Impact of Leader’s Self-Monitoring on Transformational Leadership and Followers’

Karma-Yoga

1
 Abstract

Using a sample of 65 manager-subordinate dyads from various organizations

across industry sectors, relationships between leaders’ self- monitoring, transformational

leadership and subordinates’ Karma-Yoga (followers’ sense of duty) was studied. It was

hypothesized that leader’s self monitoring is positively related to transformational

leadership, transformational leadership is positively related to Karma-Yoga, self-

monitoring is positively related to Karma-Yoga and that self monitoring enhances the

relationship between transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga. Results show that

self-monitoring is positively related to transformational leadership; transformational

leadership is positively related to subordinates’ Karma-Yoga in case of male followers;

self-monitoring is not related to Karma-Yoga and self-monitoring moderating the

relationship between transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga is not supported. Also,

manager-rated Karma-Yoga scores for subordinates do not show any relationship with

either self-monitoring or with transformational leadership. Implications of results in view

of the downturn in India are discussed.

2
 Introduction

Most people love to hear things presented to them in a manner they see as

appropriate. This personalized approach of giving people what they want in a way they

see it leads to better conceptualization of products or ideas. In such typical situations

faced in marketing and sales, self-monitoring is a key asset in terms of effective self-

presentation. In a fast-changing world which is high in dynamism, a new leadership

approach, transformational leadership, has come into sharp focus. Transformational

leaders are seen as change agents, and are most effective in such dynamic scenarios

where change is the order of the hour.

Today, the focus of business is moving more towards Asia, particularly towards

India and China which are among the fastest growing economies. With this in mind, we

have introduced Karma-Yoga, a variable that has been defined in the Indian context, and

made an attempt to find relationships between self-monitoring, transformational

leadership and Karma-Yoga. Results of this study, we believe would be beneficial

especially during the current economic slowdown India is facing.

Theory and Hypotheses

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring individuals are ones who, out of a concern for social

appropriateness, are particularly sensitive to the expression and self-presentation of

others in social situations and use these cues as guidelines for monitoring their own self-

presentation. In contrast, non-self-monitoring persons would have little concern for the

appropriateness of their presentation and expression, pay less attention to the expression

3
of others, and monitor and control their presentation to a lesser extent. Their presentation

and expression would appear to be controlled from within by their experience rather than

by situational and interpersonal specifications of appropriateness (Snyder, 1974),

expressive behavior functionally reflecting their own inner attitudes, emotions, and

dispositions (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).

High self-monitors are similar to social pragmatists, willing and able to project

images designed to impress others and seem to believe in the appearances they create, to

take stock in the fact that these appearances have a real chance of becoming real. By

contrast, low self-monitors seem appear both unwilling and unable to put on such

appearances. They believe that putting on images are wrong, only true thing being the

portrayal of the actual self, which they also believe to be principled (Gangestad &

Snyder, 2000). Self-monitoring individuals would be most likely to monitor and control

their expression in situations containing reliable cues to social appropriateness (Snyder,

1974). Those adept at self-monitoring see themselves as social beings, their identities

defined by a set of clearly defined role performances (Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998).

High self-monitoring implies that people are concerned with how others will react

and involves external cues such as expectations that others might have of them. High

self-monitors are skilled at communicating socially appropriate impressions both vocally

and nonverbally (Snyder, 1974). Low self-monitors focus on internal cues such as their

own attitudes or beliefs as a basis for behavior. High self-monitors also tend to use third-

person pronouns in their speech as compared to low self-monitors who use first-person

pronouns more often, indicating differential focus- the former focusing on others, the

latter focusing on self.

4
 As shown by Toegel, Anand and Kilduff (2007), high self-monitoring managers

are those who tend to monitor and ameliorate the negative emotions of others in the

workplace. This is derived from the study by Ickes, Holloway, Stinson and Hoodenpyle

(2006) on the centrality of the self-affect in self-monitoring, in which they summarize

and conclude that high self-monitors strive to make a situation work well, bring in a lot of

cognitive and emotional resources to ensure this, and feel a positive self-affect when they

have the desired effect on partners in a social interaction, when compared to low self-

monitors who feel a positive self-affect at their self-performance in the interaction, not by

the desired effect. This is also strengthened by the positive relationship between self-

monitoring and impression management. Particularly, Sosik, Avolio & Jung (2002) have

shown self-monitoring to be positively related to self-serving impression management.

Barrick, Parks & Mount (2005) have suggested that high self-monitoring is paramount

for professions in which interpersonal performance is important. Kilduff & Day (1994)

have shown that self-monitoring is directly related to managerial success. Mehra, Kilduff,

& Brass (2001), in their study of the social networks of self-monitors and implications for

workplace performance, theorize that high self-monitors, relative to low self-monitors,

tend to develop friendship relations at work with distinctly different people. Whereas low

self-monitors will tend to occupy relatively homogenous social worlds, high self-

monitors will tend to develop relationships across groups, using their flexible identities to

play different roles in different groups. In a workplace, high self-monitors are therefore

likely to bridge social worlds, acting as conduits through which otherwise unconnected

people exchange information.

5
 Flynn & Ames (2006) tell us that gender is a factor that affects self-monitoring.

High self-monitoring women were more adept at altering their behavior when in dyadic

situations than high self-monitoring men and low self-monitoring men and women, and

thus were more effective in their performance. This knowledge is important because self-

monitoring, generally important and effective, sometimes benefits one sex more than the

other based on the situation. They go on to suggest that self-monitoring is more useful

for those who have problems in overcoming others’ lowered expectations of their

performance, especially when the situation is moderated by gender stereotypes. Thus,

self-monitoring is relatively more effective for women, as most work situations are

influenced by masculine stereotyping, that is, it is assumed that males are more suited to

that work.

Transformational Leadership

According to Krishnan (2003 P: 346), “Transformational leaders throw

themselves into dynamic relationships with their followers who will feel elevated by it

and become more active themselves, thereby creating new cadres of leaders.

Transformational leadership alters and elevates the motives, values and goals of followers

through the vital teaching role of leadership, enabling leaders and followers to be united

in the pursuit of higher goals”. As Sosik, Potosky, and Jung (2002 P: 214) put it,

“Transformational leadership goes beyond transactional leadership in that followers are

motivated to do more than required”.

Transformational leadership, according to Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999)

comprises of four components: Charisma, inspirational motivation, individualized

consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Later, for better clarity, charisma was seen as

6
idealized influence. Kark, Shamir, and Chen (2003), Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson

(2003) expanded the four components by giving explanations of understanding.

According to them, inspirational motivation involves creation and presentation of an

attractive vision for the future, which the followers can ultimately envision for

themselves, providing meaning and challenge to followers’ work, use of emotional

statements and arguments, and symbols, and a show of optimism and enthusiasm.

Idealized influence includes behaviors such as sacrificing for the benefit of the group,

taking risks for the group, setting of personal examples by leaders and a show of high

ethical standards, inducing followers to emulate them. The component individualized

consideration involves the provision of support, encouragement and training to followers

in an individualized manner. The last component, intellectual stimulation, involves

behaviors that aim at increasing innovation and creativity in followers enabling them to

approach problem solving with new perspectives, and active involvement of followers in

addressing and solving such problems. Therefore, a show of these behaviors by leaders

makes them transformational. In fact, “These behaviors transform their followers helping

them to reach their full potential and generate the highest levels of performance” (Dvir,

Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002 P: 736), and Bass (1999) said this about transformational

leadership: “It elevates the follower’s level of maturity and ideals as well as concerns for

achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and

society”. Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, and Clemons (1990) showed that gender was a

determinant of leader emergence: that more men emerged as leaders than women.

7
Self-Monitoring and Transformational Leadership

Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, and Clemons (1990) hypothesized and prove that self-

monitoring is a determinant of leader emergence. Particularly, they concluded that high

self-monitors more frequently emerged as leaders, exerted more influence on group

decisions and initiated more structure than did low self-monitors.

Self-monitoring skills are known to help charismatic leaders to determine how

effective their arguments are in convincing both adversaries and followers that their

message is correct (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Here, high-self monitoring can be seen as

an effective personal attribute of charismatic leaders.

Self-monitoring has been shown to affect leadership style and vision content

(Sosik & Dinger, 2007), particularly high self-monitoring induces a stronger positive

relationship between charismatic leadership and inspirational vision themes, whereas low

self-monitoring induces a stronger positive relationship between contingent reward

leadership and instrumental vision themes, thus acting as an effective moderator. The

managerial implication of this implies that personal attributes such as self-monitoring

become important indicators for selection of managers for training in

charismatic/transformational leadership. Further, “High levels of self-monitoring not only

facilitate the development of a charismatic image, but also help sustain the positive image

to exert a high level of influence” (Jung & Sosik, 2006 P: 14). Jung and Sosik (2006)

went on to hypothesize and find that high self monitoring was found to be much higher in

a high charismatic leadership group than in a low charismatic leadership group.

This led us to hypothesize that

8
 Hypothesis 1. Leader’s self-monitoring is positively related to transformational

leadership.

Karma-Yoga

“The core of Karma-Yoga is being duty-oriented and being able to follow one’s

duty even though it may be personally uncomfortable.” (Mulla & Krishnan, 2008 P: 35).

Karma-Yoga is about discharging one’s duties with devotion and includes and involves

doing one’s normal duties and assuming roles with complete dedication, without any

expectation of gain from one’s effort (Krishnan, 2007). Krishnan, (2007) also wrote that

people who socialize in the Indian culture consider themselves to be born with duties,

rather than with rights, and that this aspect of work is one fundamental difference the

Indian culture has when compared with most other cultures. This understanding was

necessary as our study was done in India. Mulla & Krishnan (2008) have also defined

Karma-Yoga as a technique for intelligently performing duties. Thus, Karma-Yoga is

about performing one’s duties without expectations of rewards or returns, implying non-

attachment (Krishnan, 2007). According to Krishnan (2001), individuals who rate high on

Karma-Yoga believe that their lives and work are a means of discharging their

obligations to society. Building on this, Mulla and Krishnan (2006) wrote that such

individuals give more priority to other-focused social values than to self-focused personal

values, and feel a sense of connectedness with others, as a result of which they have a

superior ability to perceive the needs and feelings of people around them.

9
Transformational Leadership and Karma-Yoga

Krishnan, (2007) wrote that supervisor’s leadership style is a very significant

factor which affects followers’ beliefs and attitudes, and that transformational leadership

does not take current values and motivations to be fixed, but seeks to change them.

“Transformational leaders serve as an independent force in changing the makeup of

followers' motive base through gratifying their motives. Transformational leadership is

based on leaders' shifting the values, beliefs, and needs of their followers.” (Krishnan,

2007 P: 52). Krishnan, (2001) also showed that transformational leaders give importance

to other-focused social values. Ozaralli, (2003) wrote that transformational behaviors of

leaders promote empowerment of cultural norms. Duties, related to Karma-Yoga, are part

of Indian cultural norms. Ozaralli, (2003) also showed that followers who worked under

transformational leaders reported higher performance and goal attainment within their

group. Pillai and Williams, (2004) found that transformational leaders built committed

and high performing work groups by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness.

Kuhnert and Lewis, (1987) wrote that transformational leaders motivate followers

to accept, pursue and accomplish goals of a difficult nature, which normally the followers

wouldn’t have accepted, because leaders’ end values such as integrity, honor and justice

are adopted by followers, resulting in a transformation in their attitudes, beliefs and goals.

Menon and Krishnan, (2004) wrote that transformational leaders take

responsibility for their commitments and initiate the same in followers. They also

hypothesized and showed that transformational leadership had a positive relationship

with followers’ Karma-Yoga in case of male followers. Mehra and Krishnan, (2005)

10
hypothesized and showed that Svadharma-orientation (following one’s own dharma or

duty) is positively related to transformational leadership.

This led us to hypothesize that

Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership is positively related to followers’

Karma-Yoga.

Self-Monitoring and Karma-Yoga

Kirkpatrick and Locke, (1996) showed that leader's vision and vision

implementation through task cues affects performance and many attitudes of

subordinates. The presence of task cues also significantly improves task clarity and

intellectual stimulation of subordinates. According to Gardner and Avolio, (1998),

charismatic leaders tailor the emotional content of their message to meet followers’ hopes

and expectations, an effective method for charismatic leaders who are also high self-

monitors, to probably be more effective in accurately identifying followers' needs and

values and regulating their own behavior to reflect a consistency with these needs and

values as considered by Sosik and Dinger, (2007). Sosik and Dinger, (2007) also wrote

that self-monitoring affects leadership style and vision content, and that high self-

monitoring is an effective attribute of charismatic leaders. Krishnan, (2007) hypothesized

and showed that transformational leadership enhances followers’ duty orientation

(Karma-Yoga) and oneness.

This led us to hypothesize that

Hypothesis 3. Leader’s self-monitoring is positively related to followers’ Karma-

Yoga.

11
Self- Monitoring, transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga

Self-monitoring can be seen as an effective contributor to transformational

leadership style and vision content (Sosik & Dinger, 2007) and maybe positively

influence the effect of transformational leaders on followers’ Karma-Yoga (Krishnan,

2007).

This led us to hypothesize that

Hypothesis 4. Leader’s self-monitoring enhances the relationship between

transformational leadership and followers’ Karma-Yoga.

Method

For this study, we collected data from manager-subordinate pairs in various

organizations, in a dyadic relationship, on measures of self-monitoring, transformational

leadership and Karma-Yoga. Managers rated themselves on self-monitoring. The

subordinates respectively rated their managers on transformational leadership skills. The

subordinates rated themselves on Karma-Yoga, and the managers also rated their

respective subordinates on Karma-Yoga. We got 84 responses to the manager

questionnaire and 81 responses to the subordinate questionnaire, of which 65 were

matched pairs. Out of 65 subordinates, 52 were male and 13 were female. Of the

respondent managers, 60% were aged between 30 and 40 years, 37% were aged above 40

years and 3% were aged below 30 years. In terms of experience, 9% had less than one

year experience, 26% had work experience ranging from 1 to 2 years, 20% had work

experience ranging from 2 to 3 years and 45% had work experience above 3 years, in

their present roles.

12
 Of the respondent subordinates, 51% were aged less than 30 years, 17% were

aged between 30 and 40 years, and 32% were aged above 40 years. In terms of work

experience, 43% had less than a year’s work experience, 31% had work experience

ranging from 1 to 2 years, 11% had work experience ranging from 2 to 3 years and 15%

had work experience above 3 years, under their respective managers.

To measure transformational leadership of managers, we used a slightly modified

version of the transformational leadership questionnaire which Krishnan, (2007) used in

his study. The questionnaire contains 30 items and measures the five dimensions of

transformational leadership, idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, with

six items measuring each dimension. With sample size N= 65, we measured the scale

reliabilities of each of the dimensions. As the dimensions were highly correlated with

each other, we found the average of dimensions for all respondents and used the value as

a composite score for transformational leadership. We got standardized Cronbach alpha

scores of 0.74 for idealized influence attributed, 0.74 for idealized influence behavior,

0.76 for inspirational motivation, 0.81 for intellectual stimulation and 0.83 for

individualized consideration.

To measure Karma-Yoga of subordinates, we used the 5 item scale developed by

Mulla and Krishnanⁿ, (2006) in their work on the conceptualization and validation of

Karma-yoga. The 5 items measure Karma-Yoga- sense of duty/ obligations. For the scale,

the initial alpha scores were 0.55 for the manager- subordinate rating, and 0.34 for the

subordinate self rating. Therefore, we ran a factor analysis test using principal component

analysis and orthogonal varimax rotation for the self- rated Karma-Yoga scores. The first

13
analysis resulted in the removal of the fifth item due to cross loading. The second

analysis found the remaining items load on to one clean factor, but the fourth item

showed a negative loading. We therefore removed the fourth item and conducted a

further analysis and found that the first three items all loaded on to one clean factor with

positive loading. We ran a factor analysis test for the manager-subordinate rated scores

also using the first three items and got a single factor loading. The factor analysis tables

are shown below. We got new standardized alpha scores for the manager-subordinate

rating and self-rating of the Karma-Yoga sense of duty using the first three items as 0.87

and 0.60 respectively. For testing the relationship between transformational leadership

and Karma-Yoga for male followers, a new sample of N=52 was considered, and we got

a standardized Cronbach alpha score of 0.67 for self-rated Karma-Yoga.

To measure self-monitoring of managers, we used the 13- item revised self-

monitoring scale of Lennox and Locke (1984). We chose this scale over Snyder’s (1974)

scale as this scale avoided the drawbacks of Snyder’s (1974) scale by focusing on a

narrower definition of the construct, that is, on sensitivity to the expressive behavior of

others and the ability to modify self-presentation. We got a standardized alpha score of

0.85 for the scale.

14
Step 1: Karma-Yoga self-rated

The FACTOR Procedure

Initial Factor Method: Principal Co mponents
Partial Correlations Controlling all other Variables

kys1 kys2 kys3 kys4r kys5r

kys1 kys1 1.00000 0.25502 0.14702 -0.07601 -0.08976

kys2 kys2 0.25502 1.00000 0.32002 -0.09125 0.13119

kys3 kys3 0.14702 0.32002 1.00000 -0.07195 0.21017

kys4r kys4r -0.07601 -0.09125 -0.07195 1.00000 0.13001

kys5r kys5r -0.08976 0.13119 0.21017 0.13001 1.00000

K aiser's M easure of Sampling Adequacy: O verall M SA = 0.63030280

kys1 kys2 kys3 kys4r kys5r

0.65590690 0.63551948 0.64258147 0.61471945 0.55424886

Prior Communality Estimates: ONE

Eigenvalues of the Correlation M atrix: Total
= 5 Average = 1

Eigenvalue Difference P roportion Cumulative

1 1.80289214 0.65783874 0.3606 0.3606

2 1.14505340 0.30325344 0.2290 0.5896

3 0.84179995 0.20299272 0.1684 0.7579

4 0.63880724 0.06735997 0.1278 0.8857

5 0.57144727 0.1143 1.0000

2 factors will be retained by the MINE IGEN criterio n.

F a cto r P a ttern

F a c t o r1 F a c t o r2

k y s1 k ys1 0 .6 1 0 8 9 - 0 .3 4 8 1 8

k y s2 k ys2 0 .7 8 5 7 5 0 .0 0 5 5 5

k y s3 k ys3 0 .7 5 9 9 8 0 .1 6 2 9 7

k ys4 r k y s4 r - 0 .2 9 4 6 3 0 .6 7 4 5 2

k ys5 r k y s5 r 0 .3 8 4 6 0 0 .7 3 6 3 8

V a ria n c e E x p la in e d b y E a c h
F acto r

F a cto r1 F a cto r2

1 .8 0 2 8 9 2 1 1 .1 4 5 0 5 3 4

15
T he F A C T O R P ro ced ure
R otatio n M etho d : V arim a x
O rth ogo n al T ran sfo rm ation M atrix

1 2

1 0.9 982 7 -0.0 587 3

2 0.0 587 3 0 .99 827

R otated F a ctor P attern

F acto r1 F a cto r2

ky s1 kys1 0.5 89 39 -0.383 45

ky s2 kys2 0.7 84 72 -0.040 60

ky s3 kys3 0.7 68 24 0 .1 180 6

kys4 r k ys4 r -0 .25 451 0 .6 906 5

kys5 r k ys5 r 0.4 27 18 0 .7 125 3

V aria n ce E xp lain ed b y E a ch
F a cto r

F a cto r1 F a cto r2

1.800 623 5 1.147 322 1

Step 2

T he F A C T O R P ro c ed u re
I n it ia l F a c t o r M e t h o d : P r in c ip a l C o m p o n e n t s

P r io r C o m m u n a l it y E s t im a t e s : O N E
E i g e n v a lu e s o f t h e C o r r e la t i o n M a t r i x : T o t a l
= 4 A v era g e = 1

E i g e n v a lu e D iffe r e n c e P r o p o r t io n C u m u la t i v e

1 1 .7 3 6 3 1 2 0 6 0 .7 9 8 1 3 8 6 6 0 .4 3 4 1 0 .4 3 4 1

2 0 .9 3 8 1 7 3 4 0 0 .1 8 4 1 4 4 7 1 0 .2 3 4 5 0 .6 6 8 6

3 0 .7 5 4 0 2 8 6 9 0 .1 8 2 5 4 2 8 5 0 .1 8 8 5 0 .8 5 7 1

4 0 .5 7 1 4 8 5 8 5 0 .1 4 2 9 1 .0 0 0 0

1 fa c t o r w ill b e r e t a in e d b y t h e M I N E I G E N c r it e r io n .
F a cto r P a tte rn

F a cto r1

k y s1 k y s1 0 .6 7 1 1 2

k y s2 k y s2 0 .7 8 2 3 7

k y s3 k y s3 0 .7 2 9 4 5

k y s4 r k y s4 r -0 .3 7 6 4 6

V a r i a n c e E x p la i n e d
b y E a ch F a ctor

F a c to r1

1 .7 3 6 3 1 2 1

16
Step 3

The FACTOR Procedure

Initial Factor Method: Principal Co mponents
Partial Correlations Controlling all other
Variables

kys1 kys2 kys3

kys1 kys1 1.00000 0.25479 0.13638

kys2 kys2 0.25479 1.00000 0.36353

kys3 kys3 0.13638 0.36353 1.00000

Kaiser's M easure of Sampling Adequacy:

Overall M SA = 0.61618757

kys1 kys2 kys3

0.67491619 0.58831473 0.61169122

Prior Communality Estimates: ONE

Eigenvalues of the Correlation M atrix: Total
= 3 Average = 1

Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

1 1.67093135 0.91348800 0.5570 0.5570

2 0.75744335 0.18581805 0.2525 0.8095

3 0.57162530 0.1905 1.0000

1 factor will be retained by the MINEIGEN criterion.

Factor Pattern

Factor1

kys1 kys1 0.67927

kys2 kys2 0.80093

kys3 kys3 0.75368

Variance Explained
by Each Factor

Factor1

1.6709313

17
Karma-Yoga manager rated

T he F A C T O R P ro ced ure
In it ia l F a c t o r M e t h o d : P r in c ip a l C o m p o n e nt s
P a rt ia l C o r re la tio n s C o n tro llin g a ll o th e r V a ria b le s

k y m s1 k y m s2 k y m s3

k y m s1 k y m s1 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 5 4 1 1 0 .7 1 8 2 3

k y m s2 k y m s2 0 .1 5 4 1 1 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 4 0 4 5

k y m s3 k y m s3 0 .7 1 8 2 3 0 .3 4 0 4 5 1 .0 0 0 0 0

K a ise r's M e a su re o f S a m p lin g A d e q u a c y :

O v e ra ll M S A = 0 .6 9 4 4 8 1 4 6

k y m s1 k y m s2 k y m s3

0 .6 6 2 5 4 7 6 4 0 .8 5 1 6 6 8 6 6 0 .6 3 9 1 0 9 5 9

P r io r C o m m u n a lit y E st im a t e s: O N E
E ig e n v a lu e s o f t h e C o r re la tio n M a trix : T o t a l
= 3 A v e ra g e = 1

E ig e n v a lu e D iffe r e n c e P ro p o rtio n C u m u la t iv e

1 2 .4 0 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 .9 6 9 7 8 2 0 0 0 .8 0 0 4 0 .8 0 0 4

2 0 .4 3 1 4 6 2 4 2 0 .2 6 4 1 6 9 2 4 0 .1 4 3 8 0 .9 4 4 2

3 0 .1 6 7 2 9 3 1 7 0 .0 5 5 8 1 .0 0 0 0

1 fa c to r w ill be r e t a ine d b y t h e M IN E IG E N c rit e r io n .

F a c t o r P a t te rn

F a c to r1

k y m s1 k y m s1 0 .9 1 4 5 9

k y m s2 k y m s2 0 .8 3 4 2 1

k y m s3 k y m s3 0 .9 3 2 1 3

Variance Explained
by Each Factor

Factor1

2.4012444

18
 Results

The following correlation and regression tables show the result of our hypothesis

tests. To test our first hypothesis, we ran a series of correlations between self- monitoring

and the various dimensions of transformational leadership as well as on the composite

score. Our first hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between self-monitoring

and transformational leadership was supported. We got a significant (p<0.01) and

positive correlation (.37) between self-monitoring and the composite leadership score.

Self-monitoring was particularly very significantly (p<0.001) and positively correlated

(.42) with the dimension idealized influence attributed. Except with the intellectual

stimulation dimension, with which there was only a bordering on significance correlation

(p<0.1), self-monitoring was significantly and positively correlated with the other

dimensions.

Our second hypothesis that transformational leadership is positively related to

Karma-Yoga was partly supported. Although there was no significant correlation

between the composite leadership score and self-rated Karma-Yoga, dimensions idealized

influence behavior and inspirational motivation were positively correlated (.23 and .21

respectively) bordering on significance (p<0.1). For the manager rated Karma-Yoga

scores, we did not find any significant correlation with the composite leadership score as

well as the dimensions. Removing data with female subordinates, with N=52, our second

hypothesis was partly but more significantly supported. Karma-Yoga (self-rated) was

positively (r=0.27) related to the composite leadership score, bordering on significance

(p<0.1). The dimensions idealized influence behavior and inspirational motivation were

significantly and positively (p<0.05) related to Karma-Yoga. We ran a regression and

19
arrived at the same result as with the correlation, between the composite transformational

leadership score and Karma-Yoga. Again we did not find any relationship between

manager-rated Karma-Yoga and transformational leadership.

Our third hypothesis that self-monitoring is positively related to Karma-Yoga was not

supported for both self-rated and manager-rated Karma-Yoga. By presuming a linear

moderation relationship, we used the three path model suggested by Baron and Kenny,

(1986) to study moderation, where they explained that moderation effects would be

present when a regression of the dependent variable with the product of the independent

and moderator variables showed significance. We tested our fourth hypothesis by

regressing Karma-Yoga with transformational leadership, with self-monitoring, and then

with the product of self-monitoring and transformational leadership. Our fourth

hypothesis that self-monitoring enhances (moderates) the relationship between

transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga was not supported.

Table 2

Linear Regression a

Dependent variable Step Independent variable Parameter Model Model

estimate F R2 F

Karma-Yoga 1 Transformational Leadership 0.27 †3.93 0.07 †3.93

Karma-Yoga 2 Self-Monitoring 0.17 0.003 0.17

Karma-Yoga 3 TL*SM 0.75 0.01 0.75

a Parameter estimates are reported only if model was significant at 0.1 level.

† = p <0.1. * = p < 0.05. ** = p < 0.01. *** = p < 0.001.

20
 Table 1

Correlations between Variables a

(N ranges from 52 to 65) M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Self-Monitoring 3.60 0.58 (.85)

2. Idealized Influence Attributed 3.25 0.59 ***.42 (.74)

3. Idealized Influence Behavior 3.29 0.54 *.29 ***.84 (.74)

4. Inspirational Motivation 3.34 0.57 **.33 ***.76 ***.81 (.76)

5. Intellectual Stimulation 2.93 0.68 †.24 ***.64 ***.65 ***.67 (.81)

21
6. Individualized Consideration 3.08 0.71 **.34 ***.75 ***.72 ***.64 ***.77 (.83)

7. Composite TL 3.18 .55 **.37

8. KY self rated 4.36 0.52 -.06 .19 †.23 †.21 -.01 .05 .14 (.60)

9. KY manager rated 3.77 0.94 -.16 .08 -.05 -.07 .03 .07 .02 (.87)

10. KY self rated Male Followers 4.38 0.53 -.06 †.27 *.33 *.31 .11 .21 †.27 (.67)

(N=52)
a
Alphas are in parentheses along the diagonal. † = p < .10. * = p < .05. ** = p < .01. *** = p < .001.

TL= transformational leadership; KY= Karma-Yoga.

 Discussion

Our results show that self-monitoring is indeed directly and positively related to

transformational leadership. Of particular significance is the significance of correlation

between the attributed idealized influence dimension of managers.

The very low support we achieved for the hypothesis that transformational

leadership is positively related to Karma-Yoga may have been due to multiple reasons.

One among them might be that we combined the responses received from various

organizations in various industries. This may not have been the most effective method as

transformational leadership ratings may have varied from industry to industry. As Karma-

Yoga is more of an understanding of self and self-realization, we felt that combining

Karma-Yoga responses could not be an issue. Another reason might be the scale we used.

Krishnan, (2007), in his study, has used a 6 item Karma-Yoga questionnaire and

successfully proven the relationship between transformational leadership and Karma-

Yoga. We used a 5 item scale that Mulla and Krishnan, (2006) developed, which was

reduced to 3 items, and may not have measured the Karma-Yoga variable completely.

Another reason might be the influence of gender. As documented earlier, Menon and

Krishnan, (2004), had found no significance in the relationship between transformational

leadership and Karma-Yoga in case of females. Therefore, we decided to remove the 13

female subordinate responses and test our hypothesis for male subordinates only. As

results show, our hypothesis was better supported and we found significant relationships

between Karma-Yoga and idealized influence behavior and inspirational motivation

22
dimensions, and positive relationships bordering on significance with idealized influence

attributed and the composite leadership score.

Our third hypothesis was not supported both with N=65 and N=52. This might be

because managers who are high self monitors but not necessarily transformational in

leadership may do little to influence the subordinates’ sense of duty or Karma-Yoga.

Also, as both self-monitoring and Karma-Yoga are variables pertaining to self, a

significant finding in terms of interrelationship may not have been obtained.

Our fourth hypothesis that self-monitoring moderates the relationship between

transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga was not supported. This may have been due

to various reasons. One is that our data came from firms in various industry sectors. Also,

the sample may have not been big enough to get a significant result.

Managerial implications

Self-monitoring managers who are transformational are perceived as having

idealized influence as an attribute by followers. This is in support of our theory on the

relationship between self-monitoring and transformational leadership. As the sample has

been taken from various organizations in different industries, we can come to the

conclusion that self-monitoring is indeed an important attribute of leaders who are

transformational across industries. Particularly, this result could be useful for those firms

which might be undergoing changes in management structures and systems. The sense of

duty of subordinates is influenced by transformational leaders. This is an important result

because transformational leaders elevate both themselves and their subordinates towards

higher order needs, and thus influencing the sense of duty of followers would make them

better oriented to organizational objectives. Also, as Karma-Yoga is a variable that

23
measures the amount of self-realization of individuals regarding their sense of duty, a

manager- rated Karma-Yoga score would be of little relevance and meaning. This has

been proven in our analysis.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Our study has a few shortcomings. One of them is the number of responses (N

ranging from 52 to 65). Researchers should look at our results with caution and aim at

getting more responses for further research.

The sample we collected came from organizations spread across various

industries. This may not have been the best way to research our hypothesis. Researchers

can look at collecting large samples from single sources in further research.

The scale for Karma-Yoga, sense of duty, we believe may not have completely

measured the variable. A better scale could be the one Krishnan, (2007) developed and

used in his study.

Also, the reliability of the Karma-Yoga scale was quite low (0.6, N=65) when

compared with the reliability considering only male subordinates (0.67, N=52). This

implies that gender influences of followers should also be taken care of when measuring

Karma-Yoga in future.

Conclusion

Self-monitoring enhances transformational leadership in leaders. Leaders who are

high on self-monitoring and are transformational can better serve organizations as rapid

change has become a part of organizations today, what with the growth the Indian

economy has seen until recently. Also, the economic slowdown itself brings a whole new

24
set of requirements for organizations to adapt to, ushering in more change, which has to

happen fast and be inculcated across the organization. Our results regarding the

relationship between self-monitoring and transformational leadership considering a

sample that has come from various organizations is thus highly beneficial in the sense

that high self-monitors are highly adaptive individuals who can tailor their actions to the

need of the hour, and such people also being transformational, can do a better job of

managing change. Knowledge that transformational leadership enhances the sense of

duty or Karma-Yoga of followers is also important as transformational leaders can get

followers to be better aligned with organizational goals by enhancing their sense of duty,

which, especially in this period of a slowdown, is highly beneficial as it implies work

done with better focus and higher productivity. Thus, organizations should look at

leadership programs that aim at inducing managers to think and behave in a

transformational nature, and also put managers in programs that increase their self-

presentation skills. We still hold that self-monitoring moderates the relationship between

transformational leadership and Karma-Yoga. Further research should be aimed at

studying this in greater detail.

25
 References

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

transformational and transactional leadership using the

MultifactorLeadershiQuestionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the

relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology,

58, 745–767.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, I. (2003). Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. L., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T. C. (1990). The role of self-

monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study.

Journal of management, 16(3), 609-618.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.

Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744.

26
Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the

gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and

dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(2), 272-281.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal.

Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32−58.

Ickes, W., Holloway, R., Stinson, L., & Hoodenpyle, T. (2006). Self-monitoring in social

interaction: The centrality of self-affect. Journal of Personality, 74, 659–684.

Jung, D., Sosik, J. J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of

charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 12-

26.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 246-255.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-

monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–

1060.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core

charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 36-51.

27
Krishnan, V. R. (2007). Effect of transformational leadership and leader’s power on

follower’s duty orientation and spirituality. Great Lakes Herald – October 2007

Volume 1, Issue 2, 48-70.

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Power and moral leadership: Role of self-other agreement.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 345-351.

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

organization development journal, 22/3, 126-131.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12 (4),

648-657.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (6), 1349-1364.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-

monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46(2001), 121-146.

Mehra, P., & Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Impact of Svadharma-orientation on

transformational leadership and followers' trust in leader. Journal of Indian

Psychology, 23 (1), 1-11.

Menon, A., & Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Transformational leadership and follower's

Karma-Yoga: Role of follower's gender. Journal of Indian Psychology, 22 (2),

50-62.

28
Mulla, Z. R. & Krishnan, V. R. (2008). Karma-Yoga, the Indian work ideal, and its

relationship with empathy. Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 1, 27-49.

Mulla, Z. R., & Krishnan, V. R. (2006)ⁿ. Karma-Yoga: A conceptualization and

validation of the Indian philosophy of work. Journal of Indian Psychology,

24(1&2), 26-43.

Mulla, Z. R., & Krishnan, V. R. (2006). Karma-Yoga: Construct validation using value

systems and emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the first international

conference of Yale-Great Lakes Center for Management Research on Global

Mindset–Indian Roots, Chennai, India, 24 December.

Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team

effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24 (6), 335-

344.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group

cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 17 (2), 144-159.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Beneath the mask: Examining the

relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to

charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 217−242.

29
Sosik, J. J., & Dinger, S. L. (2007). Relationships between leadership style and vision

content: The moderating role of need for social approval, self-monitoring, and

need for social power. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 134-153.

Sosik, J. J., Potosky, D., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation: Meeting others’

expectations of leadership and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology,

142(2), 211-232.

Sosik, J. J., & Dworakivsky, A. C. (1998). Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic

leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 503-526.

Toegel, G., Anand, N., & Kilduff, M. (2007). Emotion helpers: The role of high positive

affectivity and high self-monitoring managers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 337-

365.

30