See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230066898

Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other

Agreement and Its Consequences

Article  in  Journal of Applied Social Psychology · July 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00507.x

CITATIONS READS

24 4,005

5 authors, including:

J.Lee Whittington Vicki L. Goodwin

University of Dallas University of North Texas
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,182 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   1,266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

William Ickes
University of Texas at Arlington
240 PUBLICATIONS   9,400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychometrics: Survey Context Switching and Item Direction View project

Enhancing Employee Engagement: An Evidence-Based Approach (Book) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J.Lee Whittington on 13 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self–Other Agreement
and Its Consequences

J.Lee Whittington1 Renee H. Coker

College of Business and Graduate School of Educational Training, Evaluation,
Management Assessment, and Measurement
University of Dallas University of Oklahoma at Norman

Vicki L. Goodwin William Ickes

Department of Management University of Texas at Arlington
University of North Texas

Brian Murray
Graduate School of Management and College of Business
University of Dallas

In a field study involving 209 leader–follower dyads, we examined leader–follower

agreement regarding perceptions of the leaders’ behavior style and follower out-
comes of performance, organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment,
and trust in the leader. Using the self–other agreement paradigm, we found that
agreement about a leader’s style as transactional was positively related to these
outcomes, whereas there was no relationship between agreement about a leader’s
transformational style and any of the outcomes. These findings support our view
that a shared interpretation of the leader’s transactional behavior is essential for
positive follower outcomes, and may also be a necessary precondition for the effec-
tive use of transformational leader behavior. Implications for theory and future
research are discussed.jasp_507 1860..1886

In his pioneering work on leadership, political scientist James MacGregor

Burns (1978) defined leadership as “leaders inducing followers to act for
certain goals that represent the values and the motivations—the wants and
needs, the aspirations and expectations—of both leaders and followers” (p. 19,
italics in original). Burns suggested that the interaction between a leader and
his or her followers could take two fundamentally different forms: transac-
tional and transforming. Later research by Bass and his associates (e.g.,
Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994) produced further theoretical

1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J.Lee Whittington, College
of Business and Graduate School of Management, University of Dallas, 1845 E. Northgate,
Irving, TX 75062. E-mail: jlee@gsm.udallas.edu

1860

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009, 39, 8, pp. 1860–1886.

© 2009 Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1861

development of these leadership dimensions and operationalized them in the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).
Transactional leadership occurs when a leader exchanges something of
economic, political, or psychological value with a follower. These exchanges
are based on the leader identifying performance requirements and clarifying
the conditions under which rewards are available for meeting these require-
ments. The goal is to enter into a mutually beneficial exchange, but not
necessarily to develop an enduring relationship. Although a leadership act
transpires, it is not one that binds the leader and follower together in a
mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose.
Transactional leadership is contrasted with transforming leadership, which
occurs when individuals engage with each other in such a way that the leader
and follower raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.
Effective transformational leaders may exhibit transactional behaviors, but
their leadership style also includes one or more of the following characteris-
tics: idealized vision, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). These char-
acteristics are assumed to transform followers and motivate them to do more
than initially expected. This transformation presumably occurs through
raising the followers’ awareness of the significance of designated outcomes,
getting followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organi-
zation, or augmenting followers’ needs on Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of
needs (Bass, 1985). Although leaders’ and followers’ purposes may begin as
separate but related, they eventually become fused into a linkage of power
bases that provide support for both members of the relationship.
The social scientific approach to leadership has been dominated over the
last two decades by research that has focused primarily on transformational
leadership. Overall, the results have been impressive (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, &
Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990; Whittington, Goodwin, & Murray, 2004; Yammarino & Bass,
1990), supporting positive relationships with a number of follower outcomes.
Despite the strong overall track record for transformational leadership, we
believe it is important to revisit transactional leadership for two reasons. First,
Burns (1978) identified it as an important dimension of leadership that benefits
both followers and the organization. Second, Bass (1985) and Wofford and
Goodwin (1994) proposed transactional leadership to be a foundation for
transformational leadership. This hierarchical relationship is also suggested in
the full-range of leadership model developed by Avolio (1999).
In order to pursue our study of transactional leadership, we begin by
looking at relevant research on it and transformational leadership, focusing
on their proposed hierarchical relationship. We conclude this section with
research and propositions relevant to positive outcomes for transactional
1862 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

leadership. Then, we return to Burns’ (1978) definition of leadership as

“a relationship between people” (p. 19). Consideration of this relationship
and positive benefits of transactional behavior brings us to a discussion of
self–other agreement between leaders and their followers. We particularly
look at agreement on the leader’s transactional, as compared with trans-
formational behavior. We expect the significance of transactional leadership
for the leader–follower relationship to be revealed in the results of this
comparison.

Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership

There are clear differences in the types of behavior associated with trans-
actional and transformational leadership. Bass’s (1985) conception of trans-
actional leadership emphasizes two factors: contingent reward and
management-by-exception. Contingent reward refers to the efforts made by
the leader to clarify expectations so that followers will understand what they
need to do in order to receive rewards. Management-by-exception is a less
active approach to leadership that essentially informs followers of job expec-
tations, but resists further involvement with the follower unless the follower’s
actual performance varies significantly from those expectations.
Transformational leadership includes behaviors associated with inspira-
tional motivation (e.g., articulating a vision that followers find meaningful
and challenging), ascribed charisma (e.g., role-modeling behaviors that gain
admiration and trust), intellectual stimulation (e.g., encouraging followers to
question assumptions and think “out of the box”), and individualized con-
sideration (e.g., empowering, supporting, paying attention to needs of fol-
lowers). These behaviors describe leaders with strong social skills who are
capable of communicating effectively in order “to arouse, inspire, and moti-
vate followers” (Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003, p. 85).
Researchers contend that differences in leadership behaviors are based on
the cognitive processes that underlie those behaviors (Goodwin, Wofford, &
Boyd, 1999; Wofford & Goodwin, 1994; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington,
1998). According to Wofford and Goodwin’s cognitive interpretation of
leadership, “the cognitive processes and structures that are primed by the
feedback and the leader’s environment influence the use of transactional and
transformational leadership behaviors when they are within the leader’s rep-
ertoire of possible behaviors” (p. 163).
Using an information-processing framework (Lord & Maher, 1991),
Wofford and Goodwin (1994) developed several propositions about the
use of transactional leader behaviors. They discussed the content of leader
schemata and suggested that transactional leaders focus on clearly defined
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1863

performance goals. The content of transactional leader schemata and scripts

is expected to emphasize goal difficulty, goal commitment, task-related
knowledge and skills, role expectations, and incentives that relate to indi-
vidual employee or organizational subunit performance. On the other hand,
transformational leaders should be more likely to possess cognitive structures
containing information about organizational vision accomplishment, devel-
opment of long-term relationships, and more abstract, “big-picture” con-
cepts. Consistent with the general propositions of Wofford and Goodwin’s
theory, Wofford et al. (1998) found support for different cognitive processes
underlying transactional and transformational leadership in a field study.
Transactional leaders possessed schemata that represented transactional in
their cognitive content in their memory structures.
Despite transformational leaders’ primary focus on an overall “vision,”
however, Wofford and Goodwin (1994) argued that they also have within
their cognitive repertoire elements pertaining to transactional leadership
behavior. That is, individuals who are able to engage in transformational
leadership behavior may revert to the more concrete level of quid pro quo
agreements and engage in transactional leadership behavior as needed. Thus,
Wofford and Goodwin argued for a hierarchical framework, progressing
upward from concrete to more abstract representations in memory, wherein
transactional leadership provides the more concrete and pragmatic founda-
tion on which transformational leadership rests.
The idea that transactional and transformational leadership behaviors
form a hierarchy is also consistent with Avolio’s (1999) work on what he calls
a full-range model of leadership. The essence of this framework is that effec-
tive leaders engage in a full range of behaviors that encompass elements of
both transactional and transformational leadership, with transactional lead-
ership as the basis for the subsequent development of transformational lead-
ership. Leaders who lack a foundation of transactional leadership are often
likely to leave their employees’ role expectations unclear, which results in an
ill-defined sense of direction and ambiguous task assignments. When these
role expectations have been appropriately clarified through the use of trans-
actional leadership behavior, however, more mature relationships between a
leader and his or her followers can evolve over time. Thus, the clarification of
role expectations provides a crucial basis for building a more general frame-
work of mutual expectations between the leader and the follower. Further-
more, when leaders honor their various transactional arrangements with
their followers, trust begins to develop, creating the foundation for a sus-
tained relationship that enables the effective utilization of the full range of
leadership behaviors (Avolio, 1999).
When used correctly, transactional behaviors can accomplish the leader’s
goals and also satisfy the interests of the followers. These behaviors can take
1864 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

either of two forms. Constructive transactions are those that are used to
clarify expectations and identify the linkages between performance and
rewards. If done properly, these exchanges form a “compact of expectations”
(Avolio, 1999, p. 36) by which followers will evaluate the consistency and
trustworthiness of their leader. In contrast, corrective transactions focus on
creating a desired change in behavior, cooperation, or attitude. These trans-
actions are somewhat negative in that they clarify what must be done to avoid
censorship, reproof, punishment, or other disciplinary actions (Avolio,
1999).
Both constructive and corrective transactions are important to the effec-
tiveness of transactional leaders. As they honor constructive agreements and
consistently apply corrective measures, their followers are able to develop
perceptions about the consistency of their behavior and the likelihood that
they will meet their leaders’ expectations. As such, the recognition of trans-
actional behaviors by followers is important to the basis for a productive,
trusting relationship. Transactional leadership is generally easily identifiable
because the behaviors revolve around key issues of employment, such as
wages/salaries, performance feedback, and rewards for performance (e.g.,
promotions) and are centered on relatively concrete acts. Although transac-
tional leadership is not enough to develop the full potential of followers, it is
a necessary transitional step in developing the trust between a leader and
follower that is required for transformational leadership to be implemented
and to become effective (Avolio, 1999). Yet, in the process, followers are able
to receive the benefit of the transactional leader’s guidance. Thus, followers
will benefit not only from their association with a transformational leader,
but also from their relationship with a transactional leader.
In a widely supported theory of performance, Locke and Latham (1990)
showed that when employees have challenging and specific goals, suitable
task strategies, and clear linkages between performance and the rewards that
they desire, high levels of performance will result. Because effective transac-
tional leaders clarify the performance expectations they hold for their fol-
lowers, these followers can be expected to perform well. Furthermore, when
followers are confident about their specific role expectations, they may be
more likely to go beyond the formal aspects of in-role performance and
engage in extra-role behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior
(Organ, 1988).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to the behavior of an
employee that is discretionary, not rewarded or recognized in an explicit way
by the organization, and tends to promote efficient and effective functioning
of the organization (Organ, 1988). OCBs are performed spontaneously by
employees who elect to go beyond in-role expectations. As such, OCB refers
to those voluntary activities performed by employees without regard to
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1865

possible sanctions or incentives (Organ, 1988, 1990). Consequently, transac-

tional leadership behavior may enable both in-role and extra-role perfor-
mance.
Another important outcome for organizations is employee commitment,
which has been dichotomized into attitudinal and behavioral components
(Meyer & Allen, 1991). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) distinguished
these components as follows:
Attitudinal commitment focuses on the process by which people
come to think about their relationship with the organization
. . . Behavioral commitment, on the other hand, relates to the
process by which individuals become locked into a certain orga-
nization and how they deal with this problem. (p. 26)
Transactional leadership behavior engages followers in an agreement that
specifies the followers’ performance expectations and the consequences for
meeting those expectations. When transactional leaders consistently follow
through on these exchange agreements, employees may develop affective
commitment to the organization. They continue with the organization
because they want to, and they feel comfortable staying because they clearly
understand what they must do to receive desired rewards.

The Transactional Relationship and Self–Other Agreement

A potentially useful framework for examining the significance of transac-

tional behaviors for the relationship between leaders and followers is the
self–other agreement paradigm. According to this perspective, agreement
between leaders and their followers with respect to the ratings of a leader’s
behaviors is relevant to, and has a significant impact on, a range of work-
related outcome perceptions (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor,
1998). These outcome perceptions include assessments of in-role and extra-
role performance, organizational commitment, various dimensions of job
satisfaction, and the amount of trust a follower may place in his or her leader.
Previous work in the area of self–other rating agreements has focused on
the direction and magnitude of the differences between the ratings of leader
behaviors made by leaders versus followers. These differences can take
various forms. For example, Atwater and Yammarino (1997) identified four
types of response styles displayed by raters: over-estimators, under-
estimators, in-agreement/good estimators, and in-agreement/poor estima-
tors. Atwater and Yammarino define in-agreement as self-ratings within a
half standard deviation of other ratings. According to this standard,
in-agreement/good estimators have ratings above the mean and
1866 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

in-agreement/poor estimators have ratings below the mean (Atwater et al.,

1998).
Using arguments that emphasize the effective use of feedback from others
and accurate self-perception, Atwater et al. (1998) argued that self–other
agreement between leaders and followers should be related to effectiveness
evaluations of the leader. In a field study involving 1,460 managers, they
determined that ratings of managerial effectiveness were higher when there
was agreement between the leader and the follower on leader behavior.
Furthermore, they found that leader–follower agreement was more impor-
tant for outcomes that involve human perception and less relevant to more
objective measures, such as revenue goals. Thus, leader–follower agreement
on leader behavior may be more important for outcomes such as commit-
ment, trust, and extra-role behavior (OCB) than for sales or productivity
goals.
Much of the work that has been done on the self–other agreement of
leadership perceptions has focused on the ratings of transformational lead-
ership behavior. This emphasis on transformational leadership is consistent
with the broad attention devoted to transformational leadership over the last
two decades. Because transformational leadership is more ambiguous than
transactional leadership (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992), ratings of transfor-
mational leadership often elicit substantial variability among self and other
raters.
Despite this problem, Atwater and Yammarino (1992) found that self–
other agreement regarding transformational leadership behavior was posi-
tively related to ratings of leader performance. They have, therefore,
suggested that future research should focus on two areas. First, there is a
need to examine the relationship between self–other agreement ratings and
other important organizational outcomes. Second, self–other agreement
ratings should be used to examine other aspects of leader behavior.

Hypotheses

In our research, we respond to the call of Atwater and Yammarino (1992)

by examining the self–other agreement of leaders and followers concerning
transactional leadership behavior. We also extend their work by examining
additional important organizational outcomes. The basis for our hypotheses
comes from our previous discussion in three areas. First, if transactional
leadership provides the foundation for transformational leadership (Avolio,
1999; Bass, 1985; Wofford & Goodwin, 1994), then first and foremost,
leaders and followers should agree on the exchange relationship between
them. Second, because transactional leadership has positive implications for
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1867

follower outcomes, there must be a mutual understanding of what both the

leaders and the followers consider requirements of the job. Third, leader–
follower agreement is likely more essential to the success of transactional
leadership than to the success of transformational leadership.
Transactional leadership requires that leaders and followers have a clear
understanding of each other’s specific roles and responsibilities, whereas
transformational leadership does not. For effective outcomes (i.e., improved
trust, performance, OCBs, affective commitment) to occur with transactional
leadership, roles and responsibilities must be clear, explicit, and agreed upon.
These requirements are less important for transformational leadership, which
relies more on the leader’s ability to inspire the follower than to define clear-cut
role expectations. From this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Self–other agreement about transactional leader-
ship behavior will be more strongly and positively correlated
with the follower’s level of trust in the leader than will self–other
agreement about transformational leadership behavior.
Hypothesis 2. Self–other agreement about transactional leader-
ship behavior will be more strongly and positively correlated
with the follower’s level of in-role performance than will self–
other agreement about transformational leadership behavior.
Hypothesis 3. Self–other agreement about transactional leader-
ship behavior will be more strongly and positively correlated
with the follower’s level of extra-role performance (OCB) than
will self–other agreement about transformational leadership
behavior.
Hypothesis 4. Self–other agreement about transactional leader-
ship behavior will be more strongly and positively correlated
with the follower’s level of affective commitment to the organi-
zation than will self–other agreement about transformational
leadership behavior.

Method

Sample

Participants were recruited from 12 different organizations that represent

a variety of different industries (e.g., manufacturing, government, service),
departments (e.g., production, accounting, personnel), and organizational
levels (e.g., ranging from first-line supervisors to company president). There
1868 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

were 100 managers who completed the required questionnaire and provided
a list of up to 10 direct-report subordinates. We randomly selected 3 of the
subordinates for each of the 100 managers for participation in the current
study, creating a potential pool of 300 subordinates, of which 209 (69.7%)
actually participated.
The majority of the managers were Caucasian (87.7%) and male (71
males, 70.9%; 29 females), with an average tenure with their organizations of
10.5 years. Of the managers, 25.0% were first-line supervisors, 50.0% were
second-line supervisors, and 24.7% were third-line managers or above.
The majority of the subordinates were Caucasian (81.4%) and male (148
males, 65.7%; 61 females), with an average tenure of 7.8 years. They had been
with their present managers for an average of 2.5 years. Of the subordinates,
49.0% did not hold supervisory positions, 31.2% were first-line supervisors,
and 17.3% worked at the second level of management or higher.

Procedure

Managers received a packet containing a set of evaluation materials to be

used to assess (a) each subordinate’s performance and OCBs; (b) a self-
assessment of their own leadership styles; and (c) demographic information.
Subordinates were given packets containing (a) a social report instrument
designed to evaluate their managers’ leadership styles; (b) a questionnaire
assessing their own affective organizational commitment and trust in the
leader; and (c) a demographic questionnaire. Detailed instructions were given
to all participants, along with a postage-paid envelope for returning the
completed survey to the researchers. The surveys were coded such that the
researchers were able to match manager and subordinate responses, resulting
in the 209 manager–subordinate dyads that were used in the data analyses
reported here.

Measures

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership behavior was assessed

by the subordinates’ and managers’ responses to the subscales in the Multi-
factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Responses on each subscale were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not
at all) to 5 (frequently). The two main leadership styles that the MLQ assesses
are transformational leadership and transactional leadership. We obtained
parallel measures of these two dimensions of leader behavior by asking
managers to complete self-reports of their leadership styles, and by asking
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1869

followers who reported directly to these leaders to provide “observer” reports

of the leaders’ behavior.
Manager and subordinate self-reports of transactional leadership were
obtained from responses to 23 items (managers, a = .73; subordinates,
a = .74). These items assessed the leaders’ use of contingent rewards (e.g.,
“Made clear what I could expect to receive, if my performance met desig-
nated standards”), management-by-exception–passive (e.g., “Work had to
fall below minimum standards for him/her to try to make improvements”),
and management-by-exception–active (e.g., “Closely monitored my perfor-
mance for errors”).
Manager and subordinate self-reports of transformational leadership
were obtained from responses to 37 items (managers, a = .91; subordinates,
a = .97). These items assessed leaders’ ascribed charisma (e.g., “Envisioned
exciting new possibilities”), inspiration (e.g., “Made personal sacrifices for
the benefit of others”), intellectual stimulation (e.g., “Emphasized the value
of questioning assumptions”), and individual consideration (e.g., “Treated
me as an individual, rather than just a member of a group”).
Instead of averaging these items to create subscale scores and then aggre-
gating the subscale scores to create total scale scores for the transformational
and transactional leadership measures, the item-level data were used to
compute two profile correlations: one measuring the degree of agreement
regarding the manager’s transactional leader behavior across the 23 relevant
items, and the other measuring the degree of agreement regarding the man-
ager’s transformational leader behavior across the 37 relevant items. Profile
correlations provide a global index of the degree to which two raters make
similar judgments (i.e., agree with each other) across a set of rated items
(Cronbach & Gleser, 1953; Funder, 1987; Townsend, Bacigalupi, & Black-
man, 2007). In the present case, the two raters were a manager and a subor-
dinate, and the items rated were the two sets of items that define the
transactional and transformational leadership scales on the MLQ,
respectively.
By correlating the manager’s self-ratings on the transactional leadership
items with the subordinate’s ratings of the manager on the same set of items,
we obtained a profile correlation that assesses the overall level of similarity or
agreement in the two raters’ judgments of the manager’s transactional lead-
ership behavior. Similarly, by correlating the manager’s self-ratings on the
transformational leadership items with the subordinate’s ratings of the
manager on the same set of items, we obtained a profile correlation that
assesses the overall level of similarity or agreement in the two raters’ judg-
ments of the manager’s transformational leadership behavior.
These two profile correlations were computed for each of the leader–
follower dyads. When multiple followers provided data on a single leader,
1870 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

multiple dyads consisting of the leader and each of his or her followers were
created, with each dyad producing its own profile correlations. These profile
correlations have the same range as traditional correlations (-1 to 1) and can
be interpreted in a similar manner (Gwaltney et al., 2002). For example, a
high positive profile correlation would indicate that the leader and follower
rated the leader similarly on the various items that compose either the trans-
actional or the transformational leadership scale. In contrast, a profile cor-
relation of 0 would indicate that the leader and follower ratings were
completely unrelated. Finally, a high negative correlation would indicate that
leader and follower had completed the scales in a virtually opposite manner,
such that their scores would create mirror images of one another.
As is conventional when Pearson correlations are used as either predictor
or criterion variables, we standardized all of the profile correlations by using
Fisher’s z-score transformation method (Cronbach & Gleser, 1953; Funder,
1987). The result of this process was two standardized profile correlations:
one for the transactional items and one for the transformational items. These
scores represent the degree of agreement that both dyad members (i.e.,
manager and subordinate) share with respect to the manager’s leadership
style. These two profile correlations were the major predictor variables used
in the present investigation. They were used to predict several outcome
measures that were assessed by means of the following instruments.
Affective organizational commitment. Affective commitment was assessed
using the affective subscale in Allen and Meyer’s (1990) organizational com-
mitment scale. Each organizational commitment item was measured using a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree;
a = .83).
Organizational citizenship behaviors. Managers’ perceptions of their sub-
ordinates’ OCBs were assessed with a 24-item social report questionnaire
adapted from Podsakoff et al., (1990), which measures the five facets of OCB
(Organ, 1988). Each of the OCB items was measured using a 7-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Alpha
values for the five subscales are as follows: conscientiousness, a = .89; sports-
manship, a = .86; civic virtue, a = .84; courtesy, a = .93; and altruism,
a = .90.
Subordinate performance. Subordinate performance was assessed using a
fixed-sum, weighted interval scale on three dimensions: quality of work,
quantity of work, and promotability to the next level. For each of the items,
managers were asked to indicate the percentage of time the subordinate’s
performance fell into one of four categories: unsatisfactory (needs to improve
substantially), questionable (needs some improvement), satisfactory (meets
normal expectations), and outstanding (substantially exceeds normal perfor-
mance). By summing the weighted evaluations of the three performance
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1871

evaluations, a composite score for subordinate’s in-role performance was

created (a = .92).
Interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust was measured using subordinate
responses to an eight-item scale consisting of two items modified from Earley
(1986) and six items drawn from a scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990).
Each of these interpersonal trust items was measured using a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A total score for trust
was derived by averaging across the eight items (a = .96).

Results

Standard multiple regressions were conducted using the z-transformed

profile correlations (i.e., agreement indexes) for the transformational and
transactional leadership scales as the major predictor variables. These vari-
ables were entered simultaneously in the regression equations to determine
the extent to which they could be used to predict the following eight outcome
measures: (a) follower’s level of trust in the leader/manager; (b) manager’s
rating of subordinate’s in-role performance; (c-g) manager’s ratings of sub-
ordinate’s OCBs of courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, altruism, and con-
scientiousness; and (h) manager’s rating of subordinate’s affective
commitment. Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for each of
these variables. It also contains Pearson coefficient correlations of the pre-
dictor and various criterion variables used in the study. Reliabilities for each
of the study variables appear on the diagonal of the correlation matrix.
All analyses were performed at the individual level of analysis. To validate
the decision to analyze the data at the individual level, rather than the
aggregated within-leader level, we completed tests of whether the between
variation was greater than the within variation for the profile correlations
and each of the outcome measures. Using a within- and between-analysis
approach (Dansererau, Cho, & Yammarino, 2006), we concluded that the
between variation did not significantly differ from the within variation either
statistically (all ps > .05 for z tests) or practically (all qs < 30 degrees for A
tests). Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to support aggregating the
data at the leader level.

Tests of Predicted Effects

As predicted, the standardized profile correlation for the transactional

leadership items was significantly correlated with the various outcome mea-
sures, whereas the standardized profile correlation for the transformational
Table 1

Correlation Matrix With Internal Consistency Reliabilities

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Profile correlation for 0.23 0.32 .97

transformational subscale
2. Profile correlation for transactional 0.34 0.43 .00 .71
subscale
1872 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

3. Follower measure of trust in leader 5.37 1.56 .01 .60** .96

4. Manager measure of subordinate’s 3.08 0.50 .03 .23** .28** .92
in-role performance
5. Leader measure of follower 5.54 1.27 .09 .20** .32** .66** .89
extra-role performance:
conscientiousness
6. Leader measure of follower 5.42 1.21 .05 .31** .31** .47** .58** .86
extra-role performance:
sportsmanship
7. Leader measure of follower 4.93 1.09 .07 .13 .19** .51** .55** .36** .84
extra-role performance: civic virtue
8. Leader measure of follower 5.36 1.08 .02 .21** .32** .56** .72** .67** .58** .93
extra-role performance: courtesy
9. Leader measure of follower 5.50 0.91 .04 .25** .35** .64** .70** .58** .58** .73** .90
extra-role performance: altruism
10. Follower measure of organizational 4.80 1.20 .02 .26** .49** .23** .19** .19** .17** .19** .26** .83
commitment–affective

Note. Internal consistency reliabilities appear on the diagonal.

**p < .01.
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1873

leadership items was not. As the data in Table 2 indicate, the profile corre-
lation for transactional leadership was a significant and relatively strong
predictor of seven of the eight outcome measures.
Specifically, this index of manager–subordinate agreement significantly
predicted followers’ trust in managers (b = 2.26), t(203) = 10.78, p < .01, thus
supporting Hypothesis 1. It also predicted managers’ assessments of follow-
ers’ in-role performance (b = 0.27), t(203) = 3.45, p < .01, thus supporting
Hypothesis 2. In addition, it predicted managers’ ratings of the subordinates
on four of the five OCBs: sportsmanship (b = 0.87), t(203) = 4.71, p < .01;
courtesy (b = 0.54), t(203) = 3.12, p < .01; altruism (b = 0.53), t(203) = 3.68,
p < .01; and conscientiousness (b = 0.59), t(203) = 2.96, p < .01, thus provid-
ing relatively consistent support for Hypothesis 3. Finally, it predicted man-
agers’ ratings of subordinates’ affective commitment to the organization,
(b = 0.74), t(203) = 3.98, p < .01, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. In sharp
contrast to these findings, the standardized profile correlation for the trans-
formational leadership items was not significantly correlated with any of the
outcome measures.
Interestingly, the two predictor variables—the profile correlation for the
transactional leadership items, and the profile correlation for the transfor-
mational leadership items—were themselves uncorrelated (correlation
between the two transformed correlations, r = -.008, ns; correlation for the
untransformed scores, r = -.003, ns). This null finding means that agreement
about a manager’s performance as a transactional leader did not guarantee
agreement about the manager’s performance as a transformational leader or
vice versa. It also means that multicollinearity was not a problem in the
Table 2 regression analyses. From these data, we can conclude that, just as
we predicted, the degree of manager–subordinate agreement regarding the
managers’ performance as transactional leaders is a consistently strong pre-
dictor of positive subordinate outcomes, whereas the degree of manager–
subordinate agreement regarding the managers’ performance as
transformational leaders is not.

Agreement About Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership

Was there significantly greater agreement about the managers’ perfor-

mance as transactional leaders than about the managers’ performance as
transformational leaders, as our theoretical predictions would imply?
To answer this question, we conducted a dependent t test comparing
the untransformed profile correlation for transactional leadership with the
untransformed profile correlation for transformational leadership. The
results indicate that there was, indeed, significantly more agreement about
Table 2

Results for Hypothesis Tests

Beta weight for Beta weight for

Transactional Transformational
Leadership Leadership
Criterion measure F(2, 203) R2 Profile score Profile score
Follower measure of trust in the leader 58.66, p < .01 .37 2.26, p < .01 (.60, p < .01) -0.35, ns (-.04, ns)
1874 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

Leader measure of follower in-role 6.34, p < .01 .06 0.27, p < .01 (.23, p < .01) 0.15, ns (.06, ns)
performance
Leader measure of follower extra-role 4.75, p < .01 .04 0.59, p < .01 (.20, p < .01) 0.31, ns (.06, ns)
performance: conscientiousness
Leader measure of follower extra-role 12.23, p < .01 .11 0.87, p < .01 (.31, p < .01) 0.50, ns (.10, ns)
performance: sportsmanship
Leader measure of follower extra-role 4.91, p < .01 .05 0.54, p < .01 (.21, p < .01) -0.10, ns (-.02, ns)
performance: courtesy
Leader measure of follower extra-role 1.72, ns .02 0.32, ns (.13, ns) -0.02, ns (.00, ns)
performance: civic virtue
Leader measure of follower extra-role 6.86, p < .01 .06 0.53, p < .01 (.25, p < .01) -0.15, ns (-.03, ns)
performance: altruism
Follower measure of organizational 9.18, p < .01 .08 0.74, p < .01 (.26, p < .01) -0.59, ns (-.11, ns)
commitment–affective
Note. Values in parentheses are zero-order Pearson product-moment correlations. They are included in the table to give the reader
a better sense of the comparative effect sizes associated with the transactional and the transformational agreement (profile) scores.
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1875

managers’ transactional leader behavior (M = 0.34, SD = 0.43) than about

managers’ transformational leader behavior (M = 0.23, SD = 0.32),
t(206) = 3.83, p < .01.
Clearly, this difference is in line with our reasoning that the terms and
conditions of transactional leadership must be clearly communicated and
agreed upon for this style of leadership to be effective. On the other hand, it
is less essential that the leader and the follower share a common understand-
ing of the specific goals and characteristics of transformational leadership,
because the effectiveness of this style of leadership may depend more on the
leader’s ability to inspire and motivate the follower than to specify a set of
reward and punishment contingencies that both leader and follower must
understand and by which they must abide.

Post Hoc Analyses

Leadership does not occur in a vacuum, and there is a substantial litera-

ture to support the view that contextual factors impact the leadership
process. In order to determine if the previously tested relationships were
moderated by any third variables, we conducted a series of moderated mul-
tiple regression analyses. Specifically, we sought to determine if the effects
presented in Table 2 were moderated (i.e., qualified) by the length of leader–
follower relationship, or the gender composition of the leader–follower dyad.
These analyses allow us to examine some of the contextual factors that may
have an impact on the leader–follower relationship. This perspective is con-
sistent with the recent suggestion that leader–follower relationships need to
be examined within the larger social network within which they are embed-
ded (Goodwin, Whittington, & Bowler, 2004; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997).
Using the same eight criterion variables examined in the initial analyses,
the transactional agreement score was entered into the regression equation as
the first main-effect predictor (there was no need to enter the transforma-
tional agreement score, as it had yielded no significant predictive effects in
any of the previously reported analyses). Then, the potential moderator
variable was entered as the second main-effect predictor. Finally, the inter-
action term that was the cross-product of the two main-effect predictors was
entered as the third and final predictor. The change in amount of variance
accounted for between the original model and the moderated multiple regres-
sion models was assessed using the incremental (inc) F ratio (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001).
Length of relationship as a moderator. Using this moderated multiple
regression procedure, we found that the length of the relationship between
the leader and the follower significantly moderated (i.e., qualified) the
1876 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

Figure 1. Interaction of agreement score and length of relationship on trust.

relationship between the transactional agreement score and two relevant

criterion measures. First, the interaction between the length of leader–
follower relationship and the transactional agreement score significantly pre-
dicted follower self-reported trust in the leader (m = male, f = female;
bm = 0.006, bf = 0.002), t(158) = 2.86, p < .01 (w = with, w/o = without;
R2w/o = .41, R2w = .44), Finc(1, 158) = 8.18, p < .01. A plot of this interaction
(see Figure 1) reveals that dyads that had high agreement about the leader’s
transactional leadership achieved high levels of follower trust early in the
leader–follower relationship. Moreover, the level of follower trust continued
to stay high over the course of this relationship. In contrast, in dyads that
established a low level of agreement about the leader’s transactional leader-
ship, follower trust started off at a relatively low level and further declined
over the course of the relationship. A plausible interpretation of these results
is that leaders who, early on, either failed to define their own roles as trans-
actional leaders or failed to live up to it elicited a low level of trust from their
followers that eroded further over time. In either of these situations, the
leader is likely to assume that the follower is in sync with him or her about
expectations for behavior, when this assumption is, in reality, false.
Second, the interaction between the length of the leader–follower rela-
tionship (b = 0.006) and the transactional agreement score (b = 0.002) signifi-
cantly predicted followers’ self-reported affective commitment, t(160) = 2.55,
p < .05, (R2w/o = .07, R2w = .10), Finc(1, 160) = 6.48, p < .05. A plot of this
interaction (Figure 2) reveals that in the early stage of the leader–follower
relationship, agreement about the leader’s transactional leadership style has
no affect on followers’ generally high level of affective commitment. As time
passes, however, the degree of agreement about the leader’s characteristics as
a transactional leader becomes more important, such that low agreement is
associated with significantly less affective commitment on the part of
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1877

Figure 2. Interaction of agreement score and length of relationship on affective commitment.

followers. This finding, like the previous one, suggests that the failure of
transactional leaders to establish clear-cut role expectations early on may
lead followers to become increasingly disaffected over time.
Gender composition as a moderator. There also was evidence that
the gender composition of the leader–follower dyad moderated the relation-
ship between the transactional agreement correlation and two relevant crite-
rion measures. Specifically, the results of these analyses reveal that the
correlation between agreement regarding the leader’s transactional leader-
ship behaviors and the leader’s measure of followers’ courtesy was stronger
when the leader was a man, rather than a woman (bm = 1.10, bf = 0.48),
t(192) = 2.31, p < .05 (R2w/o = .08, R2w = .11), Finc(1, 192) = 7.13, p < .01 (see
Figure 3).
In a relevant follow-up test, the data were separated into two groups:
dyads in which the leader was a man, and dyads in which the leader was a
woman. In the male-leader dyads, the transactional leadership agreement
score was a significant predictor of followers’ courtesy (bm = 0.83, bf = 0.21),
t(203) = 3.96, p < .01. However, in the female-leader dyads, this same rela-
tionship was not significant. A plausible interpretation of these findings is
based on men’s greater sensitivity than women to issues related to power
and authority (Schmid Mast, 2004, 2005). Because courtesy is largely
defined as respecting the organizational chain of command and keeping
higher-ups informed about decisions made at lower levels, male leaders
may judge lapses in these traditionally masculine-valued behaviors more
harshly than female leaders in those cases in which leader–follower agree-
ment is low and the follower fails to understand the leader’s role and its
associated expectations. In contrast, female leaders may be more tolerant of
such lapses and, therefore, evaluate their followers less negatively on the
1878 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

Figure 3. Interaction of agreement score and gender composition on follower courtesy.

courtesy dimension in those cases in which the level of leader–follower

agreement is low (see Figure 3).
The gender composition of the leader–follower dyad also moderated the
relationship between agreement about leaders’ transactional leadership and
leaders’ ratings of followers’ sportsmanship (see Figure 4). As before, this
relationship was stronger in dyads in which the leader was a man than in
dyads in which the leader was a woman (bm = 1.11, bf = 0.52), t(203) = 2.11,
p < .05. When we computed the relevant follow-up tests, we found that the
transactional agreement score was a significant predictor of followers’ sports-
manship in male-leader dyads (bm = 1.16, bf = 0.23), t(203) = 5.08, p < .01.
However, in female-leader dyads, the same relationship was not significant.
A similar interpretation as before may apply in this case. Because sports-
manship is largely defined as pulling one’s weight and not complaining about
everyday problems and hassles, male leaders may judge lapses in these tra-
ditionally masculine-valued behaviors more harshly than female leaders,
particularly when leader–follower agreement is low and the follower fails to
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1879

Figure 4. Interaction of agreement score and gender composition on follower sportsmanship.

understand the leader’s role and its associated expectations. In contrast,

female leaders may be more tolerant of such lapses and, therefore, evaluate
followers less negatively on the sportsmanship dimension in those cases in
which the level of leader–follower agreement is low (see Figure 4).

Discussion

We set out to examine whether leader–follower agreement regarding

perceptions of the leader’s transactional behavior was a better predictor of
follower outcomes than leader–follower agreement regarding perceptions of
the leader’s transformational behavior. We reasoned that transactional
leadership behavior requires explicit and agreed-upon clarification of the
conditions necessary for followers’ successful relationships with the orga-
nization and, as such, provides the starting point for the leader–follower
relationship as well. To the degree that the leader perceives that he or she
1880 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

clarifies this information to the followers—and the followers, in turn, agree

with the leader’s perceptions—followers should feel confident in their
understanding of what it takes to succeed in the organization. Both good
performance and positive attitudes toward the leader and the organization
should result.
In contrast, agreement between leaders’ and followers’ perceptions of the
leader’s transformational behavior should be more difficult to achieve
because these behaviors are more abstract and are, therefore, more difficult
to rate in an objective and consensual way. Previous research has revealed
that followers who perceive their leaders to be transformational have more
positive outcomes (Bycio et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Whittington
et al., 2004; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Thus, there is no denying that trans-
formational leadership is an important and positive leader behavior. Yet, in
this case, it is followers’ perceptions of their leaders as transformational (and
not the level of leader–follower agreement) that is important, as these studies
have shown. If followers see their leaders as inspirational, moral, and vision-
ary, that is the key to their increased levels of performance and improved
attitudes toward the leader and the organization. In other words, they are
motivated by what they see in their leaders, regardless of what their leaders
see in themselves and whether or not they agree.
In the present study, we found support for our hypotheses concerning all
of the measured outcome variables, except for the OCB of civic virtue. As we
predicted, the degree of leader–follower agreement regarding perceptions of
transactional leader behavior was positively related to follower evaluations
of trust in the leader and affective commitment, as well as leader evaluations
of follower performance and OCB. In contrast, the degree of leader–follower
agreement of perceptions regarding transformational leader behavior was
not related to any of the outcome variables.
The importance of transactional leadership behavior for followers may be
a result of the implicit leadership theories of the followers. Implicit leadership
theories (ILTs) of followers are a subset of more general implicit personality
theories (Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). ILTs function as sense-making
devices that assist individuals’ interpretations of complex realities. ILTs also
may function heuristically by providing a mechanism that uses past experi-
ences to understand and explain current events and leader behaviors. Offer-
man, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994) believed that the ultimate importance of
ILTs lies in the way they structure the leader–follower interaction because
ILTs are reflected in the expectations followers bring to the relationship. To
the extent that a leader’s behavior is consistent with follower expectations,
the quality of the interactions between the two will be improved. If there is
agreement regarding the expectations of behavior and performance of both
the leader and the follower, a solid foundation of trust and commitment will
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1881

result in a variety of positive outcomes for the individual follower and the
organization.

Potential Boundary Conditions

After examining our hypotheses, we conducted post hoc analyses to deter-

mine whether there were any boundary conditions for our results. We exam-
ined length of relationship, an influence on leader–follower relationships that
has been established previously (Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Dienesch & Liden,
1986). We also examined leader gender, a factor of interest in leader-
ship research for many years (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 1991; Eagly, Karau, &
Makhijani, 1995; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990).
With regard to the first of these potential moderating variables, we found
that as the length of the leader–follower relationship increases, so does the
strength of the correlation between the transactional agreement score and
both the amount of trust the follower has in the leader and the affective
commitment the follower has for the organization. A plausible interpretation
of these results is that leaders who, early on, either fail to define their own
roles as a transactional leader or fail to live up to it (creating a discrepancy in
their perceptions of how they behave, compared with followers’ understand-
ing of their leaders’ actual behavior), elicit low levels of trust and affective
commitment from their followers that, if left unaddressed, erode further over
time. These findings underscore the crucial importance of transactional
leaders defining their own roles clearly early on and then living up to them.
Leaders who fail to do these things cannot gain and retain the trust and
commitment of their followers.
With regard to the second of these potential moderating variables, we
found that, in the male-leader dyads, the transactional leadership agree-
ment score was a significant predictor of the follower’s courtesy and sports-
manship. However, in the female-leader dyads, these same relationships
were not significant. A plausible interpretation of these results is courtesy
and sportsmanship, as operationally defined, represent traditionally mascu-
line virtues that male leaders are more likely to emphasize. Courtesy is
largely defined as respecting the organizational chain of command and
keeping higher-ups informed about decisions made at lower levels, whereas
sportsmanship is largely defined as pulling one’s weight and not complain-
ing about everyday problems and hassles. Because male leaders are more
likely than female leaders to emphasize the importance of these tradition-
ally masculine virtues (see Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997; Schmid
Mast, Hall, & Ickes, 2006), male leaders may judge lapses in these behav-
iors more harshly than do female leaders in cases in which leader–follower
1882 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

agreement is low and the follower fails to understand the leader’s role and
its associated expectations.

Leader–Follower Agreement as Social Cognition: Transition From

Transactional to Transformational Leadership

The significance of agreement between leaders and followers on the lead-

er’s behavior also may be interpreted using a social cognition perspective.
Ickes and Gonzalez (1996) developed a framework that distinguishes between
two research strategies that may be used for the study of social cognition in
dyadic processes, such as those that exist between a leader and a follower.
The first, more traditional approach focuses on the subjective experience of
individuals. These individuals are tested independently to ensure the concep-
tual and statistical independence of each participant’s thoughts and behav-
iors from those of other participants. Ickes and Gonzalez labeled this
approach the “social” cognition paradigm, with the quotation marks indi-
cating that social is a modifier of limited, and perhaps even questionable
applicability.
The second strategy discussed by Ickes and Gonzalez (1996) focuses on
the intersubjective experience of the members of a dyad. Rather than striving
to maintain independence among participants, this strategy seeks to create
and evaluate the interdependence among participants. Thus, the patterns of
interdependence between the members of a dyad are viewed as a phenom-
enon of fundamental importance. This second strategy is labeled social cog-
nition in recognition of the members’ interdependence and involvement with
each other. Because our analyses focused on the leader–follower dyad, the
self–other agreement scores may be interpreted as a measure of the social
cognition present in these dyads. This social cognition paradigm also is
consistent with Burns’ (1978) conceptualization of leadership as a dynamic,
interdependent relationship between the leader and the follower, the essence
of which is the interaction of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.
Our last point of discussion pertains to the proposed hierarchical rela-
tionship between transactional and transformational leadership, wherein the
concrete transactional leadership style provides the foundation for leadership
that may or may not be built upon with the addition of transformational
leadership (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994). When leaders and followers simi-
larly agree that the basic qualifications for the job have been clarified, then
the foundation for trust has been set, and the environment for the develop-
ment of transformational leadership has been established (Avolio, 1999).
Followers of leaders who are strictly transactional might not attain the levels
of personal and professional development that are presumed to characterize
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1883

the followers of transformational leaders (Burns, 1978). They may not be as

inspired or stimulated to be all that they can be for the organization and
themselves (Bass, 1985). On the other hand, they may still trust their leader,
be committed to the organization, and perform well because of a shared
understanding they have with their leaders about their work expectations.
In summary, then, our results suggest that we should not relegate trans-
actional leaders merely to “managers,” as the current literature on leadership
tends to suggest. Rather, we should consider a good transactional leader to
be a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a good transformational or
full-range leader. Armed with the capabilities for both leadership styles, the
best leader is one who can exhibit either or both of them, as needed.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

We cannot be certain at this point if leader–follower agreement on per-

ceptions of transformational leadership is not important for follower out-
comes, or if we were simply unable to find statistically significant levels of
such agreement in the present sample. Future research should seek to repli-
cate our research in order (a) to determine if leader–follower agreement on
transactional leader behavior is important for positive follower outcomes; (b)
to examine the differences in follower outcomes for self–other agreement on
transformational, as compared to transactional leader behavior; and (c) to
seek to identify additional moderators in these relationships. In addition,
future research should examine the implications of self–other agreement for
leader outcomes.
Further, our results suggest the need to re-evaluate transactional leader
behavior within the self–other agreement paradigm because of its contribu-
tion to positive follower outcomes that are typically associated with trans-
formational leadership. Transactional leadership behavior has been largely
ignored in recent research. Perhaps it is time to revive the interest in man-
agement and its value to good leadership.
Leadership research typically suffers from problems with common
method variance because leaders or followers often provide data used in
measures of the independent variables and the dependent variables. Because
they assess self–other agreement, rather than intra-individual consistency,
our profile correlation measures help to reduce concerns about this problem.
In addition, our results did not depend on whether the leaders or the follow-
ers provided follower outcome data. In both cases, we found support for our
hypotheses.
It makes sense that followers who believe they and their managers are “on
the same page” about their job expectations would have a more positive
1884 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

experience at work. Once these expectations are addressed, then they may be
in a better position to respond to transformational leadership. As always,
research results bring new questions and the opportunity for new insights.
With regard to our present data, foremost among these new insights is a
renewed recognition of and a heightened respect for the skills of effective
transactional leaders.

References

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Atwater, L., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Self–other
agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577–598.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self–other agreement on lead-
ership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance
predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141–164.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1997) Self–other rating agreement: A review
and model. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15,
121–174.
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the
examination of friendship in leader–follower relationships. Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 1–25.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s
(1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leader-
ship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles.
Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456–473.
Dansererau, F., Cho, J., & Yammarino, F. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of
the wrong level.” Group and Organization Management, 31, 536–577.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of
leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 618–634.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP REVISITED 1885

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effective-
ness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
Earley, P. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and
work performance: An examination of feedback in the United States and
England. Journal of Management, 12, 457–473.
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social
judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75–90.
Goodwin, V. L., Whittington, J. L., & Bowler, M. (2004, August). LMX and
social networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, New Orleans, LA.
Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Boyd, N. (1999). A laboratory experiment
testing the antecedents of leader cognitions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 769–788.
Gwaltney, C. J., Shiffiman, S., Paty, J. A., Liu, K. S., Kassel, J. D., Gnys, M.,
et al. (2002). Using self-efficacy judgments to predict characteristics of
lapses to smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70,
1140–1149.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors
of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 78, 891–902.
Ickes, W., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). “Social” cognition and social cognition:
From the subjective to the intersubjective. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.),
What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition
in small groups (pp. 285–309). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task perfor-
mance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing:
Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Rutledge.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). The three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1,
61–89.
Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in
management. American Psychologist, 45, 200–208.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York:
Academic Press.
Offerman, L., Kennedy, J., & Wirtz, P. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:
Content, structure, and generalizabilty. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syn-
drome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
1886 WHITTINGTON ET AL.

Organ, D. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship

behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transfor-
mational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quar-
terly, 1, 107–142.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differ-
ences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68.
Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., & Cole, E. J. (2003). The role of
social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effec-
tiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 83–103.
Rush, M., Thomas, J., & Lord, R. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A
potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93–110.
Schmid Mast, M. (2004). Men are hierarchical, women are egalitarian: An
implicit gender stereotype. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 107–111.
Schmid Mast, M. (2005). Interpersonal hierarchy expectation: Introduction
of a new construct. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 287–295.
Schmid Mast, M., Hall, J. A., & Ickes, W. (2006). Inferring power-related
thoughts and feelings in others: A signal detection analysis. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 1–10.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–
member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Townsend, R. J., Bacigalupi, S. C., & Blackman, M. C. (2007). The accuracy
of lay integrity assessments in simulated employment interviews. Journal
of Research in Personality, 41, 540–557.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational
leadership, goal difficulty, and task design: Independent and interactive
effects on employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593–606.
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of
transactional and transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quar-
terly, 5, 161–186.
Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of
a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transac-
tional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 55–84.
Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple
levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975–995.

View publication stats