, such that the relationship is stronger for followers with a low learning goal orientation than for followers with a high learning goal orientation. Table III shows that the interaction term between transformational leadership and learning goal orientation did not signicantly predict sales productivity (b 0.06, p 0:461). Thus, H4 was not supported. The VIFs were all below 1.5, thus multicollinearity did not appear to be a problem. The statistical power to detect this interaction was 0.19. This low power is consistent with the literature on the general difculty of detecting signicant interactions in leadership and organizational research (Aguinis et al., 2005; Frese, 1999; Villa et al., 2003). Discussion The rst goal of this study was to contribute to the leadership literature by investigating relationships among transformational leadership and two indicators of employee effort, OCB and sales productivity. Our second goal was to examine the role of followers learning goal orientation as a moderator of the positive relationships between transformational leadership on the one hand and OCB and sales productivity one the other. Consistent with our assumptions based on transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985), we were able to show that transformational leadership was positively related to OCB and sales productivity. OCB and sales productivity were further highly positively correlated, which suggests that OCB is a behavioral indicator of employee effort, whereas sales productivity, as operationalized by upselling behavior, is an objective measure of employee effort. This relationship between OCB and sales productivity is consistent with a previous study by Walz and Niehoff (2000), who showed in a eld experiment that OCB was positively related to the operating efciency of restaurants. Another study found that OCB was positively related to objective unit performance in 116 agencies of an insurance company (Podsakoff and

JMP 28,1

100

MacKenzie, 1994). Finally, a study of 218 paper mill workers found that OCB was related to performance quantity and quality (Podsakoff et al., 1997). Consistent with our hypothesis based on substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978), our results further showed that followers learning goal orientation moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. Specically, we found that a high learning goal orientation of followers may compensate for low levels of transformational leadership with regard to OCB. In contrast, high levels of transformational leadership appear to be particularly effective among followers with a low learning goal orientation. These ndings provide support for propositions of substitutes of leadership theory, which argues that leadership as an external motivator may be less necessary when followers are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to show additional effort at work in the rst place (Howell et al., 1990). These ndings also are consistent with recent research on interactions between transformational leadership and follower characteristics, such as creativity, on work outcomes (Bettencourt, 2004; Zhu et al., 2009). Contrary to expectations, we did not nd support for the hypothesis that followers learning goal orientation also moderates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and sales productivity. While learning goal orientation moderated the positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB, and OCB was positively related to sales productivity, learning goal orientation did not emerge as a boundary condition of the overall relationship between transformational leadership and sales productivity. A possible explanation for this nding may be that OCB involves employee behaviors that are under employees control and, therefore, should be more susceptible to motivational factors such as transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and their interaction. In contrast, sales productivity refers to one possible objective outcome of employee effort that is not completely under employees and their supervisors control (Campbell et al., 1993). Thus, the inuence of other relevant factors besides transformational leadership and learning goal orientation, such as time of the day or sales opportunities, may have attenuated the hypothesized interaction. Interactions of leadership behaviors with follower characteristics, such as learning goal orientation, with regard to follower behaviors represent an interesting avenue for future research on substitutes for leadership theory for several reasons. First, leadership theorists have shown a renewed interest in the role of followers in the leadership process (Avolio et al., 2009; Kelley, 2008). Second, an emphasis on follower resources and strengths that may complement or even compensate for leadership behavior is consistent with a trend toward a more positive approach to the study of organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002). Finally, a combined focus on leader and follower characteristics opens up more possibilities for theory-based interventions, including selection, training, and matching leaders and followers (Howell et al., 1990). Limitations This study has a number of limitations that may inuence the interpretation of results. First, the external validity of our ndings may be questioned, as we used a small sample from only one organization and one specic occupational group. Future research with larger, more representative samples is required before rm conclusions can be drawn. Second, future research should investigate longitudinal relationships among transformational leadership, follower goal orientations, OCB, and indicators of

productivity. Even though sales productivity data were collected after the self-report measures, our study is essentially cross-sectional and non-experimental. It is important to note that only randomized experimental designs can shed light into the causal direction of relationships under investigation (Stone-Romero and Rosopa, 2008, 2010). Third, all of our measures, except for sales productivity, were self-report which may lead to articially inated relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, the use of multi-source data (i.e. self-report and objective sales productivity) limits our concerns about common method bias. In addition, moderation analyses are not biased by common method bias (Siemsen et al., 2010). Siemsen et al. (2010) showed that common method variance actually makes it more difcult to detect statistically signicant interactions, thus yielding more conservative tests of interaction models. Practical implications for employees and organizations The results of this study may have important implications for organizational practice and for leader-follower relations in general. First, the ndings of this study suggest that supervisor-training programs designed to teach transformational leadership behaviors are particularly benecial for supervisors working with followers with a low learning goal orientation. Research showed that transformational leadership behaviors can be trained to increase individual and organizational effectiveness (Barling et al., 1996; Frese et al., 2003). These training programs also could address the interplay between dispositional characteristics (i.e. follower learning goal orientations) and leadership behaviors, and how these characteristics, by themselves and in combination, may relate to followers OCB. Leaders also could nd value in recognizing and maybe even assessing (e.g. during personnel selection) employees learning goal orientation. The ability of leaders to accommodate different motivational dispositions appears to be especially important in light of our ndings. Similarly, research on mentoring relationships has shown that matching goal orientation of ge es leads to higher levels of OCB (Godshalk and Sosik, 2003). mentors and prote Implications for society Effective leadership behaviors contribute importantly to individual, organizational, and, ultimately, societal well-being and productivity (Kaiser et al., 2008). This study shows that transformational leadership is positively related to followers engagement in OCB and an objective measure of sales productivity. In addition, we found that the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is particularly strong for those low in learning goal orientation, and that OCB is positively related to sales productivity. Thus, this study contributes to the literature that aims to identify ways in which OCB and sales productivity can be enhanced (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Organ et al., 2006; VandeWalle et al., 1999). Research on the consequences of OCB has shown that individual employees benet from showing OCB, as they receive higher managerial ratings of performance and are allocated more rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009). In addition, OCB may have indirect economic benets for society as it has effects on organizational outcomes such as productivity and customer satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Sales productivity also is an important outcome for society, as it contributes to employees nancial security. In addition, organizations that remain nancially viable due to high levels of sales productivity contribute to the economic and social well-being of surrounding communities.

Leader-follower interactions

101

JMP 28,1

102

Conclusion In conclusion, this study contributes to the leadership literature by showing that transformational leadership was positively related to OCB and an objective measure of sales productivity. Thus, our ndings are consistent with a conceptual model that suggests that transformational leadership is related to two indicators of employee effort in organizations. In addition, our ndings contribute to recent theoretical developments in the leadership literature on the role of follower characteristics (Zhu et al., 2009) by showing that followers learning goal orientation poses an important boundary condition on the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. It is intended that the ndings stimulate further research on interactions between leadership behaviors and follower characteristics, and contribute to organizational practice and leader-follower relations in general by helping to improve leader-follower t through selection, placement, and training.
Note 1. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X-Short (copyright 2004 by Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass) is used with the permission of Mind Garden, 855 Oak Grove Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025. All rights reserved. References Aguinis, H., Beaty, J.C., Boik, R.J. and Pierce, C.A. (2005), Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 94-107. Arnold, T.J., Palmatier, R.W., Grewel, D. and Sharma, A. (2009), Understanding retail managers role in the sales of products and services, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 129-44. Atkinson, J.W. (1957), Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior, Psychological Review, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 359-72. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Menlo Park, CA. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-62. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A. and Einstein, W.O. (1988), Transformational leadership in a management game simulation, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 59-80. Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 421-49. Aydin, G. and Ziya, S. (2008), Pricing promotional products under upselling, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 360-76. Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and nancial outcomes: a eld experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 827-32. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1999), Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 9-32.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 207-18. Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), Goal orientation and ability: interactive effects on self-efcacy, performance, and knowledge, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 497-505. Bettencourt, L.A. (2004), Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: the direct and moderating inuence of goal orientation, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 165-80. Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 554-71. Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1996), Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 26-48. Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E. (1993), A theory of performance, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 35-79. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. DeShon, R.P. and Gillespie, J.Z. (2005), A motivated action theory account of goal orientation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1096-127. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.-G. (2009), Statistical power analyses using G *Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1149-60. Frese, M. (1999), Social support as a moderator of the relationship between stress at work and psychological dysfunctioning: a longitudinal study with objective measures, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 179-92. Frese, M., Beimel, S. and Schoenborn, S. (2003), Action training for charismatic leadership: two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 671-97. Geyer, A.L.J. and Steyrer, J.M. (1998), Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 397-420. Godshalk, V.M. and Sosik, J.J. (2003), Aiming for career success: the role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 417-37. Hiller, N.J., DeChurch, L.A., Murase, T. and Doty, D. (2011), Searching for outcomes of leadership: a 25-year review, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1137-77. Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P. and Woehr, D.J. (2007), Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 555-66. Holland, B.S. and DiPonzio Copenhaver, M. (1988), Improved Bonferroni-type multiple testing procedures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 145-9. Howell, J.P., Bowen, D.E., Dorfman, P.W., Kerr, S. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1990), Substitutes for leadership: effective alternatives to ineffective leadership, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 21-38.

Leader-follower interactions

103

JMP 28,1

104

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-68. Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary ndings, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4-5, pp. 525-44. Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, J. and Craig, S.B. (2008), Leadership and the fate of organizations, American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 96-110. Kelley, R.E. (2008), Rethinking followership, in Riggio, R.E., Chaleff, I. and Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations, Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 5-15. Kelley, S.W. (1993), Discretion and the service employee, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 104-26. Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 375-403. LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65. Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425. Luthans, F. (2002), The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 695-706. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.A. (2001), Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 115-34. McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A. and Lowell, E.L. (1953), The Achievement Motive, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY. Murray, H. (1938), Explorations in Personality, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-56. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 128-50. Phillips, J.M. and Gully, S.M. (1997), Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efcacy and goal-setting process, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 792-802. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-41. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 351-63. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership model: background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for future research, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-32.

Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 262-70. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-98. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Fetter, R. (1993), Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-44. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Porath, C.L. and Bateman, T.S. (2006), Self-regulation: from goal orientation to performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 185-92. Purvanova, R.K. and Bono, J.E. (2006), Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Schmidt, A.M. and Ford, J.K. (2003), Learning within a learner control training environment: the interactive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 405-29. Schriesheim, C.A. (1997), Substitutes-for-leadership theory: development and basic concepts, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 103-8. Shaffer, J.P. (1995), Multiple hypothesis testing, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 561-84. Siemsen, E., Roth, A. and Oliveira, P. (2010), Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 456-76. Stone-Romero, E.F. and Rosopa, P.J. (2008), The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 326-52. Stone-Romero, E.F. and Rosopa, P.J. (2010), Research design options for testing mediation models and their implications for facets of validity, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 697-712. VandeWalle, D. (1997), Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015. VandeWalle, D. (2001), Goal orientation: why wanting to look successful doesnt always lead to success, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 162-71. VandeWalle, D. and Cummings, L.L. (1997), A test of the inuence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 390-400. VandeWalle, D., Brown, S.P., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. (1999), The inuence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: a longitudinal eld test, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 249-58. VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G.N. and Brown, S.P. (2000), An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: disposition, context, and cognition, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 996-1003. Villa, J.R., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Daniel, D.L. (2003), Problems with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regression, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-23.

Leader-follower interactions

105

JMP 28,1

106

Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (2000), Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to organizational effectiveness, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 301-19. Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R., Wang, D. and Chen, Z. (2005), Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 420-32. Wolters, C.A. (1998), Self-regulated learning and college students regulation of motivation, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 224-35. Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 566-79. Yun, S., Cox, J. and Sims, H.P. (2006), The forgotten follower: a contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 374-88. Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 590-619. About the authors Hannes Zacher is a Lecturer in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland (Australia). He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in 2009 from the University of Giessen (Germany). His research interests include successful aging at work, self-regulation, work design, work-life balance, leadership, and entrepreneurship. His work has been published in outlets such as Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and Psychology and Aging . Hannes Zacher is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: h.zacher@psy.uq.edu.au Nerina L. Jimmieson is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland (Australia). Employing a range of methodologies, her research interests are concerned with stress and coping in the workplace and employee adjustment to organizational change. Her research is well-supported by national competitive grants and industry partners, with publications appearing in journals and books in the areas of management and organizational psychology.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints