You are on page 1of 165

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE

LEADERSHIP STYLE OF IT MANAGERS AND THE SUBORDINATES


PERCEPTIONS OF IT MANAGERS ABILITY TO INSPIRE EXTRA EFFORT,
TO BE EFFECTIVE, AND TO ENHANCE SATISFACTION WITH MANAGEMENT
IN AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT.

By

Thomas M. Bennett

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

The H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship


Nova Southeastern University

In partial fulfillment of the


requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

2009
UMI Number: 3352391

Copyright 2009 by
Bennett, Thomas M.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3352391


Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE


LEADERSHIP STYLE OF IT MANAGERS AND THE SUBORDINATES
PERCEPTIONS OF IT MANAGERS ABILITY TO INSPIRE EXTRA EFFORT,
TO BE EFFECTIVE, AND TO ENHANCE SATISFACTION WITH MANAGEMENT
IN AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT.

By

Thomas M. Bennett

The current study examined the Transformational,


Transactional, and Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles as
defined by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) and how they are
perceived by subordinates in predicting subordinate Extra
Effort, manager Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with
management. One hundred fifty IT professionals from AITP,
Association of Information Technology Professionals, were
administered the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X-Short
form (MLQ 5X-Short). The survey measured all nine full range
leadership variables and results were analyzed using multiple
regression.

Three hypotheses examined the relationship between the


subordinates perception of the leadership style of IT
managers and one of three dependent measures: predicting
subordinate Extra Effort, manager Effectiveness, and
Satisfaction with management. Partial support was found for
all three hypotheses. In the first, Transformational
Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership, but not
Transactional Leadership was able to predict Extra Effort. In
the second, Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership (via a slightly modified reversed form as well as
the two subscales individually), and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership were able to predict management Effectiveness. In
the last, Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership (reversed and subscales), were able to predict
subordinates Satisfaction with their leaders. Most findings
were consistent with existing literature. In addition, this
study also identified several areas of further study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks and appreciation to Kathy, Andy, Megan, and


Phil for their constant support and encouragement.

Thank you to my committee members, Chair Dr. David L. Morton,


Dr. Robert Preziosi, and Dr. Stephen A. Morreale, for their
guidance, support, patience, and encouragement all along the
way. A special thanks to Dr. Richard Rees who was my chair
initially, but passed away suddenly in early 2008 and to Dr.
Morton who stepped in at a critical time, agreed to become
chair, and guided me the rest of the way.

Thanks and appreciation to Dr. Sharon Kristovich for her


assistance with SPSS, encouragement, and guidance.

Thanks to Past President Mark Gilfand, Executive Director Eric


Hawkinson, and other leaders of the Association of Information
Technology Professionals (AITP) for allowing me to survey
their membership and to learn more about how their membership
views transformational leadership.

Thanks to my friends and classmates Phil Skip Cox, George


Helms, Dianne Daniels, and Roger Montero for their continued
encouragement and support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................ viii


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...................................... 1
Background and Introduction ................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ....................................... 5
Research Questions ......................................... 6
Hypotheses ................................................. 6
Scope and Limitation of this Study ......................... 7
Assumptions of the Study ................................... 8
Summary .................................................... 8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................. 10
Great-Man Theory .......................................... 10
Trait Theory .............................................. 11
Behavioral Theory ......................................... 15
Western Electric Company - Hawthorne Studies ............ 16
Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan .... 16
White Collar Workers................................... 17
Railroad Workers....................................... 18
Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University .... 20
New Tools and Methods for Research..................... 20
U.S. Naval Submarines.................................. 21
The Managerial Grid ..................................... 22
Participative Leadership ................................ 24
Theory X............................................... 24
Theory Y............................................... 25
Contingency Theory ........................................ 26
Fiedlers Contingency Model ............................. 26
Hersey and Blachards Situational Model ................. 28
Houses Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Model ............ 31
Transformational and Transactional Leadership ............. 34
Theories from Burns and Bass ............................ 34
Transformational Leadership Key Factors ................. 38
Transactional Leadership Key Factors .................... 39
Passive/Avoidant Leadership Key Factors ................. 40
Measuring Outcomes of Different Leadership Styles ....... 40
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ .............. 41
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture .. 43
Transformational Leadership and Society ................. 43
Transformational Leadership and Ethics .................. 45
Summary ................................................... 47
CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY................................... 49
Introduction .............................................. 49
Hypotheses ................................................ 49
Sample Population ......................................... 50
The Instrument ............................................ 50

vi
Survey Design ........................................... 50
Content Reliability and Validity ........................ 52
1996 study by Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam........ 53
2002 Study by Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio................. 54
2004 Study by Judge and Piccolo........................ 56
Data Collection ........................................... 58
Summary ................................................... 59
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS.......... 60
Introduction .............................................. 60
Data Analysis ............................................. 60
Sample Size ............................................... 61
Demographics .............................................. 61
Scoring Survey Responses .................................. 69
Data Preparation ........................................ 69
Scale and Subscale Calculations ......................... 71
Regression Models ......................................... 75
Transactional Subscale Correlation ...................... 75
Colinearity Between Independent Variables ............... 76
Hypothesis One ............................................ 77
Correlations ............................................ 77
Regression Model I ...................................... 79
Regression Model II ..................................... 81
Hypothesis Two ............................................ 83
Correlations ............................................ 83
Regression Model I ...................................... 85
Regression Model II ..................................... 87
Hypothesis Three .......................................... 89
Correlations ............................................ 90
Regression Model I ...................................... 91
Regression Model II ..................................... 96
Summary .................................................. 100
Transformational Leadership ............................ 101
Transactional Leadership ............................... 102
Passive/Avoidant Leadership ............................ 103
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS.................................... 104
Overview ................................................. 104
Discussion and Implications for Future Research .......... 105
Transformational Leadership ............................ 105
Passive/Avoidant Leadership ............................ 106
Transactional Leadership ............................... 110
Summary .................................................. 113
APPENDIX A................................................. 115
APPENDIX B................................................. 116
REFERENCES CITED........................................... 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................... 135

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Demographic Comparison............................ 66

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent


Variables (n=150)................................ 74

Table 3 Correlations Between Independent Variables (n=150) 77

Table 4 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional and Passive/Avoidant with Extra Effort
(n=150)........................................... 80

Table 5 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with
Extra Effort (n=150).............................. 82

Table 6 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional, and Passive/Avoidant with
Effectiveness (n=150)............................. 86

Table 7 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Passive/Avoidant, Two Transactional Subscale
Variables with Effectiveness (n=150).............. 87

Table 8 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with
Effectiveness (n=150)............................. 88

Table 9 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional, Passive/Avoidant and Satisfaction
(n=150)........................................... 93

Table 10 Regression Coefficients Between Satisfaction &


Transformational, Passive/Avoidant & Two
Transactional Subscale Variables.................. 94

Table 11 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Two Passive/Avoidant Subscales & Two Transactional
Subscales with Satisfaction Variables (n=150)..... 95

Table 12 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with
Satisfaction (n=150).............................. 97

viii
Table 13 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,
Transactional (reversed) Management-By-Exception
(active), and Two Passive/Avoidant Subscales with
Satisfaction (n=150)............................. 98

Table 14 Summary of Regression Coefficients Without


Transactional Leadership (reversed) (n=150)...... 101

Table 15 Summary of Regression Coefficients With


Transactional Leadership (reversed) (n=150)...... 101

ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Background and Introduction

Since the 1960s and 1970s, the world has seen a

tremendous increase of change. Due to major technological and

social changes, the world has figuratively, gotten smaller,

and has become more complex and inter-related (Friedman,

2005). Today, organizations have to be more flexible, more

nimble and more adept than ever before. Managers must not

only need to be involved in the day-to-day activities of their

company but they must also effectively provide vision that

will lead, inspire, and motivate employees. This vision will

be necessary to help others embrace change, create new

products, improve processes, lower costs, and be more

competitive in a global economy (Friedman, 2005).

The rules have changed. Companies are flattening out

their structure and reducing the number of second and third

level management. National boundaries are declining.

Decisions are being pushed down the chain of command.

Solutions need to be identified sooner. Employees are being

asked to do more then ever before. There has been a paradigm

shift and a new kind of leader is needed (Friedman, 2005;

Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino, 1991).


Transformational Leadership, 2

Leaders need to do more than just manage the day to day

operations. Leaders need to provide leadership that

encourages followers and employees to take on more ownership

of issues and problems, to think out of the box more to solve

business concerns, and to demonstrate self-sacrifice for the

good of the team and company. What kind of leadership is

necessary to help employees transform themselves, to

demonstrate personal sacrifice for the benefit of their

company, and to help their company move forward to the next

level and beyond? This is a critical question for business.

Leadership can determine the success or failure of an

organization and has been an important topic of discussion for

thousands of years.

Burns (1987) and Bass (1985) along with many others

believe that transformational leadership is a key to our

future success. Research has indicated that leadership style

can influence employees willingness to exert Extra Effort,

job Satisfaction, burnout, and productivity (Burns, 1987;

Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership

can positively affect employees willingness to exert Extra

Effort, job Satisfaction, and perception of supervisor

Effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Burns

and Bass have identified a model that focuses on three key

types of leadership: Transformational Leadership,


Transformational Leadership, 3

Transactional Leadership, and Laissez-Faire Leadership (Burns,

1987; Bass, 1985). Through continued research, this model

continues to advance and current researchers have found it

helpful to use the term Passive/Avoidant Leadership instead of

Laissez-Faire Leadership as one of the three types of

leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

Transformational Leadership motivates workers and appeals

to followers ideals and moral values. Transformational

leaders inspire others, create vision, and set direction.

This approach would encourage greater commitment, loyalty,

trust, and respect from employees and increase the overall

effectiveness of the organization (Bass, 1985). Transactional

Leadership motivates by appealing to individual desires.

Passive/Avoidant or Laissez-Faire Leadership delays decisions,

is not accountable or responsible to others in achieving

goals, and takes a hands-off approach to management (Bass,

1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Statement of the Problem

Increased globalization has increased business

competition (Friedman, 2005). For a company to be successful

in this new world, each employee must reach their full

potential, add value to the bottom line, and embrace change

quickly.
Transformational Leadership, 4

Informational Technology (IT) is a critical piece of any

businesss operations and strategic planning. Technology is a

competitive advantage as it enhances customer service,

improves and streamlines processes, reduces costs, shortens

the time to get new products to production, and attracts new

customers. A companys IT effort is supported by such IT

professionals as systems analysts, developers, programmers,

technicians, project leaders, etc. These IT professionals

support and maintain current systems. They build new

applications and integrate them with other systems already in

place. Their technical expertise is extremely critical to a

companys success and it can become quickly out-of-date. IT

professionals have a need to continually grow and learn about

new upgrades, new enhancements, and new directions in IT.

Choosing the wrong path in IT can cost millions of dollars and

force a company to fall behind the competition. Technology

has become more complicated and challenging than ever before.

One key element of success for a company is for leaders

to manage and motivate their IT employees to reach their

maximum potential, to be engaged, to embrace change, and to

make good technical decisions. What is the best way for

leaders to manage their IT personnel? How can leaders help

employees deal with stress and burnout? How do IT


Transformational Leadership, 5

professionals want to be motivated? What is important to

them? What is not?

Although there has been a substantial amount of research

done on Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership

and Laissez-Faire Leadership since the 1980s, there has been

limited amount of research conducted in the IT area. Much of

this research has focused more on employee burnout, leadership

styles of IT project managers, and the lack of skills IT

management has to lead people (Kakabadse & Korac-Kakabadse,

2000; Sumner, Bock, & Giamartino, 2006; Hetland, Sandal, &

Backer Johnsen, 2007; Thite, 1999, 2000). It is important to

investigate the perceptions that IT subordinates have of their

managers and to identify the style of leadership under which

IT subordinates perform the best.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the

relationship between the full range of leadership of

Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and

nontransactional Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

styles of IT managers as perceived by their subordinates and

the subordinates Satisfaction with their IT manager, the

subordinates willingness to exert Extra Effort, and the


Transformational Leadership, 6

subordinates perception of the IT managers Effectiveness as

defined by Bass (1985) and Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999).

Research Questions

The following questions were used to guide the research

on the full range of leadership as described by Bass (1985).

1. Is there a significant relationship between the

subordinates perception of the leadership style of IT

managers and subordinates perceptions of IT managers to

inspire extra effort?

2. Is there a significant relationship between the

subordinates perception of the leadership style of IT

managers and subordinates perceptions of IT manager

effectiveness?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the

subordinates perception of the leadership style of IT

managers and subordinates perceptions of IT managers to

enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager?

Hypotheses

This study focused on the full range of leadership that

includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional

Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

and the following hypotheses:


Transformational Leadership, 7

1. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers to inspire extra

effort.

2. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of the IT manager and

the subordinates perception of IT manager effectiveness.

3. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers ability to

enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager.

Scope and Limitation of this Study

This study was limited to people in the IT industry that

utilize the membership of the Association of the Information

Technology Professionals (AITP). This was not a situation

whereby participants were chosen in a random fashion; all

members within AITP were invited to participate.

AITP is a national organization with a membership of over

3,000 people and consists of project managers, analysts,

programmers, supervisory, managers, directors, marketing and

sales, consultants, and academia. This survey will help

researchers identify leadership trends in relation to Extra


Transformational Leadership, 8

Effort, manager Effectiveness, and Satisfaction of their

subordinates.

Assumptions of the Study

This study was based on several assumptions. First, it

was assumed that Transformational Leadership was applicable to

the study of IT professionals. It was assumed that the

Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire or

Passive/Avoidant Leadership factors as well as the outcomes of

Extra Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness were able to

measure the performance of IT professionals. The third

assumption was that the MLQ 5-X survey was able to measure

Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire or

Passive/Avoidant Leadership behavior in the IT industry.

Fourth, IT professionals that responded were able to evaluate

fairly, honestly, and objectively the skills of their leaders.

Finally, this study assumed that the respondents of AITP were

representative of the IT population as a whole.

Summary

Chapter I provided the background and introduction of

Transformational Leadership. It focused briefly on the need

for leaders to engage employees to become better problem

solvers, to think beyond themselves, and to embrace change.


Transformational Leadership, 9

The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the full

range of leadership and the relationship between the

Transformational, Transactional, and nontransactional Laissez-

Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles of IT managers as

perceived by subordinates Satisfaction with their IT manager,

willingness to exert Extra Effort, and perception of IT

manager Effectiveness. Research questions and hypotheses were

briefly explained. The rest of Chapter I focused on the

scope, limitations, and assumptions of this study.

Moving forward, Chapter II provides a literature review

going back to the early 1900s of the various management and

leadership theories that have effected the development of

transformational leadership. Chapter III provides the

methodology by which the survey will be created, distributed,

gathered, and analyzed. It also included substantial evidence

for the reliability and validity of the MLQ 5-X survey

instrument. Chapter 4 includes the analysis and review of the

data. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a summary of what had

occurred, conclusions drawn from the data, and possible

alternatives for future research.


Transformational Leadership, 10

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As our world becomes more complex and more intertwined,

the need for effective leadership has become ever more

critical and challenging for an organizations future success.

Thousands of research studies, books, presentations have been

conducted, written, and presented since the early 1900s in an

effort to better define and understand effective leadership

and its relationship to motivating others to greater

productivity. This review focused on five of the main

organizational leadership theories that have developed over

time. These theories are the great-man theory, trait theory,

behavioral theory, contingency theory, and the most recently,

transformational leadership theory.

Great-Man Theory

In the early 1900s, Great-Man theories were popular and

focused on great leaders that helped to change and shape the

course of world events. These theories focused on such great

leaders as Moses, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and

Winston Churchill and attempted to explain leadership based on

inheritance. The belief was that leaders were born, not made.

Leaders like these possessed specific traits or

characteristics that enabled them to stand out from others, to


Transformational Leadership, 11

attract the necessary followers, to set direction, and to be

strong leaders in their time. These theories evolved and were

the natural forerunners to Trait theory (Bass, 1990;

Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).

Trait Theory

Trait theory focused on identifying superior and specific

traits or characteristics of effective leaders and much of

this work was developed in the first half of the 1900s.

Stogdill (1948) surveyed over 100 studies that conducted trait

theory research from the 1920s to the late 1940s. In his

survey, Stogdill noted several different research methods had

been used including: observation, case study, interview,

standardized testing that focused on intelligence and or

personality, as well as factor analysis. He found research

that had looked at all ages, pre-school through adult.

Several different characteristics were analyzed and studied,

including: chronological age, height, weight, physique,

energy, health, appearance, ability to speak and influence,

intelligence, knowledge, judgment and decision, insight,

originality, adaptability, introversion/extroversion,

dominance, initiative, persistence, responsibility, integrity,

self-confidence, mood control, emotional control, social and

economic status, social skills, and popularity.


Transformational Leadership, 12

The results of Stogdills survey concluded that no traits

were consistently identified that could separate followers

from leaders. Fifteen or more of the studies supported the

concept that the average leader had higher intelligence,

scholarship, and dependability than the average member of

their group. Stogdill also found the highest correlations to

be between leadership and originality, popularity, and

sociability. There was some low positive correlation between

leadership and age, height, weight, and energy (Stogdill,

1948). Perhaps one of the most interesting findings was that

Stogdill noted that an individual might be a leader in one

situation but not in another (Stogdill, 1948).

Mann (1959) followed Stogdills study and looked at

leadership in small group settings. In his research of

studies from 1900 to 1957, Mann identified over 500 different

measures of personality. From these, he identified seven

major dimensions including intelligence, adjustment,

extroversion-introversion, dominance, masculinity-femininity,

conservatism, and interpersonal sensitivity and compared

results of these with leadership. In his research, Mann found

that several studies had identified a highly significant

relationship between leadership and intelligence, adjustment,

and extroversion. Multiple times, dominance, masculinity, and

interpersonal sensitivity were also positively related to


Transformational Leadership, 13

leadership. There was also some evidence that the technique

used for measuring leadership may have impacted the results.

Mann believed there also may be a situational element with

leadership as well. However, Mann did not identify traits or

characteristics that were universal in all studies.

Several years later, Stogdill (1974) commented that it

was difficult to identify specific traits because traits act

in combination to effect group performance. Different

situations may require different combinations of traits to

effect group productivity. Fieldler (1967) noted that there

is very limited ability to predict who will be the leaders

based on traits alone. Vroom (1976) noted that there is not

one trait that could be used for selecting leaders for every

situation. The concept is more complex than that and

leadership may be more situational in nature. In addition,

other studies such as Chaffee (1989) and Kenny and Zaccaro

(1983) have not been able to identify specific traits that

separate leaders from followers.

However, Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) go further to argue

that this does not mean that specific traits dont exist. The

real problem is inadequate research measurement strategies.

Instead, they recommended further development of better tools

to measure traits more accurately. Lord, De Vader, and George

(1985) and Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argued that traits do


Transformational Leadership, 14

make a difference and there is plenty of evidence to support

that claim. Lord et al. (1985) believed that the studies

completed by Stogdill and Mann were erroneous in a variety of

ways and therefore created wrong conclusions. Results were

over generalized and were interpreted too negatively. Better

methodology exists today that would provide better results.

Other studies have supported trait theory by identifying

specific key leadership traits or characteristics (Kilpatrick

& Locke, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; & Boyatzis, 1982).

Kilpatrick and Locke (1991) identified six traits or

characteristics; drive, leadership motivation, honesty and

integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge

of the business. Kouzes and Posner (1993) identified four key

characteristics: being honest, forward-looking, inspiring, and

competent. Boyatzis (1982) identified a different set of four

key characteristics: self-confidence, use of oral

presentations, logical thought, and conceptualization.

Although trait theory research and debate will continue, it

has also helped to move leadership theory in a logical

progression from a study of leadership traits to one of

leadership behaviors.
Transformational Leadership, 15

Behavioral Theory

Research on leadership behaviors began in the late 1920s

and focused on identifying behaviors of effective leaders.

What do managers and leaders do and how do they make

decisions? The list of normal activities can be lengthy and

the decision making process can be very formal. Most managers

are responsible for planning, staffing, directing,

coordinating, controlling, and leading. In reality, many

times, management activities are reactive, unorganized, and

hectic. Decisions are often made with a limited amount of

information (Cribbin, 1972; Tosi & Carroll, 1976; Mintzberg,

1973; Isenberg, 1984; Mintzberg & McHugh, 1985; Schweiger,

Anderson, & Locke, 1985; Cohen & March, 1986; Kouzes & Posner,

1987).

Many leadership studies were conducted and theories were

developed over the next thirty to fifty years. Some of the

key efforts included the study done by Western Electric

Company and Mayo, multiple concepts and theories put forth by

the University of Michigan as well as Ohio State University,

the Managerial Grid model by Blake and Mouton, participative

leadership with Theory X and Theory Y by McGregor, and a host

of others.
Transformational Leadership, 16

Western Electric Company - Hawthorne Studies

From 1927 to 1932, a select group of operators at the

Western Electric Company were asked to produce relays under a

variety of conditions. No matter how the conditions changed,

production improved. After an investigation by several

researchers, including Elton Mayo, it was determined that

there was a link between supervision, morale, and

productivity. Supervisors had become more open with the

workers. They demonstrated more willingness to listen and

showed more concern with the workers about their lives outside

of work. Their behavior positively influenced the results and

helped to create an informal social group that supported

teamwork and productivity (Mayo, 1933). This study, better

known as the Hawthorne Studies, helped lead the way for the

human relations movement.

Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan

Several studies have been conducted at the Survey

Research Center at the University of Michigan and have often

focused on five dimensions of managements Effectiveness: the

uniqueness of the managers role, employee-centered versus the

production-centered manager, level of giving direction,

relationship with the team, and the type of leadership the

manager experiences with their superior (Cribbin, 1972).


Transformational Leadership, 17

Through these efforts, a variety of management systems were

reviewed (Likert, 1967). Two leadership research studies

often discussed in literature were completed in the 1940s.

The first focused on white collar workers and the second

focused on railroad workers.

White Collar Workers

In 1947, the Survey Research Center conducted a study led

by Katz, MacCoby, and Morse that focused on employee

Satisfaction and productivity of white collar workers (Katz,

MacCoby, & Morse, 1950; Morse, 1953). The survey focused on

high producing and low producing clerical work groups within a

large organization. Over 800 employees, workers, first line

supervisors, and second line supervisors, were surveyed. Over

80% of those surveyed were female. Over 95% were American

born. Interestingly, they noted that over 75% of those

interviewed were not married and 66% lived at home.

There were a few limitations noted in this study. The

employees surveyed were not taken from a true random sample.

In addition, research was conducted through a series of

interviews and research questions but without front line

observations.

This study focused on the following supervisory

behavioral traits: closeness of supervision, degree of


Transformational Leadership, 18

authority delegated to employees, degree of pressure imposed

on subordinates, approach to employees, freedom of conduct

permitted to employees, and warm versus cold personality (Katz

et al., 1950; Morse, 1953). Results identified two main types

of supervisors. The first type would apply general

supervisory practices with employees. They would delegate

work and authority to employees, be less harsh when providing

punishment, consider workers as human beings, and demonstrate

a warm personality in the workplace. The second type of

supervisor provided closer supervision, delegated less work,

focused more on the tasks at hand, and demonstrated a colder

personality. In addition, results identified a trend that

when employees worked for supervisors that demonstrated

general supervisory practices, they felt stronger team

identification and demonstrated higher productivity. Again,

this was only a trend because some situations were noted where

close supervision also produced higher productivity (Katz et

al., 1950; Morse, 1953).

Railroad Workers

In 1948 and 1949, the Survey Research Center conducted a

study on railroad foremen and workers of the Chesapeake and

Ohio Railroad in Michigan. The study attempted to measure

differences between foremen that worked in high performing


Transformational Leadership, 19

groups of workers and other foremen that worked in low

performing groups. Specifically, the study focused on the

relationship between attitudes and behavior as well as the

relationship between productivity and morale (Katz, MacCoby,

Gurin, & Floor, 1951).

From the study, it appeared that foremen in high

performing groups had slightly more education and more

experience but differences in age, birthplace, and length of

service on the railroad were not significant. Survey results

indicated that foremen of high performing groups spent more

time supervising, planning, and leading while spending less

time doing the same job as their workers. Workers in high

performing groups believed that their foreman took more

personal interest in them, took more interest in their

training and development, were less punitive when things went

wrong, and were more people oriented than their counterparts

(Katz et al., 1951).

Researchers identified a few limitations of this study.

Research was gathered through interviews with both foremen and

workers rather than through direct observations. This raised

a concern because foremen and workers could say in the

interview they responded a certain way in a specific situation

when, in reality, they might do something quite different.

Secondly, it was difficult for researchers and foremen to


Transformational Leadership, 20

identify the high performers individually. The necessary data

to do this was not available (Katz et al., 1951).

Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University

The Ohio State Leadership Studies began a ten year

program in 1945, organized to develop a better understanding

of leadership. Hundreds of leadership studies were conducted

in business, education, and in the military and focused in a

variety of ways on Satisfaction, morale and performance

(Stogdill & Shartle, 1955; Scott, 1956; Campbell, 1956; Kerr &

Schriesheim, 1974; Korman, 1966; Cribbins, 1972). Cribbins

(1972) noted the Ohio State Leadership Studies identified two

key variables: consideration and initiation of structure.

Stogdill and Shartle (1955) summarized results from several

studies that identified new tools and methods for research.

Campbell (1956) conducted a leadership study on U.S. naval

submarines and is one of many conducted by the Ohio State

Leadership Studies. Both of these are described below.

New Tools and Methods for Research

Stogdill and Shartle (1955) identified seven methods that

could be used to study any type of organization with work to

complete. They wanted to measure what leaders do as well as

specific aspects of the organization. These methods included


Transformational Leadership, 21

conducting interviews, reviewing organization charts and

manuals, measuring preference relationships and sociometric

methods, measuring the responsibility, authority, and

delegation of leaders (RAD scales), conducting administrative

performance reviews (work analysis forms), identifying leader

behaviors (leader behavior descriptions), and Effectiveness

ratings. Stogdill and Shartle (1955) also documented the

reliability and validity of each method.

U.S. Naval Submarines

In the early 1950s, Campbell conducted leadership

research on officers and enlisted men serving on ten U.S.

naval submarines. Using a variety of data sources and

surveys, researchers focused part of their study on the

following leadership behaviors: communication up, recognition,

organization, initiation, membership, communication down,

integration, production, representation, and non-domination.

Results indicated that subordinates viewed leaders at any

level that stressed production as more unpopular. Non-

dominating leaders positively affected crew morale. Crew

members preferred leaders that were high on integration,

communication down, initiation, recognition, and organization.

The best leaders were especially high on integration and

recognition (Campbell, 1956).


Transformational Leadership, 22

The Managerial Grid

Blake and Mouton (1964) focused on managements attitudes

and practices. They broke that down into concern for people

and concern for production, or getting the work done. To help

measure the relationship between these two factors and how

they effect managements behavior, Blake and Mouton created a

9 X 9 table. Managements concern for production was placed

on the horizontal axis. Managements concern for people was

placed on the vertical axis. Several theories can be

demonstrated by using this table and varying the different

levels of concern and production. However, Blake and Mouton

focused primarily on five theories, one in each corner of this

table and the fifth in the middle. They believe these

theories are commonly demonstrated in a wide range of

organizations and cultures. These leadership theories are:

1. Grid 1,1 Impoverished Management - Management has both

a low concern for production and people. In this

situation, little is expected by the manager and little

is given.

2. Grid 9,1 Task Management - Management has a high

concern for production and a low concern for people. In

this scenario, management can be seen as a task master


Transformational Leadership, 23

and only focused on efficiency and getting the work done.

Blake and Mouton ties this to entrepreneurship.

3. Grid 5,5 Dampened Pendulum Management - Management has

an intermediate concern for production and a moderate

concern for employees. Issues are resolved through

compromise and persuasive logic. For the most part,

people are satisfied in these conditions.

4. Grid 1,9 Country Club Management - Management has a

high concern for people and a low concern for production.

In this setting, people come first. Managements focus

is on the security, well-being, and the comfort of the

employees. They focus on praise and on the positive

things the team is accomplishing.

5. Grid 9,9 Team Management - Management has both a high

concern for people and production. Unlike the other four

approaches, management does not see a conflict between

getting the work done and concern for the people. Each

benefits the other. In this case, management is focused

on encouraging creativity, high productivity, high

morale, accomplishment, and contribution. People and

production are tied together (Blake & Mouton, 1964).

Of these five, Blake and Mouton (1964, 1981) and Cribbins

(1972) recommended the Grid 9,9 management style as the best

to use.
Transformational Leadership, 24

Participative Leadership

Participative leadership is part of behavior theory and

has been documented in several studies (Cotton, Vollrath,

Froggati, Longneck-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Miller & Monge,

1986; Wagner & Gooding, 1987.) These studies support the idea

that participation is multidimensional and its effect on

employee Satisfaction and performance has been inconsistent.

Theory X and Theory Y are two of the prevalent theories and

have helped to focus on two different approaches management

take with their employees (McGregor, 1960).

Theory X

McGregor (1960) was the key person in developing Theory X

and Theory Y. Theory X suggested that people must be coerced

and threatened to work. People do not like to work. They

wish to avoid responsibility and prefer to be told what to do

rather than think for themselves. Based on this approach,

management would have to provide closer detailed supervision

and focus on control. However, McGregor also believed that

Theory X over simplified employee motivation. Needs change.

As one need for a person is satisfied, another is raised, and

in turn, the person must then work to satisfy that need. This

effort never ends. Examples of needs include the need for


Transformational Leadership, 25

food, for shelter, for safety, for sex, for self-esteem and

acceptance, and for love. Both McGregor (1960) and Maslow

(1954) focused on the different levels of needs and how they

related to motivation and Satisfaction. Malsow (1954) looked

at the individual as a complex whole. Although McGregor was

encouraging use of Theory Y, some authors have pointed out

there is still a need for Theory X managers for some employees

respond better in those situations (Bobic & Davis, 2003;

Harter, 1997; Meeker, 1982).

Theory Y

McGregor (1960) wanted management to move toward Theory

Y, a model that was more encouraging and humanitarian in

nature. Under the right conditions, people would seek

responsibility and work would be more satisfying. The threat

of punishment was not the only way to motivate. Employees

have ambition. They have a desire to be creative and to add

meaning to their lives. Theory Y stresses focusing on these

desires and notes that both the needs of the employees and the

organization must be recognized and acknowledged.

Organizations will be most successful when employee goals and

organization goals are integrated, aligned together, and in

the same direction (McGregor, 1960; Carson, 2005). Although

many managers voice support for Theory Y, management still too


Transformational Leadership, 26

often acts with Theory X in mind (Halal, 1981). Despite this

concern, these two theories have heavily influenced

managements approach to controlling employee behavior today.

Behavior models and theory have helped to reveal more

about leadership, management, and motivation. Yet, research

has not been able to identify leadership traits or behaviors

that were consistently appropriate to use in every situation.

Some research has gone further to suggest that different

situations may require different leadership styles and

approaches. This concept has led to a major shift in thinking

and to contingency theory.

Contingency Theory

The four most prevalent contingency models of leadership

include Fiedlers contingency model, Hersey and Blachards

situational model, Houses path-goal model, and the leader-

participation model.

Fiedlers Contingency Model

Fiedlers theory was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and

was viewed as a complement the Michigan and Ohio State studies

(Cribbins, 1972). Hundreds of articles and book chapters have

been written in support and several studies have validated

Fiedlers theory (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984;


Transformational Leadership, 27

Fiedler, 1987). The theory is based on the concept that very

few leaders are successful in all situations. Situations will

change but a leaders style typically does not change, except

perhaps gradually over time. Fiedler believes the key for a

leaders success is to find the right match between a leaders

style and the situation (Fiedler, 1967, 1987). Cribbins

(1972) goes on to say it is easier to fit the situation to the

manager than to change the manager.

Fiedler looked at leaders as having primarily one of two

styles, task-oriented or relationship oriented. Success will

depend on both a leaders typical style and situational

control. Situational control is the amount of control and

influence a leader has in a situation and can be subdivided

into leader member relations, task structure, and position

power (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Fiedler, 1987).

Fiedler developed a survey to determine leadership style.

The survey requests the user to identify the Least Preferred

Coworker (LPC) the user has ever worked with and then to work

through a series of choices to determine a score. If the

overall score was 73 or higher, the user had a high LPC and

was considered a relationship-motivated leader. If the score

was 64 or lower, the user had a low LPC and was considered a

task-motivated leader (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984).


Transformational Leadership, 28

In low control situations, high LPC leaders seek group

support and may become so concerned about group support that

they fail to get the job done. In high control situations,

high LPC leaders may become board, look to get more into the

details, and come across bossy (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler &

Chemers, 1984; Fiedler, 1987).

In low control situations, low LPC leaders focus on the

job. They are not that concerned about what others think and

may seem harsh in completing tasks. In high control

situations and when low LPC leaders are confident the work

will get done, low LPC leaders are more relaxed and more

friendly (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Fiedler,

1987).

In summary, no research on Fiedlers theory has yet

indicated that there is one best leadership style. In

addition, Fiedlers work indicates that task motivated leaders

are most effective in high control or low control situations.

Relationship motivated leaders are most effective in moderate

control situations (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984;

Fiedler, 1987).

Hersey and Blachards Situational Model

Hersey and Blanchards work built upon Michigan and Ohio

State studies (Cribbins, 1972) as well as on research


Transformational Leadership, 29

conducted by W. J. Reddin and others (Reddin, 1967; Reddin &

Stuart-Kotze, 1973; Veechio, 1987; Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1981;

Bass, 1990). This theory focused primarily on the

relationship between tasks and relationships as well as

readiness (originally identified as maturity). Using these

variables, Hersey and Blanchard identified four different

leadership styles, one of which would be the most appropriate

to use based on the specific situation. The four styles are:

telling or directing, persuading or coaching, participating or

supporting, and delegating (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1996;

Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996).

Hersey and Blanchard related the different styles of

leadership to the different growth phases of a child. At

first, the relationship between parent and child is high task

low relationship. The parent provides the structure to

feed, to clothe, to bathe, and to take care of all of the

childs needs. The leadership style used is telling or

directing. As the child grows and develops, the relationship

changes and becomes more high task high relationship. The

child matures and gains trust from the parent. In this

situation, the leadership style changed to persuading or

coaching. In the third situation, the child goes to college

and takes on more responsibility and accountability in meeting

personal and emotional needs. As a result, the parent child


Transformational Leadership, 30

relationship is more low task high relationship and the

leadership style changed to participating or supporting.

Finally, as the child begins to make their own living, the

structure and support by the parent decreases and the

relationship has changed to low task low relationships and

the leadership style is delegating. Both in working with a

child or with an employee, these changes are gradual and must

evolve from one phase to the next. Yet, it is not as much

about leadership as it is focusing on and meeting employees

needs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1996; Hersey, Blanchard, &

Johnson, 1996).

Although this theory is widely known and accepted, there

have been detractors and limited research conducted to support

this theory (Veechio, 1987). Graeff (1983) noted several

weaknesses of the model as well as with the leader

Effectiveness and adaptability description instrument.

Veechio (1987) noted that Hersey and Blanchard tried to tie

their theory back to several earlier theories but noted that

still does not validate their model. Yet, Veechio (1987)

provided at least partial support in a study that focused on

303 teachers in 14 high schools.

Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) conducted a survey of 159

managers of an unspecified company. Study results supported

the validity of the model and indicated that managers that


Transformational Leadership, 31

applied the theory appropriately performed significantly

better and employee job performance increased. Although this

study looked promising, more needs to be done before findings

can be generalized. The manager sample was not representative

of the entire company and much of the data was gathered

through self-reported surveys (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).

Houses Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Model

This theory is based on the expectancy theory of

motivation discussed by Vroom (1982). House and Mitchell

(1974) noted that the Path-Goal theory of leadership is

similar to other contingency theories in that it helps define

different leadership styles but it also goes further to

explain why a specific leadership style is most effective.

The basic focus of this model is on how the leader influences

employee perceptions on their goals and the path on how to

achieve these goals. A leader motivates, clear obstacles, and

helps employees to achieve their goals. Employees are

motivated and energized if they believe their work helps lead

to achieving their goals (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House &

Mitchell, 1974; Mitchell, 1974).

In this model, there are four leader behaviors, two

contingency factors, and three subordinate attitudes and

behavior. The four leader behaviors are directive,


Transformational Leadership, 32

supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative. The

contingency factors include both subordinate characteristics

and environmental factors. The subordinate characteristics

include authoritarianism, locus of control, and ability and

they influence personal perceptions. The environmental

factors include: task, formal authority system, and primary

work group which influences constraints and rewards. The

three subordinate attitudes and behaviors include: job

Satisfaction which leads to rewards, acceptance of leader

which leads to rewards, and motivational behavior effort which

leads to performance and then rewards (Evans, 1970; House,

1971; House & Mitchell, 1974; Mitchell, 1974).

Research conducted on this model has been inconsistent.

House (1971) provided information from two studies that

generally supported this theory. However, Dessler and Valenzi

(1977) and Schriesheim and Glinow (1977) provided mixed

results on several other studies.

The Great-Man theories, trait theories, behavioral

theories, and contingency theories have been helpful in

introducing new ideas and proposing new questions. Over time,

focus has moved from leadership traits, to leadership

behaviors, to using different leadership styles in various

situations. However, the models discussed so far have not


Transformational Leadership, 33

agreed on the best approach for leaders to motivate and

influence their followers to higher productivity.

Theories had focused primarily on making operations more

efficient. Researchers had looked for ways to increase

production and improve operations (Bass, 1985). Employee

motivation was key. Vrooms expectancy theory noted that

motivation effects job performance and that workers were

motivated by receiving rewards and avoiding punishment. They

tied the level of their effort to their expected outcome.

Workers were motivated by wages, social interaction, and

social status of their position. Employees were transaction

driven (Vroom, 1982). Transactional leaders understood the

needs of their employees and how to meet those needs in

exchange for the appropriate level of effort. Transactional

leaders focused on efficiencies, current processes,

maintaining the status quo, and meeting contractual agreements

(Bass, 1985).

However, there was a piece missing. Researchers saw

situations where groups were led by visionary and charismatic

leaders that helped their organizations achieve more than what

was believed possible (Bass, 1985; House, 1977). These

leaders helped to move their members from the lower levels of

Maslow hierarchy of needs to the higher levels that included

the need for growth, self-actualization and developing their


Transformational Leadership, 34

own potential (Maslow, 1954; Bass, 1985). Charismatic leaders

such as these included Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King

Jr., President John Kennedy, and Lee Iacocca. These leaders

were able to transform their followers, to raise their level

of awareness, to help them think beyond themselves for the

good of the organization, and to move the organization beyond

what others thought possible (Bass, 1985). Researchers and

events like these have helped lay the foundation for

transformational leadership theory.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

Strands of transformational leadership theory can be

traced back thousands of years to Plato (Takala, 1998) and

Xenophon (Howland, 2000). In more modern times, it can be

linked to thoughts from Follet & Bernard (Humphreys &

Einstein, 2003), Taylor (Wren, 2005), and Weber (Jones, 2001).

In addition, substantial research on charisma has provided a

major influence on the development of transformational

leadership (Downton, 1973; House, 1977; DeGroot, Kiker, &

Cross, 2000; Jones, 2001; Humphreys & Einstein, 2003).

Theories from Burns and Bass

The more modern day body of thought on Transactional and

Transformational Leadership began to develop in the 1970s and


Transformational Leadership, 35

1980s. Downton (1973) was recognized as one of the first to

use the phrase, transformational leadership. Burns (1978)

soon followed with a focus on Transformational Leadership and

Transactional Leadership in the political arena. Burns

further defined the concepts of Transactional and

Transformational Leadership and looked at them as opposites

(Burns 1978). Bass added to these concepts but believed that

managers could demonstrate both depending on the situation

(Bass, 1985). Later, Bass et al. (1987) and Waldman, Bass,

and Yammarino (1990) noted that Transformational Leadership

was an extension of Transactional Leadership. Much of the

research on Transformational Leadership today goes back to the

original works of Burns and Bass.

Burns and Bass define Transformational Leadership as

leadership that motivates and appeals to followers ideals and

moral values to do more. Transformational Leaders look to

inspire, to set direction and vision, to empower subordinates

to participate and take the initiative in changing the

organization. As workers think beyond themselves, they would

then provide Extra Effort to do the work, take more

Satisfaction from their jobs, be Effective in getting the job

done, and increase productivity. Transformational Leaders

take a real interest in the well being of their employees

(Howell & Avolio, 1993). Bass (1985) believed that


Transformational Leadership, 36

Transformational Leadership would result in employees

performing beyond expectations and that improvement could be

due to the followers commitment to the leader and their sense

of purpose and mission. Followers would demonstrate Extra

Effort, Satisfaction, Effectiveness, and overall productivity

in their jobs. They would also demonstrate more trust and

respect toward the leader. Transformational Leaders were

highly charismatic leaders that led, inspired, and improved

behavior and productivity (Bass, 1985; Tucker & Russell,

2004).

On the other hand, Transactional Leadership motivated

subordinates by appealing to their personal desires. Burns

described this as a favor-for-favor exchange (Burns, 1978).

Rewards were based on expected performance. Transactional

leaders focused on doing things right while Transformational

leaders focused on doing the right things (Bass, 1985).

Bass (1985) found evidence for five leadership factors:

Individualized Consideration, Charismatic Leadership,

Intellectual Stimulation, Contingent Rewards, and Management-

By-Exception. Transformational Leadership consisted of the

first three: Charismatic Leadership, Individualized

Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation. Transactional

Leadership consisted of the last two factors: Contingent

Rewards and Management-By-Exception.


Transformational Leadership, 37

Based on additional research approximately between 1985

and 1995, the theory was expanded to denote three types of

leadership behavior: Transformational, Transactional, and

nontransactional Laissez-Faire Leadership or Passive

Leadership and is referred to as the full range of leadership

(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Also, the

theory expanded to nine factors: five transformational

factors, three transactional factors, and one nontransactional

Leadership factor (Hater & Bass, 1988; Yammarino & Bass, 1990;

Howell & Avolio, 1993, Den Hartog et al., 1997; Avolio et al.,

1999; Bass et al., 1999; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington,

2001; Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson,

2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Barbuto Jr., 2005; Rowold &

Heinitz, 2007).

Lowe et al. (1996), DeGroot, Kiker and Cross (2000),

Dumdum et al. (2002), and Judge and Piccolo (2004) all

conducted meta-analysis of multiple studies. Together, they

provided a review of hundreds of studies completed over the

past twenty years. Over that time, it appeared that there has

been fairly consistent support for the key factors of

Transformational Leadership: Charisma/Idealized Influence,

Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and

Individual Consideration (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).


Transformational Leadership, 38

Yet, the theory continues to be modified. Antonakis et

al. (2003) suggested using Idealized Influence instead of

Charisma and that Idealized Influence should be separated into

two parts: Attributed and Behavior. Hater and Bass (1988)

noted that Management-By-Exception should be divided into two

parts: Active and Passive. Avolio and Bass (2004), Avolio et

al. (1999), Geyer and Steyrer (1998), and Den Hartog et al.

(1997) suggested using the term Passive/Avoidant instead of

Laissez-Faire because it was more descriptive as the third

leadership type, that Management-By-Exception (active) was a

better fit with Transactional Leadership, and Management-By-

Exception (passive) was a better fit with laissez faire as two

subscales under the third type of leadership, now identified

as Passive/Avoidant.

Transformational Leadership Key Factors

There are five key factors of Transformational

Leadership. Idealized Influence (attributed) refers to

charisma, being confident and powerful, focusing on ethics,

and followers identifying with the leader. Idealized

Influence (behavior) refers to charismatic actions focused on

values and missions, as well as having a trustworthy role

model to follow (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003).

This work extended Houses view of charisma and his focus on


Transformational Leadership, 39

the interaction between the leader and follower (Bass, 1985;

House, 1977). Inspirational Motivation allows leaders to

share a positive vision of the future and challenge followers

to high standards and morals. Through Intellectual

Stimulation, leaders question current traditions and beliefs

and look for new ways of doing things. Questioning beliefs is

encouraged. Employees are encouraged to think for themselves.

Through Individualized Consideration, leaders deal with people

as individuals and focus on individual strengths and

development areas and help them achieve the higher parts of

Maslows needs hierarchy. They helped improve worker

Satisfaction (Bass, 1985; Antonakis, Avolio, &

Sivasubramaniam, 2003).

Transactional Leadership Key Factors

There are two key factors of Transactional Leadership.

Contingent Reward allows leaders to clarify expectations, make

promises, negotiate, and reward for successful performance.

Management-By-Exception (active) allows leaders to monitor

performance and take action if performance deviates. It also

is pro-active in trying to prevent mistakes (Bass, 1985;

Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999; Geyer & Steyrer,

1998; Den Hartog et al., 1997).


Transformational Leadership, 40

Passive/Avoidant Leadership Key Factors

There are two key factors of Passive/Avoidant Leadership.

Management-By-Exception (passive) allows leaders to monitor

performance and take action if performance deviates. This

occurs when leaders wait to jump in until problems become

serious. They wait until mistakes are brought to their

attention. Laissez-Faire describes the leader that avoids

responsibilities, fails to follow up on issues, and basically

demonstrates a lack of any kind of leadership (Antonakis et

al., 2003; Bass 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,

1999: Geyer & Steyrer, 1998; Sarver, 2008).

Measuring Outcomes of Different Leadership Styles

Basss model proposes that Transformational Leadership will

contribute more to a followers or workers Extra Effort in

doing the work, Effectiveness of getting the job done, and

Satisfaction with their management than Transactional

Leadership or Nontransactional Laissez-Faire

(Passive/Avoidant) Leadership (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass,

2004; Avolio et al., 1999). Extra Effort pertains to leaders

getting others to do more than expected, to try harder, and be

more productive than they thought they could. Satisfaction

pertains to follower Satisfaction with the leader and how the

leader helps followers to work with others in a satisfying


Transformational Leadership, 41

way. Effectiveness pertains to the ability of the leader in

meeting individual, group, and organizational needs, and

leading the group and getting results. All three outcomes are

from the view of the employee (Bass 1985). Others have also

conducted research on the effect of Transformational

Leadership on Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness with

positive supporting results (Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Medley &

Larochelle, 1995; Densten, 2002; zaralli, 2003; Chen, 2004).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ

Bass created the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) to measure the effect of the three independent variables

of Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and

Nontransactional Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

upon the three dependent variables of Extra Effort,

Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass,

2004). Since the beginning, various versions of the MLQ have

been used in over 20 countries and translated in 12 languages

(Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Originally, the survey included 73 items and was based on

the original five factors identified by Bass (1985). Over the

last twenty years, a number of factor models have been used by

researchers and items have been changed, added, or eliminated.

Although the MLQ survey has been by far the most often used
Transformational Leadership, 42

tool when measuring transformational leadership, it also has

had its critics (Dumdum et al., 2002). Hater and Bass (1988)

made a major change when they split management-by-exception

into active and passive components. Den Hartog, Muijen, and

Koopman (1997) altered their scale when they found that

internal consistency was missing from two of the three scales.

Carless (1998) indicated that the MLQ survey does not measure

separate transformational behaviors but instead, it measured a

single construct of Transformational Leadership. Tejeda,

Scandura, and Pillai (2001) questioned the reliability and

validity of the MLQ instrument and recommended using a 27 item

reduced version. Multiple studies documented the concern that

Contingent Reward was related to Transformational Leadership

(Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Waldman, et al., 1990;

Goodwin et al., 2001). Avolio, Bass, & Jung (1999)

acknowledged several shortcomings of the survey and after

additional studies, revised it to 36 items. Rafferty and

Griffin (2004) has gone further to recommend that the five

components of Transformational Leadership should be: Vision,

Inspirational Communication, Intellectual Stimulation,

Supportive Leadership, and Personal Recognition.

Today, the MLQ-5X contains 45 items. It takes

approximately 15 minutes to complete and is at a U.S. ninth-

grade reading level (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Of those 45, 36


Transformational Leadership, 43

items were based on the current nine components that make up

the full range of leadership noted earlier. The other nine

items assess three leadership outcomes (Antonakis et al.,

2003). Antonakis et al. (2003) and Barge and Schlueter (1991)

also support the current MLQ-5X as being a valid and reliable

instrument.

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture

Several studies have looked at how Transformational

Leadership not only affects the individual but also the

behavior and culture of the organization. At times, the MLQ

survey instrument was modified and the results of these

studies have varied (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994; Masi & Cooke,

2000; Maswood, Dani, Burns, & Backhouse, 2006; Schlechter &

Engelbrecht, 2006; Xenikou & Simois, 2006; Boerner,

Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007).

Transformational Leadership and Society

Researchers have broadened out and are looking more at

the effect of Transformational and Transactional Leadership on

productivity within different societies. Jung and Avolio

(1999) divided cultures into two groups: individualists and

collectivists. People in individualist societies were more

focused in satisfying their own interests and needs.


Transformational Leadership, 44

Individual initiative, individual achievement and goals, and

personal rewards were most prized. With that perspective, it

would appear that individualist societies would work better

under Transactional Leadership (Jung & Avolio, 1999).

People in collectivist societies were more focused on

group or team goals. Followers in this kind of society would

be expected to more readily accept the leaders beliefs. With

this perspective, collectivist societies would be expected to

work better under Transformational Leadership (Jung & Avolio,

1999).

Jung and Avolio (1999) conducted a test of this logic

with 347 college students that consisted of a mix of Asian and

Caucasians, males and females. The group was divided into two

groups of Asians and two groups of Caucasians. A

transformational leader led one group from each type and a

transactional leader led the second group of each type. Each

group was given the task to brainstorm and generate ideas on

how best to achieve a specific goal. Because of culture, the

two Asian groups were viewed as collectivist groups and

Caucasians were viewed as individualist groups. Expectations

were that the Asian group led by a transformational leader and

the Caucasian group led by a transactional leader would

produce the best results. To help measure the results, the

students took the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)


Transformational Leadership, 45

Form 5X to measure Transformational and Transactional

Leadership for each leader.

Study results found that collectivists led by a

transformational leader generated more ideas than with a

transactional leader. The study also showed that

individualists generated more ideas with a transactional

leader than with a transformational leader. Group performance

appeared higher than individuals working alone. This study

also provided some insight on how work might be organized

differently for individual groups versus collectivists (Jung &

Avolio, 1999). Several studies in recent years have supported

the positive impact that Transformational Leadership can

provide on culture and productivity but more research is

needed to refine understanding of leadership and culture (Jung

& Avolio, 1999; Kuchinke, 1999; Walumbawa, Lawler, Avolio,

Wang, & Shi, 2005; Felfe, Tartler, & Liepmann, 2004;

Prabhakar, 2005; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).

Transformational Leadership and Ethics

There has been some discussion that Transformational

Leadership, depending on the leader, may actually encourage

followers in unethical directions. In recent years, with news

events surrounding Enron and other companies, integrity in

leadership is becoming an increasing concern. Without


Transformational Leadership, 46

integrity and ethical leadership, companies may be at risk.

Companies that act ethically have been found to have increased

effectiveness, a stronger culture, lower turnover rates, and

increased effort. Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) conducted

a study to measure this relationship between transformational

leadership and leader integrity. The study used both the

Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) (Craig & Gustafson,

1998) and the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and

distributed them to 6025 managers throughout New Zealand.

This sample included member lists from both public and private

management organizations. 1354 surveys were returned. A

large percentage of the managers were male and European. The

study showed a significant positive correlation between

transformational leadership and perceived integrity which in

turn, correlated with perceptions of organizational

effectiveness (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). Other research

also suggests that transformational leadership can help create

a climate supportive of ethical behavior (Banerji & Krishnan,

2000; Krishnan, 2001; Odom & Green, 2003). This research so

far appears to support the link between transformational

leadership, morality, and organization effectiveness as cited

by both Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) many years before.


Transformational Leadership, 47

Summary

This chapter presented a brief literature review of

leadership theory that has evolved from the great man theory

in the early 1900s to trait theory, behavior theory,

contingency theory, and now to the full range of leadership

that includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional

Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,

1999). Many studies have given support to Transformational,

Transactional and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

styles as well as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ-5X) measuring tool.

Transactional Leadership focused on day-to-day

activities, status quo, operation efficiencies of the

operations, and motivated employees by appealing to individual

desires. Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership was

totally hands off management and took no responsibility for

the actions of others (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio

et al., 1999). Transformational Leadership was an extension

of Transactional Leadership and looked to motivate and inspire

followers to do more, to develop themselves further, and to do

more than they themselves thought possible (Bass, 1985). Bass

created the MLQ instrument to measure the effect of the three

independent variables of Transformational Leadership,


Transformational Leadership, 48

Transactional Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or

Passive/Avoidant Leadership upon the three dependent variables

of Extra Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (Bass, 1985;

Avolio et al., 1999). This particular study will be used to

extend research on this full range of leadership which

included Transformational Leadership, Transactional

Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership.


Transformational Leadership, 49

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology used for

this study. It includes the hypotheses, design of the sample,

design of the measuring instrument, content validity and

reliability of the MLQ-5X, data collection, and data analysis.

Hypotheses

This study focused on the full range of leadership that

includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional

Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership

and the following hypotheses:

1. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers to inspire extra

effort.

2. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of the IT manager and

the subordinates perception of IT manager effectiveness.

3. There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers ability to

enhance subordinate satisfaction.


Transformational Leadership, 50

Sample Population

IT employees are one key to a companys future success

and this research looks to identify the leadership style that

manages and motivates their IT employees to be the most

productive, to put forth the greatest Extra Effort and obtain

the greatest Satisfaction. To do that, this study focused on

the 3,000 members of the Association of Information Technology

Professionals (AITP) (www.aitp.org).

AITP provides educational opportunities and professional

networking with almost 3,000 IT experienced peers, IT

professionals, educators, and students. AITP members work in

every aspect of IT including mainframe systems, PCs, and PC

based network systems. They work in colleges and

universities, military, government, and business and have

different education levels, technical backgrounds, and ages.

The demographics of this organization are presented and

summarized in Table 1 - Demographics Comparison, located in

Chapter IV.

The Instrument

Survey Design

The survey used in this study included the latest 45

questions from the MLQ followed by eight multiple choice


Transformational Leadership, 51

demographic questions. The MLQ instrument contains 45 items

that measure leadership and effectiveness.

Thirty-six items focused on the nine subscales of the

three independent variables. Twenty items focused on the

Transformational Leadership independent variable: four each

for the Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence

(behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual

Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration subscales.

Eight items focused on the Transactional Leadership

independent variable: four each for the Contingent Reward and

Management-By-Exception (active) subscales. Eight items

focused on the Passive/Avoidant Leadership independent

variable: four each on the Management-By-Exception (passive)

and Laissez-Faire subscales.

Nine items focused on the three dependent variables.

Three items focused on the Extra Effort put forth by

associates. Four items focused on Effectiveness. Two items

focused on Satisfaction with the leader.

Demographic questions requested information on gender,

age, AITP region, current level of position in IT, highest

level of education, ethnic origin, size of the company, and

employer sector. This information would be compared to a

demographic study conducted by AITP on their membership in

2007.
Transformational Leadership, 52

A six-point Likert scale was used for each of the MLQ 45

items. The responses to be used are listed below:

Rating Scale

1 = Not at all

2 = Once in a while

3 = Sometimes

4 = Fairly often

5 = Frequently, if not always

6 = Not Applicable

The 53 question survey, combining demographic questions with


the MLQ, was developed online through www.zoomerang.com. The
scale for this study is the same as the one for the MLQ-5X
survey instrument except for the addition of option 6, Not
Applicable. Option 6 was included to force the responder to
give an answer to each question.

Content Reliability and Validity

The MLQ developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) was the

instrument administered to the sample population. Bass and

Avolio (1995) used two confirmatory analyses to test the

construct validity and refine the original instrument into its

present form. There has also been a large body of research

done since Bass created the original instrument in 1985.


Transformational Leadership, 53

1996 study by Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam

Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) conducted a

comprehensive review of the results produced by this

instrument. Their literature search located over 75 studies.

Of those, 39 met their pre-defined criteria. Twenty-two

studies were published and yielded 29 usable validity

coefficients for at least one scale of the MLQ. Seventeen

unpublished studies provided 23 usable validity coefficients

for at least one scale of the MLQ. These studies came from a

variety of countries and organizations. Reliability data was

provided in 23 studies for Charisma and Intellectual

Stimulation, 22 studies for Individualized Consideration and

Contingent Reward, and 21 studies for Management-By-Exception.

Their review focused on five factors of the MLQ:

Charisma, Individualized Consideration, Intellectual

Stimulation, Contingent Reward, and Management-by-Exception.

Internal reliability was good as the Mean Cronbach scale

obtained for the five scales tested were 0.92 for Charisma,

0.88 for Individualized Consideration, 0.86 for Intellectual

Stimulation, 0.82 for Contingent Reward, and 0.65 for

Management-by-Exception. The mean raw correlation and the

mean corrected correlation values were 0.623 and 0.713 for

Charisma, 0.528 and 0.615 for Individualized Consideration,

0.512 and 0.602 for Intellectual Stimulation, 0.338 and 0.408


Transformational Leadership, 54

for Contingent Reward, and 0.040 and 0.054 for Management-by-

Exception. Across the studies, findings showed that Charisma

was the variable most related to leader Effectiveness.

Management-by-Exception showed mixed results. Overall, this

study provided strong reliability and validity support for the

MLQ instrument (Lowe et al., 1996).

2002 Study by Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio

Dumdum et al. (2002) provided an update to the work of

Lowe et al. (1996) as they conducted a meta-analysis that

focused on forty-nine studies that dated back to 1995.

Together, their work would expand approximately 15 years of

Transformational Leadership research.

This review focused on twelve scales of the MLQ;

Attributed Charisma, Idealized Influence, Inspirational

Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized

Consideration, Transformational Leadership, Contingent Reward,

Management-by-Exception (active), Management-by-Exception

(passive), Management-by-Exception, Laissez Faire, and

Transactional Leadership. Internal reliability was good as

the Mean Cronbach scale obtained for eleven of the twelve

scales tested were above 0.70. Management-by-Exception

(passive) was the one exception but it was at 0.69 (Dumdum et

al., 2002).
Transformational Leadership, 55

The mean raw correlation and the mean corrected

correlation values reported for Effectiveness were 0.55 and

0.68 for Charisma, 0.52 and 0.68 for Idealized Influence, 0.46

and 0.55 for Inspirational Motivation, 0.47 and 0.59 for

Intellectual Stimulation, 0.47 and 0.59 for Individualized

Consideration, 0.43 and 0.50 for Transformational Leadership,

0.41 and 0.51 for Contingent Reward, 0.04 and 0.05 for

Management-by-Exception (active), -0.26 and -0.34 for

Management-by-Exception (passive), -0.16 and -0.21 for

Management-by-Exception, -0.30 and -0.38 for Laissez faire,

and 0.17 and 0.20 for Transactional Leadership (Dumdum et al.,

2002).

The results of the Dumdum et al. (2002) study were

consistent with those found by Lowe et al. (1996). The

results were very similar between the two for Charisma,

Individual Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation.

Contingent Reward was a little different but still positive

(0.56 for the Dumdum study and 0.41 for the Lowe study). The

biggest difference was Management-by-Exception (-0.30 for the

Dumdum study and 0.05 for the Lowe study). It is important to

note that since 1996, this scale has often been replaced by

two subscales, Management-by-Exception (active) and

Management-by-Exception (passive). Secondly, Management-by-

Exception (active) in Dumdums study was close to the


Transformational Leadership, 56

Management-by-Exception in Lowes study (0.08 to 0.05).

Dumdum et al. (2002) suggested these differences may be due to

the several changes that were made to the MLQ tool since 1996.

However, the overall results of the meta-study still provide

strong support for the MLQ tool.

2004 Study by Judge and Piccolo

Judge and Piccolo (2004) conducted a third meta-study and

looked at the full range of transformational, transactional,

and Laissez-Faire leadership. They identified 87 studies that

met their criteria of use. This review focused on five

leadership behaviors: Transformational Leadership, Contingent

Reward, Management-by-Exception (active), Management-by-

Exception (passive), and Laissez-Faire.

The mean corrected correlation values was 0.44 for

Transformational Leadership, 0.39 for Contingent Reward, 0.15

for Management-by-Exception (active), -.18 Management-by-

Exception (passive), and -.37 for Laissez-Faire. There

continues to be strong broad support for the validity of

Transformational Leadership and Contingent Reward. However,

in this study, Transformational and Transactional Leadership

appear to be so highly related that it is difficult to

separate. This finding provides additional support for using

Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception (active) as


Transformational Leadership, 57

subscales for Transactional Leadership and Management-By-

Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales for

Passive/Avoidant Leadership.

Note that charisma was used in a variety of studies.

However, the model continues to change and grow. As noted

earlier, Antonakis et al. (2003) suggested using Idealized

Influence instead of Charisma and also separating Idealized

Influence into two parts: Attributed and Behavior. Hater and

Bass (1988) recommended separating Management-By-Exception

into two parts: Active and Passive. Avolio and Bass (2004)

recommended moving Management-By-Exception (active) under

Transactional Leadership and move Management-By-Exception

(passive) and Laissez-Faire together as two subscales under

the third type of leadership, Passive/Avoidant.

Moving forward, the independent variables for this study

were: Transformational Leadership, composed of Idealized

Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence (behavior),

Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and

Individualized Consideration; Transactional Leadership,

composed of Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception

(active); and Passive/Avoidant Leadership, composed of

Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire. The

dependent variables were: Extra Effort, IT manager

Effectiveness, and Satisfaction.


Transformational Leadership, 58

Data Collection

For this study, the survey was developed into an online

electronic survey using www.zoomerang.com. The amount of time

to take this survey was approximately fifteen minutes. The

AITP office sent out an introductory email to each association

member requesting them to take the survey through a link,

documented the significance of the survey, noted that the

survey had the support of AITP leadership, and that the

findings would be shared with the membership. Overall, three

emails were sent to the membership asking for their

participation. A link to the survey was also included in the

AITP newsletter located on their website. The survey was made

available for thirty days in the fall of 2008 and each member

was allowed to respond once. For an added incentive, the

researcher agreed to pay AITP a monetary amount for every 100

members that took the survey beyond the first 200 members

(only 150 took the survey). Participants were not

compensated, only the organization.

Permission to use the MLQ-5X survey instrument was

requested and obtained from the publishers, Mind Garden, Inc.

(www.Mindgarden.com), who hold the license for usage (see

Appendix A). The survey was shared with Mind Garden, Inc.

both for approval of survey appearance and approach. A copy

of the final report was made available on AITPs website for


Transformational Leadership, 59

member viewing. Anonymity of individual responses was

maintained.

Summary

This chapter presented the three key hypotheses of this

study surrounding the full range of leadership of

Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and

Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership. It focused on

the design of the sample population, the MLQ-5X instrument,

the strong validity and reliability of the instrument, as well

as how the data was collected.


Transformational Leadership, 60

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents and analyzes the data derived from

the 45 question MLQ-5X survey instrument and eight demographic

questions. It will provide a detailed description of the

sample population, documentation on how the survey questions

were scored, identify the statistical procedures used for

analysis, and provide statistical evidence surrounding each of

the three hypotheses.

Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses, the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS), version 16, was used to conduct linear

regression analysis on the data obtained from the sample. The

independent variables were: Transformational Leadership,

composed of Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized

Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual

Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration; Transactional

Leadership, composed of Contingent Reward and Management-By-

Exception (active); and Passive/Avoidant Leadership composed

of Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire. The

dependent variables were Extra Effort, IT manager

Effectiveness, and Satisfaction.


Transformational Leadership, 61

Sample Size

During the 30 day time period the survey was available,

150 out of approximately 3,000 AITP members completed the

survey. This translates into an estimated 5% return.

Multiple attempts were made to increase this low response

rate. Three emails were sent to each AITP member asking for

their participation. A link to the survey was included in the

AITP newsletter located on their website. Monetary incentives

were also offered to the organization to increase its

membership response rate but with limited effect. With such a

low response rate, only whole sample analysis can be

conducted.

Demographics

The eight demographic questions focused on sex, age, AITP

region, current position in IT, highest level of education,

ethnic origin, size of company, and employer sector. A

similar set of demographic questions were given to the AITP

membership in the fall of 2007 and serves as the population

estimate. A total of 776 members out of approximately 3,000

responded to that survey for a 25.8% return (Association of

Information Technology Professionals, http://www.aitp.org).

Demographics of the sample of this study were compared to the

demographics of the population.


Transformational Leadership, 62

In general, there are some minor differences between the

demographics for the sample in this study and the population

estimates. Table 1 summarizes the demographics for both the

sample in this study and for the population. Both indicated

the large majority of participants were male (62% of todays

sample and 73% of the population). The majority of

participants in the sample and population showed that most of

the responders were in the age bracket of over 55 (38.7% &

34%). However, this sample showed the next largest age group

was age 36 45 (35.3%) while the population showed the next

largest age group to be age 46 - 55 (31%). In both this

sample and the population, there were very few under the age

of 25 (3.3% and 1.0%). With respect to age, the sample in

this study was slightly younger than the population. However,

this study is looking for people in IT that are supervised and

typically those that are younger are more likely to be

supervised. Yet, caution needs to be taken when generalizing

both between gender and age specifics.

Each region was organized geographically and the number

and size of professional and student organizations vary.

Regions 1 (Southwestern Region) and 4 (Central Region) were

over represented and regions 0 (Region Presidents Council), 3

(South Central Region), 5 (Pacesetter Region), and 7 (Southern


Transformational Leadership, 63

Hospitality Region) were under represented compared to the

population.

For both this study and the population, more responders

had a bachelor degree (36.7% and 32.0%) followed by those with

a graduate degree (22.7% and 28.0%). Both had about the same

percentage of some college work (12.7% and 11.0%), an

associate degree (10.7% and 11.5%), and a doctorate (5.4% and

7.0%).

Both had a large response by White Caucasians (88.0% and

90.0%) followed by African Americans (6.0% and 3.0%). African

Americans and American Indians were over represented and White

Caucasians and Hispanics were under represented in the sample

for this study relative to the population. These appear to be

relatively small differences but yet caution still needs to be

taken when generalizing about ethnic background.

Responders had a wide range of positions in IT.

Professional/Non-supervisory was the highest in the sample for

this study as well as the population (19.3% and 15.0%)

followed by project manager/analyst/programmer (20% and 14.0%)

and manager (17.3% and 13.0%). Managers, Professional/Non-

supervisory, Project Manager/Analyst/Programmer were over

represented and Retired, Supervisory, and VP/Executive groups

were under represented in this sample relative to the

population. The under representation of the retired,


Transformational Leadership, 64

Supervisory and VP/Executive groups should not be a major

concern because this study is focused more on IT professionals

that are supervised.

The largest group of responders for both the sample and

the population came from companies that were larger than 1000

employees (44.7% and 38%). The second largest group for both

came from companies that had 100 - 500 employees (20.7% and

21.0%) followed by companies that had 500 1000 employees

(14.0% and 11.0%). The number of responders in this sample

that worked in companies <100, 500 1000, and >1000 employees

were slightly over represented when compared to the

population. The over representation for responders in

companies of 500 1000 and > 1000 employees could provide

additional members helpful to this study because they are more

likely to be supervised by management. The number of

responders in this sample was less than the number of retired,

unemployed, and self-employed in the population. However,

this should not be a major concern because these groups

typically are not supervised and would not provide additional

insight applicable to this study.

The last demographic set focused on employer sector.

Approximately 17% of the sample and 14% of the population came

from the Finance/Insurance sector. Next, 16% of both the

sample and the population came from the Education sector.


Transformational Leadership, 65

Approximately 15% of the sample and 14% of the population came

from the Retail/Manufacturing/Distribution sector. Next, 8%

of the sample and 12% of the population came from the

Telecommunications/IT sector. Approximately 15% of the sample

and 9% of the population came from the Government sector. For

the retired sector, 0% came from the sample and 6% came from

the population. This should not be a major concern because

retirees typically are not supervised and would not provide

additional insight to this study. For the Other category,

16% came from the sample and 17% came from the population.

After review, the sample in this study is sufficient for

overall regression analysis but due to these demographic

differences and small sample size, a decision was made not to

conduct subgroup analyses.


Transformational Leadership, 66

Table 1

Demographic Comparison
2008 MLQ 2007
Survey Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Percentage Percentage
Gender
Male 62.0 73.0
Female 38.0 27.0
Age
Under 25 3.3 1.0
Age 26 35 21.3 11.0
Age 36 45 35.3 22.0
Age 46 55 30.0 31.0
Over 55 38.7 34.0

AITP Region
0 - Region Presidents Council 0.0 4.0
1 - Southwestern Region 10.7 3.0
2 - Northwestern Region 6.7 5.0
3 - South Central Region 8.7 13.0
4 - Central Region 31.3 13.0
5 - Pacesetter Region 12.0 22.0
7 - Southern Hospitality Region 8.0 11.0
11 - Middle Atlantic Region 6.0 5.0
13 - Empire Region 3.3 4.0
18 - Leadership Region 8.0 9.0
At Large 5.3 11.0

Highest Level of Education


High School 0.7 1.0
Some College 12.7 11.0
Associate 10.7 11.5
Bachelors 36.7 32.0
Some Graduate School 9.3 9.5
Graduate Degree 22.7 28.0
Doctorate 5.3 7.0
Vocational/Trade 0.7 1.75
Transformational Leadership, 67

Table 1 (Continued)

Demographic Comparison
2008 MLQ Survey 2007 Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Percentage Percentage
Ethnic Origin
African American 6.0 3.0
American Indian 1.3 0.0
Asian 0.7 2.0
White Caucasian 88.0 90.0
Hispanic 0.0 2.0
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0

Current Position in IT
Academia 8.0 8.0
Consultant 6.0 7.0
Director 10.0 10.0
Manager 17.3 13.0
Marketing/Sales 2.7 5.0
Professional/ 19.3 15.0
Nonsupervisory
Project Manager/ 20.0 14.0
Analyst/Programmer
Retired 1.3 8.0
Student 3.3 0.0
Supervisory 2.0 5.0
VP/Executive 7.3 11.0
Other 2.6 17.0

Size of Company Member Works For


< 100 employees 13.3 0.0
100 500 20.7 21.0
employees
500 1000 14.0 11.0
employees
>1000 employees 44.7 38.0
Retired 0.7 0.0
Self-employed 4.0 5.0
Unemployed 0.7 6.0
Other 2.0 19.0
Transformational Leadership, 68

Table 1 (Continued)

Demographic Comparison
2008 MLQ Survey 2007 Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Percentage Percentage
Employing Sector
Construction .7 2.0
Education 16.0 16.0
Finance/Insurance 17.3 14.0
Government 14.7 9.0
Healthcare 5.3 6.0
Relations/Marketing/A 1.3 1.0
dvertising/Media
Retail/Manufacturing/ 15.3 14.0
Distribution
Telecommunications/IT 8.0 12.0
Transportation 3.3 2.0
Retired 0.0 6.0
Other 16.0 17.0
Transformational Leadership, 69

Scoring Survey Responses

As mentioned earlier, AITP members took the 53 question

survey online through www.zoomerang.com. The survey included

all 45 questions from the MLQ-5X instrument and eight

demographic questions.

Data Preparation

The response frequency was reviewed for each question.

Of the 45 questions offered, option 6, Not Applicable, was

selected 3 or fewer times in 91% of the questions. Responders

had selected option 6, Not Applicable, 4 or more times for the

following questions:

1. Question 27 - The person I am rating directs my

attention toward failures to meet standards. Option

6 was selected four times for this question and was

tied to the Management-By-Exception (active) subscale.

2. Question 17 - The person I am rating shows that

he/she is a firm believer in if it ain't broke, don't

fix it. Option 6 was selected five times for this

question and was tied to the Management-By-Exception

(passive) subscale.

3. Question 24 - The person I am rating keeps track of

all mistakes. Option 6 was selected six times for


Transformational Leadership, 70

this question and was tied to the Management-By-

Exception (active) subscale.

4. Question 40 - The person I am rating is effective in

representing me to higher authority. Option 6 was

selected eleven times for this question and was tied

to the dependent variable, Effectiveness. Note this

was only one of the four questions for Effectiveness

so this scale was still strong. Of the eleven times,

option 6 was chosen once by a VP, once by a Director,

twice by project managers, twice by Professional/Non-

supervisory, and four times by managers. Eight of

eleven responders were in formal leadership positions.

Those eight responders may have used this option

because of the sensitivity of the question or that the

responders boss did not have anyone to report to,

which in that case, option 6 would have been most

appropriate selection.

The data was also analyzed case wise. Approximately 97%

of the responders selected option 6, Not Applicable, three

times or less. Other frequencies in the use of option 6, Not

Applicable, included:

1. Two responders used option 6 four times. In both

cases, the use of option 6 was distributed across the


Transformational Leadership, 71

subscales so that each subscale had at least half of

the items answered.

2. Two responders used option 6 seven times. Again, the

use of option 6 was distributed across the subscales

so that each subscale had at least half of the items

answered.

3. One responder used option 6 ten times. As before, the

use of option 6 was distributed across the subscales

so that at least half of the items were answered.

The use of option 6, not applicable, was well

distributed and should not affect subscale and scale creation

more than having missing data would. After this review,

questions marked with option 6 were recoded as a missing

response consistent with Mind Garden, Inc. instructions.

Answers 1 5, were reverted back to the 0 4 numbering

sequence as recommended by Mind Garden, Inc. and scales and

subscales were then calculated for each responder.

Scale and Subscale Calculations

Information on how to score the MLQ-5X survey was

obtained from Mind Garden, Inc. (www.Mindgarden.com). Each of

the nine subscales had four questions on the survey. Scores

for each scale and subscale were determined by adding the

responses for the questions together and dividing by the


Transformational Leadership, 72

number of non-missing responses. The score for each

leadership type was calculated at the item level.

Transformational Leadership had 20 related questions,

Transactional Leadership had eight related questions, and

Passive-Avoidant Leadership had eight related questions.

The dependent variable was scored in the same manner as

the independent variable. Extra Effort had three related

questions, Effectiveness had four questions, and Satisfaction

had two questions.

The mean and standard deviation for each leadership type,

subscale, and dependent variable were found in Table 2. Note

that of the three independent variables, Transformational

Leadership had the highest average rating followed by

Transactional Leadership followed by Passive/Avoidant

Leadership. Generally, the five subscales of Transformational

Leadership had the highest means. The exception was

Contingent Reward. Contingent Reward, a subscale of

Transactional Leadership had a higher mean than two subscales

of Transformational Leadership: Intellectual Stimulation and

Individualized Consideration. The subscales of

Passive/Avoidant Leadership had the lowest average ratings of

all. Based on these average ratings, it appears that

responders had the perception their immediate supervisor

demonstrated more often the qualities of a transformational


Transformational Leadership, 73

leader than either a transactional or passive/avoidant leader.

There was also the perception that the responders saw the

qualities of a passive/avoidant leader the least often of the

three leadership types. These statistics are similar to those

based on the earlier work of Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985;

Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999).


Transformational Leadership, 74

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent


Variables (n=150)
Mean Standard
(scale 0-4) Deviation
Transformational Leadership 2.45 0.99

Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.54 1.16

Idealized Influence (Behavior) 2.45 1.07

Inspirational Motivation 2.73 1.08

Intellectual Stimulation 2.27 1.01

Individualized Consideration 2.26 1.16

Transactional Leadership 2.05 0.65

Contingent Reward 2.38 1.01

Management by Exception (Active) 1.73 1.01

Passive/Avoidant 1.36 0.93

Management by Exception (Passive) 1.58 1.01

Laissez-Faire 1.15 1.01

Extra Effort 2.30 1.29

Effectiveness 2.57 1.12

Satisfaction 2.50 1.34


Transformational Leadership, 75

Regression Models

Once the data were reviewed and the descriptive

characteristics identified, several linear regressions were

run. Correlations between leadership type subscales and

dependent variables were calculated. These correlations serve

as zero-order regressions and a 0.01 significant level was

used. The framework for this study was based on the work of

Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et

al., 1999). A complete list of all correlations between

individual independent variables, subscales, and dependent

variables are found in Appendix B. Since all leadership types

and scales correlated significantly with the dependent

measures, it means that each independent variable by itself

predicts the level of each dependent variable. Full

regression models were run using the three independent

measures as indicators.

Transactional Subscale Correlation

As shown in Appendix B, the two subscales of

Transactional Leadership were correlated with the dependent

variables in opposite directions. Contingent Reward

correlated positively with all three dependent variables.

However, Management-by-Exception (active) correlated

negatively with all three dependent variables. A review of


Transformational Leadership, 76

the survey items showed that Management-By-Exception (active)

questions were phrased in an opposite manner as the Contingent

Reward questions. In order for both subscales to correlate

positively, Management-by-Exception (active) was reversed and

Transactional Leadership was recalculated. Another set of full

regression models were run with the three independent

variables as indicators except Transactional Leadership

(reversed) was used instead of Transactional Leadership.

Colinearity Between Independent Variables

Intercorrelations amongst independent variables are quite

common but they create problems when interpreting regression

results. For instance, the zero-order regression between an

independent and dependent variable may be significant but when

independent variables were added to the model, the original

independent variable may no longer be significant. This is

often due to one of the other independent variables accounting

for the same variability - hence the colinearity. Care must

be taken in the interpretation of the regression results.

Table 3 shows the collinearity between Transformational

Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Passive/Avoidant

Leadership, and Transactional Leadership (reversed) (with

Management-by-Exception (active) reversed). Results indicate

the reversal of the Management-by-Exception (active) subscale


Transformational Leadership, 77

showed an increased correlation of Transactional Leadership

with Transformational Leadership (0.784) and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership (-0.579).

Table 3

Correlations Between Independent Variables (n=150)


Transactional and
(Transactional Passive-
Transformational (reversed)) Avoidant
Transformational 1.000
Transactional and 0.505** (0.784**) 1.000
(Transactional
(reversed))
Passive-Avoidant -0.648** -0.256**(-0.579**) 1.000
** - Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis One

There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers to inspire extra

effort.

Correlations

All zero-order correlations for all three leadership

independent variables, subscales, and the Extra Effort

dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and are found in

Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that leadership

type might be able to predict level of Extra Effort. There


Transformational Leadership, 78

was a strong correlation between Transformational Leadership

and Extra Effort (0.840). Transformational Leadership

subscales of Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized

Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual

Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration also had strong

correlations (0.839, 0.654, 0.691, 0.809, and 0.804,

respectively).

As expected, Transactional Leadership had a much lower

correlation of 0.473. As noted earlier, the two Transactional

Leadership subscales were correlated in opposite directions

with Extra Effort and may be the reason for the lower

correlation. Contingent Reward had a high positive

correlation of 0.772 and was higher than two Transformational

Leadership subscales: Idealized Influence (Behavior) (0.654)

and Inspirational Motivation (0.691). The relatively high

value of Contingent Reward was also consistent with other

research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et

al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

On the other hand, the second subscale, Management-By-

Exception (active), had a correlation of -0.269. Results from

several documented studies have shown that this has been

either positive or negative in nature (Avolio et al., 1999,

Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).


Transformational Leadership, 79

Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation

with Extra Effort (-0.634). Its two subscales, Management-By-

Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire, were consistent with

each other and had correlations of -0.539 and -0.627,

respectively. These negative correlations have been

consistent with other research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et

al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge

and Piccolo, 2004).

Regression Model I

A linear regression on the full model of leadership was

conducted to predict the effect of Transformational

Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership on Extra Effort. The full model of leadership was

significant overall (F(3,146)=128.015, p=0). R2 for this model

was 0.725. However, significance tests for individual

independent leadership variables were not all significant.

Transformational Leadership (t=10.786, p=0) and

Passive/Avoidant Leadership (t=-2.863, p=.005) were

significant, but Transactional Leadership was not. The model

coefficients for the three leadership scales are listed below

in Table 4. Note that Transformational Leadership was

positively correlated to Extra Effort, while Passive/Avoidant

Leadership was negatively correlated.


Transformational Leadership, 80

An examination of the part and partial correlations show

that there was little relationship between Transactional

Leadership and Extra Effort once Transformational Leadership

and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were controlled for in the

model. This effect was most likely due to the collinearity

that exists between the independent variables since, by

itself, Transactional Leadership produced significant results

(F(1, 148)=42.689, p=0).

Table 4

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional


and Passive/Avoidant with Extra Effort (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .076 .288 .266 .791
Transformational
.898 .083 .693 10.786 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.161 .100 .082 1.614 .109
Leadership
Passive/Avoidant
-.228 .080 -.164 -2.863 .005
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort

A model without Transactional Leadership was run to see

if there was a significant change in the regression

coefficients. The change was nominal, suggesting the

contribution of Transactional Leadership not already accounted

for in the other two leadership styles was not significant.


Transformational Leadership, 81

Since the two components of Transactional Leadership were

correlated with Extra Effort in an opposite manner, a model

was run substituting its two subscales: Contingent Reward and

Management-by-Exception (active). Neither subscale

significantly contributed to the model, individually or

together, suggesting that the full model and not the subscale

model best predicts Extra Effort.

Regression Model II

The full regression model was also run using

Transactional Leadership (reversed) instead of Transactional

Leadership. Results are provided in Table 5. While the full

model was significant overall (F(3,146)=124.975, p=0) and R2

was 0.720, Transactional Leadership still did not

significantly contribute to Extra Effort. Both

Transformational Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership

were significant. An examination of the part and partial

correlations show that there was little relationship between

Transactional Leadership and Extra Effort once

Transformational Leadership was controlled for in the model.

This effect is most likely due to the collinearity that exists

between the independent variables since, by itself,

Transactional Leadership produces significant results (F(1,

148)=124.112, p=0).
Transformational Leadership, 82

Table 5

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with Extra
Effort (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .215 .291 .740 .460
Transformational
.945 .099 .729 9.547 .000
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership .023 .106 .015 .216 .829
(reversed)
Passive-Avoidant
-.212 .081 -.152 -2.618 .010
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort

In summary, there is partial support for this hypothesis.

A significant relationship between Transformational

Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Extra Effort was

found. Transformational Leadership had the strongest

correlation with Extra Effort and supports the concept that

subordinates prefer to exert Extra Effort when led by

Transformational Leadership. Passive/Avoidant Leadership had

a significant opposite effect on Extra Effort and was the

least effective form of leadership to inspire Extra Effort by

subordinates. However, Transactional Leadership, when

considered with the other two leadership types, does not

appear to inspire Extra Effort. The results for


Transformational Leadership, 83

Transformational Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership

were consistent with the literature review. However, the

result for Transactional Leadership predicting Extra Effort

was not (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999,

Lowe et al., 1996, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al.,

1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Hypothesis Two

There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of the IT manager and

the subordinates perception of IT manager effectiveness.

Correlations

All zero-order correlations for all three leadership

independent variables, subscales, and the manager

Effectiveness dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and

are found in Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that

leadership type might be able to predict level of

Effectiveness. There was a strong correlation between

Transformational Leadership and management Effectiveness

(0.886). Transformational Leadership subscales of Idealized

Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence (behavior),

Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and


Transformational Leadership, 84

Individualized Consideration also had strong correlations

(0.887, 0.706, 0.781, 0.761, and 0.861, respectively).

As expected, Transactional Leadership had a much lower

correlation of 0.406. As noted earlier, the two Transactional

Leadership subscales were correlated in opposite directions

with Effectiveness and may be the reason for the lower

correlation. The first subscale, Contingent Reward, had a

high correlation of 0.881 and was higher than four

Transformational Leadership subscales: Idealized Influence

(Behavior) (0.706), Inspirational Motivation (0.781),

Intellectual Stimulation (0.761), and Individualized

Consideration (0.861). The relatively high value of

Contingent Reward was also consistent with other research

(Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al.,

2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

The second subscale, Management-By-Exception (active),

had a correlation of -0.391. Results from various documented

studies have shown that this could be positive or negative

(Yammarino & Bass, 1990, Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al.,

2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation

with Effectiveness of -0.711. Its two subscales, Management-

By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire, were consistent with

each other and had values of -0.577 and -0.733, respectively.


Transformational Leadership, 85

These negative values have been consistent with other research

(Avolio & Bass, 2004; Hater & Bass, 1988, Avolio et al., 1999,

Yammarino & Bass, 1990, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et

al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Regression Model I

A linear regression on the full model of leadership was

conducted to predict the effect of Transformational

Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership on Effectiveness. The full model of leadership was

significant overall (F(3,146)=218.573, p=0). R2 for this model

was 0.818. However, significance tests for individual

independent leadership variables were not all significant.

Transformational Leadership (t=14.388, p=0) and

Passive/Avoidant Leadership (t=-4.995, p=.000) were

significant, but Transactional Leadership was not. The model

coefficients for the three leadership scales are shown below

in Table 6. Note that Transformational Leadership was

positively correlated to Effectiveness, while Passive/Avoidant

Leadership was negatively correlated.


Transformational Leadership, 86

Table 6

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional,


and Passive/Avoidant with Effectiveness (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .991 .204 4.848 .000
Transformational
.850 .059 .751 14.388 .000
Leadership
Transactional
-.056 .071 -.032 -.785 .434
Leadership
Passive/Avoidant
-.282 .057 -.233 -4.995 .000
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

An examination of the part and partial correlations show

that there was little relationship between Transactional

Leadership and Effectiveness once Transformational Leadership

and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were controlled for in the

model. Again, this effect is most likely due to the

collinearity that exists between the independent leadership

variables since, by itself, Transactional Leadership produced

significant results (F(1, 148)=29.269, p=0).

Since the two components of Transactional Leadership were

correlated with Effectiveness in an opposite manner, a model

was run substituting its two subscales: Contingent Reward and

Management-By-Exception (active). This model turned out to be

a better model than the one with the three leadership scales.
Transformational Leadership, 87

The model was significant overall (F(4,145)=173.54, p=0). R2

for this model was 0.827. The model coefficients were listed

below in Table 7. The two subscales were significant at the

0.05 level. Contingent Reward was positively correlated with

Effectiveness, while Management-By-Exception (active) was

negatively correlated.

Table 7

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Passive/Avoidant,


Two Transactional Subscale Variables with Effectiveness (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 1.113 .205 5.433 .000
Transformational
.667 .087 .590 7.678 .000
Leadership
* Contingent Reward .143 .070 .146 2.046 .043
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.087 .041 -.079 -2.12 .036
(Active)
Passive/Avoidant
-.266 .056 -.219 -4.78 .000
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Effectiveness
+ Note: Mgt - Management

Regression Model II

The full regression model was also run using

Transactional Leadership (reversed) instead of Transactional

Leadership and those results are provided in Table 8. This

time, not only was the full model of leadership significant

overall (F(3,146)=231.727, p=0) and R2 was 0.826 but all three

individual independent variables were significant


Transformational Leadership, 88

(Transformational Leadership (t=10.339, p=0); Transactional

Leadership (reversed) (t=2.799, p=0.006) and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership (t=-4.754, p=0)).

Table 8

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,


Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with
Effectiveness (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) .741 .200 3.707 .000
Transformational
.703 .068 .622 10.339 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.203 .072 .157 2.799 .006
(reversed)
Passive/Avoidant
-.264 .055 -.218 -4.754 .000
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Effectiveness

In summary, there is partial support for this hypothesis.

A significant relationship between Transformational

Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Effectiveness were

found. Transformational Leadership had the strongest

correlation with Effectiveness and supports the concept that

subordinates believe that managers are more effective when

they provide Transformational leadership. Passive/Avoidant

Leadership had a significant opposite effect and is the least

effective form of leadership. The results for

Transformational Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership


Transformational Leadership, 89

were consistent with much of the literature (Bass, 1985;

Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Lowe et al., 1996,

Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and

Piccolo, 2004).

At first glance, Transactional Leadership doesnt appear

to be significant. Yet, the two subscales were significant

and when the Management-By-Exception (active) scale was

reversed and recalculated, Transactional Leadership became

significant. These results suggest that the construction of

the scale might be the reason that Transactional Leadership

was not always significant. This indicates that the

Transactional Leadership questions, scales, and subscales

needs to be explored further. Results for Transactional

Leadership and related subscales were somewhat different from

the literature (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999,

Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Hypothesis Three

There is a relationship between the subordinates

perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the

subordinates perception of IT managers ability to

enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager.


Transformational Leadership, 90

Correlations

All zero-order correlations for all three leadership

independent variables, subscales, and the Satisfaction

dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and are found in

Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that leadership

type might be able to predict level of Satisfaction. There

was a strong correlation between Transformational Leadership

and subordinate Satisfaction (0.869). Transformational

Leadership subscales of Idealized Influence (attributed),

Idealized Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation,

Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration

also had strong correlations (0.879, 0.718, 0.757, 0.717, and

0.848, respectively).

As expected, Transactional Leadership had a much lower

correlation of 0.402. As noted earlier, the two Transactional

Leadership subscales were correlated in opposite directions

with Satisfaction and may be the reason for the lower

correlation. Contingent Reward had a high correlation of

0.809 and was higher than three Transformational Leadership

subscales: Idealized Influence (Behavior) (0.718),

Inspirational Motivation (0.757), and Intellectual Stimulation

(0.717). The relatively high value of Contingent Reward was

consistent with other research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et

al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge
Transformational Leadership, 91

and Piccolo, 2004). On the other hand, the second subscale,

Management-By-Exception (active), had a correlation of -0.395.

Results from the various documented studies have shown that

this could be positive or negative and that both have often

been documented in the literature (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio

et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997,

Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation of

-0.618 with the subordinates perception of the IT managers

ability to enhance subordinate Satisfaction. Its two

subscales, Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-

Faire, were consistent with each other and had values of -0.497

and -0.642, respectively. These negative values have been

consistent with other research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et

al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge

and Piccolo, 2004).

Regression Model I

A linear regression on the full model of leadership was

conducted to predict the effect of Transformational

Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership on Satisfaction. The full model was significant

overall (F(3,146)=155.475, p=0) and R2 for this model was

0.762. However, significance tests for individual independent


Transformational Leadership, 92

variables were not all significant. Transformational

Leadership (t=13.917, p=0) was the only significant indicator.

Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Transactional Leadership were

not. The model coefficients for the three leadership scales

are listed below in Table 9.

An examination of the part and partial correlations show

that there was little relationship between Transactional

Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction once

Transformational Leadership was controlled for in the model.

This effect was most likely due to the collinearity that

exists between the independent variables since, by themselves,

Transactional Leadership produces significant results (F(1,

148)=28.501, p=0) as well as Passive/Avoidant Leadership (F(1,

148)=91.377, p=0). Note that Transformational leadership was

positively correlated to Satisfaction and although not

significant, Transactional Leadership and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership were negatively correlated with Satisfaction.


Transformational Leadership, 93

Table 9

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional,


Passive/Avoidant and Satisfaction (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .090 .280 .321 .748
Transformational
1.126 .081 .831 13.917 .000
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership -.084 .097 -.041 -.863 .390

Passive/Avoidant
-.130 .077 -.090 -1.683 .095
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

Additional regression runs were made. Since

Transactional Leadership consisted of two subscales,

Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception (active), and

Passive/Avoidant Leadership consisted of Management-By-

Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales, two

additional models were run. The first run substituted the

Transactional Leadership subscales Contingent Reward and

Management-By-Exception (active) for Transactional Leadership.

The second run kept the two Transactional Leadership subscales

but substituted the two Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales

Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire for

Passive/Avoidant Leadership.
Transformational Leadership, 94

When only the Transactional Leadership subscales were

substituted, the model turned out to be only slightly better

model than the one with the three leadership scales. The

model was significant overall (F(4,145)=128.616, p=0). R2 for

this model was 0.780. Contingent Reward was significant at

the 0.01 level and Management-By-Exception (active) was

significant at the 0.05 level. Contingent Reward was

positively correlated with Satisfaction, while Management-By-

Exception (active) was negatively correlated. The model

coefficients are listed below in Table 10.

Table 10

Regression Coefficients Between Satisfaction & Transformational,


Passive/Avoidant & Two Transactional Subscale Variables
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .298 .277 1.077 .283
Transformational
.818 .117 .604 6.975 .000
Leadership
* Contingent Reward .245 .094 .209 2.600 .010
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.143 .055 -.108 -2.574 .011
(active)
Passive-Avoidant
-.102 .075 -.071 -1.364 .175
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
+ Note - Mgt - Management

When the Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales were

included, the inclusion did improve the overall model a bit

but its two subscales were not significant. Laissez-Faire


Transformational Leadership, 95

Leadership was close with p=0.057. The table of coefficients

is listed below in Table 11.

Table 11

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Two


Passive/Avoidant Subscales & Two Transactional Subscales with
Satisfaction Variables (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .293 .276 1.063 .290
Transformational
.817 .117 .604 6.996 .000
Leadership
* Contingent
.230 .094 .196 2.439 .016
Reward
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.130 .056 -.098 -2.322 .022
(active)
* Mgt-By-Exception
.040 .074 .030 .549 .584
(passive)
* Laissez-Faire
-.159 .083 -.119 -1.922 .057
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
+ Note - Mgt - Management

A final regression was run, removing Passive/Avoidant

Leadership from the equation. The model R2 increased a small

amount (0.783), and both Contingent Reward and Management-By-

Exception (active) were significant at the 0.05 level. Most

likely, this is due to the intercorrelation between the

independent variables. However, neither Management-By-

Exception (passive) nor Laissez-Faire was significant at the

0.05 level. The last two regression models clearly show that
Transformational Leadership, 96

Passive/Avoidant Leadership did not significantly predict

Satisfaction.

Regression Model II

The full regression model was also run using

Transactional Leadership (reversed) instead of Transactional

Leadership. Results were included in Table 12. While the

full model was significant overall (F(3,146)=169.756, p=0) and

R-squared for this model was 0.777, not all the independent

variables were significant. Transformational Leadership

(t=9.672, p=0) and Transactional Leadership (reversed)

(t=3.318, p=.001) were the only significant indicators.

Passive/Avoidant Leadership was not. An examination of the

part and partial correlations show that there was little

relationship between Passive/Avoidant Leadership and

Satisfaction once the other independent variables were

controlled for in the model. This effect is most likely due

to the collinearity that exists between the independent

variables since, by itself, Passive/Avoidant Leadership

produces significant results (F(1, 148)=91.377, p=0).


Transformational Leadership, 97

Table 12

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional


(reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with Satisfaction (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) -.307 .271 -1.133 .259
Transformational
.892 .092 .659 9.672 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.326 .098 .211 3.318 .001
(reversed)
Passive/Avoidant
-.100 .075 -.069 -1.329 .186
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

The full model was run again but with the

Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales Management-By-Exception

(passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales. The model was

significant overall (F(4,145)=120.031, p=0) and R2 for this

model was 0.781. Transformational and Transactional

Leadership (reversed) and Management-By-Exception (active)

significantly contributed to the model as shown in Table 13.

However, the subscales were not significant, even though

Laissez-Faire was nearly significant at the 0.05 level.


Transformational Leadership, 98

Table 13

Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional


(reversed) Management-By-Exception (active), and Two
Passive/Avoidant Subscales with Satisfaction (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) -.259 .272 -.954 .342
Transformational
.890 .092 .657 9.692 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.299 .100 .194 3.004 .003
(reversed)
* Laissez-Faire
-.162 .083 -.121 -1.95 .053
Leadership
* Mgt-By-Exception
.045 .074 .033 .607 .545
(passive)
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
+ Note - Mgt - Management

In summary, there is partial support for this hypothesis.

A significant relationship between Transformational Leadership

and Satisfaction was found. Transformational Leadership had

the strongest correlation with Satisfaction and supports the

concept that subordinates have more Satisfaction with

management that provides Transformational Leadership. These

results were very similar to those found in other studies

(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,

1999, Lowe et al., 1996, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et

al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).


Transformational Leadership, 99

Initially, Transactional Leadership doesnt appear to be

significant. Yet, the two subscales were significant and when

the Management-By-Exception (active) scale was reversed and

recalculated, Transactional Leadership became significant.

These results suggest that the construction of the scale might

be the reason that Transactional Leadership was not always

significant. This indicates that the Transactional Leadership

questions, scales, and subscales needs to be explored further.

Results for Transactional Leadership and related subscales

were somewhat different from the literature (Avolio & Bass,

2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and

Piccolo, 2004).

Passive/Avoidant Leadership was not significant in

predicting Satisfaction. Neither the Passive/Avoidant scale,

Management-By-Exception (passive) subscale, nor the Laissez-

Faire Leadership subscale was significant and these results

were different from much of the literature (Avolio & Bass,

2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and

Piccolo, 2004). However, it is important to note that

Yammarino and Bass (1990) and this study had similar findings.

Management-By-Exception (passive) was not significant with

Satisfaction in both studies and although Laissez-Faire was

significant only in their study, Laissez-Faire was close here

with p=.053.
Transformational Leadership, 100

Summary

Table 14 and Table 15 provide a summary of the findings

for all three hypotheses. Note there was partial support for

all three hypotheses, since at least two of the three

independent variables significantly predicted each of the

three dependent variables.


Transformational Leadership, 101

Table 14

Summary of Regression Coefficients Without Transactional Leadership


(reversed) (n=150)
Independent Variable Hypothesis Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3
1 (Extra (Effectiveness) (Satisfaction)
Effort) R2=0.818 full R2=0.762 full
2
R =0.725 model, 0.827 model, 0.780
full model for subscale for subscale
model model
Transformational .850 full; 1.126
.898
0.667 subscale
Transactional N/S N/S full N/S full
* Contingent Reward N/S .143 .245
* Mgt-By-Exception
N/S -.087 -.143
(active)
Passive/Avoidant -.228 -.282 full; - N/S either
.266 subscale model
+ N/S Not Significant + Mgt Management

Table 15

Summary of Regression Coefficients With Transactional Leadership


(reversed) (n=150)
Independent Variable Hypothesis Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3
1 (Extra (Effectiveness) (Satisfaction)
Effort) R2= 0.826 R2=0.777 full
2
R =0.720 model
full model
Transformational .945 .703 .892
Transactional N/S (full
(reversed) or
.203 .326
subscale
models)
Passive/Avoidant N/S (full or
-.212 -.264 subscale
models)
+ N/S Not Significant

Transformational Leadership

Looking across all three hypotheses, Transformational

Leadership had the strongest effect on Extra Effort,


Transformational Leadership, 102

Effectiveness, and Satisfaction of all three leadership types.

Regression coefficients were high in both full scale and

subscale regression runs. By far, responders preferred to

work for leaders that demonstrated Transformational

Leadership.

Although Contingent Reward is a subscale of Transactional

Leadership, it had a higher mean than two of the

Transformational Subscales. In addition, Contingent Reward

had correlations with each of the dependent variables that

were higher than at least two of the Transformational

Leadership subscales. These results indicate that there seems

to be more here between Contingent Reward and Transformational

Leadership than is currently known and more investigation is

needed (Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Transactional Leadership

The Transactional Leadership scale as defined by Avolio

and Bass (2004) and Hater and Bass (1988), did not

significantly predict the level of Extra Effort,

Effectiveness, or Satisfaction of subordinates. However, when

the two subscales were used independently in the model, there

appears to be some predictive ability. Subscales Contingent

Reward and Management-By-Exception (active) were significant

for Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.


Transformational Leadership, 103

Also, when the Management-By-Exception (active) subscale was

reversed and the Transactional Leadership scale was

recalculated, Transactional Leadership significantly predicted

Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort. As noted

earlier, these results may suggest that the construction of

the scale might be the reason that Transactional Leadership

was not always significant. Further research on this scale is

necessary.

Passive/Avoidant Leadership

Passive/Avoidant Leadership significantly predicted Extra

Effort and Effectiveness, but not Satisfaction. This scale was

unique in that it was negatively correlated with the dependent

measures. Neither the scale nor its two subscales were

significant in the regression models.

Yammarino and Bass (1990) had similar findings.

Management-By-Exception (passive) was not significant with

Satisfaction in both studies and although Laissez-Faire was

significant only in their study, Laissez-Faire was close here

at p=.053.
Transformational Leadership, 104

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides an overview and purpose for this

study. It also includes a summary of the findings, possible

implications, and recommendations for future research.

Overview

Informational Technology (IT) is a critical piece of any

business operations and strategic planning and is supported

by a variety of professionals that need to grow and adapt to

the changing technical and business environments. Company

leaders need to identify and apply the leadership styles that

will most effectively manage and motivate their IT employees

to make good technical decisions, to reach their maximum

potential, and provide the biggest benefit for their company.

The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the

relationship between the Transformational, Transactional, and

Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles of IT managers as perceived

by their subordinates and the subordinates willingness to

exert Extra Effort, the subordinates perception of the IT

managers Effectiveness, and the subordinates Satisfaction

with their IT manager, as defined by Bass (1985), Avolio, et

al. (1999), and Avolio & Bass (2004). This relationship was

examined with the MLQ-5X survey on AITP members.


Transformational Leadership, 105

Discussion and Implications for Future Research

Transformational Leadership

As noted by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985),

Transformational Leadership motivates and appeals to

followers ideals and moral values to do more.

Transformational Leaders inspire and set direction and vision.

They empower subordinates to participate and take initiative

in changing the organization. Transformational Leadership

would result in employees performing beyond expectations and

that improvement could be due to the followers commitment to

the leader and their sense of purpose and mission.

Of all three leadership styles, the level of

Transformational Leadership was the strongest predictor of

Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. For all three

dependent measures, the Transformational Leadership scale

accounted for the most variance in the regression models.

Thus, the results indicate that responders in AITP prefer to

be challenged, inspired and given a vision to work toward.

The high correlation between Extra Effort and all five

Transformational Leadership subscales indicate that the more

leaders are transformational, the more IT associates want to

succeed and try harder to be productive in the workplace.


Transformational Leadership, 106

These correlations are consistent with the literature (Lowe et

al., 1996 and Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual

Stimulation subscales had the highest two correlations with

Extra Effort. The correlation between the Intellectual

Stimulation subscale and Effectiveness suggest that

independent thinking from subordinates is acceptable. The

other correlation between Effectiveness and the Individual

Consideration subscale suggests that IT professionals expect

their boss to help coach, mentor, and develop them for future

career opportunities. In both correlations, these specific

characteristics are measured in the MLQ.

Furthermore, Satisfaction with management is highest with

subordinates that perceive higher levels of Transformational

Leadership. There was a high correlation between the

Inspirational Motivation subscale and the Intellectual

Stimulation subscale with Satisfaction. These findings

support the belief that in Transformational Leadership,

subordinates are encouraged to be enthusiastic about the

future and to look for new ways to solve problems.

Passive/Avoidant Leadership

As noted by Avolio and Bass, (2004), Passive/Avoidant

Leadership delays decisions, is not accountable or responsible


Transformational Leadership, 107

to others in achieving goals, and takes a hands-off approach

to management. In all regression models, Passive/Avoidant

Leadership was not as strong of a predictor as

Transformational Leadership for Extra Effort and Effectiveness

and did not significantly predict Satisfaction at all. In

addition, Passive/Avoidant Leadership had the opposite effect

of Transformational Leadership. The more a leader

demonstrated Passive/Avoidant Leadership, the less

subordinates were willing to demonstrate Extra Effort to get

the job done and the less effective subordinates felt their

boss was in the organization. Therefore, these results

further imply that IT professionals look for management to

inspire, provide vision, encourage extra effort, and are

effective within the organization.

The high negative correlation between Passive/Avoidant

Leadership and Extra Effort support that AITP professionals

are less willing to provide extra effort when management is

not willing to make decisions or go beyond the idea of if it

aint broke, dont fix it mentality. This finding further

suggests that IT professionals expect managers to do more than

just go with the status quo. They exert more effort for

management that are engaged, willing and capable to make

timely decisions.
Transformational Leadership, 108

The strong negative correlation between Passive/Avoidant

Leadership and management Effectiveness support the concept

that the more the Passive/Avoidant leadership style is

demonstrated, the more managers are perceived as not meeting

subordinates individual job related needs or the

organizations needs. In other words, IT subordinates expect

management to be aware of individual needs, organizational

needs, and engaged in organizational activities.

As noted earlier, the negative correlation between

Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction was not

significant in the regression models. This finding was

surprising since Dumdum et al. (2002) noted that Laissez-Faire

(a subscale of Passive/Avoidant Leadership) negatively

predicted Satisfaction. Later, Avolio & Bass (2004) noted

that both Laissez-Faire and another subscale of

Passive/Avoidant Leadership, Management-By-Exception

(passive), negatively predicted Satisfaction. Since Laissez-

Faire and Management-By-Exception (passive) are subscales of

Passive/Avoidant Leadership, it was expected that

Passive/Avoidant leaders should predict Satisfaction in this

study.

One possible explanation for this unique finding may be

that over time, lack of action by leadership may affect

subordinates sense of satisfaction with their management.


Transformational Leadership, 109

Yet, as sometimes happens when there is a leadership void

others step in. Highly motivated subordinates, respected by

others, may take the initiative and leadership courage to put

out the daily fires or help set long-term vision and

direction. Some of this effort may be done behind the

scenes to avoid potential political battles and help achieve

desired results. Perhaps, an IT professionals manager may be

nice, kind to employees, easy to get along with, but is not

engaged in the work; resulting in the variable Satisfaction

ratings.

Although it is not the best scenario, subordinates can

live and work with weak management as long as management does

not interfere with progress. Perhaps, when subordinates are

highly motivated, willing to take initiative, and are

knowledgeable about the job, Satisfaction becomes irrelevant.

At that point, Passive/Avoidant Leadership cannot reliably

predict Satisfaction. In this study, there may have been

enough responders in similar situations that prevented

Passive/Avoidant Leadership from predicting Satisfaction.

However, the survey was not designed to measure the level of

importance Satisfaction was to IT professionals so further

research is needed.
Transformational Leadership, 110

Transactional Leadership

As noted by Bass (1985), Transactional leaders understand

the needs of their employees and how to meet those needs in

exchange for the appropriate level of effort. Transactional

leaders focus on efficiencies, current processes, maintaining

the status quo, and meeting contractual agreements.

At first glance, the Transactional Leadership Scale did

not appear to predict any of the three dependent variables,

Extra Effort, Effectiveness, or Satisfaction. However, both

subscales, Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception

(active), when considered independently in the models,

predicted Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.

For every tested hypothesis and dependent variable, the two

subscales were oppositely correlated with the dependent

measure. Each time, Contingent Reward was positively

correlated and Management-By-Exception (active) was negatively

correlated with the dependent variables.

In addition, when the Management-By-Exception (active)

subscale was reversed, Transactional Leadership was able to

predict Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.

This is not a unique finding. Previous research has found that

Transactional Leadership and its two subscales were not always

significant (Lowe et al., 1996; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998; Dumdum

et al., 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Since the subscales and
Transformational Leadership, 111

the reversed-Transactional scale successfully predicted two of

the three dependent measures, it suggests that the construct

of Transactional Leadership is sound, but the construction of

the scale needs further research.

As noted above, Transactional Leadership (reversed),

subscale Contingent Reward, and subscale Management-By-

Exception (active) were not able to predict Extra Effort.

Perhaps, transactional leaders did not significantly motivate

subordinates to try harder to be successful. The expectation

of appropriate monetary awards was not enough to overcome the

negative approach of management tracking a subordinates

mistakes and errors. Subordinates valued a more positive

management approach found in Transformational Leadership.

Transactional Leadership (reversed), subscale Contingent

Reward, and subscale Management-By-Exception (active) were

able to predict management Effectiveness. Perhaps, the high

correlation between Transactional Leadership (reversed) and

subscale Contingent Reward with management Effectiveness

support the concept that the more managers follow through with

their promises of appropriate financial rewards when goals are

achieved, the more effective they are perceived by AITP

professionals. Thus, this builds trust and loyalty between

subordinates and management.


Transformational Leadership, 112

The negative correlation between the Management-By-

Exception (active) subscale with management Effectiveness

supports the idea that the more managers focused on

proactively tracking mistakes, failures, and irregularities,

the less effective management was perceived by AITP

professionals. Subordinates could have experienced a drop in

morale and perceived that management focused on the trivial

things, things that kept leaders from helping subordinates get

to the real root of problems. Since the role of morale in

leadership style is not specifically addressed in the MLQ-5X,

more research is needed.

Transactional Leadership (reversed), subscale Contingent

Reward, and subscale Management-By-Exception active) were able

to predict Satisfaction with management. The high correlation

between Transactional Leadership (reversed) and subscale

Contingent Reward with Satisfaction support that the more

leadership followed through with financial rewards, the more

satisfied AITP professionals were with management. As with

Effectiveness, fulfilling promises builds trust. The negative

correlation between the Management-By-Exception (active)

subscale with Satisfaction further support that the more the

managers tracked mistakes and failures, the less satisfied

AITP professionals were with their management. Thus,

subordinates perceived that they were always under the


Transformational Leadership, 113

microscope and that their management was only tracking the

losses and not the wins. Over time, this could create

frustration and diminish the desire for subordinates to take

calculated risks for the good of the team or company.

Unfortunately, the ultimate result could be for subordinates

to play it safe, not make waves, and consequently not provide

the kind of technical leadership a company needs to compete in

a fast changing technical environment.

Finally, Contingent Reward, a subscale of Transactional

Leadership, had higher correlations than at least two

subscales of Transformational Leadership (see Appendix B).

These results have been consistent with the literature and

some researchers have noted that more research should be done

to determine if Contingent Reward should be a component of

Transformational Leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et

al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Summary

In summary, this study has found partial support for all

three hypotheses. In hypothesis one, Transformational

Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were able to

predict Extra Effort. In hypothesis two, Transformational

Leadership, Transactional Leadership (reversed), Contingent

Reward, Management-By-Exception (active), and Passive/Avoidant


Transformational Leadership, 114

Leadership were able to predict Effectiveness. In hypothesis

three, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership

(reversed), Contingent Reward, and Management-By-Exception

(active) were able to predict Satisfaction. Most of these

findings were consistent with existing literature.

However, this study also identified several items that

need more research. First, the relationship between

Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction needs to be

examined further. Second, the construct of Transactional

Leadership is appears sound but the construction of the scale

needs further examination. Third, the role of morale in

leadership style is not addressed specifically in the MLQ-5X

survey instrument. Fourth and last, the relationship between

Contingent Reward and Transformational Leadership should be

clarified further to see if Contingent Reward is actually a

component of Transformational Leadership.


Transformational Leadership, 115

APPENDIX A

Permission Notification to use MLQ-5X Short Survey


APPENDIX B
Pearson Correlations for All Independent Variables, Subscales, and Dependent Variables
TrForm TrAct TrAct Pas/A
L L L rev v L IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEa MBEar MBEp LF L EE EFF SAT
TrForm L 1.000
TrAct L .505 1.000
TrAct L rev .784 .141 1.000
Pas/Av L -.648 -.256 -.579 1.000
IIA .946 .469 .743 -.651 1.000
IIB .873 .460 .638 -.494 .783 1.000
IM .901 .444 .692 -.555 .811 .800 1.000
IS .880 .458 .684 -.629 .797 .678 .705 1.000
IC .920 .449 .788 -.606 .872 .699 .764 .815 1.000
CR .874 .657 .836 -.579 .827 .739 .772 .770 .845 1.000
MBEa -.338 .531 -.762 .325 -.325 -.241 -.300 -.285 -.379 -.285 1.000
MBEar .338 -.531 .762 -.325 .325 .241 .300 .285 .379 .285 -1.000 1.000
MBEp -.545 -.231 -.456 .920 -.518 -.424 -.479 -.554 -.503 -.471 .236 -.236 1.000
LF L -.648 -.238 -.612 .921 -.680 -.486 -.544 -.602 -.614 -.596 .366 -.366 .696 1.000
EE .840 .473 .675 -.634 .839 .654 .691 .809 .804 .772 -.269 .269 -.539 -.627 1.000
EFF .886 .406 .770 -.711 .887 .706 .781 .761 .861 .811 -.391 .391 -.577 -.733 .827 1.000
SAT .869 .402 .768 -.618 .879 .718 .757 .717 .848 .809 -.395 .395 -.497 -.642 .819 .919 1.000
+ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
+ Shaded areas are referred to in Chapter IV.
+ Abbreviations
TrForm L Transformational Leadership IM - Inspirational Motivation MBEp - Mgt-By-Exception (passive)
TrAct L Transactional Leadership IS - Intellectual Stimulation LF L Laissez-Faire Leadership
TrAct L rev Transactional Leadership (reversed) IC - Individual Consideration EE Extra Effort
Pas/Av L - Passive/Avoidant Leadership CR Contingent Reward EFF - Effectiveness
IIA - Idealized Influence (Attributed) MBEa Mgt-By-Exception (active) SAT - Satisfaction
IIB - Idealized influence (Behavior) MBEar Mgt-By-Exception (active) (reversed)

116
Transformational Leadership, 117

REFERENCES CITED

Antonakis, J. Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003,

June). Context & leadership: an examination of the nine-

factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,

14(3), 261-295.

Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP)

retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.aitp.org/.

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership

questionnaire: Third edition manual & sampler set. Menlo

Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining

the components of transformational and transactional

leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading

in the 1990s; The four Is of transformational

leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training,

15(4), 8-16.

Banerji, P. & Krishnan, V.R. (2000). Ethical preferences of

transformational leaders: An empirical investigation.


Transformational Leadership, 118

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(8),

405-413.

Barbuto Jr., J.E., (2005). Motivation and transactional,

charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of

antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 11(4), 26-41.

Barbuto Jr., J.E. & Burback M.E. (2006). The emotional

intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study

of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,

146(1), 51-64.

Barge, J.K. & Schlueter, D.W. (1991, May). Leadership as

organizing: A critique of leadership instruments.

Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 541-570.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership.

New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership:

A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions (pp 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). The multifactor leadership

questionnaire (form R, revised). Palo Alto, CA: Mind

Garden, Inc.
Transformational Leadership, 119

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodeim, L. (1987). Biography and

the assessment of transformational leadership at the

world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-20.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (1999, December). Re-

examining the components of transformational and

transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003).

Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational

and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid.

Houston: Gulf.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1981, December). Management by

grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and

Organization Studies, 6(4), 439-455.

Bobic, M.P. & Davis, W.E. (July, 2003). A kind word for theory

X: Or why many newfangled management techniques quickly

fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 13(3), 239-264.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower

Behavior and Organizational Performance: The impact of


Transformational Leadership, 120

transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.

Boyatzis (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective

performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Campbell, D. (1956). Leadership and its effects upon the

group. Ohio State University: Bureau of Business

Research, Monograph Number 83.

Carless, S.A. (1998, December). Assessing the discriminant

validity of transformational leader behavior as measured

by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 71, 353-358.

Carson, C.M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregors

Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.

Chaffee, E. (1989). Leadership in higher education: variations

on a theme. Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 167-175.

Chen, L.Y. (2004, September). Examining the effects of

organization culture and leadership behaviors on

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job

performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.

Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity:

The American college president (2nd ed.) Cambridge:

Harvard Business School Press.


Transformational Leadership, 121

Cotton, J.L. Vollrath, D.A., Froggati, K.K., Longneck-Hall,

M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988, January). Employee

participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.

Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.

Craig, S.B. & Gustafson, S.B. (1998). Perceived leader

integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee

perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly,

9(2), 127-145.

Cribbin, J. (1972). Effective managerial leadership. American

Management Association, Inc.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-

analysis to review organizational outcomes related to

charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.

Den Hartog, D.N. Van Mijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997,

March). Transactional versus transformational

leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.

Densten, I.L. (2002). Clarifying inspirational motivation and

its relationship to extra effort. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 23(1/2), 40-44.

Dessler, G. & Valenzi, E. R. (June, 1977). Initiation of

structure and subordinate satisfaction: A path analysis


Transformational Leadership, 122

test of path-goal theory. Academy of Management Journal,

20,(2), 251-259.

Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and

charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free

Press.

Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., & Avolio, B.J. (2002). A meta-

analysis of transformational and transactional leadership

correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update

and extension. In B.J. Avolio & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.),

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead (pp. 35-66). Amsterdam: JAI.

Evans, M.G. (1970). Leadership and motivation: A core concept.

Academy of Management Journal, 13,01, 91-102.

Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced

research in the field of transformational leadership.

Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung, 18(3), 262-288.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership

effectiveness : the leader match concept. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. (1987). The contingency model and dynamics of

leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). 59-112.


Transformational Leadership, 123

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, New

York: Free Press.

Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of

the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Geyer, A.L.J. & Steyrer, J.M. (1998). Transformational

leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied

Psychology, 47(3), 397-420.

Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001,

November). A theoretical and empirical extension to the

transformational leadership construct. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759-774.

Graeff, C.L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A

critical review. Academy of Management, 8, 285-296.

Halal, W.E. (1981). Participative management: Myth and

reality. California Management Review, 23,(4), 20-32.

Hambleton, R.K. & Gumbent, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey

and Blanchards theory of leader effectiveness. Group and

Organization Studies, 7, 225-242.

Harter, N.W. (Feb, 1997). The shop floor Schopenhauer: Hope

for a theory-X supervisor. Journal of Management

Education, 21(1), 87-96.

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988, November). Superiors'

evaluations and subordinates perceptions of


Transformational Leadership, 124

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of

leadership. Training and Development, 23, 26-34.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1996). Great ideas revisited:

Revisiting the life cycle theory of leadership. Training

and Development, 50(1), 42-48.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996).

Management of Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). Upper

saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., & Backer Johnson, T. (2007, March).

Burnout in the information technology sector: Does

leadership matter? European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 58-75.

House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leadership

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),

321-338.

House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In

J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.) Leadership: The cutting

edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.

House, R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of

leadership. Journal of Contemporary of Business, 4(3),

81-87.
Transformational Leadership, 125

Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993, December). Transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control,

and support for innovation, key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Howland, J. (2000). Xenophons philosophic odyssey: On the

anabasis and Platos republic. The American Political

Science Review, 94(4), 875-889.

Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the

sun: Transformational leadership from a historical

perspective. Management Decision, 41,(1/2) 85-95.

Isenberg, D.J. (1984, November-December). How senior managers

think. Harvard Business Review, 62, 81-90.

Jones, H.B. (June, 2001). Magic, meaning and leadership:

Webers model and the empirical literature. Human

Relations, 54(6), 753-771.

Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),

755-768.

Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style

and followers cultural orientation on performance in

group and individual task conditions. Academy of

Management Journal, 42, 208-218.


Transformational Leadership, 126

Kakabadse, A. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000). Future role of

IS/IT professionals. The Journal of Management

Development, 19(2), 97-154.

Katz, D., MacCoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951).

Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad

workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for

Social Research.

Katz, D., MacCoby, N. & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity,

supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research.

Kenny, D. & Zarccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due

to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

68 (4), 678-685.

Kerr, S. & Schriesheim, C. (1974). Consideration, initiating

structure, and organizational criteria-an update of

Kormans 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 7(4), 555-

568.

Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits

matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.

Korman, A.K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure and

organizational criteria a review. Personnel Psychology,

19, 349-361.
Transformational Leadership, 127

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge:

How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kouzes, O. & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain

it and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krishnan, V.R. (2001). Value systems of transformational

leaders. Leadership and Organizational Development

Journal, 22(3), 126-131.

Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related

values and leadership styles among one companys U.S. and

German telecommunication employees. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and

value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-

analysis of the relation between personality traits and

leadership perceptions: An application of validity

generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology,

71(3), 402-410.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam (1996).

Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analysis of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.


Transformational Leadership, 128

Mann, R.D. (July, 1959). A review of the relationships

between personality and performance in small groups.

Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-271.

Masi, R.J. & Cooke, R.A. (2000). Effects of transformational

leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms,

and organizational productivity. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 16-47.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:

Harper Row.

Maswood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J.

(2006). Transformational leadership and organizational

culture: The situational strength perspective.

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,

220(B6), 941-949.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial

civilization. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Medley, F. & Larochelle, D.R. (1995, September).

Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing

Management, 26(9), 64-68.

Meeker, S.M. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review

of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-510.


Transformational Leadership, 129

Miller, K. & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, satisfaction,

and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of

Management Journal, 29: 727-753.

Mind Garden, Inc. retrieved March 1, 2008 from

http://www.mindgarden.com/.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:

Harper and Row.

Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an

adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160-197.

Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction,

occupational preference and effort: A theoretical,

methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological

Bulletin, 81(12), 1053-1077.

Morse, N. (1953). Satisfactions in the white-collar job. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research.

Odom, L. & Green, M.T. (2003). Law and the ethics of

transformational leadership. Leadership and

Organizational Development Journal, 24(1/2), 62-69.

zaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on

empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 335-344.


Transformational Leadership, 130

Parry, K.W., & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2002). Perceived

integrity of transformational leaders in organizational

settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 75-96.

Prabhakar, G.P. (2005, December). An empirical study

reflecting the importance of transformational leadership

on project success across twenty-eight nations. Project

Management Journal, 36(4), 53-60.

Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2004). Dimensions of

transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical

extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.

Reddin, W. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training

and Development Journal, 21, 8-17.

Reddin, W. & Stuart-Kotze, R. (1973). Toward Situational

Management. Cost and Management, 47(3), 24-27.

Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K (2007). Transformational and

charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,

divergent and criterion validty of the MLQ and the CKS.

The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133.

Sarver, M. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness: An

examination of the leadership styles of Texas police

chiefs and the correlates of the most effective leaders.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(04). (UMI No.

3311989).
Transformational Leadership, 131

Schlechter, A.F. & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship

between transformational leadership, meaning, and

organizational citizenship behavior. Management Dynamics,

15(4), 2-16.

Schriesheim, C. & Glinow, M.A. (1977, September). The path-

goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical

analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405.

Schweiger, D.M., Anderson, C.R. & Locke, E.A., (1985). Complex

decision making: A longitudinal study of process and

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 36, 245-272.

Scott, E. (1956). Leadership and perceptions of organization.

Ohio State University: Bureau of Business Research,

Monograph Number 82.

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with

leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of

Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Historical trends in leadership theory

and research. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 1-

17.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the

literature. New York: Free Press.


Transformational Leadership, 132

Stogdill, R. & Shartle, C(1955). Methods in the Study of

Administrative Leadership. Ohio State University: Bureau

of Business Research, Monograph Number 80.

Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006, Fall). Exploring

the linkage between the characteristics of IT project

leaders and project success. Information Systems

Management, 23(4), 43-49.

Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.

Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pilla, R. (2001). The MLQ

revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.

The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-52.

Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key characteristics of technical

project leadership. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 20(5), 253-261.

Thite, M. (2000, August). Leadership styles in information

technology projects. International Journal of Project

Management, 18(4), 235-241.

Tosi, H. & Carroll, S. (1976). Management: contingencies,

structure, and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Tucker, B.A. & Russell, R.F. (2003, Spring). The influence of

the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.


Transformational Leadership, 133

Vecchio, R.P. (1987). Situational Leadership theory: An

examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72(3), 444-451.

Vroom, V. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

1527-1551. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Vroom, V. (1982). Work and Motivation. Florida: Robert E.

Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.

Wagner, J.A. & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and

organizational behavior: A met-analysis of situational

variables expected to moderate participation-outcome

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-

541.

Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990, December).

Adding to contingent-reward behavior the augmenting

effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization

Studies (1986-1998). Beverly Hills, 15(4), 381-395.

Walumbawa, F.Q., Lawler, J.L., Avolio, B.J., Wang, P., & Shi,

K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related

attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-

efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16.

Wren, D.A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th

ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.


Transformational Leadership, 134

Xenikou, A. & Simois, M. (2006). Organizational culture and

transformational leadership as predictors of business

unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

21(6), 566-579.

Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1990, October). Transformational

leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human

Relations, 43(10), 975-996.

Yammarino, F.J. & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994, Winter).

Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 787-816.


Transformational Leadership, 135

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antonakis, J. Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003,

June). Context & leadership: an examination of the nine-

factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,

14(3), 261-295.

Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP)

retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.aitp.org/.

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership

questionnaire: Third edition manual & sampler set. Menlo

Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining

the components of transformational and transactional

leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading

in the 1990s; The four Is of transformational

leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training,

15(4), 8-16.

Avolio, B.J., Weichun, Z., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).

Transformational leadership and organizational

commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment


Transformational Leadership, 136

and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

Banerji, P. & Krishnan, V.R. (2000). Ethical preferences of

transformational leaders: An empirical investigation.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(8),

405-413.

Barbuto Jr., J.E., (2005). Motivation and transactional,

charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of

antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 11(4), 26-41.

Barbuto Jr., J.E. & Burback M.E. (2006). The emotional

intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study

of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,

146(1), 51-64.

Barge, J.K. & Schlueter, D.W. (1991, May). Leadership as

organizing: A critique of leadership instruments.

Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 541-570.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of

leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational

leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27.


Transformational Leadership, 137

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership:

A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions (pp 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). The multifactor leadership

questionnaire (form R, revised). Palo Alto, CA: Mind

Garden, Inc.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodeim, L. (1987). Biography and

the assessment of transformational leadership at the

world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-20.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (1999, December). Re-

examining the components of transformational and

transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003).

Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational

and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid.

Houston: Gulf.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1981, December). Management by

grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and

Organization Studies, 6(4), 439-455.


Transformational Leadership, 138

Bobic, M.P. & Davis, W.E. (July, 2003). A kind word for theory

X: Or why many newfangled management techniques quickly

fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 13(3), 239-264.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower

Behavior and Organizational Performance: The impact of

transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.

Boyatzis (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective

performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bradford, D.L. & Cohen, A.R. (1984). Managing for excellence:

The guide to developing high performance organizations.

New York: Wiley.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Campbell, D. (1956). Leadership and its effects upon the

group. Ohio State University: Bureau of Business

Research, Monograph Number 83.

Carless, S.A. (1998, December). Assessing the discriminant

validity of transformational leader behavior as measured

by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 71, 353-358.

Carson, C.M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregors

Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.


Transformational Leadership, 139

Chaffee, E. (1989). Leadership in higher education: variations

on a theme. Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 167-175.

Chen, L.Y. (2004, September). Examining the effects of

organization culture and leadership behaviors on

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job

performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.

Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity:

The American college president (2nd ed.) Cambridge:

Harvard Business School Press.

Cotton, J.L. Vollrath, D.A., Froggati, K.K., Longneck-Hall,

M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988, January). Employee

participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.

Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.

Craig, S.B. & Gustafson, S.B. (1998). Perceived leader

integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee

perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly,

9(2), 127-145.

Cribbin, J. (1972). Effective managerial leadership. American

Management Association, Inc.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-

analysis to review organizational outcomes related to

charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.


Transformational Leadership, 140

Den Hartog, D.N. Van Mijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997,

March). Transactional versus transformational

leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.

Densten, I.L. (2002). Clarifying inspirational motivation and

its relationship to extra effort. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 23(1/2), 40-44.

Dessler, G. & Valenzi, E. R. (June, 1977). Initiation of

structure and subordinate satisfaction: A path analysis

test of path-goal theory. Academy of Management Journal,

20,(2), 251-259.

Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and

charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free

Press.

Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., & Avolio, B.J. (2002). A meta-

analysis of transformational and transactional leadership

correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update

and extension. In B.J. Avolio & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.),

Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead (pp. 35-66). Amsterdam: JAI.

Evans, M.G. (1970). Leadership and motivation: A core concept.

Academy of Management Journal, 13,01, 91-102.


Transformational Leadership, 141

Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced

research in the field of transformational leadership.

Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung, 18(3), 262-288.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership

effectiveness : the leader match concept. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. (1987). The contingency model and dynamics of

leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). 59-112.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, New

York: Free Press.

Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of

the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Fry, L., Kerr, S. & Lee, C. (1986, December). Effects of

different leader behaviors under different levels of task

interdependence. Human Relations. New York, 39(12),

1067-1082.

Gardner, L. & Avolio, B.J. (January 1998). The charismatic

relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. The Academy of

Management Review, 23(1), 32-58.

Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship

between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior


Transformational Leadership, 142

level managers. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 23(1/2), 68-78.

Geyer, A.L.J. & Steyrer, J.M. (1998). Transformational

leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied

Psychology, 47(3), 397-420.

Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001,

November). A theoretical and empirical extension to the

transformational leadership construct. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759-774.

Graeff, C.L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A

critical review. Academy of Management, 8, 285-296.

Gray, E. & Smeltzer, L. (1989). Management: the competitive

edge. New York: Macmillan.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the

nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press,

New York, NY

Halal, W.E. (1981). Participative management: Myth and

reality. California Management Review, 23,(4), 20-32.

Hambleton, R.K. & Gumbent, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey

and Blanchards theory of leader effectiveness. Group and

Organization Studies, 7, 225-242.

Harter, N.W. (Feb, 1997). The shop floor Schopenhauer: Hope

for a theory-X supervisor. Journal of Management

Education, 21(1), 87-96.


Transformational Leadership, 143

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988, November). Superiors'

evaluations and subordinates perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.

Hayashi, A. & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders emotional

intelligence and transformational leadership. The Journal

of Experiential Education, 28(3), 222-242.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of

leadership. Training and Development, 23, 26-34.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1996). Great ideas revisited:

Revisiting the life cycle theory of leadership. Training

and Development, 50(1), 42-48.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996).

Management of Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). Upper

saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., & Backer Johnson, T. (2007, March).

Burnout in the information technology sector: Does

leadership matter? European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 58-75.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills,

California: Sage.

Hofstede, G (1991). Cultures and organizations. London:

McGraw-Hill.
Transformational Leadership, 144

House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leadership

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),

321-338.

House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In

J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.) Leadership: The cutting

edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.

House, R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of

leadership. Journal of Contemporary of Business, 4(3),

81-87.

Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993, December). Transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control,

and support for innovation, key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Howland, J. (2000). Xenophons philosophic odyssey: On the

anabasis and Platos republic. The American Political

Science Review, 94(4), 875-889.

Humphreys, J.H. (2005). Contextual implications for

transformational and servant leadership: A historical

investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 1410-1431.

Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the

sun: Transformational leadership from a historical

perspective. Management Decision, 41,(1/2), 85-95.


Transformational Leadership, 145

Isenberg, D.J. (1984, November-December). How senior managers

think. Harvard Business Review, 62, 81-90.

Jabnoun, Naceur & Rasasi, Aisha Juma A L (2005).

Transformational leadership and service quality in UAE

hospitals. Managing Service Quality, 15,(1), 70-81.

Jones, H.B. (June, 2001). Magic, meaning and leadership:

Webers model and the empirical literature. Human

Relations, 54(6), 753-771.

Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their

relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),

755-768.

Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style

and followers cultural orientation on performance in

group and individual task conditions. Academy of

Management Journal, 42, 208-218.

Kakabadse, A. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000). Future role of

IS/IT professionals. The Journal of Management

Development, 19(2), 97-154.

Katz, D., MacCoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951).

Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad

workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for

Social Research.
Transformational Leadership, 146

Katz, D., MacCoby, N. & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity,

supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research.

Kenny, D. & Zarccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due

to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

68 (4), 678-685.

Kerr, S. & Schriesheim, C. (1974). Consideration, initiating

structure, and organizational criteria-an update of

Kormans 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 7(4), 555-

568.

Khatri, N., NG, H.A., & Lee, T.H. (July 2001). The distinction

between charisma and vision: An empirical study. Asia

Pacific Journal of Management, 18(3), 373-393.

Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits

matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.

Korman, A.K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure and

organizational criteria a review. Personnel Psychology,

19, 349-361.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge:

How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.


Transformational Leadership, 147

Kouzes, O. & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain

it and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krishnan, V.R. (2001). Value systems of transformational

leaders. Leadership and Organizational Development

Journal, 22(3), 126-131.

Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related

values and leadership styles among one companys U.S. and

German telecommunication employees. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.

Kpers, W. & Weibler, J. (2006). How emotional is

transformational leadership really? Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 368-383.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and

value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Larson, L., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (1976, December). The great

hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from occams razor.

Academy of Management Journal, 19(4), 628-641.

Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-

analysis of the relation between personality traits and

leadership perceptions: An application of validity

generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology,

71(3), 402-410.
Transformational Leadership, 148

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam (1996).

Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analysis of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Mann, R.D. (July, 1959). A review of the relationships

between personality and performance in small groups.

Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-271.

Masi, R.J. & Cooke, R.A. (2000). Effects of transformational

leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms,

and organizational productivity. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 16-47.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:

Harper Row.

Maswood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J.

(2006). Transformational leadership and organizational

culture: The situational strength perspective.

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,

220(B6), 941-949.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial

civilization. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Transformational Leadership, 149

Medley, F. & Larochelle, D.R. (1995, September).

Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing

Management, 26(9), 64-68.

Meeker, S.M. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review

of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-510.

Miller, K. & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, satisfaction,

and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of

Management Journal, 29: 727-753.

Mind Garden, Inc. retrieved March 1, 2008 from

http://www.mindgarden.com/.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:

Harper and Row.

Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an

adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160-197.

Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction,

occupational preference and effort: A theoretical,

methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological

Bulletin, 81(12), 1053-1077.

Morreale, Stephen A. (2002) Analysis of perceived leader

behaviors in law enforcement agencies. D.P.A.

dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, United States

-- Florida. Retrieved July 19, 2008, from Dissertations &

Theses @ Nova Southeastern University database.

(Publication No. AAT 3074882).


Transformational Leadership, 150

Morse, N. (1953). Satisfactions in the white-collar job. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research.

Odom, L. & Green, M.T. (2003). Law and the ethics of

transformational leadership. Leadership and

Organizational Development Journal, 24(1/2), 62-69.

zaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on

empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 335-344.

Parry, K.W., & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2002). Perceived

integrity of transformational leaders in organizational

settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 75-96.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L.

(1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and

punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Prabhakar, G.P. (2005, December). An empirical study

reflecting the importance of transformational leadership

on project success across twenty-eight nations. Project

Management Journal, 36(4), 53-60.

Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983, March). A spatial model of

effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values

approach to organizational analysis. Management Science,

29(3), 363-377.
Transformational Leadership, 151

Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2004). Dimensions of

transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical

extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.

Reddin, W. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training

and Development Journal, 21, 8-17.

Reddin, W. & Stuart-Kotze, R. (1973). Toward Situational

Management. Cost and Management, 47(3), 24-27.

Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K (2007). Transformational and

charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,

divergent and criterion validty of the MLQ and the CKS.

The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133.

Sarver, M. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness: An

examination of the leadership styles of Texas police

chiefs and the correlates of the most effective leaders.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(04). (UMI No.

3311989).

Schlechter, A.F. & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship

between transformational leadership, meaning, and

organizational citizenship behavior. Management Dynamics,

15(4), 2-16.

Schriesheim, C. & Glinow, M.A. (1977, September). The path-

goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical

analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405.


Transformational Leadership, 152

Schweiger, D.M., Anderson, C.R. & Locke, E.A., (1985). Complex

decision making: A longitudinal study of process and

performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 36, 245-272.

Scott, E. (1956). Leadership and perceptions of organization.

Ohio State University: Bureau of Business Research,

Monograph Number 82.

Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T.N. (Spring, 2004).

Transformational and servant leadership: Content and

contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Historical trends in leadership theory

and research. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 1-

17.

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with

leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of

Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the

literature. New York: Free Press.

Stogdill, R. & Shartle, C(1955). Methods in the Study of

Administrative Leadership. Ohio State University: Bureau

of Business Research, Monograph Number 80.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., Patterson, K. (2004).

Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference


Transformational Leadership, 153

in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 25(3/4), 349 361.

Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006, Fall). Exploring

the linkage between the characteristics of IT project

leaders and project success. Information Systems

Management, 23(4), 43-49.

Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.

Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pilla, R. (2001). The MLQ

revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.

The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-52.

Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key characteristics of technical

project leadership. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 20(5), 253-261.

Thite, M. (2000, August). Leadership styles in information

technology projects. International Journal of Project

Management, 18(4), 235-241.

Tickle, E.L. Brownlee, J., & Nailon, D. Personal

epistemological beliefs and transformational leadership

behaviors. The Journal of Management Development,

24(7/8), 706-719.

Tosi, H. & Carroll, S. (1976). Management: contingencies,

structure, and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press.


Transformational Leadership, 154

Tucker, B.A. & Russell, R.F. (2003, Spring). The influence of

the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.

Vecchio, R.P. (1987). Situational Leadership theory: An

examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72(3), 444-451.

Veechio, R. (1988). Organizational Behavior. Chicago: Dryden.

Vrba, M. (2007). Emotional intelligence skills and leadership

behavior in a sample of South African first-line

managers. Management Dynamics, 16(2), 25-35.

Vroom, V. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

1527-1551. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Vroom, V. (1982). Work and Motivation. Florida: Robert E.

Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.

Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. (1981). Leadership and Decision-making.

Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

Wagner, J.A. & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and

organizational behavior: A met-analysis of situational

variables expected to moderate participation-outcome

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-

541.

Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990, December).

Adding to contingent-reward behavior the augmenting


Transformational Leadership, 155

effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization

Studies (1986-1998). Beverly Hills, 15(4), 381-395.

Walumbawa, F.Q., Lawler, J.L., Avolio, B.J., Wang, P., & Shi,

K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related

attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-

efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16.

Wren, D.A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th

ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Xenikou, A. & Simois, M. (2006). Organizational culture and

transformational leadership as predictors of business

unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

21(6), 566-579.

Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1990, October). Transformational

leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human

Relations, 43(10), 975-996.

Yammarino, F.J. & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994, Winter).

Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 787-816.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.